ABSTRACTS – 2002

A. WORKSHOP PANELS

1. Kang, Sahie. The Effect of the Use of English in KFL Classrooms of Non-heritage Learners

2. Kim, Eun Joo, and Kijoo Ko. Teaching Korean in the Framework of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT): How

Is It Different from Other Approaches?

3. Kim, Gwee-sook. Toward Better Practice in KFL

4. Kim, Hae-Young. A Focus on Form approach to the teaching of L2 Korean grammar: Tense and aspect markers ess, e iss, e noh, and e twu

5. Park, Hyeson. Grammar Teaching and Korean as a Foreign Language

The Effect of the Use of English in KFL Classrooms of Non-heritage Learners

Sahie Kang

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

It is commonly believed that the more the target language is used in foreign language classrooms, the higher proficiency level the students would achieve. Also, if English use were dominant in foreign language classrooms, it would give negative impacts on foreign language learning. The same belief can be applied to Korean language classrooms for non-heritage learners: the more Korean is used in KFL classrooms, the higher proficiency level will be achieved; that is, minimizing the use of English would facilitate the learners’ progress that much more.

This paper investigates how much use of English and Korean would help students’ improvement of proficiency at different levels of Korean. Two different classrooms were observed for a year. The teachers restricted the use of English in one group of students, but the teachers did not refrain from using English at all in another group. Also, the teachers’ own journals noting how much English was used and their self-evaluations of the use of English were collected. In addition, the students’ survey of how much English and Korean would help their learning was also added. In order to check the correlations between the English/Korean use and the proficiency improvement, the results of proficiency tests of the two groups are compared. Based on different data, this paper proposes that the use of should be restricted in appropriate ways from the first day of foreign language classes for non-heritage learners.

Teaching Korean in the Framework of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT): How Is It Different from Other Approaches?

Organizers: Eun Joo Kim, Ohio State University

(kim.288@osu.edu)

Kijoo Ko, UC Berkeley

(kijooko@uclink.berkeley.edu)

In this panel, we will first introduce how grammar is taught in the theoretical framework of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) by comparing and contrasting it with three other traditional teaching methods (e.g., GTM, ALM, and CLT). Then, we will show how to conduct a language class in the framework of TBLT by showing some hands-on practice and actual classroom teaching demonstrations of two different approaches (TBLT and ALM). The results of student evaluations on the teaching demonstrations will also be discussed with comments from the organizers, followed by a discussion on the pros and the cons of TBLT. The session will be organized as the following:

1. Overview of Methodologies for Language Teaching (Kim & Ko)

2. Hands-on Practice (Ko)

(1) Characteristics check-out

(2) Activities check-out

(3) Class design (TBLT vs. ALM)

3. Demonstration of Actual Classroom

(1) Background (Kim)

(2) ALM session (taught by Youngjoo Yi (yi.57@osu.edu)

(3) Background (Kim)

(4) TBLT session (taught by Youngjoo Yi

4. Evaluation

(1) By students (Kim)

(2) By researchers: Comments and feedback (Ko)

5. Pros (Kim) and Cons (Ko) of TBLT

6. Questions, Comments, Suggestions and Discussions (Audience)

Toward Better Practice in KFL

Gwee-sook Kim

Princeton University

Teaching success requires commitment and a more sustained effort in the increasingly complex educational environment. Educational philosophy has shifted from the familiar teacher-centered paradigm to a learner-centered one. Historically a teacher transferred knowledge to students through talk and chalk. The current thinking emphasizes that knowledge is jointly constructed by students and faculty.

The teaching assumption in the old days was that any expert with a graduate degree could teach at the college level. Until recent years college faculty members did not talk with one another about teaching, though they may have collaborated on research. Therefore, most of us plodded through a trial-and-error process while learning how to teach. Today teaching is viewed as a complex application of theory and research that requires considerable training and ongoing refinement of skills. At this juncture a number of institutions have taken a leadership role in training new faculty members and graduate assistants to teach effectively.

Being consonant with the new trend, this session intends to provide the KFL teachers with an opportunity to extend their teaching repertoire by sharing their current practices with one another. Participating teachers are expected to conduct 5- to 10-minute microteaching that involves one skill (speaking, reading, etc.) or one teaching tactic that has worked well in their classrooms. This will be a good way to invite valuable comments from other colleagues with different experiences. Teachers from small programs where Korean-specific feedback is hard to obtain are particularly encouraged to participate. For aspiring graduate students, their active participation in this session may be a fruitful opportunity to impress prospective employers.

After an hour of sharing teaching ideas and practices between participants, Young-Mee Y. Cho will show how she presents poems in her advanced course, followed by Gwee-sook Kim’s demonstration of ways to increase learners’ input in the classroom. The session concludes by Joe Ree’s brief talk on “learning strategies.”

