Chapter 1 Introduction

It has been more than a decade since Korea started teaching English

language in elementary schools as a national curriculum. In the past 10 years,

there has been substantial support from the government on English education

for public schools. For instance, many cities (Ansan, Kwangmyeong, Paju,

Yangpyeong cities, etc) have an English Village. Likewise, many schools

have their own English laboratories, in which many authentic materials are

provided.

Moreover, the government provides English subject teachers with

many Intensive In-service English Teacher Training Programmes (IIETTP)

in which they can learn teaching methods, general English conversation,

material development for English education, and sometimes they have a

chance to study abroad as an in-service education. (Lee, 2006) According to

the reports of the Korean Ministry of Education, most of English subject

teachers have had a chance to participate in one or more of these IIETTPs;

taking on an important role of IIETTP in Korean English education.

However, the government authorities reconsidered their decision about its

implementation due to the reported unsuccessful results of these

programmes. Many researched the ineffectiveness of these programmes.

Park (2004) claimed that these programmes should be strengthened for

empowering teachers with the teaching skills that can be applied usefully in

their own teaching context. That is, many of these programmes do not

provide teachers with English Language Teaching (ELT) methods that can be

used in our own teaching settings.

Apart from many unsuccessful reports about IIETTP, many unsatisfied

responses about the English curriculum for primary schools has been

1

reported for more than 10 years since English began being taught in Korea as

a national curriculum in 1997 (Kim, 1997; Kim, 1998, Park, 2003; Kim,

2007; Kang, 2007). In particular, Kim (2004) examined the Seventh National

Elementary English Curriculum on the basis of teachers’ and supervisors’

perceptions. The results of his study reveal that the Seventh National

Elementary English Curriculum should be revised in some respects. He

suggested sending specialty teachers of the English language all over the

country. In other words, he recommended that level-based materials of

written language be given to teachers, and performance assessment be

reinforced in the Korean context. Kang (2007) also reported how much

primary school children dislike the current English curriculum due to the

English text materials that lack in cognitively challenging topics and

activities. In her study, similar to many others’ (Kim, 1997; Kim, 1998, Park,

2003; Kim, 2007; Kang, 2007), it is reported that learners’ negative

perceptions of English curriculum have changed after implementing CBI.

In this sense, recently, Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is coming up

as a new wave for English education in South Korea. A few local educational

offices are preparing this new wave in English education for consumers’

needs. In fact, many private institutes already started implementing CBI

programmes. According to Brinton, Snow, and Wesche (1989), a recent surge

of research and material on CBI has given us new opportunities and

challenges. However, as is reported in Kang’s (2007) study, many teachers

neither understand what CBI is nor do they, even after being taught, perceive

that they are ready to accept this new method due to lack English language

skills by both learners’ and themselves. Looking at Park’s research (2004),

some suggestions are provided for a practical introduction of CBI education

in the areas of a pre-or in-service teacher training system, governmental

2

assistance, and other practical issues; deciding the starting grade and subjects

for immersion, for example. Considering the recent mood of English

education, teachers seem to accept CBI as a new teaching method of English

education. However, it has not yet been shown that CBI has been well guided

and introduced in the IIETTPs sufficiently enough for it to be implemented

in the Korean public primary school setting.

This study, therefore, has two foci. One is to look at English teachers’

perceptions on CBI in terms of its practicability and ways for implementing

this instruction in Korean primary school English lessons. The second is to

seek some suggestions that can be included in CBI focused IIETTPs for

elementary school teachers at Gyeonggi province in Korea.

3

Chapter 2 Literature review

2.1 Content-Based Instruction (CBI)

Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is an approach to teach a second

language integrated in the learning of content. The rationale underlying

CBI is that a ‘second language is learned most effectively when it is

used as the medium to convey informational contents that are interesting

and relevant to the learners’ (Brinton, Snow & Wesche, 1989, p.vii).

CBI uses the content, learning objectives, and activities from the school

curriculum as the vehicle for teaching language skills, and it has been

shown to result in enhanced motivation, self-confidence, language

proficiency, and cultural literacy. (Leaver & Stryker, 1989)

The content rich environment provides optimal conditions for

students to acquire language since language is being continually

recycled throughout the unit and students are given multiple

opportunities to use the new language they acquire as they read discuss,

and write about the topic. (Brinton 2003, as cited in Nunan, ed. 2003)

Then, it is said that language takes on its appropriate role as a vehicle

for accomplishing a set of content goals. The special contribution of CBI

is that it integrates the learning of language with the learning of other

content, often academic subject matter. Larsen-Freeman (2000) observed

that when students study academic subjects in a non-native language,

they need a great deal of assistance in understanding subject matter text;

therefore, there must be clear language objectives as well as content

learning objectives.

4

2.1.1 CBI Models

CBI has started in Canada as a successful second language immersion

programme. There are two different models of emersion; the adjunct and

sheltered language instruction, which were referred by Snow (1989).

The adjunct model is that content and language instruction have been

integrated. In the adjunct model, students enroll in a regular academic

course; in addition, they take a language course that is connected with

the academic course. Then, during the language class, the language

teacher’s focus is on helping students process the language in order to

understand the academic content presented by the subject teacher. The

language teacher also helps students to complete academic tasks such as

writing term papers, improving their note-taking abilities, and reading

academic textbooks assigned by the content teacher.

In sheltered-language instruction in a second language

environment, a second model of content-based instruction has been used.

Both native speakers and non-native speakers of a particular language

follow a regular academic curriculum. For classes with non-native

speakers, however, ‘sheltered’ instruction is geared to students’

developing second language proficiency. Sheltered-language instructors

support their students through the use of particular instructional

techniques and materials. It offers the significant advantage that second

language students do not have to postpone their academic study until

their language control reaches a high level. It follows that students are

often highly motivated because they are learning content that is relevant

to the academic requirements of the programmes in which they are

enrolled.

To sum up, what all models of CBI have in common is learning

5

both specific content and related language skills.

2.1.2 Positive Views of CBI

In theory, integrated English and content instruction has many benefits.

First, language acquisition is based on input that is meaningful and

understandable to the learner. Such integration increases students’

interests with content and therefore it also provides a meaningful basis

for understanding and acquiring new language structures and patterns

(Genesee, 1994; Krashen, 1989; Snow, 1989; Taylor, 1983). Brinton,

Snow, and Wesche (1989), in CBI, language takes on its appropriate role

as a vehicle for a accomplishing a set of content goals. They researched

that content-based classrooms may yield an increase in intrinsic

motivation and empowerment, since CBI class focuses on subject matter

that is important to their lives. Students are working with content that is

interesting and relevant, they forget that they are learning a language

and acquisition occurs in an almost incidental fashion.

Second, language cognition and social skills develop concurrently

among young learners. Language is a crucial medium that social and

cognitive development proceeds (Genesee, 1994). By learning core

subjects in English, learners can obtain core concepts and develop social

skills. As shown in Snow, and Wesche’s (1989) study, students are

pointed beyond transient extrinsic factors, like grades and tests, to their

own competence and autonomy as intelligent individuals capable of

actually doing something with their new language.

Third, the integration of English and content instruction

emphasizes the specificity of functional language use (Genesee, 1994).

In other words, ‘In content-based language teaching, the claim in a sense

6

is that students get “two for one”-both content knowledge and increased

language proficiency’ (Wesche 1993).

To sum up, unlike more traditional approaches to language

teaching which are based around the presentation and practice of

grammatical forms and lexis in decontextualized environments, CBI is

an effective method of combining meaningful, cognitively demanding

language and content learning within the context of authentic materials

and tasks.

2.2. Language Learning in Immersion

The term of “immersion” was introduced by Baker (2001) in language

learning programme for soldiers, who were sent for World War Ⅱ, but

today, it is called bilingual education. The first immersion program was

for children being taught French in Canada at St.Lambert (Genesee,

1987; Johnson & Swain, 1997).

There are four different models suggested in J. R. Kim (2003):

Content-based, Theme-based, Experiential-based and Task-based. The

Content-based model is to teach other content courses completely in a

target language. According to Genesee (1987), immersion programme

was categorized by early immersion model, delayed immersion model

and late immersion model according to when the immersion programme

is started. In addition, it was categorized by partial or total immersion

according to how much target language is required to be used. Early

immersion means that learners start to learn the target language in an

early stage when they are around 7, but the delayed one is started from

around age 12. In the first stage, they might learn contents balancing L1

and the target language, but the target language would be used more than

7

the L1 as time goes by. Another category, partial and total immersion, is

that of teaching all subjects in the target language, but only teaching a

few subjects like math or science is partial immersion. In an immersion

programme CBI serves as either a component of a curriculum or as the

organizational framework for an entire curriculum. There are variables

in immersion programmes as to the amount of time each day spent in the

second language as the usual curriculum activities are conducted. In

total immersion programmes the second language is used for the entire

school day during the first two or three years of the programme.

The Theme-based model is to teach the target language using

themes and topics in other subjects. Using this model one is able to

integrate more than one subject under an integrated theme in the target

language. Experiential model is to provide learning opportunities to all

types of learners by devising different activities fitting different types of

learners: imaginative, analytic, common sense and dynamic. The place

for target language is in running the classes and activities in the target

language.

Due to Canada’s successful story, Immersion education spread out

all over the world in ESL and EFL countries, such as Finland, Hungry,

Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. (Bjorklund, 1997; Bostwick, 2001;

deCourcy, 1997; Eng, Gan & Sharpe, 1997; Johnson, 1997; Nuttall &

Langhan, 1997; Rhodes, Christian, & Barfield, 1997; Slaughter, 1997).

A number of studies have shown that content-based instruction

accelerates students’ progress through the ESL sequence by enabling

these students to attain higher pass rates on institutional reading and

writing assessments (Babbitt & Mlynarczyk, 1999; Kasper, 1994; 1997).

