쪽 여백

위쪽 45/아래쪽 45/왼쪽 45/오른쪽 45/머리말 15/꼬리말 15

논문 제목/ Title (영어 및 외국어)일 경우 각 단어의 첫 자만 대문자)

(중고딕 진하게 15, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 80%, 자간 -5%)

<2줄 띄움>

Myung-Keun Oh

(신명 태고딕 12, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 80%, 자간 -5%)

(Hankuk University of Foreign Studies)

(중고딕 10, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 80%, 자간 -5%)

<3줄 띄움>

Oh, Myung-Keun. (2006). A Study of Arabic Education and Bilingualism in the Maghreb. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 23(1), 73-94.

(신명 태고딕 10, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 75%, 자간 –5%, 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 여백 5자)

<1줄 띄움>

The purpose of this paper is to investigate diglossia as a sociolinguistic situation , ...

(신명조 10, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 90%, 자간 –5%, 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 여백 5자)

<2줄 띄움>

Ⅰ. Introduction/ 서론

(태명조 13, 진하게, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 85%, 자간 -5%)

<1줄 띄움>

본문내용

한국어 학습자의 작문, 문법 등에 대한 오류 분석 중 한국어 시제의 오류 양상에 대한 연구는 한국어교육 연구 분야에서 꾸준히 이루어져 왔다. ....

Acquiring second/foreign language (L2) competence is a slow and daunting learning process (Guilloteaux & Dornyei, 2008). This may indicate that the L2 learning process requires learners to have not only ....

(신명조 10.5, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 90%, 자간 –5%, 들여쓰기: 국문 2자/ 영문( 및 외국어) 3자)

<1줄 띄움>

Ⅱ. Literature Review/ 이론적 배경

(태명조 13, 진하게, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 85%, 자간 -5%)

<1줄 띄움>

1. 절 제목

(태고딕 11.5, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 85%, 자간 -5%)

<1줄 띄움>

1) 소제목

(중고딕 11, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 80%, 자간 -5%)

<1줄 띄움>

⑴ 세부 제목

(신명조 10.5, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 90%, 자간 -5%)

① 미세 제목

(신명조 10.5, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 90%, 자간 -5%)

각주

(신명조 9, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 90%, 자간 -5%)

Table 1. The Subjects 혹은 표 1. 실험 대상

(표제목: 중고딕 9.5, 장평 80%, 자간 -5%, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 160%)

Cognitive strategies

Experimental

Control

N

%

N

%

Word level strategies

61

38.36

26

52

Comprehension level strategies

98

61.63

24

48

(표의 내용: 신명조 9.5, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 130%

* 표는 세로줄 없이 작성

그림 1. 상호작용 형태 혹은 Figure 1. Model of Interaction

<2줄 띄움>

References/참고문헌

(태명조 13, 진하게, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 85%, 자간 -5%)

<1줄 띄움>

Brown, H. (1998). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, MJ: Prentice-Hall

박경자, 이재근, 장복명. (2013). 영어과 교육과정 입문. 서울: 정문사

(신명조 10.5, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 90%, 자간 –5%, 내어쓰기 5글자)

<2줄 띄움>

Appendix(Appendices)부록

(태명조 13, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 85%, 자간 -5%)

<1줄 띄움>

1. Appendix/부록 소제목

(중고딕 11, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 80%, 자간 -5%)

부록내용

(신명조 10.5, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 160%, 장평 90%, 자간 -5%)

<1줄 띄움>

(태고딕 12, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 80%, 자간 –5%)

<1줄 띄움>

저자명 (연도). 국문제목. 외국어교육연구, 23(1), 73-94.

(중고딕 10, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 75%, 자간 –5%, 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 여백 5자)

<1줄 띄움>

초록내용

(신명조 10, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 90%, 자간 –5%, 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 여백 5자)

<3줄 띄움>

Key words: Arabic education, Diglossia, Bilingualism/ 국문 키워드

(중고딕 10, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 80%, 자간 –5%, 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 여백 5자)

<주제어는 영어와 해당 언어로 표기한다.> ex) 중국어 교육관련 논문 – 영문키워드, 중문키워드, 국문키워드 모두 작성

<1줄 띄움>

Examples in: Arabic, English, etc.

Applicable Languages: Arabic, English, etc.

Applicable Levels: Elementary, Secondary, etc.

모든 언어 논문에 ‘예시 언어, 적용 가능 언어 및 적용 가능 수준’을 위 제목을 사용하여 다음에 명기할 내용을 제시한 예와 같이 영문으로 적는다.

(중고딕 10, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 80%, 자간 –5%, 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 여백 5자)

<1줄 띄움>

Oh, Myung-Keun

professor

(professor / Lecturer / Master’s Student / Completion of Master’s Course / Doctoral Student / Completion of Ph. D. Course / 기타 등 한 가지를 선택하여 적는다.)

Dept. of Arabic, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

270 Imun-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea 130-791

TEL: (02)-2173-3179

E-MAIL: mkoh@hufs.ac.kr

(중고딕 10, 양쪽 혼합, 줄 간격 130%, 장평 80%, 자간 –5%, 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 여백 5자)

* 개인 휴대폰 번호는 작성하지 않음.

공동 논문일 경우 모든 저자의 정보를 위와 같이 전부 명기한다.

외국어교육연구 중요 양식 안내

한국외국어대학교 외국어교육연구소가 발간하는 학술지인 외국어교육연구(Studies in Foreign Language Education)는 기본적으로 APA(American Psychology Association)(2001)의 양식을 따른다. 다음은 본 학술지의 논문에서 사용되는 중요한 양식의 예이다.

1. 본문 속에서의 인용이나 괄호 안의 문헌 표기

1)직접 인용 1 :

They stated, "the purpose of a language course will vary according to the needs of the students and their particular interests" (Krashen & Terell, 1983, p. 65).

* 위와 같이 인용문은 " " 안에 넣고, 그 안에서 다시 인용이나 강조를 할 때는 ‘ ’를 쓴다. 인용의 문장이 끝나도 마침표는 괄호(참고 문헌의 정보)가 끝난 후에 찍는다. 괄호 안에는 보기처럼 저자, 연도, 쪽수를 쉼표로 분리하여 표기하고, p. 65 (한 쪽의 경우) 혹은 pp. 65-66 (여러 쪽의 경우) 뒤에 한 칸을 띄고 쪽수를 쓴다. 한글 논문도 이에 준한다.

2)직접 인용 2 :

Krashen and Terell(1983) pointed out that "the purpose of a language course will vary according to the needs of the students and their particular interests" (p. 65).

3)직접 인용 3 :

According to Krashen and Terell(1983):

The purpose of a language course will vary according to the needs of the students and their particular interests (p. 65).

* 위와 같이 직접 인용한 문장은 본문 기준으로 왼쪽 및 오른쪽 각각 “5자” 들여 쓰기를 한다.

4)간접 인용 :

⑴한글 논문 :

전태현과 맹주억(2011)은 외국어 교수 및 학습은 학습자 중심 ...

학습자는 외국어 교수 및 학습에서 ... (전태현, 맹주억, 2011).

⑵영어(혹은 외국어) 논문 :

Windeatt and Lee (2002) stated that multimedia is defined as ...

Multimedia is defined as ... (Windeatt & Lee, 2002)

5)1명의 저자 :

강계철(2014)은 중국어 교재 편찬에서 과학성의 원칙....

Oxford(1990) stated that learning strategies are defined as ...

6)2명의 저자 :

본문이 영어 혹은 외국어(이하 영어)이면 “and”로, 한글이면 “과/와”로 연결하고, 괄호 속에서는 “&”를 사용한다.

1 한글 논문 :

허용과 임경순(2014)은 그들의 선행연구(허용, 임경순, 2005)에서 ...

2 영어 논문 :

Tomlinson and Henderson(1995) reported that their previous study (Tomlinson & Henderson, 1991) showed ...

7)3~5명의 저자 :

처음 언급할 때는 모든 저자의 이름을 표기하고, 그 다음부터는 영어 논문에는 “et al.”로, 한글 논문에는 “등”이나 “외 3인”이라는 식으로 표기한다.

1 한글 논문 : Beck, McKeown, Hamilton과 Kucan(1997)는 ...

영어 논문 : Beck, McKeown, Hamilton, and Kucan(1997) found that ...

2 글 논문 :Beck 등(1997)은 학습자 참여는 ...

혹은 Beck외 3인(1983)은 학습자 참여는 ...

영어 논문 :Beck et al.(1985) stated that enhancing students engagement ...

