Respond to Ngugi's article

 First of all, Ngugi's experience was somehow similar to Korean colonial one. Japan tried to abolish our language and culture but it didn't succeed. It was like cannon from Ngugi's article. Koreans defied their violence and confronted to die. Therefore we can keep our language and tradition. Koreans still look down Japanese style accent with a strong backlash to Japan's invasion. Japan knew language was the means of the spiritual obtainment. However it didn't make the perfect conquer because of its external pursue like physical and brutal violence.
 Secondly, after independence from Japan, Korea didn't have a right to deal by itself.  Several country discussed Korea's issue like Ngugi's country. The slow and deep invasion started in the name of help.  We have a different version of colonialzation. Unlike Japan's occupation, we did't have a strong resist. Without notion, we got into  America's culture occupation.  US runs a tight ship of economy and politics in Korea. I don't deny the necessity of English in the world. The spread of English is one of tools to colonize the world.
 Lastly, English is just a langage to communicate. However, it is more than that in Korea. Good at English doesn't mean he is good at everything. I think Ngugi's article gives me a chance to reckon recent English fever. Power is very brutal and greedy. People who have power keep their power forever with controlling the world. We are still oppressor without noticing.

Beauty without brains

From a long time ago, men have been the oppressor but women the oppressed. Men set up the concept that they are superior to women, which is not true. They worried women would overtake them in the power. Women also have a similar thought as we have been educated.
This commercical shows this aspect very clearly. A beautiful blonde lady orders a burger and drink in the library. The librarian tells her it's the library. The lady orders the menu again very quietly, which is sort of stupid. Right after the scene, ad line comes out "Beauty is nothing without brains".
Lastly, white Merecedes car is shown.
This stereotype was made by men and women were trained. Beautiful women are not intelligent and related to luxurious cars. The beauty love money. This conept is from a men dominant society.
The libraian is sort of not pretty. It also contrast between two women.
Mercedes uses woman image to outstand its car. It annoys me.
In the class, students can discuss about relation between beauty and intelligence. There are lots of misconcepts about women and also men.

POP CULTURE - iPhone

Pop Culture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSAje0EgYjY&feature=email

sudden interest

Education for the 21st Century: Balancing Content Knowledge with Skills

Daniel Willingham - December 1, 2008

The last six months has seen the publication of several reports touting the indispensability of 21st-century skills to students. Why the sudden concern, and what are the prospects for addressing it?
Surveys of business people report that high school and college graduates enter the workforce without needed skills, especially the ability to think creatively, to work in teams, and to show ingenuity. Such surveys should, of course, be taken with a grain of salt, as there has likely never been a time that the business world has thought that the American education system prepared students to suit business interests. More telling are other reports and books detailing changes in the skills required for most jobs. Our economy is generating fewer jobs in which workers engage in repetitive tasks throughout their day (e.g., assembly line work) and more information-rich jobs that present workers with novel problems and that require analysis and teamwork.

Can we get more specific in defining 21st-century skills? One can take two stances. Elena Silva, in her Education sector report, says that the many definitions have at their core the ability to “analyze and evaluate information, create new ideas and new knowledge from the information.” In short, the skills are not new, but they take on a new urgency in the 21st century. A report from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills also emphasizes the importance of creativity and critical thinking, but adds new knowledge to the definition. It includes global awareness, media literacy, information literacy, and other new content.
I can’t imagine many people would disagree with these goals, however seriously (or not) you take the idea that a primary goal of schooling is to prepare students for the workplace. No one needs to be exhorted about the importance of teaching students to think critically or to analyze information. Close observers of education have been concerned about students’ lack of deep understanding since the late 19th century, and the wider public has been aware of the problem since the publication of Joseph Mayer Rice ’s scathing articles that appeared in The Forum in 1892.

But these 21st-century skills require deep understanding of subject matter, a fact that these reports acknowledge, albeit briefly. As I have emphasized elsewhere, gaining a deep understanding is, not surprisingly, hard. Shallow understanding requires knowing some facts. Deep understanding requires knowing the facts AND knowing how they fit together, seeing the whole. It’s simply harder. And skills like “analysis” and “critical thinking” are tied to content; you analyze history differently than you analyze literature, a point I’ve emphasized here. If you don’t think that most of our students are gaining very deep knowledge of core subjects—and you shouldn’t—then there is not much point in calling for more emphasis on analysis and critical thinking unless you take the content problem seriously. You can’t have one without the other.