It has been long known that a second language can be effectively learned

8

when it is the medium of instruction, not the object (Lambert & Tucker,

1972; Campbell, Gray, Rhodes & Snow, 1985).

Scott Michael (2006) researched an English immersion class in an

elementary school in China. He highlights the need for additional

research in China to develop a more culturally complete model of

language immersion, and for continued strengthening of current teacher

training mechanisms. It also recommends ways for national policy to

strongly support English language development in China.

Therefore, an immersion programme is an approach to the

teaching of language in which students are taught their regular school

subjects such as science, history, and math through the target language

that is the medium of instruction rather than the object of instruction. In

these instructional contexts, teaching contents, which are normally

taught to first language students, are taught to students in their second

language. Intensive exposure to the target language through natural

communication with a native speaker was considered essential.

2.3 The Study on CBI in South Korea (Immersion education)

In Korea, there are many immersion programmes for private elementary

school students, such as Young-hoon, Mae-hwa, and I-hwa private

elementary school. Looking at those schools’ research results, there are

many positive outcomes in terms of improving learners’ communicative

skills, giving more comprehensible input, and exposing the target

language environments. (Park, 2004)

Regarding this state of affairs, Han (2008) researched whether

immersion education is truly appropriate for Korean public education,

and its prerequisite in case of its adoption focusing on the role of

9

teachers and students from the analysis of interviews from parents,

teachers, and students who were interested in English education.

According to Han’s (2008) result, current immersion education relies

heavily on the extra-curricular English classes taken at private language

institutes and that immersion education was not feasible in its truism at

such public schools where the students do not take extra classes outside

school. Therefore, the study of Han (2008) concluded that the

government should establish relevant policies that would empower the

public schools and the teachers to incorporate immersion teaching into

their regular curricular. The study reports what and how to prepare for

immersion education as teachers, parents, students, and a government.

Relating to the study, certain policies like in-service teacher training are

needed for teachers preparing for the implementation of immersion

education.

While the effects of immersion education are still debatable, the

Ministry of Education, Sciences, and Technology (MEST) is preparing

to adopt immersion education, CBI in English, in the newly delegated

free-trade region and Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

Yoo (2007) studied the implementation of immersion class in

Korea through researching many studies. She researched the effect of

immersion education in terms of improving language proficiency on

both the mother tongue and English developing students’ cognitive level

by understanding contents. According to Yoo (2007), the students who

were in immersion class got higher scores both in language performance

and on the final test than the students who were in regular class. She

claimed that bilingual circumstance challenges learners more in terms of

improving their language as well as developing cognitive level by

10

stimulating the needs of learning in the brain. As reported in the result of

Yoo (2007), immersion education brought many positive results for

students; therefore, to achieve these goals, teachers had better accept it

and be well-prepared through an in-service teacher training course.

Keenan (2004) found that English language learners seem to

struggle less with learning science content than they do with other

content areas. She believes that science is a non-threatening way for

students learning English. Students share their experience and

knowledge of the world around them without feeling that they have the

‘wrong’ answer to a teacher-prompted question. Moreover, science

inquiry facilitates language development.

Kessler and Quinn (1998) cited the advantages of using science in

CBI class. First, it provides a source of meaningful and relevant

language input, using hands-on materials and texts with extra linguistic

devices (diagrams, charts, and pictures) to clarify meaning. Second,

children’s tendency toward natural curiosity will give positive affective

conditions for high motivation and low anxiety. Third, it gives extensive

opportunities for small group interactions in which students negotiate

meanings and receive comprehensible language input. Fourth, it

provides opportunities for heterogeneous grouping with the role of peer

tutor will alternate among students. Fifth, students will have experience

with a wide range of language functions as well as extensive vocabulary

development needed for school success. Sixth, the integrating of all-

listening, reading, speaking, and writing- modalities of language use.

Seventh, the use of prior cultural and educational experiences will

develop new concepts. Eight, literacy-related tasks will develop

cognitive and academic language proficiency. Ninth, as a language

11

acquisition perspective, science gives a rich context for genuine

language use. Science can serve as a focal point around which oral

language and literacy in ESL can develop.

Jung (2001) examined that students’ language achievement in both

immersion and non-immersion classes in Korea. The study was focused

on English reading proficiency. The result of Jung’s (2001) study was

that the immersion students scored higher than the non-immersion

children, with moderately higher scores in Vocabulary and Reading for

information. The non-immersion students got higher gains on the

Mechanics and Usage sub-test than did their English dominant peers.

However, both immersion and non-immersion children scored much

higher in post-tests than in pre-tests.

Kim (2007) reported that functional subjects are more effective

for integration than other content subjects, though science and math are

reported as the most frequently cited subjects. The most popular grade

for integration was found to be fourth graders. This is probably due to

the balance of English and content complexity. Also, the study found

that the model of integration has gradually expanded over to experiential

models and task-based models from a predominantly content-based

model.

To sum up, numerous studies on immersion education in Korea

have been researched in preparing for the implementation of CBI; in

this, adopting CBI is still debatable by reporting its limitations and

positive results.

2.4. In-service Education for Language Teachers

12

In-service education can be referred to as continuing education,

professional development, and staff development. In particular,

according to Orlich (1987), in-service education should focus on; using

the contents immediately, expanding teaching experiences, focusing on

teachers as participants, and managing it systematically considering its

objectives, participants, place, and financial affairs.

Cogan (1975) claimed that in-service education is defined as a

school dominated programme in a contained group where the teacher

can expand his/her teaching experiences after he/she receives a teaching

degree.

Smith (1975), in-service education is the educational activities

which are based on getting a teacher’s degree, material development,

developing teaching techniques, and continued professional

development as a teacher.

A general description of in-service education according to Hass

(1957), lists the guiding factors that will determine the needs for in-

service education of the total professional staff;1. The continuing cultural and social changes which create a need for curriculum change.2. Pre-service education cannot adequately prepare members of the public school professional staff for their responsibilities.3. Increase in pupil enrollment.4. The present and continuing increase in the number of teachers and the shortage of adequately prepared teachers5. The present and continuing need for improved school leaders (p13)

There are many models for in-service programmes in foreign language

learning education so far. First, 1) teachers acquire teaching skills by

imitating, this is the behavioristic model, 2) an approach based on

communication between teachers, which is called the personalistic

model, 3) lecture-centered by a popular teacher is the traditional craft, 4)

13

developing their teaching skills in solving the problem by themselves is

the inquiry model, 5) more focus on practical based theory is the applied

science model, 6) developing their teaching ability as an expert by

reflecting on their teaching experiences is the reflective model. (Roberts

1998:118 cited on Choi 2003). Therefore, when we design an in-service

programme for language teachers, we should consider what kinds of

models are appropriate for their current needs or their teaching

environments.

According to Lange (1990), a teacher as an expert should have

‘craft of teaching’ and ‘art of teaching’. ‘Craft of teaching’ refers to

information about objectives, rationale of teaching method and

technique, and the theoretical background of teaching. Rather, ‘art of

teaching’ are specific teaching techniques that teachers have. Namely, it

reflects the teachers’ own experiences from which he or she has been

teaching so far. Therefore, Lange (1990) suggested that in-service

teacher training should help teachers develop ‘craft of teaching’ and ‘art

of teaching.’

Laurent (2006) revealed that learning CBI for foreign language

teachers in a traditional instructional setting is an experience which

engages teachers in a continuous struggle to explore, rearrange, and

sometimes reformat their preconceived notions about language teaching

and learning. As the findings suggest, learning CBI is an experience

whose complexity goes well beyond what has been portrayed in the

recent research literature: it calls for exploration of one’s own teaching

identity and challenges one’s vision of what teaching and learning

foreign languages ought to be. In addition, Laurent (op.cit) revealed the

need for professional development programmes to create safe

14

environments that could allow teachers to explore, reflect, and

experiment freely.

2.5 English In-service Course for Public Elementary School

Teachers in Korea

In Korea, there has been a great deal of research done on in-service

programmes for language teachers, but most of the research focused on

improving teachers’ language skills. According to Wallace (1992),

language teachers should reflect their teaching based on the theories,

and then they should apply their considerations practically being

concerned with use of language in discourse. The Japanese in-service

programme for Korean teachers was satisfied with the above Wallace

conditions. It consisted of theoretical issues, considering teachers’

needs, dealing with various methods or techniques in language teaching

(Choi, 2003). These reflections give us a model of how an in-service

syllabus can be designed for language teachers.

Kim (1993) emphasized the need for general conversation, micro

teaching in practicum, and teaching methods in an intensive course for

language teachers developed through a survey of the participants in an

English intensive course for elementary school teachers.

Koh (1996, 1997) interviewed elementary school teachers, then

suggested that English conversation, English literature, practicum (micro

teaching), and materials are needed for English in-service course for

elementary school teachers.

Kim (2001) claimed that in-service teacher training should first

address the knowledge and basic skills that are needed for teaching

language and follow with letting teachers develop their own teaching

15

technique as well as teaching philosophy. He believed that when

designing a curriculum for in-service teacher training, there are some

considerations: first, do not expect immediate change from the teachers

who participate in teacher training course. Due to their traditional

experiences from their teaching, they would not easily change; therefore,

in-service course curriculum would go on step by step regarding the

procedure of development. Second, the curriculum of in-service teacher

training should be designed on authentic contents which help their

teaching in the real classroom. Third, focus on how to teach rather than

on what to teach; let them recognize their teaching experiences.

2.6. The Objective of the Study

The main purpose of the study is to investigate the following questions;

1. Teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of using CBI in Korean

primary school settings. – “How do teachers perceive CBI to be

applied best in Korean elementary schools based on their perception

of CBI?” and “How much do it differ from before and after they had

taken an in-service programme?”

2. Teachers’ suggestions about the effectiveness of a CBI targeted

IIETTP in understanding the effect CBI on English language

teaching. – “What are their suggestions for CBI IIETTP after they

had taken the course?”

