Download - Search

Chapter 13Defeng LiTEACHERS’ PERCEIVED DIFFICULTIES ININTRODUCING THE COMMUNICATIVEAPPROACH IN SOUTH KOREAECENTLY, EDUCATIONAL INNOVATIONS IN L2 education hawR received consitlcrable attention (Bailey, 1992; Freeman and Cazden, 1990; Kcmncd\;1988; Markee, 1997; White, 1987).The literature on this topic includes studies of languagecurriculum dedopmcnt, language tcaching methodology, and the process of innomtionthat occurs in tcachcr tlcvchpmcnt contexts (Bailcy, 1992).Attempts to introtlucc communicative languagc teaching (CLT) into EFL contcxts onEI;L countrics’ ohvn initiativcs and through international aid projects haw prompted man!innovations in 1,2 education. In general, such innovations havc had a low ratc of success(Urindley antl Hood, 1990), and implcmenting CUI’ uw-lchziclc has often pro\.ed difficult(Anderson, 1993; Chick, 1996; Ellis, 1994,1996; Gonzalcx, 1985; Kirkpatrick, 1984; Sano,Takahashi, antl Yoneyama, 1984; Shamin, 1996; l’ing, 1987; Valdcs and Jhoncs, 1991 ).Difficult as it is, many EFI, countrics arc still striving to introducc CI -1‘ in the hopc that itwill improve English teaching there.Why has CLT Ixcn so difficult to implcnicnt in EFI. classrooms? How appropriatc isCUI’ for EFI. contexts? I bclie\c teachcrs’ perceptions of the feasibility ora CLT inno\ationin a particular contrxt are crucial in determining the ultimate su ’ or failure of thatinnovation (Kc,Ily, 1980; Markcc, 1997). For this reason I undcrtook a caw study of SouthKorean secondary school English teachers’ understanding of the uptake of CUf in SouthKorea. As many EFL countries sharc somc of the characteristics of English tcaching inSouth Korea, for cxamplc, traditional tcaching methods antl large classes, this study haswitlcspread implications.CLT: one definitionCLT starts Lvith a throry of language as communication, and its goal is to develop learners’communicative competcnce. Canalc and Swain’s (1 980) definition of communicativccompetence is probahly the bcst kno\z n. The)- identified four dimensions: grammatical,sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic compctcncc. This definition has untlergonc soincmodifications over thc years, perhaps bcst captured in Bachman’s (1 990) schcmatization of\vhat he calls lungtiage competence. The most significant differcnce l)ct\veen the two moticls