A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual

8 downloads 0 Views 465KB Size Report
teachers (mathematics, science, and social studies) are required to undertake 60 .... concludingcommentsAU/Poland_Advanced%20Unedited%20Version.pdf. ... 방법론에 기초하여 한국과 미국의 다문화 교사교육과 다중언어 교사교육을 비교.
문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집) Culture and Convergence October. 2018. Vol. 40, No. 6.

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S.

Yong-Jik Lee* ‧ Hyoung-Sook Cho**‧ Shuzhan Li*** 1)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction Theoretical fram ework Comparative methodology Description of demographic changes Explanation of current teacher education in changing environm ents Juxtaposition of com parative issues Comparison of policies and diversity models Im plication and conclusion

1. Introduction Due to the influx of m igrant w orkers, international students, and foreign im m igrant spouses, South Korea (henceforth K orea) has rapidly changed into a culturally and linguistically diverse society * First author, University of Florida, yongjiklee00@ ufl.edu ** First author, Seowon University, hyung030@ seowon.ac.kr *** Co-author, University of Florida, shuzhanli@ ufl.edu

2)

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

(Kim, 2009). M o and Lim (2013) explain that “from 2007 to 2011, the number of foreign residents increased 1.8 times, while the number of their children increased 3.4 tim es” (p. 97). A lthough this is not comparable to U.S. society, which is considered a m elting pot w ith a diverse population, the num ber of foreign residents has been increasing since 2000. Previous studies have dem onstrated that the Korean M inistry of Education’s (M OE) policies regarding multicultural education have not been successfully im plem ented. Som e problem s include: a) lack of teacher experience in teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students (C ho, 2015; M o & Lim , 2013); b) classroom -based discriminations based on historically embedded pure-blooded ideology (Cho & C oady, 2015) and the notion of a hom ogenous society (Jeon, 2009); and c) lack of educational policies reflecting intra-group differences w ithin m ulticultural children (M oon, Cho & Lee, 2016). In addition, a significant portion of multicultural schools is geographically located in rural areas, which results in diverse students being segregated from mainstream classrooms (Brannen & M acLellan, 2014). T herefore, researchers and scholars note that it is im portant to educate all K orean pre-service teachers to be responsive to learner diversity as these teachers play a pivotal role in educating future generations in the 21st century (M o, 2009; M o & Lim, 2013). Globalization and transnational m igration have increased cultural and linguistic diversity in K orean classroom s, and school teachers need to be prepared to teach children of m igration backgrounds. The U.S. has changed the rationales of teacher education as its

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

dem ographic patterns have been gradually diversified. In this vein, this study, based on a comparative education m ethod, aim s at com paring multicultural and multilingual teacher education in Korea and the U.S., and finally investigating educational im plications from a preceding case w hich experienced dem ographic changes earlier. C ritically im portant is that this study, unlike previous research and literature dealing only w ith m ulticultural education, w ill include m ultilingual teacher education. Furtherm ore, incorporating not only m ulticultural perspectives but m ultilingual perspectives, w e expect to shed light on a holistic approach in education for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners of migration backgrounds. Lastly, because each state in the U.S. has different policies regarding education, this study w ill focus m ainly on the state of Florida, one of the representative states of dem ographic diversity in the U.S.

2. Theoretical Framework for Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education For our comparison, we need to introduce tw o educational approaches w hich intend to explain cultural differences and school perform ances of m inority students of im m igration backgrounds: the deficit model and the diversity m odel. First of all, the deficit m odel is w idely prevalent regarding culturally diverse (C D) children of low -achieving perform ances (Skrla & Scheurich, 2001). This theory has been developed and socially reinforced throughout U.S. history

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

from a biological perspective into a cultural perspective. A ccording to the deficit model based on a biological perspective, m inority students have internal problem s or som e cognitive deficit, and their low achievem ents result from their biological deficit characteristics (Menchaca, 1997). Teachers are likely to be trained to ignore racially and culturally diverse students and try to separate them from students from m ainstream cultures as seen in racially segregated schools. Also, the teachers tend to discriminate linguistic diversity that C LD students bring into classroom s. There is a shift from the deficit m odel based on a biological perspective to one based on a cultural perspective after Lew is (1965) defines a “culture of poverty.” H e view s poverty as a cause of inadequate m orals and inadequate social norm s. According to the concept of “culture of poverty,” people in high poverty have difficulties developing and internalizing social expectations and cultural norm s, so their children suffer cultural m ism atch and low achievem ents in m ainstream schools (G arcia & G uerra, 2004). In teacher education based on cultural deficit theories, preservice teachers force their m ulticultural students to “assim ilate” into m ainstream cultures. Accordingly, the teachers tend to correct and fix linguistic variations of m ulticultural children or imm igrant students. The diversity model for CLD students, however, is currently developed in m ulticultural education. The diversity model view s cultural and linguistic differences as educational assets. The hom e culture, hom e language, and heritage language are considered culture-as-resources. In this sense, CD students can be engaged in learning and build up

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

positive self-images when the school curriculum and academic contents reflect their lived experiences (Banks, 1988; G ay, 2002; Harmon, 2012). Under the diversity model of multicultural education, preservice teachers are prepared to affirm students’ hom e cultures in term s of cultural diversity. Furtherm ore, teachers are likely to encourage bilingualism and cherish hom e language practices that the C LD children bring into schools. In this vein, unlike the deficit m odel or assim ilationist approaches, the diversity model will be used as the theoretical fram ew ork for our com parison of m ulticultural and m ultilingual teacher education.