Classroom demonstrations will require:

4-5 students (or participants role-playing students)

1 small table and 4-5 chairs

1 cassette tape recorder

A Focus on Form approach to the teaching of L2 Korean grammar:

Tense and aspect markers ess, e iss, e noh, and e twu

Organizer:

Hae-Young Kim, Duke University

Panelists:

EunHee Lee, UCLA

K. Seon Jeon, Georgetown University

In this panel, we will present an approach to teaching L2 grammar that is theoretically motivated and empirically validated. Research on second language acquisition has shown that L2 learners’ development of target grammar occurs largely independent of classroom instruction on the grammar. On the other hand, it has become more and more apparent that older second language learners do not acquire some aspects of L2 grammar in naturalistic learning environments without pedagogic intervention.

This panel focuses on tense and aspect markers, ess, e iss, e noh, and e twu, noting the challenge posed by the complex tense/aspect system both to the learner and the teacher. The panel proposes a Focus on Form approach to the teaching of these markers on the basis of: (i) their semantic properties; (ii) learners' difficulties with them; (iii) the role of input and interaction in SLA; and (iv) tested pedagogical strategies to help students to better understand and use the targeted forms.

Part 1 Meaning of the Korean tense and aspect markers

EunHee Lee

Korean has a rich tense and aspect system whose morphology is quite complex. Subtle differences in meaning among these markers present challenges to both students and instructors. For example, students have difficulty distinguishing between e noh and e twu, failing to use them when they are called for. Students simply, but correctly, equate ess with the English past tense but do not fully understand its varied meanings that are context-dependent. It has been also observed that students have difficulty using e iss and ko iss properly to indicate resultant states, especially because there seems to be no clear-cut semantic boundary between the two. This presentation provides the semantics of these tense/aspect markers, which will serve as a basis for effective instructional presentation.

The difference between e noh and e twu, we argue, is that the former is a dynamic event description, focusing on culmination, whereas the latter expresses a resulting state, presupposing its causal event. The difference between e iss and ko iss is that the former indicates a genuine resulting state which takes only intransitive verbs as its input, while the latter can (be made to) express resultatives with transitive predicates when the result describes a property of the subject. We will provide empirical evidence to demonstrate the differences between the markers along with the results of a sample survey designed to show the difficulty students have experienced in learning them. Then, a clear pedagogical strategy for presenting the markers to the students will be proposed, which we submit will meet the teachers’ need.

Part 2 Pedagogical strategy:

Input processing instruction for e noh and e twu

Hae-Young Kim

Having demonstrated the nature and functions of the tense and aspect markers under consideration, as well as the difficulty that L1 English speakers experience in learning them, it is necessary to bring the learner's attention to the forms. It should be reminded, however, that for instruction on grammar to be effective, target forms should be integrated with meaning (Doughty, in press). More precisely, learning tasks should be designed in such a way that (i) the learner is guided to notice the form in the input (e.g., "input processing instruction" in VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993); (ii) engagement with meaning is promoted prior to forms (e.g., "input enhancement" in Leeman et al., 1995); or (iii) the forms are essential for or natural to a communication task (Loschsky & Bley-Vroman, 1993) or a game (Harley, 1998).

This presentation will demonstrate "input processing instruction." In contrast to the traditional "output practices" that put the emphasis on “producing the targeted items,” input processing instruction guides the learner’s attention to the targeted form in input and its connection with meaning (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993). The goal of instruction is to influence the learner’s developing L2 grammar by intervening in the most crucial phase of acquisition, i.e., of perceiving and processing the form in the input.

The demonstration of the instruction will start with a brief explanation of the functional difference of the aspect markers, presenting contrastive sentences like Pwul-ul kye-yo, Pwul-ul kye noh-ayo, and Pwul-ul kye twu-eyo. Then, interpretation tasks will follow, which make use of two communication situations where the aspect markers occur naturally and frequently. In a listening comprehension task, students will listen to a dialogue about what people have forgotten to do before leaving home (e.g., Changmwun-ul yel-e noh-asse.), while looking at a picture of the home and checking off things they hear. In another task that involves the use of a recipe, students will read (or listen to) steps of cooking (e.g., Talkyal-ul cal pwul-e noh-nunta.) and select a matching illustration from a pair. Other form-focused listening practices and output practices that could follow up input processing activities will also be discussed.

Part 3 Input, interaction, and output:

Interaction enhancement for teaching the difference between e iss and ess

K. Seon Jeon

Part 3 of the panel deals with how one particular focus on form technique, interaction enhancement, can be used effectively to teach Korean tense and aspect markers. First, SLA research literature on input and interaction will be reviewed briefly. The second part of the presentation will concentrate on the theoretical and empirical basis for the use of interaction enhancement and on how this technique can be pedagogically implemented. Finally, some possible ways to teach the tense and aspect markers using the interaction enhancement technique will be suggested.

Among various interactional benefits, output has been claimed to play an important role in SLA (Swain, 1985, 1995). The functions of output include: (i) a noticing function, (ii) a hypothesis-testing function, and (iii) a metalinguistic function. By producing language, learners can move to syntactic processing from purely semantic processing in language learning, thus being able to restructure their current interlanguage (IL). As one way to increase the likelihood of learners’ IL restructuring, interaction enhancement has been proposed as one FonF technique (DiPietro, 1987; Muranoi, 1996, 2000). Interaction enhancement is defined as “an instructional treatment in which a teacher pushes L2 learners to produce output and provides them with interactional modifications in order to lead them to notice a mismatch between their IL grammar and the TL grammar and lead them to modify the incorrect output within the framework of strategic interaction” (Doughty & Williams, 1998, p. 242).