8)6명 이상의 저자 :

처음 언급할 때부터 영어 논문에는 “et al.”로, 한글 논문에는 “등” 혹은 “외 5인”으로 표기하고, 참고 문헌(References)에는 이름을 모두 표기한다. et al.은 라틴어 et alii(and others)의 약어이므로 al.에만 점을 사용하고, 이탤릭체로 표기하지 않는다.

9)여러 저자를 괄호 안에 소개 :

여러 저자를 소개할 경우, 알파벳순으로 배열하고, 세미콜론(;)으로 분리한다. 동일 저자의 것은 연대순으로 배열하고, 쉼표로 분리한다.

Brown(1998, 1999, 2001) reported that some research studies(Beck et al., 1985; Brookes, 1997; Hancock, 1995; Rost, 1990) dealt with students engagement...

10)동성 이명(同姓異名)의 저자들 : 본문에서는 이름의 약자를 사용하여 혼동을 피한다. 비록 연도가 다르더라도 이름의 약자를 사용하여 표기한다.

⑴외국인 저자 :

J. S. Johnson(2013) and D. Johnson(2013) pointed out that ...

⑵한국인 저자 :

한국인들은 성만으로는 혼동이 많으므로, 원 저자의 영문 이름 표기 방식에 따라 성 앞에 이름의 머리글자(Han-Kuk, Kim ⇒ H. -K. Kim)를 쓴다. 한글 논문에서 한국인 저자는 성명을 다 쓴다.

11) 재인용

국문 논문의 본문에 인용할 때는 원전(저자명과 출판년도)과 재인용한 자료의 출처를 콜론(‘:’)으로 구분하여 제시한다. i)저자명이 본문 중에 제시될 경우 원전의 출판 연도 뒤에 콜론을 한 후 재인용 출처의 저자명과 이 자료의 출판 연도를 적고 출판 연도에 이어 “에서 재인용”이라고 표기한다. ii)또는 괄호 안에 원전 저자명과 출판 연도가 표기되었을 경우에는 원전 저자명과 출판 연도는 쉼표로 구분하고 원전 출판 연도 뒤에 콜론을 하고 재인용 연구의 저자명과 출판 연도를 적고 “에서 재인용”이라고 적는다.

Smith(1990: William, 1998에서 재인용)는...

...을 제시하였다(홍길동, 1997: William, 1998에서 재인용).

영문 논문의 본문에 인용할 때는 APA 형식을 따라서, 괄호 안에 “as cited in”을 적고 원전 저자명과 출판 연도를 쉼표로 구분하여 표기한다.

In Smith’s study (as cited in William, 1998),

이를 참고문헌 목록에 제시할 때는 국문, 영문 논문 모두, 재인용 문헌(위의 경우, William의 1998 논문)만을 표기한다.

2.표(Table)나 그림(Figure) 자료를 그려 넣는 경우

표나 그림 자료는 편집하는데 제한점이 많이 있으므로 다음 크기에 준하여 넣는다.

1) 표 : 한 면에 넣을 수 있는 표의 최대한도의 가로 크기는 12cm, 세로의 크기는(표의 타이틀을 포함하여) 18cm로 한다. 표 위 줄과 아래줄은 진하게 한 줄로 하고, 세로 줄은 없다. 표의 제목(중고딕 9.5, 장평 80%, 자간 -5%, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 160%)은 표의 위쪽 중앙에 위치하며 다음 보기와 같이 쓴다. 표의 내용은 신명조 9.5, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 130%로 한다.

Table 1. The Subjects 또는 표 1. 실험 대상

Cognitive strategies

Experimental

Control

N

%

N

%

Word level strategies

61

38.36

26

52

Comprehension level strategies

98

61.63

24

48

2)그림이나 출력 화면: 한 면에 넣을 수 있는 그림의 최대한도의 가로 크기는 12cm, 세로의 크기는(그림의 타이틀을 포함하여) 18cm로 한다. 그림의 제목(신명조 진하게 9, 장평 100%, 자간 0%, 가운데 정렬, 줄 간격 160%)은 그림의 아래 중앙에 위치하며 아래 보기와 같이 쓴다. 그리고 그림을 전부 인용했을 경우 그림 제목 옆에 저자, 년도 및 쪽수를 넣는다.

Figure 1. Interaction patterns of the teacher, Computers and students (Lee, 2014, p. 29)

혹은

그림 1. 교사, 컴퓨터 및 학습자의 상호작용 형태 (이충현, 2014, p. 29)

3.참고문헌 목록(References) 표기

참고 문헌에는 논문에 언급된 것만을 빠짐없이 저자 성의 알파벳순으로 싣는다. 한글 논문의 참고 문헌 목록에 한글 문헌과 영어 문헌을 실을 경우, 한글 문헌을 먼저 가나다순으로 싣고, 영어 문헌을 저자 성의 알파벳순으로 싣는다. 한국어 참고 문헌 표기 방법은 영어에 준한다. 단 논문을 영문으로 쓸 경우, 참고문헌에 실을 한국어 저작은 원본 영문 번역이 없을 경우에 필자와 논문 및 책 제목을 Yale 표기법의 로마자로 표기하고 [ ] 안에 영어로 번역을 넣는다.

1)학술지의 논문 (Journal Article)

신형욱. (2014). 제 7차 교육과정 독일어과의 문제점과 개선 방향. 외국어교육연구논집, 10(1), 104-136.

오명근, 전태현, 맹주억, 신형욱. (2012). 효과적인 외국어 교육을 위한 학습자 중심 학습 활동의 현장 적용 연구. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 21(2), 150-180.

C ha, K. A. (2006).AstudyofKoreanuniversitystudents'sEnglishproficiencybasedonTOEICtest.Foreign Language Education, 13(1), 275-296.

Askar, P., Yanuz, H., & Koksal, M. (1992). Students' perceptions of computer assisted instruction environment and their attitudes towards computer assisted learning. Educational Research, 34, 133-139.

2)책 (Book)

이길영. (2005). 초급영어회화: Happy English II. 서울: 한국문화사.

차경애, 이길영, 이충현, 김해동, 이윤. (2006). 외국어교육 연구 논문 작성법. 서울: 한국외국어대학교 출판부.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principle and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Mitchell, T. R., & Larson, J. R., Jr. (1987). People in organization: An introduction to organizational behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

3)편집된 책에 실린 논문이나 장 (An Article or Chapter in an Edited Book)

권경애, 윤호숙. (2005). 효율적 일본어 의사소통 교육을 위한 교수 및 학습 자료. 권경애 (편), 일본어 교육: 이론과 실제 (pp. 218-245). 서울: HUFS.

Khan, B. H. (1997). Web-based instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it? In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Hill, B. (1991). Satellites and language teaching. In J. K. Gilbert, A. Temple, & C. Underwood (Eds.), Satellite Technology in Education (pp. 91-102). London: Routledge.

*책 혹은 논문의 저자, 연도, 제목 등은 저널이나 책에서의 표기 방법과 같다. 그러나 편 저자(Ed., 혹은 Eds.)의 성명은 책 혹은 논문의 저자의 표기 방법과는 달리 이름의 약자를 먼저 쓰고 성을 뒤에 쓴다.

4)잡지 (Magazine Article)

김종호. (2000, 7월). 의사소통 중심 외국어 교육의 실태. 월간 외국어 교육, 7, 18-36.

Posner, M. T. (1993, October 29). Seeing the mind. Science, 262, 673-674.

*잡지 기사는 월간일 경우에는 출간 달까지 표기하고, 주간일 경우는 두 번째 보기와 같이 달과 일까지 표기한다.

5)뉴스레터 (Newsletter)

이충현. (2005, 10월). 멀티미디어 영어교수․학습 방법 및 수업 모형. English Teacher Shower, 제1호, 20-23.

Morrisroe, S., & Barker, D. (1984, August). Using film in a multi- level class. CATESOL News, 5, 13.

6)신문기사 (Newspaper Article)

Schwartz, J. (1993, September 30). Obesity affects economic, social status. The Washington Post, pp. A1, A4.

*신문 기사는 날짜까지 표기한다. 또한 기사가 비연속적으로 분리된 경우에는 위와 같이 해당 면을 표기한다.

7)연구 보고서 (Report)

임찬빈, 이윤. 전애리. (2002). 2002년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가 연구(I) (연구보고 RRE 2002-1-6). 서울: 한국교육과정평가원.

Broadhurst, R. G., & Maller, R. A. (1991). Sex offending and recidivism (Tech. Rep. No. 3). Nedlands, Western Australia: University of Western Australia, Crime Research Centre.

