Event Title
A Korean Case of Educational Innovation for an English-Mediated Introductory English Linguistics Course Under a ‘Flipped Learning’ Approach
Document Type
Event
Start Date
28-6-2017 10:00 AM
Description
Linguists have continually been concerned with what is a best or proper way to teach linguistics in college and what utility students can find in studying linguistics (Haegeman, 1996; Larson, 2010). This paper is an attempt in this line of research, and is an interim report of an action research undertaken through teaching an English-mediated introductory course in English linguistics. The general research question was how “critical literacy” can be fostered through the course offered for first-year students at a college of education, Seoul, Korea. A more specific question is: In what ways Korean college students develop their “critical thinking” in such a course? The course was taught by the researcher in the fall semester, 2015. Its special feature was that a “flipped learning” approach was taken to make sure that student participants will have more time for in-class discussion.
To prepare video clips, the researcher used Xinics Inc.‘s Silverstream Producer, which the University provided for instructors, to produce two video clips of about 40 minutes long each week. He was helped by two assistants: both, working two business days. Their main tasks involved preparing ppt files based on the textbook. When the ppt files became ready, the instructor recorded his talks showing relevant ppt slides and uploaded the video clips on the virtual space the School provided, and announced links to the files to the students.
The participating 35 students were divided into seven groups of five members; they were supposed to watch the video clips and to prepare for the in-class group discussions according to the roles they rotated to assume: the “summarizer”, the “background investigator”, the “language picker”, the “critic”, and the “connector”. Since critical literacy consists of “word” literacy and “world” literacy (Freire & Macedo, 1987), the instructor included the two roles of language picker and critic to encourage students to pick up the academic English language for linguistic discussion from the textbook and to criticize the content of the course: the textbook and the instructor’s presentations.
The classes were designed to encourage students to raise questions (Golding, 2011; Lipmann, 2003). In the first 90-minute session, the instructor discussed student questions and/or comments from the previous week’s classes and discussions. After that, students had group discussions with their preparations under the leadership of the summarizer, completing the Group Discussion Activity Sheet. In the second 90-minute session, students had about 20 minutes for solving and discussing the assigned exercise group by group. After that, students had poster presentation sessions: Each group was divided into two sub-groups, and one sub-group first presented their solutions while the other sub-group circulate to listen to other groups’ presentations. About half an hour later, they switched their roles, completing the Class Presentation Activity Sheet.
Based on an analysis of two student reflective essays and mid-term interviews, the presenter will propose a Korean model for critical thinking development where when immersed in a feasible pedagogical environment, first-year college students go through a number of “critical” changes: (i) They begin their college study as knowledge consumer, mainly accepting and memorizing, crucially not attempting to criticize, provided information and knowledge [the Knowledge Consuming Stage]; (ii) they make a “critical turn” and try to evaluate course content from a critical point of view [the Critical Turn]; (iii) they then arrive at a moment of shattering Textbook Authoritarianism [Emancipation from Textbook Authoritarianism]; (iv) they begin to think critically about academic content [the Critical Academic Thinking Period]; and lastly (v) some of them begin to produce academic linguistic knowledge [the Knowledge Prosuming Stage].
Analyzing participants’ responses to the question of what attitudes they think are significant in doing linguistic study, further, the presenter will argue that student critical thinking development will accompany attitude changes depictable in the following way: (i) Gaining Attitudes to Understand, (ii) Venturing into Deep Thinking, and (iii) Having One’s Own Thought; and further that there seems to be a hierarchy in “criticizability” with Korean college students: (i) Non-textbook stuff, (ii) the Universal Grammar, and (iii) the Linguistic Rules, from lower to higher.
Drawing on these results, the paper will discuss implications for college English linguistics education.
Recommended Citation
Gyemyong Ahn, Sung-Ho, "A Korean Case of Educational Innovation for an English-Mediated Introductory English Linguistics Course Under a ‘Flipped Learning’ Approach" (2017). Center for Global Curriculum Studies Symposium. 19.
https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/globalcurriculumsymposium/gcs2017/gcs2017_events/19
A Korean Case of Educational Innovation for an English-Mediated Introductory English Linguistics Course Under a ‘Flipped Learning’ Approach
Linguists have continually been concerned with what is a best or proper way to teach linguistics in college and what utility students can find in studying linguistics (Haegeman, 1996; Larson, 2010). This paper is an attempt in this line of research, and is an interim report of an action research undertaken through teaching an English-mediated introductory course in English linguistics. The general research question was how “critical literacy” can be fostered through the course offered for first-year students at a college of education, Seoul, Korea. A more specific question is: In what ways Korean college students develop their “critical thinking” in such a course? The course was taught by the researcher in the fall semester, 2015. Its special feature was that a “flipped learning” approach was taken to make sure that student participants will have more time for in-class discussion.
To prepare video clips, the researcher used Xinics Inc.‘s Silverstream Producer, which the University provided for instructors, to produce two video clips of about 40 minutes long each week. He was helped by two assistants: both, working two business days. Their main tasks involved preparing ppt files based on the textbook. When the ppt files became ready, the instructor recorded his talks showing relevant ppt slides and uploaded the video clips on the virtual space the School provided, and announced links to the files to the students.
The participating 35 students were divided into seven groups of five members; they were supposed to watch the video clips and to prepare for the in-class group discussions according to the roles they rotated to assume: the “summarizer”, the “background investigator”, the “language picker”, the “critic”, and the “connector”. Since critical literacy consists of “word” literacy and “world” literacy (Freire & Macedo, 1987), the instructor included the two roles of language picker and critic to encourage students to pick up the academic English language for linguistic discussion from the textbook and to criticize the content of the course: the textbook and the instructor’s presentations.
The classes were designed to encourage students to raise questions (Golding, 2011; Lipmann, 2003). In the first 90-minute session, the instructor discussed student questions and/or comments from the previous week’s classes and discussions. After that, students had group discussions with their preparations under the leadership of the summarizer, completing the Group Discussion Activity Sheet. In the second 90-minute session, students had about 20 minutes for solving and discussing the assigned exercise group by group. After that, students had poster presentation sessions: Each group was divided into two sub-groups, and one sub-group first presented their solutions while the other sub-group circulate to listen to other groups’ presentations. About half an hour later, they switched their roles, completing the Class Presentation Activity Sheet.
Based on an analysis of two student reflective essays and mid-term interviews, the presenter will propose a Korean model for critical thinking development where when immersed in a feasible pedagogical environment, first-year college students go through a number of “critical” changes: (i) They begin their college study as knowledge consumer, mainly accepting and memorizing, crucially not attempting to criticize, provided information and knowledge [the Knowledge Consuming Stage]; (ii) they make a “critical turn” and try to evaluate course content from a critical point of view [the Critical Turn]; (iii) they then arrive at a moment of shattering Textbook Authoritarianism [Emancipation from Textbook Authoritarianism]; (iv) they begin to think critically about academic content [the Critical Academic Thinking Period]; and lastly (v) some of them begin to produce academic linguistic knowledge [the Knowledge Prosuming Stage].
Analyzing participants’ responses to the question of what attitudes they think are significant in doing linguistic study, further, the presenter will argue that student critical thinking development will accompany attitude changes depictable in the following way: (i) Gaining Attitudes to Understand, (ii) Venturing into Deep Thinking, and (iii) Having One’s Own Thought; and further that there seems to be a hierarchy in “criticizability” with Korean college students: (i) Non-textbook stuff, (ii) the Universal Grammar, and (iii) the Linguistic Rules, from lower to higher.
Drawing on these results, the paper will discuss implications for college English linguistics education.