A third report, written by a task force organized by the State Board of Education in Massachusetts has gotten less press than the other two, but it is the one worth reading. Massachusetts has shown itself capable of significant achievements in education through careful planning. Massachusetts does see to it that most students gain good content knowledge. Their students rank at or near the top in core NAEP tests. When Massachusetts educators contemplate new plans, their track record of success ought to make us listen carefully.
And indeed, the plan is an impressive start. The task force has thought through what a new emphasis on 21st century skills will mean for four key aspects of the system: (1) teacher training, (2) state standards, (3) assessment (4) accountability. Most impressive is the level of specificity found even in this relatively brief and early-in-the-game report. For example, the report includes five recommendations for teacher training and professional development, including the creation of online “hubs” at which teachers exchange information, curricula, success stories, and so on.
The report also makes the sensible suggestion to start modestly. Initially not more than five districts will seek to implement the task force’s recommendations fully, and another ten schools in other districts will be stand-alone models.

Clarion calls for more attention to 21st-century skills brings to mind a familiar pattern in the history of education: pendulum swings between an emphasis on process (analysis, critical thinking, cooperative learning) which fosters concern that students lack knowledge and generates a back-to-basics movement that emphasizes content, which fosters concern that student are merely parroting facts with no idea of how to use their knowledge, and so on. In calmer moments, everyone agrees that students must have both content knowledge and practice in using it, but one or the other tends to get lost as the emphasis sweeps to the other extreme. To watch a successful balancing act, keep an eye on Massachusetts.
Photo Credit: (Top) Scott Maxwell/Fotolia

Exploring the possibilities for their methods in my teaching setting.

  Shin and Crookes were exploring the possibilties for EFL critical pedagogy in Korea through their two cases of study. They examined Korean learning culture in classroom in the earlier study. Their stduy drags two remarkable points from my mind.

  First,  the classes they experimented were designed to make the students involved in the dialogue and the topic within their interest. It was not only based on the curriculum or textbook but on their interest. Before they started the lessonclass, they checked students' abilities through the dialogue and collected their opinion and interest from the students. This means a lot to me as an English teacher in elementary school. I'm supposed to follow the textbook and tryng not to miss anything in the textbook. When I miss some in the textbook, I feel sorry for the student and failing responsibility. It is not the class designed  by my will but accepted  through the rule which the publisher think the best. It doesn't include my students' own concept. I think as teaching English in elementary school is basic, students have to drill the expression and imitate soem skill from teachers. I realize I could apply come critical methods in my class. All well-organized lessons are not good for all students. Shin and Crookes said,  " it is true that the textbook tends to become the curriculum but individaul teachers do have a certain measure of freedom of action". It is a good point for every teacher, especially for me. I'm sure that accumulation of knowledge is not important, but encouraging the students is important like "education is not the filling of a pile but the lighting of a fire".

  Second, although their study makes me look back my lesson and my pedagogy, I still wonder if they thought their methods could succed in every kinds of classes.  While they focused on speaking part, they didn't try other parts of foreign language teaching. The study had not enough time to cover the English class. In addition, in the the fact that it was applied to high level of students who were able to speak English like in high leveled high school, it is not common method. One of the class was held  after school as extra curriculum. It's exagerating to say that through the course, students became confident and fluent. If we're only doing culture theme in English class, we'll have limited contents. Even more, I think teacher just sit by and watch while advanced students  are doing thier work. In this concept, teachers have to pick a good way among various options to teach English. It is very difficult in elementary school.

  Their study is helpful to encourage teachers adopt the critical approach in English educaion. However it doesn't satisfy me entirely excluding other parts of FLT(Foreigh English Teaching) and lower leveled students. I think their approach is not fully adoptable in my teaching setting. One thing I can do in my classroom is to add students' interest and their aim in their studying English.

We're trying hard.( Response to Korea's proofreading woes)

This is my response to editorial letter written by a professor who lives in Korea.
 He went to a big franchise coffee shop, where he found grammar error in  advertisementary phrase . He had his own view of  Korean Eglish education. He pointed about Korea's grammatical errors in public. He tried to figure out the solutions. After reading this letter at first, I thought why it is so big a deal that there is small mistakes in grammr like preposition. I wanted to express our difficulty in learning English and studying. Preposions and articles don't exist in Korean. It's natually unfamiliar parts for Koreans. Even though there are several grammatical errors in sentences, we can understand the meaning of senteces. This was my first response.
However, in second reading, I could realize this writer didn't actually blame Koreans. He felt very responsible for Konglish. He wanted many of native speakers to be responsible for cleaning up Konglish. He pointed out that even though many university and company have more and more native speaker, they're still making some errors in public ads like website. He insists that non-native speakers should pass through the censorship from native speakers in the case of public ads. I appreciate the writer's responsibility. However, I don't think it is a shame that we're making grammar errors. Korean English education method might be not perfect to teach all areas of English. We're trying hard to learn and teach English. Korean goverment is challenging possible ways for English education.