Mead, J. V. (1992). Looking at old photographs: Investigating the teacher tales that novice teachers bring with them (Report No. NCRTL- PR-92-4). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 082)

*보고서의 제목을 이탤릭체로 한다. 연구보고서를 ERIC에서 입수한 경우 위와 같이 ED 번호를 괄호 안 맨 뒤에 표기한다.

8)학회 발표 논문 (Proceedings of Meetings and Symposia)

최종찬. (2005). 가상교육의 전망: 교육접근방법의 다변화. 한국멀티미디어언어교육학회 2005년 학술대회 발표논문집, 13-14.

Cynx, J., Williams, H., & Nottebohm, F. (1992). Hemispheric differences in avian song discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 89, 1372-1375.

Mitchelle, R. (1995). The Promise of performance assessment: How to use backlash constructively. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

*발표 논문집이 출간된 경우 논문 제목은 보통체, 논문집의 이름은 이탤릭체 표기한다. 이와 반대로 미간행 발표 논문집일 경우에는 논문 제목은 이탤릭체, 논문집의 이름은 보통체로 표기한다.

9)학위 논문 (Doctoral Dissertations and Master's theses)

김한국. (2003). 한국어 학습자의 한국어 독해시험의 지문단락 의존도에 관한 연구. 미출간 박사학위논문, 한국외국어대학교, 서울.

Boyd, J. R. (1988). Principles and practice of communicative language teaching: A guide for the development of activities for intermediate or advanced level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas.

박선주. (2005). 인터넷 동화를 활용한 초등영어 듣기 및 읽기 능력 향상 방안. 미출간 석사학위논문, 한국외국어대학교 교육대학원, 서울.

Lee, C. H. (1991). Using Computers for the development of reading skills in self-access. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne.

Levin, M. C. (1990). An experimental investigation of reciprocal teaching and informed strategies for learning taught to learning disabled intermediate school students (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University of Teachers College, 1989). Dissertation Abstract International, 50, 2372A.

*Dissertation Abstract International (DAI)의 논문의 요약과 논문 자체를 참고할 경우에 논문 통과 연도와 DAI 등재 연도가 다르면 논문의 본문에서는 Levin (1989/1990) 및 (Levin, 1989/1990)와 같이 표기한다.

10)인터넷 자료 (Internet Resources)

*인터넷 자료는 자료를 수집한 년, 월 및 일자까지 표기한다. 그리고 URL을 표기한 후 마침표를 넣지 않는다.

⑴온라인 저널(On-line Journal)

Stevens, V. (2002). A day in the life of an online language educator. TESL-EJ, 7(1). Retrieved September 10, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www-writing.berkeley. edu/TESL-EJ/ ej23/int.html

Mims, N. G. (1999). Out of the ivory tower and into the chat rooms: Are we giving in too much to technology? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3). Retrieved March 24, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.westga.edu/ ~distance/mims23.html

(2)전자우편(E-mail)

Lunn, F. (1996, June 18). Summary of reponses to request for CALL lab info. TESLCA-L [Discussion list]. Retrieved December 18, 1996, by e-mail: listserv@cunyvm.cuny.edu

11)웹사이트의 컴퓨터 소프트웨어와 매뉴얼 (Computer software and manual on Web site)

Randall, S. D (1998-2006). Randall's ESL Cyber Listening Lab [Computer software]. Retrieved April 7, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http:// www.esl-lab.com/

Arneil, S., & Holmes, M. (1997-2006). Hot Potatoes 6 [Computer software and manual]. Victoria, B.C.: Half-Baked Software Inc. Retrieved March 30, 2006, from the World Wide Web: http:// hotpot.uvic.ca/

12)컴퓨터 프로그램, 소프트웨어 혹은 프로그래밍 언어 (Computer programs, Software, and Programming languages)

이충현. (2002). 5분 생활영어: 중고등학교 편 [컴퓨터 소프트웨어]. 서울: 서울특별시교육청.

Jones, C. (1990). Testmaster [Computer software]. London: Wida Software.

Wida's Authoring Suite [Computer software]. (1997). London: Wida Software.

Windows NetMeeting (Version 3.01) [Computer software]. (2006). Redmond, WA: Microsoft.

*컴퓨터 프로그램, 소프트웨어 혹은 프로그래밍 언어는 이탤릭체로 표기하지 않는다. 이름 뒤 대괄호([ ])에 [컴퓨터 소프트웨어] ([Computer software])라고 표기한다. 저자가 없는 경우에는 컴퓨터 프로그램 명을 저자의 위치에 표기한다.

13) 비 영어 자료 (Non-English resources)

참고 문헌에 포함된 비 영어 논문(또는 책)은 제목(그리고 학술지 이름)을 국립국어원(http://www.korean.go.kr)이 고시한 “한국어 로마자 표기법”을 이용하여 작성한 후, 괄호 안에 영어로 해석한 논문 제목(그리고 학술지 이름)을 다음과 같이 병기한다.

Hong, K. D. (2012). Yeongu yunri hwakrip-eul wihan pyojeol-ui ihae (Understanding of plagiarism for establishment of research ethics). Yunriyeongu (Journal of Ethical Studies in Korea), 67, 26-45.

Hong, K. D. (2011). Daehaksaeng-ui pyojeol yebang-eul wihan hwaneonhagi hullyeon hyogwa bunseok (An analysis of paraphrase practices for avoidance of plagiarism for university students). Unpublished MA thesis, Hankook University, Seoul, Korea.

EFL Teacher Research Engagement in a Korean Context [footnoteRef:1] [1: This work has been supported by the 2017 Seoul Theological University Research Fund.]

Jung In Kim

(Seoul Theological University)

Kim, Jung In. (2017). EFL teacher research engagement in Korean context. Studies in Foreign Language Education, 31(1), 1-34

The purpose of this study was to investigate Korean EFL teachers’ degrees of engagement in research. Adapted from Borg’s (2009, 2013) research design, the analysis of questionnaires and interviews from 30 Korean teachers in a graduate school of education revealed that they moderately engaged in research which was due to their course taken in research design and methods. The teachers favored experimental research to write MA theses because of time limitations imposed by academic requirements; however, they personally wanted to conduct case studies for pedagogical considerations. The teachers’ passive involvement in research and their dualistic conception between teaching and conducting research are discussed in the context of their MA degree acquisition. Both pedagogical and policy considerations are suggested for the facilitation of teacher research engagement.

Ⅰ. Introduction

Classroom research is a critical part of teacher education. The role of the teacher in classroom research is an ongoing topic; and teacher involvement in classroom research is a necessary aspect in showing their professional activity. Teacher Research Engagement (TRE) has been paid attention to, as the teacher’s part of their autonomous professional development and practice in TESOL (Borg, 2007, 2010, 2013; Ellis, 2010; Nassaji, 2012; Tavakoli, 2015; Tavakoli & Howard, 2012). TRE seems to motivate the teachers’ professional development. The body of previous studies (Borg, 2007, 2010b, 2013) generally showed teachers’ moderately engage in research, because of time limitation (Borg, 2009, 2013); and the irrelevance of pedagogy in class (Kutlay, 2013). Research on TRE has been conducted for the teachers from diverse countries in Borg’s project (2013). For example, the participants are from Australia, Mainland China, France, Hong Kong, Japan, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, and UAE. However, Korean EFL teachers were not found from Borg and his associate’s studies (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013; Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012; Borg & Yi, 2013). To fill this research gap, the purpose of this study is to investigate Korean EFL teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards research engagement.

Ⅱ. Literature Review

1. Definition of Teacher Research Engagement

According to Borg (2013), teacher research originated from the effort in educational reform in the UK and in the U.S. the 1970s to democratize education and make education more a teacher-participatory process. Being a strong “reflective practitioner” (Schön, 1983) makes one an ideal teacher, with the role of autonomously investigating his/her work in teacher education research. As Allwright and Bailey (1991) stated, local and classroom-based research emerged as an alternative to the large-scale studies of the 1980s. The burgeoning of local and small classroom studies made the teachers actively involved in conducting research, which led to the conception that a teacher could also be a researcher. The origin of TRE seems to begin from the fact that doing research is beneficial to teaching and the teacher professional development.

The concept of TRE is related with the diverse teacher-initiated research: action research (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Wallace, 1997), exploratory practice (Allwright, 2003, 2005) and evidence-based practice (Tooley & Darby, 1998). Among these, action research is widely known to us, which is from the U.S. Action research is concerned with doing research to solve problems at class, while exploratory practice (Allwright, 2003, 2005) is focused on the understanding of the quality of life in the language classroom, for both teachers and learners. The TRE in this study is more close to the view of evidence-based practice, originated from Britain, which argues that “teachers engage with and in research and make pedagogical decisions based on or informed by sound research evidence”(Borg, 2013, p.14).