Chapter 3 Methodology

16

3.1 Overview

This study employed multiple data sources including interviews,

observations, and surveys, to reveal what elementary school teachers want

from a CBI (Content-Based Instruction) IIETTP. All data was gathered for a

CBI teacher training course on math and science for public elementary

school teachers in GIFLE (Gyeonggi-do Institute for Foreign Language

Education). The teacher training course was held from Dec. 8 th to Dec 19th in

2008 (10 days, 62 hrs), and was sponsored by the Gyeonggi Education

Office. The title of this course was officially “CBI In-service Course for

Public Elementary School Teachers for Teaching Advanced Students of Math

and Science.” Therefore, the participants were divided into two classes, math

and science, according to their interests, but they had to cover both subjects

regardless of their preferences. This was due to the fact that elementary

school teachers often need to teach all subjects as homeroom teachers.

Surveys were given twice, before and after the course. Interviews and

classroom observations were done while trainees were participating or after

finishing the course. Following the CBI survey, classroom observations and

interviews were conducted repeatedly in each part.

Table 3.1 Overview of the StudyDescription

Course CBI IIETTP on math and science for advanced students in elementary school

Period From Dec. 8th to Dec 19th in 2008 (10 days, 62 hrs)

Place GIFLE (Geonggi-do Institute for Foreign Language Education)

Method Pre and post surveys, Interviews and Classroom observations

Table 3.2 The Timetable of CBI IIETTPCourse Time(H) Instructor

General conversation 26 NT

17

Practicum 24 KTSpecial lecture/ activity 6 Special guest speakerEvaluation(including terminology) 4 KT/NTReflection/survey 2 SupervisorTotal 62

3.2 Research Questions

1. Teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of using CBI in Korean

primary school settings. – “How do teachers perceive CBI to be applied

best in Korean elementary schools based on their perception on CBI?”

and “How much do they differ from before and after they had taken the

in-service programme?”

2. Teachers’ suggestions about the effectiveness of a CBI targeted IIETTP

in understanding the effect CBI on English language teaching. – “What

are their suggestions for CBI IIETTP after they had taken the course?”

3.3 Variables of the Study

This course was originally planned for “immersion education teacher

training course on teaching math and science for public primary school

students.” However, as the GIFLE chief supervisor was changing in

November 2008, only one month before it began, the title of the course

changed to “CBI Teacher Training on Math and Science for Advanced

Students in Elementary School.” The reason for that is that teachers and

parents’ organizations were officially working against “immersion

education.” Because of this, there was difficulty in researching the study.

Those participating in the course had first applied for CBI training on

18

teaching math and science to general students focusing on language.

However after changing the course title, many of participants were more

interested in teaching advanced students focused on contents of math and

science rather than teaching language.

3.4 Participants

3.4.1 Trainee Participants

There were 36 public elementary school teachers who voluntarily

participated in the CBI IIETTP. They were working at different cities in

Gyeonggi province as homeroom teachers, English teachers, and subject

teachers. Each math and science class had 18 participants. Out of 36

teachers, 14 were teaching English for children as a subject teacher. On the

other hand, 22 teachers were homeroom teachers in 1st thru 6th grade

classrooms. Thirteen participants were male. Originally, 40 participants were

expected to participate, but a few trainees dropped out of the course.

As a result, 36 trainees took the course. Among these 32 teachers

emailed the researcher and 1 teacher answered the pre-survey in advance

during the second week of the course for. For the post-survey, 33 teachers

took part at the farewell ceremony on December 19th. Among them, they

majored in other subjects rather than English education, math or science

education. More than 12 people had master or doctor degrees from graduate

school. The participant teachers had been teaching for about ten years. Many

of the subject teachers had been teaching 5th and 6th graders, while most of

the homeroom teachers were from 3rd and 4th grade classrooms. They had

large classes of about 40 students who had been studying English for one to

less than two years. Mostly they had a good grasp of English conversation.

The participants lived together in a dormitory throughout the course (10

19

days), so they had ample time to discuss or exchange their opinions about

CBI.

3.4.2 Trainer Participants

There were two types of trainers in this course: Native teachers (NT) and

Korean teachers (KT). There were six NT instructors who taught general

conversation and simple terminology about Math and Science, while the nine

KT instructors mostly focused on the practicum, such as what and how to

teach math and science based on CBI. All NTs were hired by GIFLE, but

KTs were volunteers in the Gyeonggi immersion association. For both, it was

the first opportunity in dealing with CBI for elementary school teachers. The

NTs and KTs met separately on three occasions to prepare for this

programme, but had no opportunity to meet together. The researcher was one

of the KT instructors who were teaching the practicum.

Table 3.3 The Survey Participants of the StudyParticipants People MethodTrainee 36 teachers Pre and Post surveysTrainer 6 NTs/8 KTs Pre and Post interviews

3.5 Programme

All programmes were designed based on the results of pre-survey of

participants, which balanced theoretical and practical use of CBI. In addition,

it followed Lange’s (1990) division, ‘a craft of teaching and art of teaching’.

According to Lange (1990), craft of teaching refers to what a teacher knows

about theoretical background. On the other hand, the art of teaching is all of

the teaching skills based on the teacher’s experiences and personal

background knowledge. Therefore, it is most important to balance theoretical

and practical data when designing a teacher training programme.

20

The participants lived in the dormitory during this training, therefore,

they had opportunities to discuss and exchange their opinions for preparing

their microteaching. They took general conversation classes with native

teachers during the first week, and they received specific subject classes like

math or science with Korean teachers during the last seven days. The whole

programme was planned for 62 hours including the evaluation. The

evaluation consisted of three parts: terminology test, micro-teaching, and

observation by trainer. In the practicum, as shown in table 3.4 [Appendix D],

there were eight classes of both math and science pertaining to different

areas of content; number sense, measurement, probability and statistics, life

science, energy, materials, and earth science. The programs were called

“Math in English” and “Science in English.” [Appendix E] There was also a

“music in English” class which was to improve trainee motivation and

reduce filters in order to promote active participation.

Table 3.4 Practicum programme in CBI IIETTP for elementary school teachers Course Time(H) Contents

Math in English (Number sense) 5 Area descriptionsClassroom EnglishLesson plans WorksheetsCheck up worksheets

Math in English (Probability&Statistics) 5Math in English (Measurement) 2.5Science in English (Life science) 2Science in English (Energy) 2.5Science in English (Earth science) 3Science in English (Materials) 3Music in English 1Total 24

All practicum course programmes followed a certain procedure: a

description of each field, a contrast and comparison of curriculum between

Korea and the United States, and basic classroom terms and expressions in

English based on the content. Lastly, a lesson plan was presented with

21

worksheets. All materials were presented in English, even the check-up

worksheets.

3.6 Instruments

3.6.1 Trainee Pre-Questionnaire

3.6.1.1 Validity and Reliability of Trainee pre-Questionnaire

The trainee pre-questionnaire survey [Appendix A] was adapted for this

study from Kim (2006). The work of An (2002) was used to examine how

elementary school teachers perceived the English in-service training course

and how they accepted CBELT (Content-Based English Language Teaching)

in integrated teaching contents and English. In addition, Kang (2007) did a

survey examining how much elementary school teachers and students are

satisfied with SBLT (Subject-Based Language Teaching) curriculum,

followed by a look at the difference of the pre and post survey. The adapted

survey consisted of 2 parts, basic data, and teachers’ perceptions. Subjects

were given 16 multiple choice questions and one open question. In order to

understand complexities of the context, the survey data were integrated with

other data from interviews and observations. Following the analysis, the

researcher designed the curriculum by having meetings with Korean

instructors and the supervisor.

3.6.2 Trainee Post-Questionnaire

3.6.2.1 Validity and Reliability of Trainee post-Questionnaire

Trainee post survey [Appendix B] was adapted for this study from the

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) in 2006. It was

administered to all elementary school teachers who had ever experienced an 22

English teacher training programme in 2006 to show the effect of the English

teacher training course. The post-survey was given after the course, at a

farewell ceremony to 33 out of 36 participants. Its purpose was to examine

the teachers’ reflections of CBI, as well as to analyze the differences in the

results between the pre-survey and the post survey. The survey mostly

consisted of open-ended questions and scalar questions to draw upon the

diversity within the reasons. Likert scale questions were used and ranged

from “very much” to “not very much” on a point scale. Like the results of the

pre-survey, the post-survey results were categorized by the participants’

improvement, the participants’ reflections and the evaluations of the CBI in-

service course. Most of questions were descriptive questions rather than

multiple choices questions. In order to understand the complexities of the

context, the survey data was also integrated with other data, such as

interviews and observations. Table 3.5 The Trainee Pre and Post Survey Scheme

Surveys SchemePre-Survey From in the third week of October by email

(36 trainees)Post-Survey December 19th at 10:40 am (20min) before a farewell ceremony

(33 trainees)

3.6.3 Participants Interview

3.6.3.1 Interview Scheme

As shown in Table 3.6, each two trainees and trainers participated in

interviews. The two trainees were interviewed twice by the researcher. They

were the head trainees of each class, math and science. In this respect, it

could be easy for them to express their opinions as a representative person of 23

the class. On the other hand, in terms of selecting for two interview trainers,

each head trainer of NT and KT participated in post interview with the

researcher, because they designed the schedule and curriculum of CBI

IIETTP as instructors. The interview focused on an evaluation and a

reflection of the whole course in accordance with Foss’s recommendation

(1993) that repeated measures be incorporated. Foss notes that, “in sequential

interviewing, the researcher can make it progressively more difficult for

respondents to submit contrived answers.” (p.32). The rest of interviewees

except trainee participants were also interviewed two times, but at the end of

the course with evaluation. The first interview [Appendix C] was conducted

at the beginning of the course in December for trainers, followed by the

second interviews done at the end of the course in January in 2009.

