English Language policy in the Republic of South Korea

To compete in the global economy, the South Korean government believes that it is essential to increase the

ability of the population to use English more effectively (Littlewood, 2007). English has become the ‘lingua

franca’ of an increasingly global society. In South Korea, English is seen as having a significant role in

“promoting international exchange, technological expertise and progressing (economically)” in a global

economy (Ross, 1992). While the South Korean government has implemented many strategies to increase the

proficiency of English, South Korea overall ranks lower in English proficiency levels than countries in much of

Asia and Western Europe. In 2003 a survey by the Seoul metropolitan government, 74.2% of people polled

said they had difficulty communicating in English. In a country that is spending 1.9% of its GDP on English

language policies, this is a concerning statistic (Hwang, 2001). To remain globally competitive, South Koreans

must enhance their proficiency to remain competitive. However changing educational policy to improve

proficiency has proved problematic for South Korea. It is important to consider the history of South Korea’s

English language policies, and examine barriers which have made the implementation of those policies

problematic.

Language policy is a sensitive issue in South Korea left over from the long history of colonisation by Japan

and China. Another ideology which has developed the need for greater proficiency stems from the idea of

being over taken by Japan and China economically. “We cannot live with our doors shut. No, we have to be

more forward and walk towards the world. If tied to Northern Asia, (we) will only be victims of China and

Japan’s supremacy. At this moment, the weapon we can give to our children is a challenging spirit and

language proficiency. In this world, only those with excellent language skills will survive. We cannot leave our

children to be ‘half-muted’ in English in this kind of world” (Yim, 2007). While English is used in advertising

and pop culture throughout South Korea, essentially “English remains a foreign language rarely used in

Korean’s daily lives” (Yoo, 2005). Instead an interesting social phenomenon has developed as English has

become a way for South Korean’s to measure success. English has become a “symbol of job success, social

mobility, and international competitiveness” (Koo, 2007; Yim, 2007). University applications, exams and

large corporations such as Samsung and Hyundai require high English scores for entrance. ( (Kim C. K., 2008).

This is creating a social divide in Korea and is also producing a culture of proficient English test-takers rather
than English speakers. English is not having just a linguistic tool but also as a way to create a specific social

status in Korea.

English language education was first introduced to Korea in 1883, when” the Joseon government opened an

English language school in order to train interpreters”(Kim, 2008). With the colonisation and occupation of

Korea by the Japanese, English education became unimportant as Japan tried to replace Korean with

Japanese as the national language in Korea (Kim, 1969). Eventually English was prohibited as an enemy

language by the Japanese. With the end of World War II and the Korean War, English was taught in Korea

essentially for military purposes. South Korea had a United States “military presence in its territory and

therefore had to train its citizens to be competent in communication with the US army” (Kim E.-G, 2008).

English was largely untaught in the Korean education system until the 1970s and not in elementary school until

1982 (Kim, 2008). Issues around the need for English education became more important after the

assassination of General Park Chung-hee in October of 1979 who was then President of South Korea (Kim,

Hyung-A,2003). Rapid economic growth in South Korea is attributed to General Park. However, his

authoritarian rule saw strict censorship, restriction on overseas travel and personal freedom. (Kim, 2003).

With his death, changes in policy emerged and South Korea became more active internationally hosting the

Asian Games and the Olympics (Park, 2009). During the 1981-1996 American Peace Corps teachers and

Fullbright Scholarship teachers were placed in secondary schools and universities throughout South Korea to

teach English. (Education, 2013) In 1995 two major English policies were launched: "Reinforcing Foreign

Language Education" and "Reinforcing Globalization Education". English was made a compulsory subject in

1997. (Education, 2013) Another factor that highlighted the need for English was the Asian financial crisis in

1997 (Jeon, 2009). The South Korean government recognised that English was a key to Korea’s future global

success and began taking measures to implement English educational policy.

The goal of Lee Myeong Bak , President of Korea from 2008 to 2013, was to reform English Public School

Education “creating Korea as a more English-friendly nation, and the proposed goal was to have every high

school graduate conversational in English”(Ahn, 2013). In January 23, 2008, the government English

Committee launched their “English Education Roadmap”, a proposal to reform the current teaching system and

drastically improve Korean's English proficiency (Kang, 2008). The proposed project would cost more than

4.25-billion-dollars and be implemented over the next 5 years. One aim of the project was to teach other

key learning areas in English creating an English immersion program (“Immersion Roadmap,” 2008). However,
within a week of announcing this project, the policy failed because of its lack of feasibility due to the high

cost and shortage of teachers with sufficient skills to implement the project. President Lee Myung Bak

announced that “English immersion education is something we should not carry out and we cannot, but is a

matter for the distant future” (Kang, 2008). This was a total reversal of policy. One of the most effective

ways of learning a second language is immersion language teaching. A compromise was reached and the

program was re-launched with only English language classes being taught in English. Because English became

a compulsory subject in schools, it fuelled competition and another issue arose, private English education.