Building on the evidence-based practice, Borg (2010) defined TRE as “systematic inquiry, qualitative and /or quantitative, conducted by teachers in their own professional contexts” (p. 395), contributing to the teaching, the learning, and even to educational policy. This refers to the active role and function of TRE such as classroom improvement, but also covering the educational reform and transformation. This seems to imply that teachers are regarded as an active initiator or innovator in class through the connection between teaching and doing research.

2. Review of Borg and His Associates’ Studies

Borg and his associates (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013; Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012; Borg & Yi, 2013) investigated teachers’ conceptions of research, reading research, doing research, and the research culture. Other studies (Kutlay, 2013; Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013) used Borg’s questionnaires (Borg, 2009) although these were not conducted collaboratively with Borg. All their research contexts are represented in Table 1.

Table 1. The research participants and the contexts of TRE

Studies

Participants and contexts

Borg(2007)

62 teachers at English course

at a University in Turkey

Borg(2009)

505 teachers in 13 countries

Borg & Alshumaimeri (2011)

82 University teacher educators

in Saudi Arabia

Borg(2013)

Non-probable sample of 1730 teachers

all over the world

Borg & Yi (2013)

725 college English teachers in China

Kutlay(2013)

52 English instructors in

a Turkey public university

Tabatabaei & Nazem (2013)

150 English teachers of high schools

and universities in Iran

Three studies (Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012; Borg & Yi, 2013; Kutlay, 2013) were conducted for college teachers. One study (Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013) included both the high school teachers and college teachers. To explore the concept of research perceived by teachers, ten evaluated scenarios (See Appendix) and 11 research characteristics were used in the studies of Table 1, except Borg and Yi (2013). In ten evaluated scenarios, scenario 4 was the most frequently reported as definitely research (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013; Kutlay, 2013; Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013) meanwhile scenario 1 (Borg, 2007, 2013; Kutlay, 2013) and scenario 8 (Borg, 2009; Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012; Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013) were not considered as definitely research by teachers. For the reporting of the importance of 11 research characteristics, “the researcher is objective”; “hypotheses are tested”; “variables are controlled” are considered as the top three primary characteristics that the teachers considered (Borg, 2007, 2013). However, Iranian teachers considered the “importance of pedagogical considerations,” followed by “the use of the results in classroom” and “the application into ELT context” (Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013).

As evidence-based practice highlights that teachers should be critical consumers of educational research (Borg, 2013), reading research and reading research types were studied to know how to use them to make inform instructional decisions. The most commonly reported frequency of reading was sometimes (51.9% in Borg, 2009; 50.3% in Borg, 2013; 30.7% in Kutlay, 2013) and rarely (30.6% in Borg, 2007; 28.7% in Borg, 2009; 50% in Kutlay, 2013). Overall, the levels of engagement with research were reported as moderate. The teachers’ sources of educational research were books, international academic journals (Borg, 2013; Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012), and web-based sources of research (Borg, 2013; Kutley, 2013). Most studies (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013; Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012) showed that the teachers did not read research, mostly due to the lack of time, followed by the lack of interest, the difficulty of understanding research (Borg & Yi, 2013), and the lack of practical relevance to the classroom (Kutlay, 2013). The impact of reading and utilizing research was mostly moderate (Borg, 2007, 2009; Borg & Yi, 2013).

With regards to the frequency of teachers’ doing research, sometimes (Borg, 2007, 2009) or occasionally (Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012; Borg & Liu, 2013) were the most frequently cited. Borg (2009) cautioned the interpretation of the teachers’ report of sometimes. He thought that sometimes are often used euphemistically and rarely was more accurate expression than sometimes when the teachers reported their occasional doing research (2009). Borg preferred the term of occasionally to sometimes to escape the misunderstanding of teachers’ confusing responses in the questionnaires; however, Borg (2013) still used the term of sometimes in his recent book. Therefore, this study used the term of sometimes in questionnaire.

“Professional development” was the primary reason for doing research across all the studies, followed by “to find better ways of teaching” (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013; Borg & Yi, 2013; Kutlay, 2013), “it is a part of my job” (Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012) and “it is for a course I am studying” (Kutlay, 2013). The lack of time was the primary reason for not doing research except Borg and Yi (2013), referring to the difficulty to get the research published and the lack of advisors’ help. The primary impacts of doing research were learning new teaching techniques, followed by sharing ideas with colleagues (Borg, 2013).

From the sociocultural perspective, research culture was investigated to see whether the school managers or educators support teachers’ research. The institutional culture was evaluated as moderately positive by college educators (Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012) and by college teachers (Borg & Yi, 2013). Nonetheless, the teachers in middle and high schools did not get support from their institutes (Borg, 2013). By analyzing Chinese College English teacher’s research culture, Borg and Yi (2013) discovered the lack of collaborative research is due to the competitive promotions system. This hindered the development of a productive research community “in which teachers work with and for each other in exploring issues of common interest” (p.294). This seemed to highlight the necessity of the collaborative research among teachers.

The body of previous studies in TRE revealed that the teachers’ little engagement in research is due to the teachers’ conventional view of scientific research (Borg, 2007; Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012; Kutlay, 2013; Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013). This could lead teachers to make the clear distinction between research and routine teaching (Borg, 2009; Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013) which made the teachers believe that research is not related to teaching practice (Kutlay, 2013).

TRE and teaching experience, qualifications, and other variables were correlated individually and statistically analyzed in previous studies. A significant but weak (Borg, 2007) or moderate (Borg & Yi, 2013) relationship was found between the teachers’ reported frequencies of reading and doing research. Teachers with different levels of experience and qualifications were not significantly different in the way the teachers rated the importance of different characteristics (Borg, 2007) or how often the teachers reported their reading research (Borg, 2013). However, Borg (2009) discovered there was a weak but significant relationship between how often teachers reported doing research and both their experience and qualifications. This suggested that more experienced and higher qualified teachers are more likely to engage in doing research. In addition, a significant though weak association was found between frequency of reading and qualifications, academic role, and experience (Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012). This shows that higher levels of engagement in research seemed to be reported by the teachers with longer experience and higher qualifications. At the same time, this does not mean that the young and inexperienced do not engage in research.

Although statistical analysis was seen to be more significant than qualitative data, the findings in the previous studies (especially in, Borg and Alshumaimeri (2012)) did not point in any way to a preference for a particular type of research among the teachers. In this sense, the teachers’ favorable research types surfaced as one of the unanswered research questions in the previous body of TRE and it needs to investigate.

3. TRE in the Korea

The graduate schools of education with English education in South Korea (24 national/public universities & 58 private universities, Ahn, 2015) are site of interest where the TRE is concerned since the teachers mostly do research to write MA theses. Borg (2013) also indicated that most teacher-related articles are by-products of writing theses or dissertations in graduate schools. It is scarce; however, it is possible to find teacher-related articles such as these in academic research journals in Korea. From the exploration of authors in academic journals, most authors were university educators and professors. For example, a Korean representative academic journal English Teaching published by the Korean Association of Teachers of English (KATE) released a total of 171 articles in the recent four years from 2011 to 2014. Among them, only 10 articles (5.8%) found that school teachers were involved in writing (2 articles by a single author, 6 articles collaborated with the faculty advisors in universities, and 1 article collaborated with the researchers from Korea Institute for curriculum and Evaluation (KICE)). As six articles out of nine teacher-related articles were either by-products of teachers’ writing theses or collaborative projects with professor, it is worth to investigate TRE in Korean graduate school since there is dearth of study about teachers’ perceptions about research.

III. Methodology

1. Research Questions

Informed by the review of TRE and Korean EFL teachers’ TRE in graduate school of education up to this point, this study was conducted to answer the following questions:

(1) How do 30 Korean EFL teachers conceive the characteristics of research?

(2) How frequently do 30 Korean EFL teachers say they read published research and they do research?

(3) What are the teachers’ perceptions of their institutional culture in relation to research?

(4) What is the teachers’ favorable type of research depending on their research purpose?

2. Research Context

In order to locate EFL teachers engaged in research, this study looked at a graduate school of education where writing theses is forcibly required for teachers to achieve a degree. A school was found requiring thesis for the MA degree. In this school, the teachers must finish writing their MA theses and submit them to the school within five semesters (two years and six months). Even if the teachers do not submit these theses and pass the screening, they are given the recognition of completion, as they finished taking the required and necessary courses. However, they cannot graduate from the school until they finish writing. After completion of the courses, submitting MA theses should be done within five years. Almost all teachers hurried to complete the courses and submitted the MA theses within five semesters to receive either teacher-licensed certificate or MA degree for career development. In this graduate school of education, the participants were selected who attended the course of Research design and method, since these teachers are registering for this course to prepare for writing theses. Hence, the goal of the course was to help students find their own MA thesis topics. The course provided an introduction to research methods in foreign and second language teaching and learning areas. The detailed class schedule was followed as Table 2:

Table 2. The schedule of the course

Week 1

Introduction to the course

Week 2

What is research?