Following the ethnographic model of Spradley (1979), and adapting

interview questions from Kwon (2005), the researcher developed descriptive

questions to reveal teachers’ understanding and reflection on CBI in service

course along with overall evaluation of the course. Ethnographic interviews

have many features in common with friendly conversations (Spradley, 1979).

Open-ended interview questions were mostly given to encourage them. Each

interview was conducted in Korean and lasted approximately twenty

minutes. With the permission of the participants, interviews were tape-

recorded and transcribed for data analysis.Table 3.6 The Trainee interview scheme

Interviewee During the course After the courseTrainee L December 16th at 10:40 am(10min) December 19th at farewell

ceremony (10min)Trainee K December 16th at 3:40 am(10min)

Trainer H(KT)January 23th 2009 at 17:30 in GIFLE (30 min)

Trainer D(NT)

24

3.6.3.2 Interview participants

- Trainee L

Trainee L was a female who had been teaching for eight years as a

homeroom teacher. She majored in math and her husband worked at the high

school as a math teacher. Therefore, she has been interested in CBI since she

watched CBI open class on her business trip. After she came back to school,

she tried to attempt CBI in math class, but she had neither confidence about

how nor what to teach. So she conducted the math class, but she worried

about speaking English.

- Trainee K

Trainee K was a male who had been teaching for seventeen years. He

received a doctorate degree previously, majoring in Elementary Science

Education. In addition, he has been teaching science to advanced level

students in an education center. He has had many opportunities to be a

science instructor in teacher training programmes. The students who met

with him were special students; they needed complexity and new concepts in

their learning. Therefore, he is trying to prepare a new programme like CBI.

He has confidence in teaching science content as well as in speaking English.

- Korean Teacher K (Head instructor)

Teacher K is working at O public primary school in Gunpo City. He has been

teaching for more than 20 years, followed with an interest in immersion

education. He is a 4th grade homeroom teacher developing an immersion

programme for his students. He is in the course of getting a PhD and his

major field of study is Elementary English Education. Furthermore, he is the

president of Gyeonggi Immersion Education Association for Elementary

25

School. The reason he attended this course as an instructor was to teach the

theoretical background of CBI. He has had many chances to teach CBI to

teachers, but this was his first time to take part in teacher training as an

instructor for CBI. He was the chief instructor among all KTs, so he had to

plan the whole schedule including that of evaluation.

- Native Teacher D

NT D has been working at GIFLE which is an education institute for all

public school teachers, especially foreign language teachers for three years

and is now moving to another city to teach. All instructors in GIFLE are

generally contracted for a one year cycle, but because of his outstanding

reputation, he is still teaching in programmes conducted by GIFLE. His

major field is generally reading and writing, but he is quite familiar with

speaking class. In this course, he took the general speaking class as well as

terminology for science. He did not have much time to prepare for his lecture

because he had just returned two days before the programme started. Also, he

has no idea what to teach, as it is his first time to teach CBI.

Table 3.7 The Interviewees as ParticipantsTrainee Interviewee Class Teaching experiences

Trainee L Math 8 years/majored Math

Trainee K Science 17 years/Ph.D in Science education for elementary school

Trainer Interviewee Course Teaching experiences

Trainer H (Head instructor) Theoretical background of CBIEvaluation

28 yearsGetting Ph.D degree majoring in English literature

Native Teacher D Terminology 7 years as a instructor26

General conversation

3.7 Classroom Observation

Two CBI classes employing both math and science were observed. Each

observation period lasted for 50 minutes. At least two different classes per

instructor were observed so that different classroom context could be taken

into consideration.

As a participant observer, the researcher documented the setting,

participants, acts, and gestures. (Glesne and Peshkin 1992) Namely, the focus

was on what was directly observable, as opposed to things not observable

and an effort was made to avoid early generalizations. Lest the researcher

become involved in class activities, care was taken to maintain a balance of

intimacy and marginality. (Glesne and Peshkin 1992) The researcher usually

sat at the back of the class. With teachers’ permission, classes were recorded

and used to supplement field notes. This allowed the researcher to feel free to

do observations during participation. (Silverman 1993) Furthermore,

preparatory and evaluation meetings were noted, as well as informal

conversations between teachers and the researcher.

3.8 Data Collection and Analysis

According to Mathison (1988), analysis of multiple data or triangulation,

requires researchers to avoid a singular proposition and to construct

“plausible explanations about the phenomena being studied” (p.17).

Inductive approaches were used to analyze the qualitative data from

interviews and observations. With respect to the timing of data analysis, the

researcher started simultaneously with data collection so that she could

“focus and shape the study as it proceeds”. (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992; 127).

By writing memos or making analytic files, the researcher could reflect on 27

both the research process and the data collected, then develop new questions,

new hunches, and sometimes, new ways of approaching the

research”(p.131).

Therefore, all data were categorized and incidents were compared for the

study by the researcher considering the features of each method, quantitative

and qualitative.

Chapter 4 Results

Repeated measures based on multiple data sources revealed two themes:

teachers’ perceptions about effectiveness of CBI in a Korean school setting

based on their CBI perception, and teachers’ suggestions for CBI IIETTP.

The results are discussed in order to address the issues of the study.

4.1 Findings of Trainee Pre-Questionnaire

All data was analyzed on the perceptions of CBI education before the course 28

based on the research questions of the study.

4.1.1 Perceptions on CBI education Before the course

In this part, 6 multiple choices questions and 1 open ended question are

presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.7 as shown below.

Table 4.1 The Perception of CBI English Education 1

7. How clearly do you understand CBI?Very Clearly understand Mostly Understand Understand but

not sureUnderstand a

little No idea

9 20 7 0 0

Table 4.2 The Perception of CBI English Education 2 (multiple responses)

8. Which of the following statements best describes your understanding of CBI?Teaching all subjects in English as a homeroom teacher. 8

Teaching some subjects like math or science in English. 15Integrating subjects with English. 29

Teaching integrated content and English based on same themes English. 24

Speaking in English all lesson all day long. 5

Tables 4.1 and 4.2 present the perceptions of the participants as related

to CBI education. According to the survey results, table 4.1 shows that 20

out of 36 trainees answered “mostly understand.” Also, “very clearly

understand” was chosen by 9 out of 36. In this respect, most of the

participants in the CBI IIETTP felt they generally understood what CBI

education is. In addition, 7 out of 36 teachers responded with “understand,

but not sure,” but nobody checked “understand a little” and “no idea.” Based

on the above results, all participants had their own perception about CBI

education as shown in Table 4.1. Question 8 of the pre-survey permitted

multiple responses from trainees, so they could select more than two things

according to their thoughts. According to the results shown in Table 4.2, the

29

most frequent answers were that CBI education integrates content and

language in English. In addition, they thought that teaching certain subjects

like math or science in English can be done through CBI education.

Otherwise, when a homeroom teacher teaches all subjects in English it was

regarded as one of the CBI education types. There were 5 participants who

thought that CBI education involves speaking in English all day long.

Table 4.3 The Agreement with CBI English Education

9. Do you agree with CBI English education in primary school?Absolutely yes. 20No. 10Uncertain. 6

Table 4.4 The Reasons of Agreement with CBI English Education (Only for agree people)

10. Why do you agree with CBI education in public primary school?Because of it is a new education trend governed by the consumer. 1Because it develops students’ cognitive level. 14Because it gives students in poverty an opportunity to get a CBI English education. 1Because of globalization, the students need to have a high level of English proficiency. 2

Other 2

Table 4.5 The Reasons of Disagreement with CBI English Education (Only for disagree people)11. What makes you disagree with CBI education in public primary school?It is not good to follow trends of private institutes. 1English is not essential for students. 1

Students will have a lower understanding of subject content. 5

Because low teacher’s proficiency in English or subject content. 1

If a child has difficulty in target language, he/she also has difficulty with subject content. 2

CBI class requires too much preparation. 1

Tables 4.3 to 4.5 show results related to whether the participants agree

30

or disagree with CBI education. As shown in Table 4.3, 20 out of 36 (56%)

agreed with CBI education, but ten participants (28%) were against it.

Additionally 6 trainees (17%) answered “uncertain.” Table 4.4 shows results

for only the participants who agree with CBI and the reasons for their

agreement. Shown in Table 4.4, 14 out of 20 (70%) of the participants

answered that they agreed with CBI due to students’ high cognitive level.

They thought that cognitive level can be developed through CBI education.

Two (10%) participants responded “globalization” for accepting CBI

education. “Consumers’ needs” and “students in poverty” were selected by

only 1 teacher each. The remaining 2 trainees indicated the certain reasons

as, “for advanced level students.”

Table 4.5 was given only for the participants who disagreed with CBI

education. According to Table 4.5, 5 out of 10 (50%) chose that “students

will have a lower understanding of subject content.” Also, 2 out of 10 (20%)

worried that “if a child has difficulty in target language, he/she also has

difficulty with subject content.” One trainee each indicated that “English is

not essential for students,” “Because low teacher’s proficiency in English or

subject content,” and “CBI class requires too much preparation.”

Table 4.6 The Best Way of Applying CBI in Public Primary School

12. What is the best way to implement CBI in Korean public primary school?It should start immediately regardless of how it is applied. 1It should start step by step through discussion with parents, students and teachers. 16

It should be accepted with adaptations for the Korean public school setting. 13

It should start with gifted purposes, such as for advanced level students, or after school activity programmes. 6

It is not appropriate for the Korean context. 0

31

Table 4.6 shows what was believed to be the best way for applying

CBI in public primary school. Of the participants, 16 out of 36 (44%)

reported that “It should start step by step through discussion with parents,

students and teachers.” 13 out of 36 (36%) chose the answer as, “It should be

accepted with adaptations for the Korean public school setting.” 6 teachers

expressed that it should start with gifted purposes, such as for advanced level

students, or after school activity programmes. Also, only one person believed

that CBI education should start right now without considering the

circumstances of the school.