To start the demonstration of interaction enhancement for the target forms, the meaning difference between e iss and ess will be explained using sentences such as Ilpon-ey ka-ss-e-yo and Ilpon-ey ka-iss-e-yo. The instruction is based on an interactive problem-solving task in which the teacher uses a scenario to create contexts that guide learners to use the TL in realistic situations. It will consist of three phases: a rehearsal phase, a performance phase, and a debriefing phase. In the rehearsal phase, the instructor gives the class a scenario in which a student comes home with a friend to find a mess in his/her apartment, and he/she is trying to figure out what his/her roommate did before leaving the apartment. One student in a pair will be given a picture of the apartment scene and will be asked to describe what he/she sees in the picture (e.g., Kesilmun-i yelri-e iss-e-yo). The other will listen to the description and guess what the roommate did or did not do before leaving the apartment (e.g., Kesilmun-ul an-tat-ass-e-yo). A student-teacher pair will first demonstrate how to perform the task and student-student pairs will follow it up in the performance phase. During the performance by a student-teacher pair, interactions are enhanced by requesting a repetition when a student performer makes errors attempting to use the target forms. Finally, in the debriefing phase, the teacher and the students evaluate how well the interaction was carried out, with a focus on how successfully the intended meanings were conveyed to the listener.

References

Doughty, C. (in press). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty and J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.197-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.

DiPietro, R. (1987). Strategic Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, E. (2000). Dynamic and stative information in temporal reasoning: Korean tense and aspect in discourse (Groningen Dissertation in Linguistics 30). Groningen, the Netherlands: Universiteitsbibliotheek Groningen.

Muranoi, H. (1996). Effects of interaction enhancement on restructuring of inter-language grammar: A cognitive approach to foreign language instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formalinstruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673.

Loschsky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (Vol. 1, pp. 123-167). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C.Madden (Ed.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook andB.Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.

Grammar Teaching and Korean as a Foreign Language

Hyeson Park

University of South Carolina

1. Introduction

Several approaches to language teaching have been developed within the general notion of communicative language teaching (CLT) method: notional-functional, content-based, and task-based approaches. The task-based approach (TBA), which was developed to overcome some weaknesses of the notional-functional approach, has been welcomed to be the best method for CLT classrooms. It has been pointed out, however, that a challenge for TBA is how to incorporate focus on meaning and focus on form in classrooms( Willis & Willis,2001). The purpose of this paper is to examine how/whether TBA can be implemented in teaching Korean as a foreign language and to explore the possibility of achieving both fluency (focus on meaning) and accuracy (focus on grammar) in Korean language classrooms.

2. Background

The communicative language teaching (CLT) method, which replaced the grammar-translation method and the audio-lingual method, focuses on language use as a medium of communication rather than on language form as an object of instruction. Due to CLT’s emphasis on authentic language learning in natural environment, the attitude of CLT teachers and researchers toward grammar instruction was either negative or indifferent. Krashen, the best known L2 scholar who was against formal grammar instruction in L2 classrooms, distinguished learning and acquisition, arguing that knowledge learned consciously was different from knowledge acquired subconsciously, and only the latter type of knowledge could be used for spontaneous oral communication. Thus, he proposed that the goal of L2 instruction should be fluent communication of meaning, which would be possible only if learners were exposed to sufficient comprehensible input without any instruction of metalinguistic knowledge. Those who unintentionally and indirectly have helped to encourage the negative view on the grammar instruction are UG oriented L2 researchers, who believe that language acquisition is constrained by human being’s innate predisposition to acquire language. The main concern of the SLA researchers working within the UG framework is whether UG principles and parameters are still available in L2 learning, and thus grammar instruction and other pedagogical aspects of SLA have been of no interest to them.

Immersion language programs in Canada were the first major project which set out to implement and test CLT. Longitudinal results of the immersion programs, however, made L2 researchers rethink the effectiveness of CLT. It has been observed that students who were taught foreign languages in the immersion context made many grammatical and pragmatic errors even after 12 years of language learning experience (Swain, 1985, 1991). It was pointed out that a weakness of CLT is its exclusive focus on fluency at the cost of accuracy.

As a remedy to the weakness of CLT, it was suggested to reintroduce grammar teaching into L2 classrooms, though under different names such as consciousness-raising tasks (Rutherford, 1988), input enhancement (Sharwood Smith, 1993), and focus on form (Long, 1991; Long & Robinson, 1998). Long (1988), through an extensive review of classroom instruction research, showed that formal instruction, though it cannot change the developmental sequences of acquisition, can expedite the learning process. The formal instruction, however, should focus on form, which involves ‘alternating in some principled way between a focus on meaning and a focus on form’ (Long, 1991). According to Long, focus on form contrasts with focus on formS, which refers to instruction in which language forms are isolated and taught one at a time.