Week 3

Structure of scholarly articles

Week 4

How to find research articles with database

Week 5

Designing quantitative study

Week 6

Designing qualitative study

Week 7

Mid-term

Week 8

Article review 1

Week 9

Article review 2

Week 10

Article review 3

Week 11

Article review 4

Week 12

Presentation of MA thesis topic 1

Week 13

Presentation of MA thesis topic 2

Week 14

Presentation of MA thesis topic and design

Week 15

Presentation of MA thesis topic and design

Week 16

Summary and conclusion

To achieve its goal, students learned to search scholarly TESOL research articles using database systems, and familiarize themselves with quantitative and qualitative and classroom based research techniques for six weeks. From week 8 to 11, students searched and chose research articles that were related to their own research interests from academic journals such as TESOL Quarterly, Modern Language Journal, and Language Teaching Research. Then, they critiqued and presented articles that they decided to discuss. Through the semester, students read 37 articles in total, including 27 quantitative studies, 6 qualitative studies, and 4 mixed-method studies. Finally, in the end of semester, students proposed their MA thesis topic at least once.

3. Participants

The participants were 30 Korean EFL teachers (4 males and 26 females). Their teaching experiences are shown as the following table 3:

Table 3. Years of teaching experiences

Year

N

%

0-4

19

63.3

5-9

9

30.0

10-14

0

0

15-19

1

3.3

25+

1

3.3

Total

30

100.0

As shown in Table 3, most teachers’ teaching experience was as low as less than 4 years, dominating by 63.3%. Most of them work in the private sector (private schools and academics) (N=19, 63.3%) and public schools (N= 10, 33.3%). The purpose of registering at the graduate school is different between the private sector teachers and the teachers at public schools. Most teachers in private institutes go to the graduate school of education to get the teacher-licensed certificate since their undergraduate major was not English education. Meanwhile, the public school teachers, who already have a teacher’s licenses, go to the graduate school of education to get an MA degree, which is helpful for their future career development or promotions. Two teachers were teaching English at language schools that belong to Universities (6.7%). The learners’ ages that teachers instructed were between 13- 19 (N= 19, 63.3%) and 12 or younger (N=11, 36.7%).

Table 4 shows that most of the participants (N=23, 76.7%) had bachelor’s degrees. This seems to be obvious since they are pursuing master’s degrees at the graduate school.

Qualification

N

%

Certificate

4

13.0

Diploma

3

6.7

Bachelor’s

23

76.7

Master’s

1

3.3

Total

30

100.0

Table 4. The highest ELT qualifications

4. Data Collection

This research employed the mixed research method (Creswell, 2003), both using questionnaires and interviews, adapted from Borg’s research design (Borg, 2007, 2009). At the end of the course (the first week of June, 2015), a modified TRE questionnaire (Borg, 2009) was distributed to the teachers. The questionnaire had six sections: (1) teachers’ background information, (2) their conceptions of research, (3) reading research, (4) doing research, and (5) research culture. Given the context of writing theses in the graduate school, (6) the teachers’ favorable research types either required by the graduate school or considered at class were added to the questionnaire. All the 30 teachers responded to the questionnaires. Among them, 17 teachers agreed the follow-up interviews. After the initial analysis of the questionnaires was ended, the 17 teachers were contacted to have follow-up interviews and 12 teachers responded. For the convenience of the teachers, either on-line interviews or phone interviews were conducted during one month (11 teachers in e-mail interview and 1 teacher in phone interview). Interview questions consisted of several questions based on the answers of the teachers’ questionnaires. For example, if a teacher answered that scenario 4 was definitely research, the interviewer asked “why did you choose this?” Phone interviews were conducted at night and it took about 30 minutes. The interview was conducted in Korean to elicit teachers’ precise answers. Interview data were then transcribed and then translated into English by the corresponding author.

In order to analyze the data gathered from questionnaires, SPSS 18. 0 was used to discover the descriptive and correlate statistics. These have been represented in tables of frequency and percentage and in bar graphs. Interview data were read, coded, and categorized by the questionnaire section (2) to (6). Through combining quantitative and qualitative data, this study was able to look at both on how many teachers perceived the research as well as why they perceived that way.

IV. Findings

1. Conceptions of Research

With regards to explore the conceptions of research, the 10 scenarios (refer to Appendix) were given to the teachers and they evaluated the degree of research appropriateness by the Likert-like-scale type from the scale of definitely not research to definitely research. The results are as shown in table 5.

Table 5. Teachers’ assessment of 10 scenarios

Scenario

N

Definitely

not research (%)

Probably

not research (%)

Probably research (%)

Definitely research (%)

1

30

4(13.3%)

3(10%)

17(56.7%)

6(20%)

2

30

0

10(33.3%)

19(63.3%)

1(3.3%)

3

30

5(16.7%)

14(46.7%)

11(36.7%)

0

4

30

0

2(6.7%)

5(16.7%)

23(76.7%)

5

30

2(6.7%)

5(16.7%)

15(50.0%)

8(26.7%)

6

30

4(13.3%)

2(6.7%)

14(46.7%)

10(33.3%)

7

30

5(16.7%)

10(33.3%)

10(33.3%)

5(16.7%)

8

30

9(30.0%)

13(43.3%)

7(23.3%)

1(3.3%)

9

30

5(16.7%)

8(26.7%)

11(36.7%)

6(20.0%)

10

30

3(10.0%)

10(33.3%)

14(46.7%)

3(10.0%)

As can be seen in Table 5, the teachers reported that scenario 4 was definitely research, which is consistent with the results of previous research (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013; Kutlay, 2013). Scenario 8 was evaluated as the definitely not research by the most teachers, which is the same results as the previous studies (Borg, 2009; Borg & Alshumaimeri, 2012; Tabatabaei & Nazem, 2013). Through the follow-up interviews, the teachers regarded scenario 4 as research due to its sample size, objective data collection and analysis, and academic publication:

500 teachers responded. A large number of participants. In addition, they used the statistics in analyzing data. It published at academic journal. Definitely research (T2).

Questionnaires for the homogeneous group, objective data collection, and then it was published (T4).

If 500 teachers are involved in this study, it is possible to generalize the results. If it is published, it means that enough studies about previous literature were conducted (T7).

The above interview responses supported that the conception of teachers in this study was in line with the traditional view of scientific research.

To investigate teachers’ conception of research in another way, 11 items characterize the research that were given to be rated by teachers. With respect to the importance of the 11 research characteristics, all the teachers considered that “the research is objective” is “more important” as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Teachers’ views on the importance of 11 research characteristics

Teachers’ views

More important (%)

Less important

(%)

Unsure

(%)

The researcher is objective

100

0

0

The results give teachers ideas they can use

93.3

6.7

0

The results apply to many ELT contexts

86.7

10.0

3.3

A large number of people are studied

83.3

16.7

0

A large volume of information is collected

83.3

3.3

13.3

Hypotheses are tested

7.0

13.3

16.7

Variables are controlled

63.4

10.0

26.7

The results are made public

56.7

20

23.3

Experiments are used

53.3

26.6

20

Information is analyzed statistically

53.3

33.4

13.3

Questionnaires are used

46.7

36.6

16.7

As similar with the previous research (Borg, 2009, 2013), the teachers seem to understand that quantitative research can be of good quality as well. The difference with Borg’s studies (2009, 2013) is that “a large number of samples” and “a large data pool” did not place in the second and third positions. Instead, the practical pedagogical tips placed the second and the third position was occupied with the applications to the diverse teaching contexts. These two items belong to the pedagogical consideration. A teacher in a private institute said that “the findings should be applied to authentic classroom use” (T12), emphasizing the direct usefulness of research in her class. This supports the quantitative data that the teachers conceive of research in terms of pedagogical consideration and application in class.

Overall, the conception of the research perceived by teachers is in accordance with the conventional scientific research (mainly, e.g., quantitative research), adding the opinion of its relatedness with their pedagogical considerations.