Table 4.7 The Statements of the Participants of CBI education for Public Primary School Teachers (open question)

17. What is your suggestion for effective CBI education?We need preparation for implement of CBI in primary school.(4)It should start step by step like from partial to complete.(12)CBI IIETTP should be needed firstly. (17)CBI Materials should be prepared obviously. (1)

The last question of the pre-survey consisted of an open response

question asking for comments on CBI education. Shown in Table 4.7 above,

many teachers wrote their own ideas about CBI freely. Reflecting on those

answers, many of the teachers emphasized the importance of CBI in-service

courses before starting CBI education. Furthermore, partial CBI education

seems appropriate for the Korean contexts, but as time goes by, it should go

to a complete CBI education. According to 5 teachers’ comments,

preparation is needed for CBI education is needed.

4.2 Findings of Trainee Post-Questionnaire

The post-survey was given after the course, at a farewell ceremony to 33 out

of 36 participants. Its purpose was to examine the differences in the results

between the pre-survey and the post survey about the teachers’ perceptions 32

on CBI. The survey mostly consisted of open-ended questions and scalar

questions to draw upon the diversity within the reasons. Likert scale

questions were used and ranged from “very much” to “not very much” on a

point scale. Like the results of the pre-survey, the post-survey results were

categorized by the participants’ perception on CBI after the course, and the

participants’ Suggestions on CBI IIETTP.

4.2.1 Participants’ perception on CBI After the course

For participants’ reflections of the course section, 3 questions, namely, 2

multiple choice questions and one open question are expressed in from

Tables 4.8 to 4.10.

Table 4.8 The Change of CBI Perception Compared to Before the Course.

3. Comparing your understanding of CBI to before and after the course, how has it changed?It changed positively compared to before the course. 15It changed negatively compared to before the course. 10It is same as before the course. 8Table 4.9 The Reason of Changed Perception of CBI. (Open-ended question)

4. If it changed positively or negatively, what specific parts of the course your understanding?Instructors’ open class(experiences), perceived the importance of English, found the possibility of implement CBI, increased teaching confidence

More focused on language rather than contents.Due to various perspective of CBI views, really confused.

In question 3 and 4 of this section, they were asked if their perception

of CBI education had changed from before the course to after the course.

According to the survey results, 25 out of 33 (76%) teachers noticed it

changed. More specifically, 15 teachers (45%) recognized it changed

positively from a disagreement into an agreement. On the other hand, 10 out

of 33 (30%) trainees felt that their perception of CBI changed negatively. As 33

shown in Table 4.9, there were specific reasons why it changed like that.

According to the survey analysis, there were several positive answers that

CBI education changed, such as because of instructors’ experiences, the

important role of English, and the possibility of CBI implementation, etc.

However, due to too much focus on language and not content, some

participants perspective of CBI changed negatively. Table 4.10 The Best Way to Apply CBI education in Public Primary School.

5. If you were using CBI in your classroom, what would be the best way to introduce it? It should start immediately regardless of how it is applied. 0It should start step by step through discussion with parents, students and teachers.

15

It should be accepted with adaptations for the Korean public school setting.

10

It should start with gifted purposes, such as for advanced level students, or after school activity programmes.

6

It is not appropriate for the Korean contexts. 0Other 2

The analysis of Table 4.10 was connected with the results of Table 4.6

of the pre-survey. Therefore, the purpose of this survey was to examine the

perception of CBI education between, before, and after the course in terms of

implementing CBI in public primary school. Looking at the results of Table

4.6, 16 out of 36 (44%) participants believed that “It should start step by step

through discussion with parents, students and teachers.” 13 out of 36 (36%)

reported as “It should be accepted with adaptations for the Korean public

school setting.” The remaining teachers (17%) expressed that it should start

from special purposes like advanced level students and, considering the

amount of preparation for CBI, they were against it. One person believed

CBI education should start right now, without considering the circumstances

of the school.

Table 4.6 shows that 15 out of 33 (45%) teachers expressed that it

34

should start through a discussion between parents, children and teachers.

There were 10 trainees (30%) that claimed it should start considering the

Korean contexts. 6 teachers (18%) thought it should start as a special

programme first; such as with advanced level students or an after school

activity. But nobody answered “it is not appropriate for the Korean

contexts.” This is slightly different from the pre-survey results in Table 4.6.

4.2.3 The Suggestions on CBI IIETTP

The last part is for the participants’ evaluation on the course. 13 questions are

presented in from Tables 4.11 to 4.23. There 8 open questions and 5 multiple

choice questions. These questions are focused on the overall evaluations in

terms of instructors, materials, teaching methods, and management of the

course.

Table 4.11 The Satisfaction of CBI IIETTP Curriculum.

1. How valid was the course curriculum?

Very much Much So so Not much Not very much

1 11 5 15 1

Table 4.12 The Reason of Unsatisfaction only for answered “not much” or “not very much”.2. If your answer is not much or none, why do you think so?

The periods were not good, it had better be held in vacations.Design more intensive course (more than 120hrs)Lack of expert, nonsystematic. No obvious objective of the course, advanced level or general CBI education? Too much focused micro teaching (KT practical classes), No confirm the evaluation procedure, and More spent time to design lesson plan and micro teaching, etc

Table 4.11 and 4.12 were to examine the validity of the curriculum in

CBI IIETTP. In Table 4.11, 16 out of 33 (48%) thought the curriculum of the

course was not valid, but only 12 trainees (36%) expressed that it was.

Lastly, “so so” was reported by 5 teachers. Looking at the reason 35

specifically, many of them wrote that the period was too short to understand

and implement CBI education. Therefore, they insisted that it should be

designed to be more than 120hrs; during vacation, not in the semester. Other

reasons were presented by the trainees as follows: it was not systematic, too

much focus on practical classes, or the need to micro teach (making lesson

plans), and no evaluation schedule was set. Overall, the reasons mentioned

were not about the curriculum, but with regards to the management of the

course; schedules, period and instructors.

Table 4.13 The Degree of Availableness things From CBI IIETTP.

3. How many things that you learned from CBI IIETTP would be available?

Very many many Some Not many Not very many

1 9 20 3 0

Table 4.14 The Lists of Available Programme in CBI IIETTP.4. List the applicable programme for your teaching from CBI course. And why?Math in English – experiential activity, detailed information(description) (2)Music in English – appropriate for primary school students (3)General conversation – improved English speaking skills (5)Special lecture – Professor Kang, really theoretical, so expand CBI perspective.

Table 4.15 The Lists of Unavailable Programme in CBI IIETTP.5. List the unavailable programme for your teaching from CBI course. And why?The comparison and contrast of math and science curriculum(too much overlapped)Evaluation programme, because we did not have much time to prepare for micro teaching, moreover, it was informed too late to accept it.

Tables 4.13 to 4.15 show the available programme in CBI course.

Although 10 out of 33 (30%) expressed that they were satisfied with the

overall programme in this course and 20 trainees (61%) expressed “some”

However, 3 teachers claimed they were not satisfied.

According to the survey results of Table 4.14, the people who thought

it was available to implement CBI education wrote that General conversation

36

class, Math in English, and Music in English programmes were impressive in

terms of improving their language proficiency, experiencing CBI education,

and implementing CBI education in the real classroom.

However, according to Table 4.15, the analysis of the math and science

curriculum was not available because of too much overlap with other

programmes. In addition, because they were informed too late of the

evaluation programme, a few trainees did not have much time to prepare for

micro teaching, which they felt was needed for evaluation.

Table 4.16 The Degree of Satisfaction in terms of Teaching Method from CBI IIETTP.6. How satisfied are you with the CBI course overall in terms of teaching method of the instructors?

Very satisfied Satisfied Undecided Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

2 17 8 6 0

Table 4.17 The Reason of Dissatisfaction in terms of Teaching Method in CBI IIETTP. (Only for answered “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”)7. If your answer is dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please explain why.General conversation class(NT)- lack of understanding CBIMore spend time to have micro teaching(including practical)Lack of preparation in terms of designing the whole course.No obvious objectives of the course.No feedback from instructors about micro teaching.

Analysis of the survey data showed that 19 out of 33 (58%) agreed

with all the instructors’ teaching methods and 6 teachers (18%) did not. The

reasons for this are as follows: lacking of CBI knowledge, lacking of micro

teaching preparation time, curriculum was not well-prepared, and feedback

was not given from all of the instructors. Also, no obvious objectives for the

course were mentioned as the one of the reasons.

Table 4.18 The Degree of Available Materials in Real Class.

8. How many of the materials in the CBI course were available in your classroom?

37

Very many Many Some Not many Not very many0 24 4 5 0

Table 4.19 The Reason of Unavailable Materials in CBI IIETTP. (Only for answered “not many” or “not very many”)9. If your answer is not many or not very many, please explain why.

Gap of proficiency level (too much difficult)Nonsystematic lesson plan (micro teaching)Gap of the degree of contents understanding level (too much difficult)

Table 4.20 The Suggestion of Materials for CBI IIETTP.

10. List the most useful materials from the course down, and why?

The materials for advanced level students.(3)Native CBI class – math and science class(with American text book)Introduce CBI cases in EFL countries (including multimedia materials)

Theses above results show the reflection of the whole course from 33

trainees by answering available materials in the course. According to the

analysis of the results, 24 teachers (72%) expressed there were many

available material that could be used in the course.

In contrast, 5 trainees (15%) thought that overall materials that were

used in the course were not available due to the degree of proficiency,

nonsystematic lesson plan form, and the degree of content difficulty for

learners. Therefore, they wanted to suggest supplementary materials for

learners, advanced level or standard level, or to establish a native class with

an American text book for CBI teachers. Also, multimedia materials about

case studies of CBI classes in EFL countries need to be made available for

teachers to prepare for CBI education effectively. Table 4.21 The Degree of Confidence for Implement of CBI Education.

