Auerbach & Burgess (Nov.16)

“The Hidden Curriculum of Survival ESL” by Auerbach and Burgess makes me so confused. Survival English has been considered as the most important thing in English learning and teaching in Korea. Because school English education is focused on “grammar, vocabulary and function exercises” for the examination for entrance of university, it has been criticized for long time which most students can’t speak English with native speakers in spite of their over 10 years English learning (p.492). So, in colleges and private institutions, there are a lot of courses related to survival English, usually under the title of ‘practical English’, ‘English Conversation, or ‘survival English’. The goal of these courses is to“provide the students with the practical abilities that enable them to function in the new society”(p.475). In other words, the courses are “reality-based” (p.475), which means that, if students take those courses, they would learn how and what to do for starting their new life in America. I had taught under this principle because I absolutely agreed with it..

But the article by Auerbach and Burgess insists me on rethinking it, especially about the survival textbooks. I can’t remember what and how many books I had used for survival English textbooks as a teacher or as a student, and don’t know whether those books are problematic or not. Although I agree with the authors’ reproaches on it, many survival English textbook are, in fact, very helpful for me to get English expressions and American cultures. But, like the authors’ insistences, sometimes I thought several conversations described in those books were not enough to make full conversational situations. For example, there was one description about asking the direction to go library (as I remember, the book title is Progress in English). I used those expressions when I visited UCLA in 2001 as a traveler, and was so embarrassed. Because I only expected one situation described in the book, but reality was different! After that, I keenly realized “reality should never be taken as a given, but, instead has to be questioned and analyzed”(p.493).

But how can I teach the student who don’t know what they don’t know? The authors persist in “education should start with problematic issues in people’s lives and, though dialogue, encourage students not only to develop a critical view of their reality but to act on it to improve their lives” (p.492) I think, I should start with thinking on a teacher itself. Teacher should not be a person who transmits knowledge to students, but who has the problem-posing view, bring and adapt it in classroom. “The teacher’s role is to facilitate the dialogue between students with a series of inductive questions aimed at eliciting students’ ideas, assisting them in making generalizations, relating the theme to their own lives, and helping them to take action to effect change where applicable”(p.492). I may already know this idea and the problems when I apply the problem-solving view to my students. But, knowing something is not enough.