In their summary of research on focus on form, Doughty and Williams (1998) conclude that ‘to teach or not to teach grammar’ is not a question for L2 teachers any more, but ‘how/when/what to teach’ is the question they have to deal with. In this paper, we will focus mainly on ‘how to teach’, which is related to explicit vs. implicit introduction of language forms. At one extreme, Long & Robinson (1998) recommend implicit approach to grammar teaching arguing that focus on form is an incidental product of communicative tasks. Their advice is that teachers should not predetermine which forms to teach, but just need to provide feedback only when students make errors which are systematic and consistent. Thus, of the teaching approaches within the broad CLT method, the task-based approach (TBA), which involves specification of a sequence of communicative tasks to be carried out in the target language, is proposed to be most compatible with the principle of CLT. At the other extreme, De Keyser (1998) proposes to allow an explicit focus on form abstracted away from immediate engagement with meaning. His approach is closely related to Doughty and Williams’s (1998) proposal for a proactive approach to focus on form, which ‘emphasizes the design of tasks that ensure that opportunities to use problematic forms while communicating message will indeed arise.’ (p. 211).

Most L2 researchers agree that focus on form needs to be incorporated into CLT oriented classrooms, especially TBA classes. However, the consensus stops there. No agreed upon answers to the question of ‘how to teach’ can be found, mostly due to insufficient research on CLT and TBA in language classrooms (Willis & Willis, 2001). Thus, it appears that the question of how to implement focus on form in TBA classes is a major challenge for L2 teachers and researchers (Loschky & Bley-Vroman,1993; Skehan, 1996).

3. Grammar and task-based teaching in Korean language classes

If no consensus has been reached on how to teach grammar in CLT-oriented ESL classrooms, which have been the focus of extensive research on L2 formal instruction, then it might be impossible to try to find an answer to the question of how to balance focus on form and focus on meaning in CLT/TBA oriented Korean language classes, considering the fact that few studies have been conducted on learning Korean as a foreign language.

Korean language teaching, in keeping up with the development in SL/FL pedagogy, is also moving toward more communicative and task-based approach. This change can be found in recently published Korean textbooks such as Integrated Korean (Cho et al. 2000), which was developed by experienced teachers of Korean and Korean linguists. For example, each unit of Integrated Korean for Beginners is organized around tasks and functions which learners need to solve or perform (e.g. organizing a birthday party, talking about someone’s major etc.). Each unit of this book also includes a separate section on grammar, which has the following components: presentation, explanation, and practice. The task for teachers who use this kind of textbook in her class would be to find creative and effective activities to introduce these grammatical structures along the communicative tasks. In order to explore ways to incorporate grammar instruction in CLT/TBA oriented classes, we will consider some possible grammar activities, some of which are from already published grammar activity books (e.g. Ur, 1988; Rinvolucri & Davis,1995), while some are of our creation.

Larsen-Freeman (1995) says that there is no one method or mechanism which works for the learning of all aspects of grammatical structures in all learning contexts. Thus, in order for a successful incorporation of grammar instruction in their CLT and task-based language classes, teachers need to consider target structures, learner needs, and learning contexts.

1) Target structures: Teachers cannot teach all the aspects of grammar. There is too little time even for one thing. So, teachers have to be selective on what to teach. Some common candidates for instruction in ESL classes include tense, relative clauses, and conditionals. We will examine some activities to teach these constructions in Korean based on Ur’s (1988) method for ESL. Topic and case particles, honorifics, and null-argument phenomenon are unique to Korean/Japanese and it would require creative thinking on the part of teachers to teach these structures to students whose L1 is typologically distant from Korean or Japanese. We will consider some possible communicative activities which may facilitate learning of these structures.

2) Learner needs/learning contexts: In most Korean language programs, there are two distinct groups of students who have different language background and needs: one of the

two groups is the Korean-American students who command fluent spoken Korean, but have problem in reading and writing in Korean. Most of these students have ample opportunities to be exposed to Korean outside of classrooms; hence their learning of Korea is very similar to learning a second language. The other group does not have any previous experience with Korean or opportunities to use Korean outside of classrooms. This group is learning Korean in a foreign language environment. It is a very important for teachers to consider the different needs and contexts of these two groups and try to adjust language instruction to these differences. The Korean-American group is more or less similar to the learners in the Canadian immersion programs in that both groups have succeeded in achieving fluency, but failed in achieving accuracy, especially in reading and writing in the case of Korean-American learners. As a remedy for the Canadian learners, Swain (1991) proposed to use output oriented tasks which introduce grammar in a more explicit way, arguing that learners will notice the hole in their knowledge of the target language when they try to produce expressions in the target language. I would propose that the Korean-American students will also benefit from this type of tasks, and explore some ways to implement output oriented tasks with explicit focus on form. Their knowledge of the Korean grammar learned consciously can function as a monitor/editor in their productive language use. On the other hand, the students with no previous exposure to Korean first need to build up oral communication skills, which can be accomplished best by focusing on communication of meaning without too much concern on accuracy. Focus on form should be introduced gradually as the learners’ oral language competence develops. Ways to implement the implicit focus on form, such as input enhancement and consciousness-raising, as is recommended by Willis & Willis (2001), will be explored.