2. Reading Research

Teachers’ frequency of reading reported like the following: sometimes (63.3%), rarely (33.3%), often (3.3%). The most commonly reported frequency of reading was sometimes by more than 60%. Borg (2009) discussed that sometimes are somewhat similar to rarely. He proposed the alternative term of occasionally (Borg& Alsumaimeri, 2012). Occasionally is often used euphemistically for rarely (Borg, 2009). Considering the conservative application of teacher’s report, we interpret the levels of teachers’ engagement with research reported here as modest. As like the College English teachers in China (Borg & Yi, 2013), the teachers in the study read articles in the “short intensive periods of reading at certain times in the year in response to a particular need” (p.281) as a course assignment:

I did not read articles previously. But, as I attended graduate school, I had to read articles. I read articles at least once per month for other courses. In this semester, I read 2 or 3 articles a week for the presentation of this course and the preparation for my master’s thesis proposal. After finishing this course, I rarely read articles (T4).

I do read one research article per week to prepare for my MA thesis. Before taking this course, I was rarely exposed to academic research articles. During this course, I read one or two articles a week (T8).

As shown in the above interviews, Korean teachers did not read research on a daily basis unless the assignment was given. Because of the reading sources, 33.3% of the teachers said they read academic journals. It was followed by professional magazines (24.4%), books (22.2%), and web-based sources (17.8%). Unlike Kutlay (2013) where many teachers read web-based sources, the teachers in this study mostly reported reading academic journals. This stems from the requirement of reading academic articles in the graduate school for the course of research design and method in that semester.

The teachers were asked the extent to which the teacher reading research impacted their work. 26.7% said that the influence was fairly strong or strong and 23.3% felt that the influence of reading research on their work was moderate. 23.3 % said that it had a slight influence or nonexistent influence. The mean response was 4.4, out of 5, where 1 = no influence and 5 = strong influence. This is fairly strong. However, considering the conservative application of teachers’ report and the influence of the research course during this semester, this prudently points out an overall strong moderate impact, which is somewhat consistent with the findings of previous studies where reading impacted their teaching as moderate (Borg, 2007, Borg & Yi, 2013) and mostly moderate (Borg, 2009)

The last question on the reading research section was to investigate the teachers’ reasons for not reading research. Table 7 summarized reported reasons for not reading research.

Table 7. Reported reasons for not reading research

Reasons

Frequency (%)

I do not have time

6(42.9%)

I find published research hard

to understand

4(28.6%)

I cannot access to the academic resources

2(14.3%)

The most commonly cited reason was a lack of time in reading research, followed by the difficulty of understanding the published research. The lack of time is the same as with the previous research (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013). Also, the teachers’ perceived lack of time and practical relevance in reading research (Borg, 2009) were discovered in the interview data. In the interviews, a teacher in a private institute said that reading research was not instantly helpful for her classes:

Fundamentally, there is no immediate advantage when I read the articles. What I need in class, I can get through the Internet or the books in the common bookstores. I think that reading research would only be beneficial for me over the long run (T1).

She understood the usefulness of reading research in two temporal dimensions: non-usefulness of in class in a short-term view and usefulness of writing a thesis in a long-term view. Other teachers said the financial burden and the lack of knowledge hindered reading research:

To read the research articles, I have to pay. And even though I can access them, it’s hard to understand the articles because of my lack of background knowledge (T10).

Overall, the teachers in this study moderately read research articles assigned by the course in the graduate school.

3. Doing Research

Section 4 of the questionnaire was concerned with the teachers’ doing research to explore the teachers’ engagement in research. Simply the question of “How frequently do you do research yourself?” was given and the teachers were asked to choose one of four answers (Never, rarely, sometimes, often). 56.7% stated that they conducted research rarely or never, 36.7 % sometimes, and 6.7% often. Thus, a total of 43.4% said that they conducted research at least occasionally, but this could be applied conservatively here and interpreted as moderately, following the previous study (See Borg & Yi, 2013). Table 8 listed the reasons for doing research via a checklist question.

TABLE 8. Reported reasons for doing research

Reasons

Frequency(%)

Professional development

9(23.1%)

Find better ways of teaching

9(23.1%)

Solve my problem

8(20.5%)

Part of course

7(17.9%)

Enjoy

4(10.3%)

The three most commonly cited reasons all have a professional and pedagogical focus, the same as the previous studies (Borg & Yi, 2013; Kutlay, 2013). Academic reasons (“this is a part of course I am studying”) placed the fourth, considering that teachers were taking the research design and method course. The analysis of interview data revealed that the teachers were aware of the necessity of doing research:

Education is a kind of discipline. It needs development. To develop it, research is needed in teaching (T1).

Regardless of the consequences of the research findings, doing research shows that teachers are becoming more interested in the students’ learning. It will eventually lead to class instruction improvement (T4).

The reasons for their low engagement with research are they had “no advisors” (21.4%) and “no time” (21.4%), followed by “don’t know about research (16.7%). The primary reason of “no time” is the same as the previous body of studies (Borg, 2007, 2009, 2013). One female teacher in a public school reported that teachers had a lack of leisure time, not even considering a lack of time for research due to the burdensome administrative work in school, besides teaching: “To do research, it takes a lot of time and you need to collect a lot of data”(T12). The other teacher indicated the lack of teacher-initiated research, because it failed to call for the general agreement from research community:

Teachers do research just because of their simple curiosity in classes. That is a personal one. However, the teacher’s curiosity may not get attention from other people outside of the teaching context. The curiosity may not be in line with the current research. Maybe that is the reason the teachers do not engage in research deeply (T10).

In the above interview, “outside of the teaching context” refers to the research community. The teacher felt that the research community would not be interested in the teachers’ research topics in class. This shows the teacher’s feeling that her investigation has discrepancy in relation to the current trends of the research community. Although the reasons are diverse, it seems to be true that EFL teachers moderately do research in the graduate school.

4. Research Culture

Section 5 of the questionnaire focused on teachers’ views on the extent to which they worked in a research-engage-friendly environment. The questionnaire had originally 5-point scale, with disagree strongly and agree strongly at the extremes. In order to understand the teachers’ responses on research culture in an efficient way, 5-point scale has been collapsed into three categories and they expressed as percentages, in descending order by the levels of agreement.

Table 9. Institutional research culture according to teachers

Statement

Agree

(%)

Don’t know (%)

Disagree

(%)

Teachers do research themselves

33.4

33.3

33.4

The management encourages teachers to do research

30.0

33.3

36.7

Teachers feel that doing research is an important part of their job

33.3

23.3

33.3

Teachers have access to research books and journals

30.0

20.0

50.0

Teachers have opportunities to learn about current research

23.4

16.7

60.0

Teachers talk about research

23.3

13.3

63.3

Teachers are given support to attend ELT conferences

30

13.3

56.7

Time for doing research is built into teachers’ workloads

16.7

10

73.3

Teachers read published research

16.7

20

63.3

The responses here suggest that 30 Korean EFL teachers evaluated their institutional research culture as moderately negative in several respects (See the four most highly rated items, all with more than 60% disagreement). Less than 30% of the teachers agreed that “teachers have opportunities to learn about the current study” and “teachers talk about research.” Only 16.7% agreed that “time for doing research is built into teachers’ workloads” and “teachers read published research.” The lack of official allocation of time for research is in accordance with the previous studies (Borg, 2013; Kutley, 2013). This was also discovered in the teachers’ interviews both at private institutes and public schools:

There is no support for teacher research engagement at my private institute (T1).

I am a public school teacher in Seoul. I can study the courses that I want to take either through on-line or off-line methods, which are financially supported by the Office of Seoul Education. But there is no direct support for teacher research engagement (T7).

I’m working at a private school. The teacher’s main job is to manage the administration rather than teaching and researching for the students. The time to invest on the administrative paper work is more than those for preparation for the class. The time is definitely too little to do research (T9).

The findings are contrasted with the previous study where the institutional research cultures were considered moderately positive in Borg and Alsumaimeri (80% they are expected to research by their employer) and Borg and Yi (60% agreement). This is because the contexts of these two studies were university educators or college English teachers where the research was required in the academic field. However, a teacher in this study noticed a positive movement of teachers doing research in groups in her school: “In public school, a few teachers are engaged in research and they discuss the research” (T7). This shows the possibility for doing research in collaboration.

Overall, the research culture is moderately negative to Korean EFL teachers and this was evidenced both through questionnaires and interviews.

5. The Correlation between Variables

Correlation analyses were conducted in order to discern relationships among the variables of TRE. As shown in table 10 most variables (degree, institution, teaching language in a language school, age of learners) were not significantly and positively correlated to teachers’ frequency of research reading. One variable (age of learners) was strongly correlated to the frequency of reading (p= .009), suggesting that teachers with old learners tend to read research articles more often.

