English Speaking Teachers

University of Alberta A Hermeneutic Inquiry into the Conflicts of Native English Speaking Teachers by Seung-Ryul Lee A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Secondary Education © Seung-Ryul Lee Spring 2011 Edmonton, Alberta Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission. Dedication To my mother, Hyang-Ki Kim who has always prayed for me, to my wife, Jeong-Hee, for her patience and support, and to my daughters, Kejin and Yoonjin, for their encouragement. Preface When I was quite young, my mother had frequently told me that I looked like a teacher. This might be her desire for my future and her words had long remained in my mindset. I planned to study Education when I worked for at the Korean Educational Development Institution as a researcher in 1983 but I gave up my plan because I had to join the army. Afterwards career path took a different track, when I chose to study and teach English linguistics. Finally, after long experience of teaching at the Korea Aerospace University, I determined my mind to study the teacher education at the University of Alberta, which is familiar to me. For I have known some people who graduated from this university and worked at the Korean Educational Development Institution. Reflecting upon my subsequent study at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, I have encountered much unfamiliarity and differences from my previous teaching and scholarship in linguistics. I have had to work hard to become familiar with a new kind of interpretive scholarship and try to reduce differences between my earlier perspective and the research tradition in the University of Alberta and my understanding of research. Still, after nearly four years, I have not become completely familiar with these, nor eliminated these differences. I still remember vividly meeting my future advisor, Terrance Carson at his office in 2007. He welcomed me and asked me about my research topic and my interest in understanding the experiences of native speakers of English in Korea. He advised me not to limit my thoughts and be open, and try to listen to the voices of these native English-speaking teachers. I ponder over this advice: What does he mean by “not limiting my thought,” “being open,” and “listening to the voices.” At that time I was stuck in the realm of the positivistic castle, and so I could not find my research path. How can I conduct my research without setting up hypotheses and without a method? I ask to myself repeatedly how I am going to conduct research. During attending courses such as Curriculum Foundations and Curriculum Inquiry, I had realized that the experiences of native English speaking teaches cannot be objectivized or generalized, because they are unique human beings with individual experiences. I became to believe that it is difficult to make use of my former familiar manner (positivistic approach) with them. During the third semester of my doctoral studies, I began an Independent Study with my advisor in order to better understand hermeneutics as a possible research foundation for my study. Dr. Carson attempted to guide me through the forest of hermeneutics to lead me out of a positivistic cage. He recommended that I read Gadamer’s Truth and Method (1989). This book includes such a rich content in the German human science to try to comprehend. Gadamer’s book is translated from German into English. Although the individual words are not difficult, the messages included in it are so implicated in a German philosophical tradition to grasp them. As I met Dr. Carson every week, my understanding of hermeneutics expanded and deepened through. However, I have struggled to grasp the implications of the terms and phrases in hermeneutics throughout my research, and it still continues as I finished my dissertation. As I continued to read his recent books such as Reason in the age of science (1992), Gadamer in Conversation (2001) and Century of Philosophy (2006), I noticed Gadamer’s unlimited, distinguished insights about hermeneutics as practical philosophy. To put it more concretely, I might call his philosophy as hermeneutics as understanding and practical wisdom. However, regarding the Gadamer’s central concept of “fusion of horizons,” I do not still believe that the integration of horizons is possible to achieve with respect to my understanding of hermeneutic philosophy. The fusion of horizons may be the goal which we endeavor to establish but may also be an ideal space which may not be achieved. Especially, as an international student, I have undergone difficulties in shaping the fusion of horizons between the Gadamer (1989) and me. These may be caused by my misunderstanding of Gadamer’s messages which is concerned with the differences between Gadamer’s world of language and my world of language. Whatever I try to understand the Gadamer’s language, I inevitably or unconsciously seem to understand or translate it from my own imagination based on the Korean language. Especially, the verbatim translation of English into Korean does not seem to utterly make sense to me. I have struggled to make sense of the implications of Gadamer’s terms by way of translating them into Korean. This interpretation may not catch their nuance, and may be my understanding of Gadamer’s words in terms of the implications embedded in the Korean language. This is the limit of my understanding of Gadamer’s discourse both because English does not share ground with my past experience and because Korean is the basis of my understanding and experience as meaningful. In this present work, therefore, I accept that my interpretations may be different from those of other people and this may cause some confusion, for which I admit any necessary responsibility. But let me hope that you, the reader, share my understanding of the native English speaking teachers who were part of this study, and that this work may contribute to the broader conversation about the place of English in global times. Abstract Globalization has made English a pivotal language for global communication. This has increasingly made a great number of native English speakers move to Korea and teach English at all levels of education from kindergarten to university year after year. Most of them have not only little or no training as language instructors, but also little or no teaching experience. Many may wonder how they teach students with little understanding about teaching in a foreign country. At the same time, they may also surmise that they would endure many difficulties in their profession. As a faculty member working with them for over fifteen years, I have also had such questions. Especially, I was curious what conflicts they bear in their minds and how they respond to differences between Canadian and Korean culture and pedagogy. This study is grounded on the hermeneutic tradition which ultimately pursues humane lives. This hermeneutic tradition leads me to the conflicts that native English speaking teachers have experienced, to the implications embedded in the Korean and English language, and to the differences between Canadian and Korean ways of thought. While following the hermeneutic tradition, I am aware that there was little or no communication between the Canadian and Korean teaching staff, which resulted in their alienated lives and in living in a world of exclusion from their schools, disregard about their profession, and indifference from their students. The hermeneutic tradition guides me in a path toward restoring the deteriorated humane aspects of their lives as teachers. As a ground for understanding them, I attempt to define the notion of the in- between on the basis of equality and respect which are rooted in the concept of the Korean language for the in-between. This conceptual elaboration enables me to conceive that differences are not objects to exclude, to disregard, or to be indifferent, but motives to perceive the necessity to reform and to change the inequality and injustices. In this light, I propose that educational institutions allow them to participate in decision making, open a special in-service teacher training program for them, and provide them with a support system. Acknowledgments The dissertation would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of numerous people to whom I would like to express my extreme gratitude. It is a great fortune and honor for me to meet such great scholars as my supervisory committee. First of all, I wish to offer my heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Terrance Carson, my supervisor, for the thoughtful guidance and constant encouragement, and patience throughout my program. From the beginning, he has genuinely guided me to the world of hermeneutics and helped me in finalizing this long academic journey. Without the conversation with him, it may not have been possible to accomplish this study. I am very grateful to Dr. David Smith for his guidance about this study during his courses and supervision. His encouraging, insightful comments have always contributed to refining my study.

Load more