4. References

Breen, M. (2001). Syllabus design. In D. Carter & D. Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cho, Y-M, et al. (2000). Integrated Korean: Beginning 1. University of Hawaii Press.

De Keyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C and Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In P. Eckman et al. (eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Loschky, L and Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Bristol. PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. New York: Newbury House.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot et al. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rinvolucri, M. and Davis, P. (1995). More grammar games: Cognitive, affective, and movement activities for EFL students. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Rutherford, W. (1988). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B. Freed (ed.), Foreign language acquisition: Research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.

Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In D. Carter & D. Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.

B. CONFERENCE

Note: The abstracts written in Korean (IAKLE members) follow the ones written in English.

1. *Baek, Joonki. Teaching the Appropriate Use of Different Korean Speech Styles

2. Byon Andrew Sangpil. An annotated syllabus for KOREAN 600 ‘Introduction to KFL Pedagogy’

3. Cho, Eunsu. The Development of Web-Based Korean Text Material

4. Cho, Sungdai. Heterogeneity in the Classroom

5. *Cho, Sunah. My Journey on CMC

6. Choi, Sunhee. Technology-Supported Collaborative Korean Language Learning Project

7. Kim, Eun Joo. Investigating the Acquisition of Korean Particles by Beginning and Intermediate Learners

8. Kim, Hi-Sun Helen. Language Background, Motivation, and Attitude of Heritage Learners in KFL Classes at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

9. Kim, Jin Kyu. Hunmongjahoe: The Pedagogical Implications for Korean as a Second Language

10. Kim, Mi-Ran Cho, and Andrew J. Lotto. An Investigation of Acoustic Characteristics of Korean Stops Produced by Non-heritage Learners

11. Kim, Myoyoung. Writing as a Facilitating Methodology for Mixed Beginning Classes

12. Koo, Eun-Hee. The Effectiveness of Using Music and Songs in Teaching Korean

13. Lee, D.J., Young-Geun Lee, and Siwon Park. Web-based Korean Language Placement Tests

14. Lee, Mijung. The role of corrective recasts in L2 Korean: Accusative relative clauses and the honorific

morpheme –si-

15. Lee, Namhee. The Implications of Neurobiology for Adult Second/Foreign Language Learning

16. Lee, Saekyun H. The utility of TV commercials in teaching culture

17. Lee, Steven K. The Relationship between Motivation Type and Korean Language Achievement

17a. Lee, Steven K., Soyoung Choi, Jessica Chung, Song Yi Han, Seonhye Kim, and Kimberly Moon. Korean

bilingual education issues in public and Korean schools

18. Lee, Y.-G., S. Yuen, H. Kim, C.S. Ahn, S. Yoon, S.B. Baek, and S. Park. Guidelines for Item-Writing for the Curriculum-Based Placement Test: Development and Application

19. Lim, Byung-Joon. Use of the Internet resources to Teach Business Korean

20. Park, Bo Y. Teaching Korean in an Integrated Four-Skills Way with Pictures and Maps

21. Park, Eunwook. Think, work, & talk together: Revisiting cooperative learning

22. Shim, Woo ill. The comparison between ‘–중에서’ and ‘among’

23. *Wang, Hye-Sook. A Review of Research in Korean as a Foreign Language

24. *Yang, Jean Sook Ryu. Motivational and De-Motivational Factors of Korean Language Learners at an American University: A Case Study

25. You, Seok-Hoon. Teaching Korean Kinship Terms to Foreign Learners of the Korean Language

26. *Cho, Hyun-Yong. 한국어 유의어 교육 연구

27. Jung, Sunny.

28. Kim, Chung-Sook. 한국어 교재에서의 과제의 개념 및 활용 방안

29. Kim, Hyun-Jin. 시청각 교재를 활용한 효율적인 수업의 모형: 인지 언어학적 접근을 중심으로

30. Kim, Jae-Wook. 한국어 교사용 지도서의 개발과 그 구성원리에 대한 연구

31. Kim, Young-man. 과제 중심의 고급반 수업 구성에 대한 연구

32. Lee, Dong-Eun. 한국어 평가 담화의 특징: 한국어 교사들의 담화분석을 중심으로

33. *Park, Dong-Ho. 효율적 한국어 학습자 사전 구축을 위하여

*These papers will not be presented.

Teaching the Appropriate Use of Different Korean Speech Styles

Joonki Baek

Defense Language Institute-Foreign Language Center

By all accounts, Korean is one of the difficult languages to learn. In fact, DLI (The Defense Language Institute) classifies Korean as a category IV language. One of the most difficult aspects of this challenging language is a good understanding of the proper use of the various speech styles which characterize the Korean language. I believe that by examining the basic framework of Korean speech styles, and with reference to some of the more troublesome areas encountered by first- or second- year Korean students, a viable classroom approach can be found.

