Patrick Killelea

C&T 491

6/17/2019

Choi Article Response

While reading “In Search of a New Paradigm for Teaching English as an International Language”

by Suresh Canagarajah, I was particularly interested in his comments on the importance of the

intersection of multi-lingual and native speakers. There is a benefit for both parties as the

multi-lingual students learn about the “expectations and norms of native speakers,”(p.777)

while the native speakers gain insights by trying the negotiate meaning and recognize their own

“translingual competence” as they tap into their L2s they have learned in EFL classes and while

studying abroad. However, I am a bit skeptical that the sharing is fair for the multi-lingual

students. I presume that multi-lingual students are living in the native speaker’s home country

and that there are a countless opportunities for them to interact with native speakers and learn

the norms. On the other hand, opportunities for native speakers to contact native L2 speakers

in their home country are much more difficult to come by. So, I think there is a chance that the

multi-lingual students may be taken advantage of. While studying dual language bilingual

programs with native speaking English speakers and bi-lingual Spanish speakers, there were

cases of the Latino students not receiving the same benefit as their white counterparts,

furthering the achievement between them and peers. So, I think these relationships should be

formed carefully and conscientiously.

Question from the Canagarajah article: I wonder if it’s more effective to learn an L2 with other

students who speak the same L1, or to learn an L2 in a multi-cultural classroom.

Choi’s paper on the impact of EFL testing on Korean education raised a number of questions

about if the washback was beneficial to students. I think it’s clear that it’s an inefficient system,

and a resonating statement from the reading is that “the most serious problem is that the KSAT

does not include speaking and writing components, thus leading to very little, if any, teaching of

speaking and writing at high school”(p.41). So, students and teachers neglect productive skills in

high school because it’s not covered on the tests. In trying to explain why Koreans maintain this

testing culture, Choi puts forth a number of different reasons. Historically, education has

always been the path up the social ladder for lower and middle classes, and Korean parents will

spent a lot of money to make sure their succeed on standardized tests, no matter how

ineffective it is in improving students’ English skills.

However, one area that I feel that is not discussed enough is the psychological strain on the

students. An incredible amount of money is spent and pressure is put upon them by their

parents for them to excel on these tests. There are many stories in the news of teenagers

committing suicide due to school stress, and in fact South Korea has one of the highest suicide

rates in the world. This and the competitive culture is the reason why I have no interest in

raising my children here. So, we can talk about how inefficient the testing process is, but I feel

this is overshadowed by the human toil that it takes.

Question from Choi paper: This paper was written in 2008, I wonder if TOEFL still is the

preferred test in South Korea eleven years later.