Samsung Economic Research Institute estimated that “Koreans, spend a total of 14.3 trillion won a year on

private English tutoring and another 700 billion won applying for English proficiency test. This puts huge

financial strain on families. Private Education (hagwons) is seen as a way to fill gaps in English education that

are not being adequately met by the public school system. Private education was banned by President Chun

Doo-hwan in 1980 (Card, 2005).It was felt the advantage of “private education promoted inequality, all

access to it was made illegal” (Card, 2005).Since the 1990s the government has relaxed the restrictions on

private education. This has increased competitiveness in South Korea. It has also set the standard for college

application and job employment making English education a national governmental issue as preferential

treatment is given to students that excel at English. South Korea spends more per capita on English education

than any other country in the world. According to Hwang (2001), an average of 16.5% of a South Korean

family’s income is used to provide their middle school child with private schooling. For example, a family

consisting of two parents and two children spends one-third of their total income on private costs for

education. In March 2008, the government prohibited school teachers from creating test questions for private

institutions. Another issue that is cause for concern is the separation of public and private testing. In 2008,

teachers were banned from participating in private education when it was found that many teachers were

illegally providing English test questions to private institutions for financial gain, giving private education

students an unfair advantage when taking the English test. (Kang, 2008). Despite the high cost of private

education and the competitiveness, South Korea's English proficiency is still lacking (Jin, 2006).

Korea has become “the most exam-obsessed culture in the world” (Seth, 2002).This has meant that the way in

which English has been taught, tested and learned is fuelled by an exam based and score based culture. The

focus has moved away from learning English to learning how to pass an exam in English. The “Communicative

Language Teaching” (CLT) has been adopted as the official method of teaching. In reality, the grammar-
translation is often used. There are four main issues around using Communicative Language Teaching in Korea.

The first is teacher based. Korean native teachers often have deficiency in spoken English. Many teachers

are not trained in CLT and they have little time for developing materials for communicative classes (Hadikin,

2014).The second issue is the students. Korean students often resist class participation or lack proficiency to

participate in CLT. (Hadikin, 2014).The third issue is lack of support, funding and the large classes of students.

The (Hadikin, 2014).fourth issue is that currently Korea has a grammar based examination system and it is

difficult to have effective and efficient assessment for CLT (Hadikin, 2014).The failure of the English education

system is attributed to the use of the traditional grammar/translation methods rather than the CLT method to

improve communicative competence or, more precisely, oral language fluency. (Chun,1992). In an effort to

improve Communicative Language Teaching foreign native English speaking teachers were hired to provide

fluency and increase class involvement. Unfortunately issues around using foreign teachers have also arisen.

South Korea is continuing to develop and change their teaching model. The main goal of English education in

Korea is simply to advance the ability to communicate in English (Ministry of Education, 2008). One of the

main education reforms to try to meet this goal was the introduction of the English Program in Korea (EPIK)

program which was established in 1995. Korea invited native English speakers to Korea to work in schools

around the country. The purpose of the program was to “improve the English communication skills of teachers

and students, improve the English education system, and increase Koreans’ cultural understanding of the world

as well as foreigners’ understanding of Korea (Education, 2013). In 1995 the Korean government drastically

lowered the age at which English is first learned in school, from first grade middle school to third grade

elementary school (Jeong, 2004). Ultimately, making English a standard school subject in 1997 brought

about ‘English fever’ in Korea (Jeong, 2004), causing Koreans to become obsessed with learning English (Shin,

2007). The Korean Ministry of Education in 2008 states in the curriculum that, “To contribute to the nation and

society, the use of English is essential. The ability to communicate in English will act as an important bridge

connecting different countries, and will be the driving force in developing our country, forming trust among

various countries and cultures” (Education, 2013) This program has been successful in bringing English teachers

from around the world to South Korea but is not without its problems

The value of native English teacher’s verses the use of English-proficient teachers has been called into question

as the EPIK program is evaluated for its effectiveness by the government and by parents. In 2011 a survey

conducted by Seoul National University showed that 62.2 percent of parents and 53.7 percent of students
preferred English-proficient Korean teachers, whereas 26.9 percent of parents and 29.7 percent of students

preferred native speakers (Ramirez, 2013). Critics of the EPIK Foreign Teacher Program suggest that the

money spent on bringing foreigners to Korea to teach English could be more effectively used to develop

native Korean teachers’ ability to teach English and improve pedagogical practices. However, in the same

survey 62.4 percent of parents said classes with native English teachers were “absolutely” necessary. The

reason for this is because only 34.7 percent of the students said they actively participate in their Korean

teacher’s English class, but 76.9 percent said they participated in their native English teacher’s class (Ramirez,

2013). This is an interesting result because, while parents acknowledge the importance of a native English

teacher and statically students participate more actively in an immersion, class only 26.9 percent would

prefer a native speaker. The EPIK program was jointly operated by the Korea National University of

Education (KNUE) and the National Institute for International Education Development (NIIED). Between 2009

and 2013 EPIK placed an average of 1500 foreign teachers per year to meet the needs of six millions

elementary, middle and high school students (World Education News & Reviewism, 1987). There has also

been difficulty in finding native speakers of English who could meet minimum requirements (Lee and Chang,

2006).

