CHAPTER 2: THE SITUATION  (Continued)
Previous pages: 1, 2, 3

2.6 Background to the study 
Having investigated the educational and EFL situation in Korea, and in order to provide a perspective for the literature reviews that follow in chapter 3 , it is appropriate at this point to map out details of the programme under consideration, including general policy decisions that were made regarding issues raised in the preceding discussion (sections 2.2 -.5).

2.6.1 Logistics.
This study is based on a language programme designed for, and implemented at Andong National University in the Republic of Korea, from March 1997 to December 1999. Before being upgraded to National University status in 1991, this school had been "Andong Normal School" (1946), "Andong National Junior College of Education" (1965), "Andong National Junior College" (1968), and "Andong National College" (1969), and by 1996 had seven departments (Humanities, Social Sciences, Education, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Human Ecology, Arts and Physical Education), and three graduate schools (Graduate School, Graduate School of Education, Graduate School of Public and Business Administration), in addition to having been selected as a "Specially Appointed University For Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries" by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (1996) and as a "Business Incubation Centre" (1998) by the Small and Medium Business Administration. The Language Centre (LC) grew out of the "Language Research Centre" (part of the Department of English Education), and was commissioned in 1996 by the second President of the university, Dr. Lee Jin-seol (March 1995 - March 1999) as an "attached organisation" (of similar status to the University Library, Dormitory, Museum, and Agricultural Development Centre), independent of the Department of English Education. The LC was designated as an "Elementary School Teacher Training Centre" in 1996, and the College of Education also opened a "Secondary School Teacher Training Centre" the same year.

Korean universities have two "semesters" each academic year, and students study for four years (Freshman year, Sophomore year, Junior year, Senior year) before graduating. Male students (60% of the students in ANU) are required to spend up to two years in military service, and do this after their first, second or third year (depending on when they are "called up"), returning to university to complete their studies in classes in which they are two years older than their female classmates[10]. Prior to 1997, English conversation courses were administered by the Department of English Education, and were offered as selective courses (two hours per week) for students of that department, along with some "general English" (composition) classes open to all students, and some non-credit courses run on a commercial basis by the Language Research Centre. The second President of the university, upon taking office (1995), identified two major needs for his students (computer skills and communicative competence in English), and commissioned a compulsory conversational English programme for all university students, along with a new well-appointed building to house that programme. Students were required to obtain six credits in "Conversational English" in their first three years of study (one credit per semester), and could not graduate without those credits. In the first year of implementation (1997), all Freshmen students attended English Conversation classes, and Sophomore, Junior and Senior students were able to register as a "selective" choice. In 1998 the programme was compulsory for Freshmen and Sophomore students, and in 1999 also for Junior students (cf. table A-47, below). The first (pilot) year of the programme (1997) ran for two semesters, each semester consisting of 15 teaching weeks (30 classroom hours), one evaluation week (oral testing), and one "grading" week (no lessons). The university Freshmen student intake in 1997 was 1,654 (table A-48, below and classes were given in two separate buildings (the new Language Centre building was under construction), using a pilot textbook ("Tell Me About It!" cf. section 2.6.3) in single two-hour sessions each week.

TABLE A-47: CONVERSATION ENGLISH COURSES, CLASS DETAILS 1997 – 1999. 

TABLE A-48: STUDENT REGISTRATIONS DURING THE PERIOD OF STUDY.

Shaded areas indicate students who took part in the programme.

Freshmen class sizes were set at a maximum of 25 students, seven teachers averaged 11 classes (22 hours/week) each (the author also taught 12 hours/week), and all but one of these teachers were recent appointments to the LC. Some teachers took on voluntary overtime classes on the non-credit programme and the selective classes for Sophomore and Junior students. In the second year of the programme (1998), the pilot textbook was updated and renamed "Tell Me More!", a Sophomore textbook, "Now You're Talking!" was introduced (having been written and piloted during 1997), and the native-speaking teaching staff was increased to 14. In 1999 the programme was fully functioning, with 4,589 students (table A-48, above), 21 teachers, and a Junior textbook (written and piloted in 1998), "The Way Ahead" (cf. sections 6.2.3, 7.3ff., pages 52, 223ff., for description and discussion of the textbooks). Semesters were shortened by one week, because of a reduction in government funding, due to an economic recession.

As can be seen from table A-48, varying student registrations from year to year meant that the number of Freshmen students in 1997 was 226 higher than the number of Sophomores in 1998, and 284 higher than the number of Juniors in 1999. This had obvious implications for the study, in that any sample of students was likely to lose participants over a period of more than one year. In fact 6.6% of male students left university to do military service at the end of their Freshmen year in 1997 and 1998, and 53.3% at the end of their Sophomore year in 1998, and therefore could not be further monitored in this study[11]. A similar number of male Sophomore and Junior students taking the programme in 1999 had spent the previous two years in military service, and therefore had not experienced its first two years. This posed a number of problems for them and their teachers, since the students were not prepared (linguistically or emotionally) for the special nature of the programme in its third year.

2.6.2 Early policy
In view of the holistic task-based programme ethos of the programme (cf. section 4.4, page 177), the curricular goals of development of CMI and oral skills (section 4.2, page 174), the university aims (section 1.1, page 26) and the results of various needs analyses (section 5.3, page 183), a general policy of "all the students talking all the time" was adopted as appropriate for ANU students, especially in the first year of the programme. This approach, using a process curriculum model, task-based syllabi, problem-solving learning methods, and with normative and re-educative innovation strategies (cf. "Progressivism" in White's [1988:132] comparison of curriculum types [table A-49, below], was to be presented in a student-centred, task-based environment of mutual trust and respect, with students being invited into (and trained in) decision-making processes (cf. section 3.4.4, page 149ff, section 3.4.5, page 169).

