Quote: I think thats probably one of best mentalities that a teacher can adapt is somewhere we

read in Crookes was that mentality of being a lifelong learner. You know? Never closing a door
or shutting yourself off to Oh, Im only going to be teaching high schoolers or Im just going
to go abroad and teach. Personally, I would love to teach in a foreign EFL classroom, but I also
love to teach high school in America. And maintaining that openness to adapt and be able to
change directions, do all these things, be comfortable with it, comfortable putting more effort,
more work to learn. I think its an important aspect and perspective to maintain. (Daniel, focus
group interview, June 26, 2015)
I chose this quote form Cho and Peter's article that stuck out the most to me was the one from
Daniel that talked about teachers being lifelong learners, because that is the kind of teacher I
aspire to be as well. I did not choose this profession because I thought it would be easy (and it
certainly wasn't for the money). I chose it because I want to make a positive impact on the lives
of students who, like myself at their age, are going through a lot and really need someone in their
corner, so to speak. And I think, in order to do that and be that, I will have to constantly be
adapting my teaching style to fit the needs of my ever-changing students.
So, my question is, how can we, as teachers, stop ourselves from falling into the trap of thinking
to ourselves, "Oh, I'm only going to be teaching high schoolers." like Daniel was saying.

Quote: "Most surprisingly, the report implies thatmost of these illegal cases of study-abroad are
of those elementary school students who went abroad with no other family members or with a
single parent. In other words, many of the children live in the foreign country with no parent or
with girogi umma, a wild goose motherwhose husband is working in Korea for financial
support."
I chose this quote from English Fever in Korea, not really because I can relate to it, but more just
to compare the way Korea looks at English to the way America looks at really any foreign
language, because foreign language is my specialty, so I tend to focus on it. I guess this is
partially because English is considered such a global language, and most Americans speak it
already, so Americans do not feel the need to learn any other language. And it is for that same
reason that English is such a big deal in Korea. I think neither of these two extremes are
necessarily good, for obvious reasons, because of the egocentrism of America and the devaluing
of the Korean language, as this article talks about.
My question is what can we do as teachers to enforce the value of our students home cultures in
our classrooms, so that the same cultural disenfranchisement does not happen to the people of
Korea who devalue their own language in favor of English?

Quote: Teaching practice is also being constructively challenged by effective

language socialization outside classrooms. Learning is always taking
place in families, friendship circles, work, and social media.
I thought this quote was interesting because I never thought of teaching practice being
challenged by language socialization outside of the classroom. I always thought of the effective
language that happens outside of the classroom as more of a model to strive for than a challenge
for language teaching. I know it is difficult to simulate those types of things, as well as perhaps
unrealistic, but I think we should always strive for the most natural language teaching possible.
My question is how can we as language teachers make our lessons the most natural and closest to
that effective language socialization that happens outside of the classroom?

Quote: "Previous to this study, a small study by Kent (1999) also produced similar results: that
the use of Konglish was considered a serious problem, further contributing to the problems
South Koreans had in learning correct English."
I know we have talked in-depth about native speakerism in the context of EFL and ESL, but I
still struggle with it. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around why it is wrong. Like, I don't
want to say that other varieties of English, like Konglish are wrong, but at the same time I feel
like it is important to be able to be understood when talking to other English speakers around the
world. And it feels to me like the best way to do that is to have a standardized English. Therefore
wouldn't you want the teachers, at least of the upper levels to be native English speakers? And
my saying this does not mean that I believe that just any native speaker can teach the language
based on the fact that they are a native speaker. In fact, I've taken Japanese classes that prove that
being a native speaker of the target language does not mean that you can teach it. I just feel like
there is a certain time in one's learning where it helps to have a non-native speaker as a teacher,
and certain times where it is necessary to have a native speaker as a teacher. And I do not just
feel this way about English, I feel this way about foreign language education in general; but
English happens to have a lot more politics behind it than most other languages. I want to
reiterate that I am not trying to devalue other forms of English, I think they are incredibly
interesting. For everything else, I think other Englishes are perfectly fine, but for the purpose of
international communication, would it not be better to stick with one form of English? I know
this comes from a place of privilege, in that I grew up speaking and writing what is now
considered to be the "correct" English, but I like to think that I would feel this way even if it was
not my native English that was thought of as correct.
I do not really know if any of this could be considered a question, this is just something that has
been bothering me ever since we started talking about native speakerism. It is very difficult for
me to wrap my head around.