Table 10. Correlations among tested variables

1

2

3

4

5

1. Frequency of reading

1

2. Degree

.100

1

3. Institution

.198

.163

1

4. Language school

.192

.122

.143

1

5. Age of learner

.009**

.138

.441

.349

1

**p< .01 (one-tailed)

The frequency of reading research was analyzed for associations with frequency of doing research using Spearman’s correlation. Statistically there was not a relationship between the reported levels of reading research and doing research (N=30, r= 0.103, p> .01, one-tailed), unlike the previous studies where a significant but weak (Borg, 2007) or moderate relationship (Borg & Yi, 2013) was found.

In addition, this study did not show that the teachers’ frequency of doing research is significantly related with the teachers’ teaching experience (N=30, r = 0.120, p> .01, one-tailed) nor found a significant relationship between doing research and their teaching experiences (N=30, r= 0.143, p> .01, one-tailed). Qualifications seemed not to be distinctive in this study because most participants of this study had bachelor’s degrees. In summing up the correlation between variables in TRE, this study did not show the significant relationship between variables, except the relationship between the age of learners the teachers are mainly instructing and the frequency of reading research.

6. Favorable Research Types

Given the context that the participants in this study has to write MA theses, this study asked them about their favorable research types for the academic requirement (graduation) in the graduate school as well as for the pedagogical considerations in their classroom. Figure 1 shows the discrepancy between the research types in their graduate schools and by their own choices.

Figure 1. Favorable research types either in graduate school or by their own choices

The teachers preferred to conduct experimental study where research were required by the graduate school (N=14, 46.7%) meanwhile they liked to conduct case studies for their own practice (N=18, 60%). The other research type that was mentioned by two teachers was the analysis of children’s books by personal choice. With regards to the discrepancy of their favorable research types, the teachers preferred the case study method in the classroom for their pedagogical benefits in research; however, they chose the experimental study method because of the lack of time and the lack of research culture in the school. They preferred experimental studies to case studies for the reasons that it were easy to collect the data (N=16, 53.3%), followed by the reason of rigorous and systematic (N=7, 23.3%) and their own interest (N= 7, 23.3%). No one answered that they automatically followed their faculty advisor’s will when doing research in the graduate school. The teachers’ preference to experimental study is somewhat in accordance with Kutlay (2013), who indicated that the teachers in Turkey rated experiment studies more than the survey study although they were more exposed to surveys than the experimental studies.

The interviews provided further insight into the teachers’ discrepancies in conducting research between being required by the graduate school and at their own personal choice. The teachers said;

I would pick up the survey study for my master’s thesis because it looked easy to complete and publish my research in a timely manner (T3)

Absolutely, I will conduct quantitative research in any way in graduate school. The data analysis of qualitative research seems to be difficult and burdensome for me (T7).

I’d like to conduct the research on the effect of emergent programs. However, the research topic seems to be beyond my ability, because the time is too short to prepare the writing. The data collection and analysis seem to be difficult (T8).

The case study seems to be interesting as a personal study because we need careful observation and analysis few students in class. In reality, as some of us are pursuing the teacher-licensed certificate in the graduate school of education, the purpose in this school is to get the certificate after graduation so I need to finish my research as soon as possible for graduation. Doing research is not our main purpose [in the graduate school] (T9).

The time limitations to write MA theses and choosing easy research methods were discovered as the teachers’ preference to opt for the quantitative research. Interview data also supported that the some teachers have a tendency to choose the research type that makes them complete the degree at the earliest time to get the teacher-licensed certificate. This is understandable that some of the teachers whose undergraduate major is not English education went to a graduate school of education to get their teacher certificate.

V. Discussion

To answer the research questions of TRE in a Korean context, this study was conducted using a questionnaire and interviews for EFL teachers in graduate school of education. The analysis of the data showed that 30 Korean teachers considered good research as resonant with the characteristics of quantitative research. They read research moderately and did research moderately as they were registering for the course of research designs and methods. Although some teachers answered that they read academic journals regularly, this seems to reflect the teachers’ self-report of reading the academic journals assigned by the professor during this course. The primary barriers were that the teachers were difficult to engage in research because of the lack of time and the negative research cultures in the institutions. Furthermore, they preferred experimental research for theses since it would take less time to finish writing. Based on the findings, two issues are discussed regarding TRE in the Korean EFL context: the teachers’ passive research engagement due to the lack of time in writing a MA thesis and the teachers’ dualistic conception between teaching and researching.

First, the teachers were conflicted between to satisfying their academic requirement and doing research that they wanted to. In reality, they wanted to conduct case studies because it could help teachers to find solutions for their classroom. However, the case study, based on the qualitative research methods, was not easily accessible for them to do research with due to the difficulty of qualitative data collection and analysis and time demands. As this graduate school requires writing the thesis in the fifth semester, there arises “potential tensions between academic requirements and the principles of teacher research” (Borg, 2013, p. 21). The pressure is so intense that teachers cannot help but to opt for the research types that are easier to complete in the required time. In this case, qualitative research, class observations, or discourse analysis requiring a lot of time could not be selected often.

This time limitations in writing MA thesis may cause another serious problem that the teachers may lose an active chance to mediate on their practices through research and connect their reflection on teaching practices by doing research. Writing a MA thesis may be the one and only time for most teachers to engage in research. If they learn how to research during this time, they will become autonomous researchers in the teaching field. In order to do that, the opportunity to make teachers strong “reflective practitioners” (Schön, 1983) should be guaranteed. In this context, the teacher’s moderate engagement in research is not the problem of the lack of time but the problem of passive follower of doing research without considering their pedagogical contexts. The research types are heavily skewed towards the quantitative research types to complete theses need to be reconsidered in order to guarantee the teachers’ active-participatory processes in research in order to document a more localized and context-sensitive class.

Second, the teachers’ moderate engagement seemed to be related with a dualistic conception between teachers and researchers. Borg (2007, 2009) seems to think that discovering and eliminating the barriers to hinder the TRE would enhance TRE. However, Tavakoli (2015) claimed that eliminating the clusters of negative factors in TRE would not help to break down the dualism between research and teaching. According to Tavakoli (2015), the teachers do not engage in research since the teachers do not consider that the research community is the realm to rely on when developing their professionalism. For example, in this study, a teacher said that some teachers came to the graduate school of education to obtain teacher-licensed certificates, not to learn how to do research. For most of the teachers, writing a MA thesis is considered as a passage of rite to step into the teaching community, not research community. To connect research with teaching, Tavakoli (2015) proposed valuing teacher knowledge and experiences through research community and building joint communities for researchers and teachers. As the teachers had a moderately negative research culture at their institutions as shown in this study, a graduate school may be the only place to build joint communities for both of teachers and researchers. In Mexico, degree courses were the only professional development activities Mexican EFL teachers experienced (Roux & Valladares, 2014). In this sense, the balance between academic requirement by graduate school and pedagogical demands by teachers should be taken into account at the graduate school of education for mutual cooperation contributable to each other. For example, teachers report the field experiences and the professors support their experiences by providing theories as suggested at University-school partnerships (Avalos, 2011) or a framework of the SLA-language pedagogy nexus (Ellis, 2010), reciprocity between SLA researchers, classroom researchers, teachers, and teacher educators.

VI. Conclusion

Considering the discussion, the following implications are suggested for the improvement of teacher research engagement in Korean graduate school of education: the allowance of flexible research types in writing MA theses and the innovation for MA degree programs.

First, it is recommended to allow diverse research types when writing a MA thesis. The research types that facilitate professional teacher development would not be necessarily traditional and conventional scientific research. With respect to the MA thesis types, case studies or action studies which might be helpful for the teachers to improve their classes are recommended. In order to do that, the faculty advisors in graduate schools need flexibility in advising the teachers to write theses to fit their teaching context needs. Making the teachers write academic papers to satisfy only the academic standards will lead teachers focus on the research types that can defend their findings easily. As shown from the findings, the teachers in this study acknowledged the good research should have the qualities of the quantitative research method. Only stressing the reliability and the validity through the quantitative research method may give teachers impression that doing research is not their job and that research could be only conducted at the large educational institute like KICE. Trustworthiness should be guaranteed in research but the introduction of professional relevance as one criterion (Bartlett & Burton, 2006) would make the teachers do research more easily. More action research considering localized and detailed school contexts may improve teachers’ engagement of research as well as empower pedagogical benefits.

Moreover, it is imaginable that the MA thesis is not necessarily written by a single author. In line with Borg & Yi (2013), no collaboration between teachers was found in research culture at the Korean graduate school because the thesis must have a single author to meet the requirement for graduation. If the teachers share similar topics through discussions or seminars, it would be more productive and sustainable for them to do research in collaboration. Collaborative inquiry (Halsall, 1998) or collaborative action research (Burns, 1999) by two teachers or at the most three teachers would enhance the quality of thesis. In addition, the faculty advisor would save time in supervising the thesis by instructing a group of teachers together.