A major flaw of the EPIK program is that it initially hired university graduates with little to no teaching

experience. In order to improve the practices of foreign English Teachers, the Ministry of Education began

offering training programs that focused on developing basic teaching skills prior to commencing a contract

(Education, 2013). Philippson (1992), makes the points that native speakers do not necessarily possess an

academic knowledge of their native language, or an understanding of how to teach it. These ‘teachers’ often

have no understanding of pedagogical practices or understand how to teach language. These teachers are

often considered assistants to Korean Language teachers and rarely develop their own curriculum or

responsibility for their class, as experienced teachers might do. The Ministry of Education believes that these

training programs will help teachers make better connections with their students. All EPIK teachers are

required to complete the online program in an effort to understand their role as a teacher and develop co-

teaching skills. In more recent years these measures have improved the quality of applicants.

English Education in South Korea is at a cross roads, government policy have failed spectacular; despite the

trillions of dollars spend on English, Koreans still lack proficiency. Korea’s English program needs to adapt a

more communicative approach over grammar and exam based methods. The government has set out
ambitious policy but many of these policies have been downscaled or unpursued. There seems to be no

substantial improvement in the overall level of English Language. This means that there is a ‘high-cost and

low-efficiency’ in the English education of Koreans (Chun and Choi, 2006). South Korea needs to move away

from the traditional grammar/translation methods in order to achieve policy targets related to communicative

language methods and improve communicative competence rather than just improve International English

Language Testing System (IELTS) and Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) test scores. On

a broader scale, society needs to move away from attaching social status to English. This also needs to be

addressed by higher education as they review the necessity for English in the Korean SAT test. While steps

have been taken to ensure that better qualified teachers are hired, development of these around active

participation in the classroom. Foreign teachers need to take a more active role in promoting Communicative

Language Teaching in the classroom. Korean native teachers need to be provided with better training and

more support around teaching English more effectively to large classes. Finally, government policy needs to

be focused on building curriculum that is long lasting and relevant to the objects set out in its English policy

that improves current practice. With these changes and implementations South Korea can improve and

progress in becoming more proficient in the English Language.

Works Cited

Ahn, H. (2013). English policy in South Korea: A role in attaining global competitiveness or a vehicle of social

mobility? Journal of English as an International Language .

Card, J. (2005, 11 30). Life and death exams in South Korea. Asian Times .

Chun, H.-C. &.-S. (2006). ‘Economics of English.’. Seoul: Samsung Economic Institute.

Chun, N.-S. (1992, 11 7). Prepare for the National Scholastic Test. Kyunghyang Shinmun.

Education, N. I. (2013). About EPIK. Retrieved 02 10, 2015, from EPIK:

https://www.epik.go.kr/contents.do?contentsNo=84&menuNo=334

Hadikin, G. (2014). Korean English: A corpus-driven study of a new English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Hwang, Y. (2001). Why do South Korean students study hard? . International Journal of Educational Research,

609-618.

Jeon, H. C. (Nov. 20, 2006). The Economics of English. Samsung Economic Research Institute.

Jin, G. (2006). English education innovation solution (Korean to English). Korean Education Deveopment Insitute.
Kang, H.-k. (2008, 1 23). New Administration Struggling to Tackle English Divid. Korea Times.

Kang, S. (2008, March 23). Teachers banned from making test questions. Korean Times.

Kim, C. K. (2008, 2 1). English competent nations are prosperous. Chosun Ilbo.

Kim, E.-g. (2008, 4 21). History of English Education in Korea. The Korean Times.

Kim, H.-A. (2003). Korea's Development Under Park Chung Hee. Seoul: Routledge.

Kim, M.-g. (1969). A study of Japan's language policies for Korea. Chon'gu, South Korea.: Usok U niversity.

Koo, H. (2008). The changing faces of inequality in South Korea in the age of globalization. Korean Studies,

1-18.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language

Teaching, 243-249.

Mitchell, R. &. (2004). Seocnd Language Learning theories (2nd). London: Hodder Headline Group.

Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1-43.

Ramirez, E. (2013, 5 14). IS KOREA'S EFL EDUCATION FAILING? Retrieved 02 05, 2015, from Groove:

http://groovekorea.com/article/koreas-efl-education-failing

Ross, H. (1992). Foreign language education as a barometer of modernization. Education and Modernization ,

239-254.

Seth, M. (2002). Education fever: society, politics, and the pursuit of schooling in South. United States: University

of Hawaii Press.

Yim, S. (2007). Globalization and language policy in South Korea. In A. a. Tsui, Language policy, culture and

identity in Asian context (pp. 37-54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Yoo, O. K. (2005). Discourses of English as an official language in a monolingual society: the case of South

Korea. Second Language Studies, 1-44.