Quote: Reading the literacy narrative of a published Finnish scholar on shifting fully to
American values and discourses, Kyoko reected that she did not want to deny my history nor
become a mini American. She went on to identify a hybrid position for herself that merges her
Japanese resources with English, which she called a transposition approach, borrowing a
metaphor from one of the textbooks.
I think that this is probably the feeling that a lot of students who immigrate to the United States
of America probably feel, this transportation feeling. I am sure that immigrants in other
countries have similar in-between feelings, I just know that, because the American personality is
so strong, that many people who move there feel a lot of pressure to become more
Americanized; and I am not sure if other countries have the same effect on their immigrants.
My question pertains more to the ESL setting than the EFL setting that we are in right now, but it
is: how can I, as a future teacher, kind of help to make that be a more comfortable situation for
my ESL students? Because from the way Kyoko talked about it, it seems like it is not a very
comfortable position to be in.

Quote: . When we nonnative teachers in Korea hear that our English is just as good as any
native speakers English, we understandably feel empowered. We tell ourselves that it is the
native speakers who should learn our English.
I think this is an interesting idea, because I had never really thought about it that way. When it
comes to Spanish language classes, a teacher usually only teaches one dialect of Spanish,
whether that be Spanish from Spain, or from one of the many South American countries that
speak Spanish, but I think that they usually at least touch on the different dialects at some point.
While I do not think that I could teach a different kind of English than the one I know, I think it
would be a very good thing not only for the other types of English to be legitimized, but I think it
would also help bring up a generation who are aware of other types of English taught around the
world and combat native speakerism.
My question is: Would that be a possibility in the near future, for schools to legitimize other
types of English like that within the academic setting?

Quote: When asked about the reason for having young students take an EFL test, the majority of
teachers believe it is to motivate them to study English and improve their English skills. As with
the student survey, Table 5 reveals that parents rather than schools are the most important
stakeholders in taking the initiative to have their children take an EFL test. This extrinsic
pressure exerted from parents along with private institutes may have negative washback effects
on young students EFL learning.
I think about this a lot, especially since Ive been here. I am an advocate for foreign language
education more than anything else, but this method of foreign language education seems so
backward to me. For me, there is joy in choosing a foreign language that is right for you and
suits your personality, but when there is so little choice in it and the stakes are so high for
learning a foreign language, I feel like it defeats the purpose. I understand that knowing English
is very much a symbol of status and a way to move up in the world, so to speak. But when one
stops learning English for the sake of communication and starts learning it to take a test, all
meaning is lost. Thats why I think that the role native English teachers like Greg is so important.
If they can put some kind of enjoyment in learning English, then I think it is not all for naught.
Question: Do you foresee this learning-English-of-the-sole-purpose-of-testing culture changing
anytime soon?

Quote: Furthermore, tracking is not necessarily benecial to high-track students, particularly in

the Korean context. Heavily inuenced by a competitive disposition generated by what that
means for future opportunities, high-track students are under severe pressure not to move
downward into lower-track classes (Hwang, 2014).
I thought this was interesting, because in my education classes in America we always talk about
tracking and how it is bad for the students who get tracked low because there is virtually no way
for them to improve that way, and it expands the achievement gap. I had never really thought
about the way tracking can negatively impact those who are tracked highly. I imagine that this is
probably more of an issue in South Korea than it is in the US, based mostly on the sheer amount
of competition that exists in the Korean educational system.
Question: Since the girls at Kyunghwa have clearly been tracked fairly highly to get into
Kyunghwa, I think that the girls here are suffering from the negative effects of being highly
tracked. Is there anything we can do, as their teachers, to try to help take that stress off of them?