“English Villages” in South Korea: What Do They Really Promote?, Mi-Young Kim
Mi-Young Kim, University of British Columbia, Canada, mykim5@interchange.ubc.ca
English in Korea: A "Must" for Everyone?
The growing importance and dominant role of English in fields such as information technology and education, among others, makes English teaching and learning an important issue in many non-English-speaking countries. Particularly in the case of South Korea, English proficiency, once a "plus" or additional qualification, has now become a necessity for practically everyone if they wish to gain access to better schools and future job opportunities.
In order to "motivate a student's interest in English and to develop basic communicative competence" (Ministry of Education, 1996, as cited in S. K. Jung & Norton, 2002), the South Korean government launched a mandatory English program in elementary school in 1997. In addition, a steadily growing English market includes 3,000 private institutions (an unofficial count exceeds 10,000) whose revenue totals about $2 billion. Another English player is the $1.3 billion English educational resources market that attracts students with catchy phrases such as "Guarantee to help you speak with native speakers of English in two short weeks." Moreover, in hopes of having a better chance of acquiring "live" English, an increasing number of students head to English-speaking countries for long- or short-term language programs, investing about $1.5 billion abroad a year (Hong, 2002). Some are concerned that a gap is being created between those who can afford such expense at home or abroad and those who cannot, leading to an "English divide" in which "the rich get richer, [and] the poor get poorer" in Korean society (J. Y. Jung, 2005). In short, learning English in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context such as Korea seems to take not only effort and time but also money, and quite a lot of it.
In what follows, I describe the recent development of "English villages" in Korea, which are an attempt to provide residents of this country with an opportunity for an English language immersion experience without the need to travel abroad. I examine these villages with a critical eye and suggest that though they are currently perceived by the general public as the ideal way of learning English, among other things, they may undermine the status of Korean nonnative English-speaking (NNES) teachers and, to some extent, weaken public education in that country.
English Villages: The Real "Authentic" Thing?
In an attempt to provide learners with opportunities to be exposed to so-called "authentic" living experiences with native English speakers (NESs) within an EFL context, the first "English village" in Korea was established in a city in Gyeonggi-Do Province in August 2004. Since then, several other villages have mushroomed throughout the country. These villages follow an English-only policy, whereby all village campers and daily visitors within the boundaries of the village are required to speak in English and engage in interactions with NESs by means of simulated activities (e.g., shopping, going to classes, to the cinema). A recent survey shows that 98% of the village campers found that their experience at the village contributed to their "getting rid of fear in communicating with NESs" (Kang, 2006). Thanks to such popularity and also partly as a political agenda, about 55 English villages are either in operation or planned to be established in Korea by 2008 (Song, 2006).
However, the villages have met with some resistance. Concerned voices warn that the village itself might not be an answer to issues related to the teaching and learning of English in Korea. Education nongovernmental organization groups such as JeonGyoJo (The Korean Teachers and Education Workers' Union) and Chamgyoyuk Hakbumoheo (Association of Parents for Real Education) argue that the overzealous establishment of such villages wastes taxpayers' money and promotes "English imperialism" (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992) by, for instance, further imposing a sense of needing to use English for communication on residents of a non-English-speaking country. Furthermore, the blind pursuit of the English village concept could potentially negatively impact the status of Korean EFL educators in public schools, as people are misled into thinking that real, useful, and therefore valued English can be learned only by participating in a so-called "authentic English village." Hence, it seems as though everyone is jumping on the bandwagon and heading in a direction that has not yet been thoroughly investigated, as this new village phenomenon is so recent that no conclusive evidence suggests its claimed benefits are true. After all, learning a foreign language is a complicated process that takes more than a few hours or days of exposure to the language.
P Village: My Experience as an Observer
A few months ago on a fine summer day, I had a chance to visit P village, one of the newest and best equipped English villages in Korea. The village basically looks like a theme park modeled after a "typical" British village. It includes 47 buildings with facilities that are used for different activities: educational experiences (e.g., school classrooms), simulated experiences (e.g., a police station, a post office, a bank, a travel agency, and a health center), and entertainment activities (e.g., indoor/outdoor theaters, a concert hall, a broadcasting station, museums, and sports centers). In the center of the village stands a city hall, and dormitories for staff and students ("campers") are located nearby. About 100 NES instructors and up to 550 students can stay in dormitories within the town, and over 70 NES staff work in the village facilities.
Several types of programs are offered in the village: a 6-day program designed exclusively for eighth graders, held during regular school terms and recognized as an alternative to regular school classes; a 2-week intensive program, offered during summer and winter breaks for fifth to ninth graders in the province; and a weekend elementary program for third to sixth graders, held for two consecutive weekends. There is also a weekend family program and a 1-day experience program for individual visitors. The cost varies according to the duration and the type of experience, from a few dollars (e.g., a 1-day pass is $2) to over $600 (for the longest immersion option). A provincially funded subsidy is available for students from a low-income family for a 6-day program. The costs are relatively reasonable because the program's main purpose is to eliminate for Korean EFL learners the "need for intensive language learning abroad." In the end, the hope is not only to help students learn English, but also to minimize spending overseas and narrow the gap between those who can and cannot afford an overseas language learning experience.