TABLE A-49: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IDEOLOGY, CURRICULUM MODELS AND INNOVATION (WHITE 1988:132). 

2.6.3 Textbooks
At the time of initiation of the study (1997), there were in Korea no commercially available books of the appropriate level ("false beginner"), educational principles (holistic process learning), cultural sensitivity (focus on indigenous as well as foreign cultures), methodology (task-based), or scope (60 class-hours per book) (cf. Long & Crookes 1993). EFL texts in Korea at that time (e.g. Side-by-Side, Expressways, Headway) tended to describe Caucasian (usually Christian) families in America or England, and presumed a multi-ethnic mix of students typical of ESL classrooms. Such generic texts tended to subscribe to teacher-centred presentation of formal concepts (Breen 1987a:86), and were therefore particularly inappropriate for the programme, since they gave little attention (beyond the contents page) to promotion of autonomy, positive affect, learner training, cultural sensitivity/suitability and critical thinking. It was therefore decided to take the "rocky" path of producing textbooks written "under difficult circumstances by amateurs" (O'Neill 1982). These books would recognise the role of the individual learner, emphasise affective rather than cognitive development, de-emphasise the transmission of a fixed body of knowledge, and focus on the capacity to learn independently, to develop effective thinking techniques, and to learn how to learn (cf. Richards' [1985] "self-actualization" approach). An in-house text was designed and produced for each year of the programme:

1.  Pilot year: "Tell Me About It!" (TMAI) (1997).

2.  Freshman year: "Tell Me More!" (TMM) (1998, 1999, 2000).

3.  Sophomore year: "Now You're Talking!" (NYT) (1998, 1999, 2000).

4.  Junior Year: "The Way Ahead" (TWA) (1999, 2000).

In the pilot year of the programme (1997), the aim of the pilot textbook (TMAI) was to introduce students to task-based learning and learner training, and to encourage them to choose and direct activities by themselves, as the teacher gradually gave up classroom control and became a teaching resource. This was to take place through a syllabus which included "traditional" structural elements, but in which oral interaction was the main learning content (Allwright 1984b). The second year of the programme (NYT) built upon this foundation, with more attention to CMI in a task-based (notional/functional) context, along with introduction of some project work. In the third year the emphasis was fully on learner training and independence, in an attempt to prepare students for life-long learning situations. This text (TWA) employed a project-based process format (cf. section 3.4.4.3.5,), involving students in syllabus negotiation, critical thinking and problem-solving in authentic extended-task (Skehan 1998:150) learning situations (cf. section 7.3,). Holistic aspects of the curriculum were addressed through positive teacher-student relationships (including changed T/S roles), cultural sensitivity in the textbooks, co-operative learning experiences, and other means inherent in the "CMI"[12] ethos.

This framework represents a suggested learning path rather than a set of discrete linguistic goals, and the texts offer suitable starting points for development of oral skills in a self-directed context. Students and teachers were expected to identify changing learning needs as the programme progressed (section 5.4.4, page 188), and therefore to negotiate their way through the programme, diverging from the framework when appropriate (cf. Legutke & Thomas's comments on the shift in language teaching and learning ideas 1991:4-5). As they became more familiar with goals of CMI and holistic education, there was freedom (and training) to negotiate learning experiences outside of the suggested learning framework. Appendix A-50 (page 403) presents an overview of the three years of the programme, as shown by the chapter titles of the textbooks.

These texts, produced by the author/programme designer in collaboration with the Director of the Language Centre, Dr. Hyun, Tae-duck, were aimed specifically at the learning needs of the ANU students (cf. section 5.3), giving consideration to principles of task selection (section 3.4.4.2.3.2, page 158) and Breen & Candlin's (1980:93-4) syllabus design issues (section 6.3, table A-51, below). Willis' (1996) and Skehan's (1998:129-32) principles for the implementation of a task-based approach (section 6.3.1) were also influential in overall syllabus design (see section 7.3.1.2).

TABLE A-51: FRESHMAN SYLLABUS DESIGN ISSUES (BASED ON BREEN & CANDLIN 1980:93-4).

All three student books (TMM, NYT, TWA) have accompanying "Teachers' Resource Books" (also available online[13]), which introduce the pedagogic principles behind the tasks, and suggest ways of performing them (cf. Illustration 13, appendix C). TMM and NYT's Teachers' Resource Books have "Teaching aims" and target lexis for the teachers' information, though it is also stressed in the "comments" that the main aim of the book is "Free Talking". Pages from the students' books appear in the Teachers' Resource Books, along with commentaries and suggested learning content (appendix C-13, page 480). The suggestions to the teacher emphasise that each book is a framework, to be adopted/adapted/supplemented as appropriate, and that students should be encouraged to interpret (or rewrite) the instructions in any way they wish, explaining these changes to their peers (in the L2, if possible). Teachers' Resource Books (Finch & Hyun 2000b,d,f) contain resource cards (cf. appendix C-14, page 481) and handouts (appendix C-7, page 473) required for various activities, though once more, teachers are encouraged to "adopt and adapt".

Since 1997, commercial texts such as Fifty-fifty, Marathon Mouth, Oxford basics, and a revised version of New English Firsthand have appeared, satisfying more of the required criteria in section 2.6.3  by being Asia-based, employing genuinely communicative activities, and including some learner-training. However, the teacher is still in control in these books, and TMM, NYT, and TWA remain the core texts of the programme in this study. The reader is referred to chapter 7, section 7.3ff. (pages 223ff.) for a discussion of how programme principles were demonstrated and realised through the in-house textbooks.