11. How confident are you in implementing CBI education while teaching math or science compared to before the course?

Very confident Confident Mostly confident Somewhat confident Confident at all

1 25 6 1 0

38

Table 4.22 The Reason of Demotivation for Implementing CBI in Education.12. If you answered as “somewhat confident” or “confident at all” to the question above, why do you lack of confidence?Low language proficiency.(4)Low motivation about too much preparation as a teacher.Lack of CBI materials.

Tables 4.21 to 4.22 show the overall reflection of all trainees by asking

about their confidence in implementing CBI education in their real

classroom. 26 trainees (79%) would be confident in implementing CBI in the

real classroom, only 1 person answered that she or he would be not be

confident due to low language proficiency, demotivation about CBI, and

insufficient materials. The last question was about the overall reflection from

the course. At this time, suggestions, limitations, and good or bad things

about the course could be written down on the survey sheet. The detailed

results are in Table 4.23 below. Table 4.23 The Comments or Suggestion about CBI IIETTP.

13. Do you have any comments or concerns about this course? All suggestions are welcomed. Please feel free to share your honest opinions.More NT classes, More systematic programme, More professional experts (or instructors)Need supplementary group(level), more focus on programme for advanced level studentsNeed more micro teaching class(including preparation and discussion)It should be held in vacations, not in the semester.Design more intensive course. (more than 120hrs)Need variable participants (teachers for advanced level students vs. teachers for standard)

4.3 Findings of Participants Interviews

In this part, the findings of participants’ interviews are analyzed. They are

divided into two groups, trainees and trainers. For trainees, during and post

interviews were conducted. On the other hand, only a post interview was

given for trainers. There were 2 questions during the interview for analyzing

trainees’ perceptions on CBI. The 2 post interview questions for trainees

39

focused on their suggestions for the course. Rather, 3 questions were given to

trainers to examine preparations of the course design and reflection on CBI

IIETTP.

4.3.1 Trainee L

The interview with trainee L took a place on December 16th at 10:40 am (10

min) at GIFLE as a pre-interview. She replied to the questions “What was

your perception of CBI before the course?” and “How was your

understanding during the course?” On the other hand, the post- interview was

held on December 19th at the farewell ceremony (10min) and was asked “Has

your perception on CBI changed compared to before the course?” and “What

are your suggestions on CBI IIETTP based on your reflections?”

The researcher asked trainee L about understanding based on her own

perception of CBI, evaluation, and reflection of the CBI in-service course. In

terms of her understanding of the course content, she said “I am confused

what CBI is and how to apply it for my students.” Sometimes she feels CBI

is not reasonable to implement as a teacher due to differentiation in each

instructor’s instruction. She replied after science in English “energy” class. “It is my first time to focus CBI education. So, to be honest, I am really confusing now. Actually this science in English class “Energy” makes me a little bit crazy because of different implement of CBI education which might be started from different point of views toward CBI education. Due to different perspectives from the each instructor, applying CBI education looked like not easy. For example, most of science class curriculum made up of for advanced class, but math class was for standard student relatively as I expected. As you know the lesson for advanced students should be different from it in terms of content, teaching method, and materials as you know. So this kind of lesson makes me a little bit crazy. Moreover, it was short time for like me who does not have CBI knowledge or experiences to know what CBI is.”

Moreover, she was asked about the overall evaluation on the course. She said,

40

“I was satisfied with CBI course overall, but there were things to discuss. First, the course was too short to understand what CBI is. There was no time to prepare and experience CBI lesson, namely, we all just sit and watched without exploring CBI lesson plan or materials. So it made me not to recognize CBI education. Second, the NT class was so difficult that I could not participate in that programme actively, only some fluent trainees were concentrated on the lesson. Furthermore, NTs did not major math and science as well as know Korean elementary school’s system. Therefore, they just taught general conversation in English, it was not helpful somehow bit waste time. The last, evaluation system was not appropriate for teachers. In particular, evaluation plan was mentioned too much lately, therefore, we was really confused and felt uncomfortable as well. The evaluation should be informed at first day of the course, but this time was not. Overall, this CBI course seemed to be effective for us to get some tips in teaching math and science. Few limited things as shown above should be regarded for next CBI in service course absolutely.”

In summary, she stands on in procedure on understanding of CBI education,

but she seems to unsure what CBI is exactly. From her reflection, the CBI in-

service course was helpful in exploring CBI, but some suggestions are

needed for the next in-service course.

4.3.2 Trainee K

Similar in style to trainee L, trainee K had an informal conversation with the

researcher. It was almost the same as with trainee L in the pre-interview, but

the post-interview about the course evaluation was a little bit different. He

said, “At first, I thought that CBI can be implemented only for advanced level student due to its successful implementation, however, I realized that CBI education can be one of the best teaching methods in teaching English. Namely, the most important thing in using CBI is how to teach not what to teach. Based on this, there were some limitations in CBI IIETTP. The worst thing of the course was that the objectives were not clear. I have taken several in service courses so far, it has unique objectives there. But this course changed the title in the middle of procedures, even though the participants had already volunteered. Therefore, all expectations that trainees had were different and variable. Based on variable of the course, all instructors had also differential perspective, and then the curriculum which should be made by instructors should be definitely unreliable. Another worst thing was an evaluating. I have taken many in service course so far, evaluating is regarded one of the considerable thing which is related to promoting system for teachers. Therefore, it has been informed at the first day of the course obviously. But in this course, it was informed very lately, moreover, evaluating

41

system was not appropriate for the trainees. We did not have micro teaching class in this course, but evaluating was dealt with it including making a CBI lesson plan used materials. Those should be considered again for the next course. Although these limitations, CBI course was effective for all trainees I think, and it should be needed for teachers to implement CBI in the real classroom absolutely.”

Based on his reflection, there was some problem in CBI IIETTP in terms of

managing of the course, such as evaluation, objectives, and participants.

Even with these limitations, he got positive tips and gained confidence in

implementing CBI for his students.

4.3.3 Trainer H (Korean Teacher)

The interview with trainee H took a place on January 23th 2009 at 17:30 in

GIFLE (30 min) at GIFLE as a post-interview. His reply to the question “Tell

me the procedures of the CBI in-service course briefly as a head instructor,”

“What was the hardest thing in the process of preparing for the course?” and

“What was your reflection about the overall course?” He said, “CBI in service course was planned on July, so all instructors included me were chosen by Gyeonggi immersion association for elementary education. We met 3times in order to discuss and negotiate CBI curriculum and materials for trainees. However after changing the course title before a month from starting the course, we did not decide whether the curriculum changed according to the title. A few instructors experienced CBI class for advanced students, but most of them included me did not cover it. To be honest, as we did not have much time to prepare new curriculum, we kept going on preparing for each lecture, and we did it as we prepared.”

As he mentions, he had trouble in planning the curriculum for CBI IIETTP

related to change of the course title. Moreover, since he had never

experienced a CBI in-service course as head instructor, he had difficulty in

making entire outline.

In the response to the second question, he answered,“CBI in service course was the first course programme in Korea, so I have never experienced preparing for it. Therefore, everything was not easy, even typing ha ha. But the most difficult thing was that making outline for the course for letting all trainees be satisfied. Actually we, instructors, have many experiences for CBI class

42

so far, but we do not relatively have many chances studying math and science contents compared to studying English. But the participants in this course were mostly experts in math and science, they were interested in math and science mostly, moreover more than 10trainees majored math or science at graduate university in each class. They looked at me doubtingly, so it makes me feel overloaded.”

As stated above, he emphasizes that this CBI IIETTP was the first teacher

training course in Korea for some time. Therefore, it is natural for some

problems to exist. His last answer was as follows,“It was my first time to be an instructor in CBI course. I did my best as a program coordinator, as a head instructor, and an evaluator. Even though there were a few considerations of course, in terms of unclear evaluating, objectives, and trainees, CBI in service course made the teachers inspire implementing of CBI education in public elementary I think. In addition, this CBI course should be needed for next semester considering those limitations.”

As the researcher wrote, he was proud that he was the one of the members

preparing CBI IIETTP, even though some suggestions were proposed.

4.3.4 Trainer D (Native Teacher)

Similar in style to trainer H, trainer D had an informal conversation with the

researcher. For the first question, he said,“CBI course was not regular course in GIFLE on 2008, which was informed before a month from my vacation. So I had enough time to prepare for it. I just heard basic information such as course’ objectives and schedule from my boss. Thus as I got unclear descriptions about the new course, it was natural for me to design syllabus unsystematic. In there, I have been teaching English general conversation so far, but I should change my programme into terminology for math and science for CBI course searching many books and articles. However as doing my lecture more and more, it changed like my previous general conversation class rather than terminology class on math and science, so I was not satisfied with it even though it was over.”

According to him, CBI IIETTP was planned unsystematically. As the course

was irregular, he did not have time to prepare for it. Also, was given little

information about it. His reply to the last question “What was your reflection

about the overall course?” was as follows,“It was tough time for me to prepare for new programme, terminology class, as

43

well as to not to analyze the participants’ need in advance. Analyzing their need seemed to be really important for this kind of brand new course. Another thing to discuss is that discussion between all instructors, KTs and NTs should be needed for making course outline or teaching structure systematically before the course. But we did not. If there was certain discussion with KT instructors, I could have many tips or materials for CBI education in Korean public primary school from them. For the future plan, co-teaching with KT would be needed for making all trainees have better understanding of CBI. That is my last suggestion.”

To sum it all up, he needs to analyze the participants’ needs before the

course. In addition, pre-discussions with KTs are needed to enrich materials

and ideas together. To prepare for a CBI IIETTP, KTs and NTs have to

cooperate with each other as long as it deals with language and content.