There are many things to do once inside the village. For instance, people can exchange pseudo American dollars at a bank to purchase textbooks, groceries, or village souvenirs. They can also participate in three 90-minute sessions a day on science, music, entertainment, or drama. In addition, students can watch quiz shows or movies in English, or participate in sports activities. Village participants are also encouraged to take advantage of several "situational settings," such as a miniature airplane seating arrangement complete with a "flight attendant."
Yet in spite of the claim that village visitors will have access to an authentic English immersion experience, my personal experience at the village was neither authentic nor impressive. For instance, when I lined up for "immigration," I noted that the immigration officer did not fit the typical profile of immigration officers found in airports. This particular individual wore flip-flops, had a hole in one ear the size of a nickel, and sported reddish-pink hair. "Quite an authentic experience," I thought to myself while answering seemingly inappropriate questions such as "How old are you?" Also, besides that fact, the buildings and the atmosphere seemed foreign and somewhat exotic, and I could hardly witness anything else "authentic." As a matter of fact, I would say that considering the large number of visitors, there were too few NES staff members, which implied that exposure to native-like English through NES staff was indeed minimal.
Overall, I found it hard to determine what exactly this P village was devised to accomplish in the first place. A brochure distributed in the village's city hall states that the village "is designed to realize the same atmosphere as a town in England where the participants can learn and speak English in a natural setting" by engaging in interactions with NESs. If this was to be a replication of an English (as in "of England") village, that would explain the Stonehenge reproduction in front of the village and the Harry Potter-like students' cafeteria. However, it does not explain why everything else was done in American English, from the spelling of signs in the village to the use of American currency and the way most village staff spoke. As an EFL teacher myself, I could not help but notice these inconsistencies, which I judge as quite unprofessional and misleading. Also, I could not fail to notice that many staff members seemed to look like the stereotypical NES (i.e., Caucasian) yet did not sound like one. In fact, some of the staff members were non-Korean NNESs who may have been given a job at the village mostly on the basis of their looks (i.e., fair hair and skin, light-colored eyes) rather than on the basis of their English language proficiency or their linguistic background, for some of them spoke English with a clear non-English accent. Most important, my visit to this village left me wondering about whether there is a justified need for Koreans to have access to this type of so-called "authentic village," when English instruction is already part of the school curriculum where the need for resources and qualified staff (NESs and NNESs alike) seems more urgent and crucial.
Concluding Remarks
As an observer for just a day, I was unable to assess the results of long-term programs or ask participants of these programs how satisfied they were with their experiences. Still, I could tell from the palpable enthusiasm of parents and kids alike that they were enjoying this new kind of amusement park, where attractions and rides had been replaced with role-plays and simulated authentic activities that involved speaking in English. However, I could not help but wonder about the ultimate consequences of such a village. As briefly stated above, the actual experiences seem far from being authentic, British or otherwise, even though authenticity is what village creators claim and what visitors expect. One may also question the implications of the linguistic imperialism (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992) of these villages. Not only do they promote a visual representation of stereotypical (and therefore misleading) images of NESs, but they exclude Korean NNES teachers from teaching English in these villages regardless of training and qualifications simply because they neither sound nor look like the stereotypical NES. Inevitably, these issues left me wondering: What else besides English is being promoted in these villages? What might be the unexpected consequences for and even detrimental effects on Korean EFL learners? What, if anything, could or should Korean NNES teachers do to prevent the spread of what has now become "English-village mania" in that country? After all, though Korea's new English villages may help some learners immerse themselves in "simulated English," it by no means fits everyone nor does it faithfully reflect natural learning experiences. I believe there is a clear need to engage in research that thoroughly investigates these and other related issues, research I intend to pursue and I hope others may also consider. Otherwise, I fear such villages will remain no more than just another theme park with a lot of money, time, and effort wasted.
References
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hong, S. (2002, February 5). Different facets of English learning. Donga Ilbo, A21.
Jung, J. Y. (2005, November 12). English gets you money; you need money to learn English. Jugan Chosun (weekly Chosun). Retrieved September 15, 2006, from www.chosun.com/magazine/news/200511/200511120079.html
Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: The new elementary English program. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245-265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kang, C. (2006, April 2). Gyeonggi-Do "English village helps public education. It's necessary." Yonhap News. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://blog.yonhapnews.co.kr/kcg33169/post/?searchWord=%uC601%uC5B4%uB9C8%uC744#Post59175
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. New York: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Song, D. (2006, May 16). English village: A successful model for innovation of public education. Hankuk kyungjae (Korean economy). Retrieved September 5, 2006, from http://www.hankyung.com
Mi-Young Kim is a doctoral student in the Department of Language and Literacy at the University of British Columbia. Her main research interests include second language writing, sociolinguistics, and teaching English as an international language.
NNEST Newsletter October 2006 Volume 8 Number 2: Table of Contents