As a Korean instructor at the University of Hawaii, and now at DLI, I witnessed first-hand the frustrations of Korean language students due to their confusion in this area. The solution to this problem must include a systematic approach that will allow the student to gain an understanding of speech styles in a more natural and coherent manner. My proposed methodology comes as a result of extensive personal observation, analyzing scripts of current television programs, and interviews combined with a study of recent literature published in this area.

Korean daily speech incorporates various levels of speech styles, which differ subtly but significantly. And to American students, who approach the world through English-speaking eyes, these subtleties are very hard to grasp. A beginning Korean language student should, therefore, first learn how to incorporate the polite speech style as opposed to using deferential endings. Americans might naturally wonder how or why it could ever be a mistake to employ deferential speech styles. A simple example, “Annyenghasipnikka?” vs. “Annyenghaseyyo?” reflects the tip of the iceberg. An American student at DLI might overhear a younger female instructor addressing an older male teacher “Annyenghaseyyo?” and be surprised that the younger individual used the polite form instead of the deferential form. But if the student thought that the younger teacher made a mistake, it turns out that it is really the student who was mistaken. In the situation cited above, using the more deferential form resulted in an awkward encounter that accentuated the distance between the two instructors involved. In truth, effective Korean discourse must always factor in the circumstances of a given situation.

Correct speech styles are essential to reinforcing language competence from the very first communication between two people. The goal is to promote a more natural speech style on the part of the learner. After all, how we speak has everything to do with the all-important first impression that we make.

An annotated syllabus for KOREAN 600 ‘Introduction to KFL Pedagogy’

Andrew Sangpil Byon

The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor / The State University of New York at Albany

To this date, the universities in the US that have offered graduate programs in Korean linguistics and pedagogy are the University of Hawaii at Manoa and UCLA. As the need for theoretically and practically grounded KFL education specialists has steadily arisen in the last three decades, the demand for a KFL pedagogy course has increased as well.

The goal of this paper is to suggest an annotated syllabus and narrative for a graduate KFL pedagogy course. For ease of exposition, the course is named “KOREAN 600: Introduction to KFL pedagogy”. KOREAN 600 is an introductory course for graduate students who plan to teach Korean at the college level. In the process, three issues are addressed:

What are the academic topics to be included in the course syllabus?
What is the rationale behind the selection of each topic?
What are the teaching materials / texts for the course?

It is hoped that this paper contributes to the existing field of KFL teacher education, offering a sample KFL pedagogy course syllabus, firmly grounded and designed based on the theoretical and practical elements of SLA, educational psychology, SFLP, and curriculum development.

The Development of Web-Based Korean Text Material

Eunsu Cho

University of Michigan

The purpose of this project is to provide online access to the audio-visual and exercise materials based on the existing text Intermediate College Korean, which is composed of a dialogue, a short narrative, vocabulary, and exercises for each chapter.

This online access to the teaching/learning materials is intended to help students learn on their own the contents outside of the classroom and to complete homework exercises at their own pace. This will relieve the students of having to go to the language lab for the text-based oral reading practice, listening comprehension, and oral assignments.

The hypertext version of the text will incorporate links to grammar notes and vocabulary with audio and text. Students will also have access to the "clean," non-linked version for reading only, the vocabulary page, and the grammar notes page for each lesson. After exploring several options, we created a custom web site from which students can download the audio, with a possible CD option for those who have slow modems. Exercises will include audio and text-based matching, fill-in blanks, multiple choices, and open-ended questions. We chose HotPotatoes using Unicode font.

The presentation will include a demonstration of how to use the web site. The page can currently be viewed at: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/asian/korean/intermediate/.

Heterogeneity in the Classroom

Sungdai Cho

SUNY at Binghamton

sundy@binghamton.edu

This paper will show how to deal with diverse learners in a classroom that consists of heritage learners. I will be mainly discussing First-Year (Beginning) Korean (83 students at SUNY at Binghamton) in a college setting, but its application extends to K-12 and other levels of Korean instruction. The typical problems that we face at the beginning level of Korean are: (1) no variety of courses is offered, (2) one teacher teaches more than one level of Korean, and (3) diverse learners are cramped into one classroom.

Setting aside all minor problems in this kind of classroom setting, teachers of heritage learners should consider these points. First, teachers need to have a good understanding of the students’ knowledge of their heritage culture, the target language skills that they have already acquired, and any experience with a language other than Korean. In order to be fruitful in teaching heritage learners, a teacher must not only help the students think of their language skills as assets and recognize what they already know, but also motivate each student to fill gaps in language skills. Second, instructional strategies should be set up only after a thorough analysis of diverse learners in order to achieve the prescribed goal. It is generally true that teachers prepare for the course syllabus before they actually meet their students and study their backgrounds. But this paper urges them to make it available afterward. The use of culturally relevant material is also a part of this strategy. Third, different evaluation and assessment procedures are necessary to analyze oral and written tests, followed by monitoring students’ progress.

When curricula, student’s knowledge, and actual practice reflect these considerations, I submit that many of our heritage learners will be motivated to do well. Finally, I will also compare heritage learners with non-heritage learners in terms of their progress and shortcomings using this approach.

References

Valdes, G. 1995. The Teaching of Minority Languages as ‘Foreign” Languages: Pedagogical and Theoretical Challenges. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 82:4 PP 473-501.