Chapter 5 DiscussionThe result is discussed to address the embarked issues for the study. The first

research question, that is, teachers’ perception on effectiveness of CBI in a

Korean school setting will be discussed.

5.1 Research Question 1

The pre-survey analysis revealed research question 1, teachers’

perception on effectiveness of CBI in a Korean school setting. (이 사이에

이 논문에서 선생님들의 의견이 어떤가를 집어 넣어야 해요. 그리고

나서 아래의 패라그래프를 넣고) Shin & Kim (1998) suggest that the

immersion programme can be a viable alternative programme for Korean

elementary English education. The programme should be applied gradually.

They claimed that initiation of the programme must be done on a small scale

and step by step. It should also be supported by various members of society

such as schools, parents, administrators, locals, and the school district. This

44

research supports this as well.

(여기부터는 CBI 활용방안이므로 CBI 에 대할 생각과는 좀 구별되어야

함. 따라서 전반적인 CBI 에 대한생각이 들어 간 후에 이것을 쓰는게

좋음) As reported in survey results, responses from these teachers revealed

the three best ways to implement CBI in public primary school in pre and

post survey results: (1) it would start after discussions with between teachers,

parents and students step by step; (2) it would begin as an after school

activity; (3) it needs many considerations; like teachers’ preparation,

promoting language proficiency, developing CBI materials, and

understanding theoretical background of CBI.

Figure 4.1 The Chart of Implementation CBI in Korean School Settings

(여기서 부터는 CBI IIETTP 에 관한 생각이라 선생님들의 CBI 에 대한

생각과는 다름)

Comparing the survey results of pre-survey to the post survey result, it is

almost same with each other except one. As shown in figure 4.1 above, the

result of “for special purposes” from pre and post survey was slightly

changed. Namely, the result of “for special purpose” in pre survey was 8%,

however, the result of post survey about it changed into 18%. It maybe

45

because CBI IIETTP was more focused on teaching advanced level students

than for standard students according to changed the course title. Trainees’

interviews show it strongly.

Han (2008) reports what to prepare, and how to prepare for immersion

education as teachers, parents, students, and a government. Relating to the

study, certain policies, like in-service teacher training, are needed for

teachers preparing to implement immersion education. (paragraph deleted.

These two should be in one paragraph) Furthermore, Laurent (2006) reveals

the need for professional development programmes to create safe

environments that could allow teachers to explore, reflect, and experiment

freely in the implementation of CBI. It shows that to apply of CBI education

effectively, CBI IIETTP would be essential in terms of preparing for CBI as

a teacher.

5.2 Research question 2

The post-survey analysis revealed research question number 2, the teachers’

suggestions on CBI IIETTP for elementary school teachers based on their

reflections. The study revealed that 23 trainees out of 36 (70%) participated

in the course actively. However, the remaining trainees who expressed “not

much” or “no” show their reason as that of low proficiency which drains

them of motivation. Shown in Figure 4.2 and the post survey result, 15

teachers (45%) recognized positive changes because of instructors’

experiences, the important role of English, and the possibility of CBI

implementation (이게 무슨소리? 연수 때문에 이 생각이 바뀌었다는

건지?). Otherwise, 10 out of 33 (30%) trainees perceived CBI as negative

with the specific reason being that of too much focus on language and not

content, as well as various other aspects of CBI.

46

Figure 4.2 Reflection on CBI IIETTP Figure 4.3 Degree of Confidence After the course

Based on these results, CBI IIETTP was not really influenced on teachers’

perception on CBI that they already had. More specifically, looking at trainee

L interview, she had difficulty in understanding CBI due to instructors who

has different point of views on CBI, and short course schedule. In fact, the

trainees who participate in CBI IIETTP did not much time to research what

CBI is during the course, before the course as well.

However, as reported in Figure 4.3 which shows trainees’ the degree of

confidence after the course, 26 trainees (79%) would be confident in

implementing CBI in the real classroom, even though these limitations.

Furthermore, trainee K supported it by saying which he got tips and

materials in implementing CBI education from CBI IIETTP. Eventually this

study shows that there is a high rate of demand of having a CBI IIETTP.

Based on trainees’ reflection, the study has discovered the following

suggestions that trainees proposed. First, in terms of management of the

course, objectives of the course are most important. As the course title

changed, objectives, participants, and trainee expectations were totally

different between that of standard level students of CBI to that of advanced

level students who are interested in math and science. According to Do

(1996), the objectives of in-service education can be determined by the

47

participants’ preparation of the course. This means that the objectives would

reflect the trainees’ need, learning methods, and the individual gap between

trainees. In particular, in-service education which is for language teachers,

should consider the participants’ language proficiency when designing the

objectives of the course. In this sense, the CBI IIETTP did not give trainees

time to prepare for it.

Second, in terms of course schedule, the researcher found that a CBI

IIETTP should be designed during a vacation with 120 hours of course work.

In Korea, there are 2 different kinds of in-service education for teachers, to

achieve a license within 120 hours or to promote professionalism within 60

hours. Achieving a license deals with both theoretical and practical contents,

as opposed to promoting professional skills, which mainly covers how to

teach based on rationale of the contents. This course might belong to the

latter; however, as it has recently been informed, it will be regarded as the

former. Therefore, a CBI IIETTP should be planned for more than 120 hours

to allow time for teachers to understand more about CBI education.

Third, in terms of instructors and programme, as shown in the result of

the post survey (see Chapter 4), when KTs and NTs are designing the

curriculum, they need to consider the trainees’ proficiency, programme

balance (practical vs. theoretical), and teaching method in advance. Lange

(1990) claimed that practical programmes are more important for teachers to

understand their students well. He suggested that an in-service course is

designed following 3 basic steps; 1) planning, 2) practicum (included micro

teaching), and 3) evaluating. In this sense, as shown in the result of the study,

a CBI IIETTP should cover practical things on CBI as well as theoretical

ones. As seen from the trainer H and trainer D interviews. They needed a

discussion for the process of preparation. In addition, trainer D suggested

48

various teaching methods like co-teaching with a KT. Also, the trainees

wanted a micro teaching class in the CBI curriculum in order to implement

CBI in the classroom.

Koh (1996, 1997) interviewed elementary school teachers, then

suggested that English conversation, English literature, practicum (micro

teaching), and materials are needed for an English in-service course for

elementary school teachers. However, as the curriculum of CBI IIETTP was

conducted lecture-centered, not student-centered, trainees suggested a more

practical class including NT classes and micro teaching.

The last thing to discuss is the evaluation system of the course. The

result of post survey showed that an evaluation system can be determined on

the degree of the course satisfaction. Evaluation is obviously planned at the

first stage of designing courses in Korea. The reason is to promote a valid

system for teachers. With this in mind, it should be mentioned at the opening

ceremony of the course. However, the description of evaluation for the CBI

IIETTP was given on December 17th, 2 days before the farewell party. Due

to this late information about the evaluation, trainees had difficulty in

preparing for it. Moreover, trainees should do micro teaching as an

evaluation, even though they had no time to micro-teach using CBI materials

during the course. It embarrassed them and drew a low degree of satisfaction

about the course.

Kim (2006) studied the development of an assessment training

programme for teachers through theory based exploration. She suggested a

portfolio assessment which included preparation, guidance, planning,

implementation, assessment, and application. According to her study, this

portfolio assessment will enhance the professionalism of teachers’

assessment skills, consequently raising the quality of instruction and

49

assessment. Furthermore, a practical student assessment gives parents

specific information regarding individual student’s progress and areas of

improvement. Based on the results in this paper, an evaluation on a CBI

IIETTP should be presented considering these reflections. It should be

discussed in various ways for a future plan.

Chapter 6 Conclusion

6.1 Conclusion

Based on the research presented in this paper, the following conclusions can

be made. The research results indicate that CBI education in public primary

school would best be started in three ways: (1) it would start after

discussions between teachers, parents and students step by step; (2) it would

start as an after-school activity; (3) it needs many considerations like teacher

preparation, promoting language proficiency, developing CBI materials, and

50

understanding the theoretical background of CBI.

Furthermore, when designing a CBI IIETTP for elementary school

teachers, many factors such as objectives, participants, curriculum, materials,

and evaluation should be considered. More specifically, in terms of

objectives, it should be clear, so that a participant is prepared for CBI

education as well as being able to participate actively. Moreover,

participants’ proficiency level should be evaluated before starting the course

to insure they can achieve its objectives. This research found that those

factors influenced heavily on the degree of satisfaction of the course. In

addition, trainees’ needs analysis showed in their expectations of the CBI

course; therefore, it should be done in advance.

In this research, designing curriculum for a CBI IIETTP should be a

balanced theoretical and practical programme which includes NT general

conversation classes and micro teaching classes. To do this, the period of the

whole course must be planned for more than 120 hrs during a vacation so

that trainees can explore CBI education more thoroughly. In addition, for

systematic curriculum, instructors need to discuss how to appropriately

divide their roles and decide on teaching methods; lecture-dominated, group

work, discussion, and workshops. Instructors, as experts of CBI, should be

selected for the course. All of these considerations should be incorporated

during the preparation stage.

The study has also discovered that a variety of CBI materials are

needed. As CBI education has been introduced only recently, many materials

such as multimedia, worksheets, lesson plans, articles, and books are needed

for a CBI IIETTP. To promote trainees’ understanding about CBI education,

these materials are needed for helping them to participate in the course more

actively as well as helping in their implementation CBI in the classroom.

51

In closing, it is proposed that an evaluation be carefully and

systematically informed to the participants. In other words, decide what kind

of evaluation, what content is evaluated, and how the data is analyzed for

trainees. These were really important with regards to their satisfaction with

the CBI IIETTP. Therefore, evaluation has to be included in the planning of

the course description. Likewise, it should be considered carefully because it

is related to teachers’ promotion system.