Finally, the graduate school of education needs to be reformed as the place for teachers to do a research-oriented Master’s degree program (Tavakoli, 2015) or a non-traditional Master’s program (LePage, Boudreau, Maier, Robinson, & Cox, 2001). A research-oriented Master’s program (Tavakoli, 2015) includes stronger research components in teacher education. For example, the diverse courses of research designs and research practicum should be added into the graduate school program to help the teachers conduct research in more creative and coherent ways. This makes sense in that the graduate school needs to introduce diverse research method courses for the facilitation of the TRE as “advice on the pedagogy of teaching research methods is scarce” (Borg, 2013, p.205). The introduction of diverse teacher-initiate research courses may broaden teachers’ eyes to conduct research in an autonomous way at their classrooms. Also, in order to elicit teachers’ active participation in research, non-traditional Master’s program (LePage et al. 2001) offered at a US University could be referenced. This program, at the first year, had a philosophical and moral component in the curriculum with an emphasis on confronting issues in the teaching field. In the second year of the study, teachers worked in teams with a professor in the development of a research project. LePage et al. (2001) found that teachers were increasingly urged to take on tasks such as research in classrooms in this non-traditional Master’s program.

This study has its limitations because the research context of the academic requirement of writing theses is not generalizable to other graduate schools of education. A few of the graduate schools have the alternative options to take credit hours, instead of writing a MA thesis. In addition, this study shares the same limitations of the previous studies (Borg, 2013) that had since the findings are based on the self-report from the teachers.

Nevertheless, this study has provided important information regarding Korean EFL teachers who have to do research to write theses in a graduate school. More studies are seen to be in needed like the following: First, considering the moderately negative research culture at the institutions, Korean managers’ (principles and vice-principles in public schools) perceptions on TRE is needed. The managers positively perceived TRE in other countries in the body of previous studies (Borg, 2013) yet Korean managers’ perceptions were not covered by these studies. Secondly, given the powerful role of Korea parents’ on Korean education, the studies of Korean parents’ perceptions on TRE are needed. It remains unknown whether Korean parents look positively or negatively on TRE relating with their active participation in the educational policy. Finally, the study of faculty advisors’ (professors’) perspectives in guiding TRE are needed in the graduate schools of education. In this way, the research on TRE will contribute to the teacher professional development by creating a research-friendly culture in their institutions, building community support, and gaining professional research knowledge.

References

Ahn, K.-J. (2015). An overview of English teacher education in South Korea. Paper presented at the 2015 International Conference of the Korea Association of Teachers of English, Seoul, Korea.

Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113-142.

Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 353-366.

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10-20.

Bartlett, S., & Burton, D. (2006). Practitioner research or descriptions of classroom practice: A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms. Educational Action Research, 14(3), 395-405.

Borg, S. (2007). Research engagement in English language teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 731-747.

Borg. S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 358-388.

Borg, S. (2010). Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching, 43, 391-429.

Borg, S. (2013). Teacher research in language teaching: A critical analysis. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.

Borg, S., & Alshumaimeri, Y. (2012). University teacher educators’ research engagement: Perspectives from Saudi Arabia, Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 347-356.

Borg, S., & Liu. (2013). Chinese college English teachers’ research engagement. TESOL Quarterly, 47(2), 270-299.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: The Falmer Press.

Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nded.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education, and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(2), 182-201.

Halsall, R. (Ed.). (1998). Teacher research and school improvement: Opening doors from the inside. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Kutlay, N. (2013). A survey of English language learners’ views of research. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 188-206.

LePage, P., Boudreau, S., Maier, S., Robinson, J., & Cox, H. (2001). Exploring the complexities of the relationship between K-12 and college faculty in a non-traditional professional development program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 195-211.

Nassaji, H. (2012). The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspective. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 337-365.

Roux, R., & Valladares, J. L. M. (2014). Professional development of Mexican secondary EFL teachers: Views and willingness to engage in classroom research. English Language Teaching, 7(9), 21-27.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Tabatabaei, O., & Nazem, Y. (2013). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(3), 521-532.

Tavakoli, P. (2015). Connecting research and practice in TESOL: A community of practice perspective. RELC, 46(1), 37-52.

Tavakoli, P., & Howard, M. J. (2012). TESOL teachers’ views on the relationship between research and practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 229-243.

Tooley, J., & Darby, D. (1998). Educational research: A critique. London: OFSTED Publications.

Wallace, M. (1997). Action research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix

Questionnaire: The 10 scenarios (From Borg, 2009, 2011, 2013)

The purpose of this section is to elicit your views on the kinds of activities which can be called educational research. There are no right or wrong answers.

Read each description below and tick one answer to say to what extent you feel the activity described is an example of research.

1. A teacher noticed that an activity she used in class did not work well. She thought about this after the lesson and made some notes in her diary. She tried something different in her next lesson. This time the activity was more successful.

Definitely not research □ Probably not research □

Probably research □ Definitely not research □

(This scale was repeated after each statement below but is not repeated here for the interest of space)

2. A teacher read about a new approach to teaching writing and decided to try it out in his class over a period of two weeks. He video recorded some of his lessons and collected samples of learners’ written work. He analyzed this information then presented the results to his colleagues at a staff meeting.

3. A teacher was doing an MA course. She read several books and articles about grammar teaching and then wrote an essay of 6,000 words in which she discussed the main points in those readings.

4. A university lecturer gave a questionnaire about the use of computers in language teaching to 500 teachers. Statistics were used to analyze the questionnaires. The lecturer wrote an article about the work in an academic journal.

5. Two teachers were both interested in discipline. They observed each other’s lessons once a week for three months and made notes about how they controlled their classes. They discussed their notes and wrote a short article about what they learned for the newsletter of the national language teachers’ association.

6. To find out which of two methods for teaching vocabulary was more effective, a teacher first tested two classes. Then for four weeks she taught vocabulary to each class using a different method. After that she tested both groups again and compared the results to the first test. She decided to use the method which worked best in her own teaching.

7. A headmaster met every teacher individually and asked them about their working conditions. The hade made notes about the teachers’ answers. He used his notes to write a report which he submitted to the Ministry of Education.

8. Mid-way through a course, a teacher gave a class of 30 students a feedback form. The next day, five students handed in their completed forms. The teacher read these and used the information to decide what to do in the second part of the course.

9. A teacher trainer asked his trainees to write an essay about ways of motivating teenage learners of English. After reading the assignments the trainer decided to write an article on the trainees’ ideas about motivation. He submitted his article to a professional journal.

10. The Head of the English department wanted to know what teachers thought of the new course book. She gave all teachers a questionnaire to complete, studied their responses, and then presented the results at a staff meeting.

김정인 (2017). 한국 영어선생님들의 연구 참여의 정도와 연구에 대한 개념 조사, 외국어교육연구, 31(1), 1-34

이 연구의 목적은 한국 영어선생님들 연구 참여 정도를 알아보고자 한다. Borg (2009, 2013)의 연구 설계를 차용하여, 30명의 대학원 재학 중인 영어 선생님들에게 설문과 인터뷰를 실시 하였다. 그 결과 선생님들은 “중간정도의” 횟수로 연구에 참여 (연구에 대해 읽고, 연구를 직접 하는 것) 하고 있었고 그 이유는 특별히 이 연구에 참여한 선생님들이 졸업을 하기 위해 논문을 써야 하며 이를 위해 연구 설계 수업을 듣고 있었기 때문이었다. 참여 선생님들은 자신의 논문을 위해서는 시간적 제약 때문에 실험연구를 하고자 하지만, 선생님들이 하고자 하는 이상적인 연구는 자신의 수업 개선을 위해 질적 연구를 하고 싶어 하는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 선생님들의 답변을 바탕으로 선생님들의 연구 참여를 독려 할 수 있는 정책과 연구가 필요함을 시사하고자 한다.

Key words: Teacher research engagement, Teacher education

/ 교사 연구 참여, 교사교육

Examples in: English

Applicable Languages: English

Applicable Levels: University

Kim, Jung In

Professor

Dept. of General Education, Seoul Theological Univeristy

101 Sosabon 3-dong, Sosa-gu,Bucheon-City, Kyonggi-do, Korea 422-742

TEL: (032) 340-9574

E-MAIL: bandaleye16@stu.ac.kr

received in January 9, 2017

revised version received in February 1, 2017

revised version accepted in February 4, 2017