Webb, John and Barbara L. Miller (eds.). 2000. Teaching Heritage Language Learners: Voices form the Classroom. ACTFL Series 2000. Yonkers, New York.

My Journey on CMC

Sunha Cho

University of British Columbia

This paper reports what I experienced while participating in discussion on Computer-Mediated Communication tools (CMC). The paper attempts to present my struggle of immaturity, incubation in CMC and moving beyond immaturity in writing English. The writing style that I chose to use is a reflective and personal narrative. Over three-year experience in taking some graduate courses with the use of CMC as a supplement helped to immerse myself into an academic discourse and to stimulate my academic curiosity with zeal. Besides, two-year experience in teaching Korean with the help of CMC made me convinced of the effectiveness of using CMC in a language classroom. My journey with the use of CMC that is described through my recollections, being full of struggles and dilemma, in writing an academic discourse in English makes me ashamed and agitated at the same time. The journey presents how CMC optimizes social practice and SLA.

Technology-Supported Collaborative Korean Language

Learning Project

Sunhee Choi

University of Southern California

This paper will describe a technology-supported Korean language learning project which has been conducted in the EALC 115 (Korean I) class at the University of Southern California during this past spring semester. It will also report the effects of the project on the students' language learning experiences, and raise issues related to using technology in a foreign language classroom.

The project was designed to give students opportunities to practice their language skills by producing technology-supported language learning materials. Moreover, since there are not many audio and video learning materials available for the Korean language in general as well as for the class under study, it is hoped that the students' final products (CD-ROMs containing videos files and audio files) will help future students learning Korean as well as the participating students. For the project, the students on their own developed scripts of various topics, played, directed, filmed, and edited the video footage, and finally will produce CD-ROMs .

The effects of the project have been and will be assessed based on the students' journals, pre- and post-project questionnaires measuring their experience with and attitudes toward using technology, the researcher's class observations, and in-depth interviews with both the course instructor and students. Although the study is not yet finished, the students' overall responses to the project have been enthusiastic, and the project itself has been successful.

Most students reported in their journals and informal interviews that they have been able to refresh and improve their language skills through writing scripts and practicing lines for shooting videos. In particular, most students valued the experience in collaborating with other students (helping and being helped), and expressed their hope to learn more about the Korean language and about producing multimedia CD-ROMs.

Investigating the Acquisition of Korean Particles by Beginning and Intermediate Learners

Eun Joo Kim

Ohio State University

kim.288@osu.edu

This paper aims to investigate how well Korean particles are learned and perceived by beginning and intermediate learners of Korean through a text revision task. In some previous studies which examined the structural errors made by English-speaking students (Kim, 2000; Kim, 2002; Lee, 1997), it was pointed out that particle-related errors are some of the most frequently observed structural errors made by learners of Korean. In this study, 54 beginning and intermediate learners of Korean (27 beginning and 27 intermediate learners) enrolled in Korean language courses at American universities were tested on a text revision task in which the sentences were manipulated to contain particle-related errors. The task was administered toward the end of an academic year to ensure that the students had enough instruction on the usage of particles. The text was 17 sentences long and there were a total of 14 errors related to particle usage. Additional 3 errors that were not related to particle usage were also included as distracters. Care was taken so that the text did not contain any unknown words to the students. They were asked to revise the text so that it could be improved in accuracy but were not given any explanation as to the purpose of this study. The results of the study revealed that the accuracy rate in the revision of the following types of particle-related errors was significantly lower than that of other types of particle errors:

(1) Use of the object particle -ul/lul with the existence verb issta and epsta.

(2) Use of the locative particles -ey (static) and -eyse (dynamic).

(3) Use of the object particle -ul/lul with the transitive adjectives such as

cohta and philyohata.

(4) Use of the subject particle -i/ka with the transitive verbs of emotion such

as cohahata.

When compared to the beginning learners, the intermediate learners were found to perform better but the accuracy rate for the particle errors described above was still low. The revision accuracy on the locative particles -ey and -eyse was lowest for both the beginning and the intermediate learners. Considering that most of the particles are introduced during the very beginning stage of language instruction, the findings of this study suggest that the particles should be given more attention in instruction since it was revealed that the students were not fully aware of the usage of particles even in the final stage of intermediate Korean. This paper concludes by discussing instructional techniques that can enhance the effectiveness of learning and teaching particles.

Language Background, Motivation, and Attitude of Heritage Learners in

KFL Classes at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

Hi-Sun Helen Kim

University of Hawaii at Manoa

kimhisun@hotmail.com

As the United States continues to assimilate large number of immigrants who come from different parts of the world, foreign-language teaching professions are now often faced with the challenge of teaching the later generations of immigrants their own heritage languages. They enroll in beginning, intermediate, and advanced college courses in their heritage languages to fulfill language requirements, among other motivations, and often become the largest group of language majors or minors. This is evident in Asian language departments, particularly Korean, in which heritage learners dominate the enrollment. Hence, language teachers of Korean are faced with the challenge of not only accommodating the two different populations, heritage versus non-heritage learners, but also managing a wide variety of language backgrounds and exposure that heritage learners bring to class.