6.2 Limitations of the Research

There are several limitations to this study. Firstly, the number of participants

was limited for the purpose and analysis of the research. Some participants

did not participate in the pre survey by email because the course title

changed. Also, 3 participants left a little bit earlier at the farewell ceremony,

only 33 participants out of 36 did the post survey. Therefore, all participants

in the CBI IIETTP did not participate in this research.

Secondly, as the term CBI was regarded as “immersion” in Korea, the

questionnaire of the survey should have used the term of immersion instead

of CBI education. (Kim 2007) During the CBI IIETTP, the terms were not

clearly defined. Many teachers were unable to distinguish between CBI and

immersion education.

Thirdly, due to the course schedule being held during a semester, the

researcher should have observed all classrooms through video recording.

Therefore, general interactions between instructors and trainees could be

watched; detailed moods or vivid interactions were hard for me to analyze.

6.3 Suggestions

In conclusion, further detailed research is necessary on this topic and can be

52

conducted incorporating more teachers, type of study, method of learning,

and comparing different in-service courses for language teachers.

Furthermore, implementation of CBI after the course can be researched

focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of the course. Admittedly,

official CBI materials for a CBI IIETTP developed by MEST are needed sob

teachers can understand CBI education even though they do not participate

in the course.

Most importantly, a CBI IIETTP is needed before the implementation

of CBI education and should be for all elementary school teachers, not only

for an English subject teachers or a homeroom teacher.

References

An, J-M. (2002). The Investigation on Perception on Teacher training for

Elementary school teachers. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Chungang

University.

Baker, K (1998). Structured English immersion: Breackthrough in teaching limited-

English-proficient students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (3), 199-205.

Bjorklund, S. (1997). Immersion in Finland in the 1990s: A state of development

and expansion. In Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. Immersion education:

International perspectives (pp. 85-101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

53

University Press.

Bostwick, M. (2001). English immersion in a Japanese school. In D. Christian& F.

Genesee (Eds.) Bilingual education (pp. 125-138). Alexandria, Virginia:

TESOL Inc.

Brington, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (1989). Content-based second language

instruction. New York: Newbury House.

Burger, S., Weche, M., & Migneron, M. (1997). “Late late immersion” Discipline-

based second language teaching at the University of Ottawa. In R. K. Johnson

& M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp.66-

84). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, R. N. (1995). Immersion Models of Foreign Language Education,

English Teaching 50(3), 169-182.

Chang, K. (2003). Using diaries as a reflective tool on an English writing teacher

training course. Foreign language education. 10 (3).

Choi, E-K. (2003) A programme development for Korean language teacher re-

education). Journal of Korean Language Education, 14(1), 323-341.

Cogan, M. L. (1975). Teacher Education; The seventy-forth yearboon of the

National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago: The National Society

for the Study of Education. (pp.220).

Crandall, J., & Tucker, R. (1990). Content-Based language instruction in second and

foreign languages. [Retrieved Apr. 10, 2009, from Eric Digest

http://www.eric.ed.gov]

Do, K-S. (1996). A Study on Improvement of In-service Teacher’s Training System.

Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Suwon University.

Duff, P. A. (1997). Immersion in Hungary. In Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M.

Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 19-43). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eng, A. L. S., Gan, L., & Sharpe. P. (1997). Immersion in Singapore preschools. In

Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. Immersion education: International

perspectives (pp. 190-209)

54

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language

studies. Applied Linguistics 9, 198-217.

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and

bilingual education. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

Genesee, F., Tucker, G. R., & Lambert, W. E. (1975). Communication skills in

French immersion program. Child development, 46. (pp.1010-1014).

Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An

introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. (pp.127-131)

Han, E-J. (2008). An Applied Model for Immersion Education in the Middle School

English Teaching Classroom, Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Kunkook

University.

Hass, C. G. (1957), In-Service Education for Teachers, supervisors and

Administrators, Chicago: The National Society for the study of Education.

(pp.13).

Johnson, R. K., & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion education: International

perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jung, J-W. (2001). English Immersion program in Korea: student progress after four

months of implementation. Unpublished of Dotoral thesis. Louisiana State

University and Agricultural and Mechanical College: Interdepartmental

Program in Linguistics.

Kang,N-J. (2007). Designing CBELT Classes by Integrating Subject Classes in the

Mother Tongue. Primary English Education, 13(3), 1-32.

Karen A, Foss. (2007). Theories of Human Communication. edited by Stephen W.

Littlejohn. Wadsworth Pub Co. pp.32.

Kasper, L. F., et al. (2000). Content-Based College ESL Instruction. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Keenan, S. (2004). Reaching English language learners. Science and Children,

42(2), 49-51.

Kessler, C., & Quinn, M. (1980). Bilingualism and science problem-solving ability.

Bilingual Education Paper Series, 4 (1). Los Angeles: Evaluation

55

Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.

Kim, H-J. (1999). A theme-centered integrated syllabus incorporating topics,

stories, and investigations. Primary English Education, 5(2), pp. 71-107.

Kim, J-C. (1993). A Study on effectiveness of English teacher training for

elementary school teachers. English Education, 45, 93-114.

Kim, J-H. (2001). The Effectiveness of in-service teacher training for elementary

school teachers. Primary English Education, 7(1), 103-132.

Kim, J.-R. (2003). Integrated education of elementary school English . Seoul:

Hanguk Munhwasa.

Kim, J.-R. (2007). An analysis of research on content and English integrated

teaching in elementary schools. Primary English Education, 13(1), 229-250.

Kim, M-S. (2005). A Study on the Development of Portfolio Assessment Training

Programs for Teacher. Journal of Education Evaluation. 18(3). 265-303.

Kim, Y-C. (2004). A study on the current state of Seventh National Elementary

English Curriculum. Primary English Education, 10(1), 5-41.

Kim, Y-T. (2004). Curriculum Development of in-service education for elementary

English subject teachers. English language teaching, 16(2), 127-158.

Koh, K-S. (1996). A Study on designing of English teacher training program for

elementary school teachers. Primary English Education, 2(2), 26-51.

(1997). A Study on the Curriculum of teacher training education for

elementary school teachers. Primary English Education, 3(3), 18-36.

Kwon, O. (1984). The affective domain of Korean EFL students. Yengekyoyuk, 28,

3-18.

Lambert, W.E., & Tucker, G. R. (1972). The bilingual education of children: The St.

Lambert experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Lange, D. (1990). A blueprint for a teacher development program. In J. Richards, &

D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 245-268).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

56

.

Laurent, C. (2006). Understanding and implementing content-based instruction: An

exploration of foreign language teachers’ lived experience. Unpublished of

Ph.D. University of Minnesota.

Leaver, B. L., & Stryker, S. B. (1989). Content-based instruction for foreign

language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 269-275.

Lee, H-K. (2006). Achieving Effective English Learning for Korean Elementary

Students through Content-Based Instruction: A classroom-based study.

Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

Lee, H-W. (1997). Elementary school English education viewed by teachers,

students and parents. Pusan English Education, 6(1), 3-24.

Lee, J-G. (2004). Professional Development in English Education as an Elementary

School Teacher. Primary English Education, 5(1), 109-138.

Lee, S-J. (2006). A Study on the in-service training programs for elementary school

English teachers. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Hongik University.

Lee, U-G. (2004). The Seventh National Elementary English Curriculum relevance.

Primary English Education, 10(2), 55-95.

Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.

[Retrieved Mar. 5, 2009, from http:// http://knuecer.knue.ac.kr]

Ministry of Education , Science, and Technology. (2005). The proposals for English

education in public elementary school within five years.

Moon, S-Y. (2005). A Study on Teaching English through Mathematics in

Elementary Schools. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Dankook University.

Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw

Hill

Orlich, Donald C. (1989). Staff development: Enhancing Human Potential Boston:

Allyn and Bacon. (pp.109).

Park, K-H (2004). Some suggestions for action research on primary English

education Focused on Kyeonggi Province, Primary English Education, 10(2),

97-125.

Park, K.-W. (2003). The development of training program of learning strategies in

57

content-based English teaching in primary school: Adopted the CALLA.

Primary English Education, 9(2), 55-91.

Park, J-E., & Park, S-H. (2007). Elementary school immersion English education in

Free Economic Zones and Jeju Special Self-governing Province. Primary

English Education, 13(2), 247-285

Park, S-H. (2004). Perceptions of primary school teachers about English immersion

education. Foreign languages education, 11(4), 259-283.

Park, Y-M., & Choi, K-M.(2001). Analysis of the Factors for the Effects of English

Immersion Program. The journal of studies in language, 17(1), 101-121.

Rhee, S. (2001). Immersion Approach and a New Paradigm of English education

Yeongunongib, 16, 157-180.

Rhodes, N. C., Christian, D., & Barfield, S. (1997). Innovations in immersion: The

Key School two-way model. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion

education: International perspectives (pp.265-283). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Scott Michael, F. (2006). Immersion in a language of power: A case study of the

English immersion pedagogy of an elementary school in China. Unpublished

of Ph.D. thesis in University of Minnesota.

Shin, K-A., & Kim, K-J. (1998). An Immersion Program in Korean Elementary

English Education. The office of studies in language education, 2(1), 221-

239.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver: Love, 1993.

[Retrieved Mar. 5, 2009, from http://journal.pssp.org]

Smith, O. (1972). Research in Teacher Education, New York: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the

integration of language and content in second foreign language instruction.

TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201-217.

Snow, M. A. (2001). Content-based and immersion models for second and foreign

language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or

foreign language (pp.303-318). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

58

Spradley (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College

Publishers.

Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (Eds.). (1997). Content-based instruction in foreign

language education: Models and methods. Washington: Georgetown

University Press.

Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teacher: A reflective approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yoo, H-S. (2007). A Study on Implementation of Immersion class through

Exploring researches. Unpublished of M.A. thesis in Sungshin women’s

University.

59