The Korean language has become a special significance as a symbol of cultural and ethnic identity to the Korean Americans. One of the strong motivations in learning Korean is to maintain their mother tongue. To them, losing their heritage language means losing their roots. Furthermore, in maintaining and finding their ethnic identity between the two communities, many factors, such as peers, society, family, education, and personal subjectivity, influence the motivational process.

This paper investigates the extent and variation of language backgrounds, exposure, as well as motivation and attitudes of heritage learners of Korean language in all levels (K101, K111, K201, K301, K401, K481) at University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM). In achieving this goal, the following research questions have been raised:

What variety of language backgrounds do heritage learners bring to Korean classes?
According to their self-evaluation, what language strengths and weaknesses do heritage learners bring to Korean classes?
What motivation and attitude do heritage learners have toward learning Korean?
What attitude do Korean heritage learners have toward bilingualism?

With heritage speakers being potential national resource in an increasingly monolingual country, realization of the value of these heritage learners is one challenge and task of language educators and researchers. Due to an urgent demand for a theoretical framework for teaching heritage learners, this paper begins to define the term ‘Korean heritage learners.’ Lastly, the final section will include a discussion on the necessary steps and implications for further research to investigate the linguistic profile of Korean heritage learners, such as their language strengths and weaknesses as well as their language needs that will facilitate them to be successful learners.

Hunmongjahoe: The Pedagogical Implications for Teaching Korean as a Second Language

Jin Kyu Kim

Kongju National University

The Commentaries on Hunminjông’ûm (1446) is an important basis for research on Korean linguistics and Korean language education. Hangul is known for its simple and scientific nature, but this positive aspect is often countered by the Neo-Confucian background and excessively theoretical orientation of its creation process. Published roughly 80 years after the invention of Hunminjông’ûm (1527), Hunmongjahoe became a valuable ground for addressing the above problems, making enormous contributions to teaching Korean to a large population.

My paper examines the importance of Hunmongjahoe from the point of view of teaching Korean as a second/foreign language, by comparing it with The Commentaries on Hunminjông’ûm. Specifically, I will discuss the sound values of the Hangul letters and their combination rules. This will reveal that while The Commentaries on Hunminjông’ûm is based on the Neo-Confucian philosophy, Hunmongjahoe aims for pragmatism. An analysis of the basic vocabulary in Hunmongjahoe will also show that the book was designed as a language textbook. Sections on practical usage of Hangul in Hunmongjahoe contain valuable implications for today’s Korean language education.

10. An Investigation of Acoustic Characteristics of Korean Stops

Produced by Non-heritage Learners

Mi-Ran Cho Kim Andrew J. Lotto

The University of Georgia Washington State University

Objectives

The present study has two purposes: (1) to identify the acoustic characteristics of the word initial Korean stops produced by non-heritage learners of Korean, and (2) to utilize the findings for the improvement of teaching production of Korean stops to non-heritage learners.

The notion of ‘interference’ from the native language on learning the target language is not new to researchers in the field of teaching second or foreign language. Language learners tend to perceive the target language utterances in terms of the linguistic system of their native language. A comparison of the language learner’s native language with the target language is crucial for explaining the language learner’s difficulty, which often causes foreign accent, or even hinders proper communication. In order to soften or eradicate the foreign accent, the language learner must master the phonetic system of the target language (Carr, 1994). The comparison of the learner’s production with the native speaker’s production is also crucial for identifying the areas of problem that the language learner has.

Acoustic phonetics is a subfield in linguistics in which the actual speech sounds are represented in terms of scientific physical measurements, such as duration, intensity, and amplitude, etc. Although there has been a great deal of research on second and foreign language teaching, not many have presented the importance of precise scientific description of speech sounds produced by the language learners. The present study emphasizes the importance of acoustic description of language learner’s production over the previous rather impressionistic description.

In order to fulfill the second purpose, the results of the first experiment are compared to the results of previous research where the acoustic characteristics of Korean stops produced by native speakers of Korean were measured (Kim, 1994).

Theoretical Framework

Among the consonants, stops are the only consonants which occur in all human languages (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996). Yet, stop consonants show a great deal of variation in terms of the airstream mechanism, the state of the glottis, the manner of articulation, and the place of articulation. Each variation is represented in different acoustic features and/or measurements. Korean has three types of stops, tense, lax, and aspirated, while English has two types of stops, which contrast in voicing. Stops occur in three different places of articulation, i.e., bilabial, alveolar, and velar, in both languages. Previous findings show that the three types of Korean stops are distinguished in part by two articulatory variables; closure duration and voice onset time (Kagaya, 1974; Dart, 1987). The fundamental frequency of the following vowel is also associated with Korean stop distinction (Kim, 1994). In contrast, English stops are sufficiently identified in terms of voice onset time (though fundamental frequency also varies with voicing). Several studies indicate that the voice onset time of the voiceless English stop is significantly longer than that of the voiced (Lisker and Abramson, 1964; Zue, 1976; Kent & Read, 1992).