3. Comparative Methodology This study needs a com parative education method to contrast and compare m ulticultural and m ultilingual teacher education in Korea and the U.S in demographically diverse environments. W e depend on Bereday’s (1964) comparative method in education, w hich pursues comparative studies based on area studies. Bereday emphasizes exploration of individual areas or countries through the lens of demography, geography, sociology, and other various disciplines before m oving forw ard to com parison of the topics and issues in question. In his cross-disciplinary approach, Bereday stresses four com parative m ethods: the phases of description, explanation, juxtaposition, and comparison (Trethewey, 1976). In the stage of description, the selected data from individual area is collected and presented using statistics,

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

tables and graphs. The second stage is interpretation of educational data from the perspective of various disciplines. Juxtaposition is the stage of preliminary comparison through putting data side by side and contrasting them . R esearchers in this stage w ill establish sim ilarities and differences in the collected and contrasted data. The final stage, comparison, involves a final fusion of data so that researchers can seek suggestions and generalization in this stage. More specifically, Bereday (1964), regarding the stage of com parison, provides two com parison m ethods: balanced com parison includes rotation or fusion of issues betw een the individual areas; illustrative comparison means using additive exam ples. As mentioned above, this paper w ill follow the four stages of description, explanation, juxtaposition, and com parison. W e w ill provide findings in the w ay of balanced com parison by rotation of tw o areas.

4. Description of Demographic Changes Korea is rapidly changing into a culturally and linguistically diverse country, due prim arily to an increase of m igrant w orkers, foreignborn spouses, and international students (Jeon, 2009). Despite the increasing population of foreign residents, K orea w as caught w ith one-blood ideology and used to show discriminatory attitudes tow ard incoming immigrants. In 2007, the UN Convention on the Elim ination of All Form s of Discrim ination against W om en (CED AW ) advised K orea to regulate international marriages through m arriage brokers.

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

C EDAW (2007) view ed international marriages in K orea as a m ean for hum an trafficking of foreign wom en into K orea for marriage and exploitation. A lso, the U N Com m ission on H uman R ights repeatedly asked Korea to improve rights of marriage migrant women. According to a report by the Korean Ministry of Education (MOE), the num ber of m ulticultural students from international couples steadily increased during the early 2000s by over 30% (M OE, 2012). In the M O E survey, the definition of m ulticultural children includes “children from international m arriage fam ilies and foreign children from foreign fam ilies” (C ho, 2015, p. 27). This paper defines m ulticultural students as school-aged students w ho have different ethnicities, language backgrounds, and cultures. They have different cultural and linguistic heritages com pared to their hom ogeneous native K orean peers. Table 1. The N um ber of M ulticultural Children by A ge in K orea Year

Total

Under 6

7-12

13-15

16-18

2016

201,333 (100.0%)

113,506 (56.4%)

56,768 (28.2% )

17,453 (8.7% )

13,606 (6.8% )

2015

207,693 (100.0%)

117,877 (56.8%)

56,108 (27.0% )

18,827 (9.1% )

14,881 (7.2% )

2014

204,204 (100.0%)

121,310 (59.4%)

49,929 (24.5% )

19,499 (9.5% )

13,466 (6.6% )

2013

191,328 (100.0%)

116,696 (61.0%)

45.156 (23.6% )

18,395 (9.6% )

11,081 (5.8% )

Table 1 shows the growth in the number of multicultural children. It is worth noting that children under 6 years old comprise more than

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

50% of m ulticultural children. In the meantime, w e can expect the number of m ulticultural children to continue increasing. A ccordingly, the num ber of m ulticultural students enrolled in elem entary and secondary schools has gradually grow n. As seen in T able 2, the number of multicultural students has increased almost 10 times in the decade from 2006 to 2016, now occupying 1.68% of total students in K orean schools. The M O E assum es that these m ulticultural students will take up 2% of total student population in the foreseeable future.

Table 2. Increase of M ulticultural Students in Korea Year

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

M ulticultural students

9,389

20,180

31,788

46,954

66,239

99,186

M ore specifically, a m ajority of multicultural students consist of elementary students (74.6% ), follow ed by m iddle school students (15.2% ) and high school students (10.1% ). Table 3. C ategorization of School-aged M ulticultural Children

International couples Foreign families

Elementary

M iddle

H igh

Total

Korea-born children

59,988

11,489

7,657

79,134

Foreign-born children

4,583

1,627

1,208

7,418

Foreign children

9,453

1,989

1,192

12,634

74,024

15,105

10,057

99,186

Total

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

It is notable that m ulticultural children from Chinese heritage (33.7% ) are the m ajority of the population, follow ed by those of Vietnam ese heritage (24.2% ), Japanese heritage (13.0% ), and Filipino heritage (12.6% ) according to 2017 M O E statistics. This is due to geographical proximity, the grow th of international m arriages, and the influx of im m igrant workers from East and Southeast Asia, although Korea does not allow im migration officially (Chang, 2012). The United States is the fourth largest country in the w orld and also of a diversity w ith rich geographical, clim ate, cultural varieties. H ow ever, im m igrants to the U .S. have traditionally chosen to settle in several places. For exam ple, seven states (i.e., C alifornia, N ew Y ork, Florida, Texas, N ew Jersey, Illinois, and M assachusetts) have attracted m ore than 60% of the incoming im m igrants into the U.S. These states are collectively referred to as the traditional gatew ay states. Betw een 2000 and 2009, the population of foreign-born residents grew by 49 % or m ore in 14 states: South Carolina, Alabam a, Tennessee, Delaw are, Arkansas, South D akota, N evada, G eorgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Wyoming, Idaho, Indiana, and M ississippi. These 14 states, primarily in the southern and central regions, represent the “new destinations” of im m igrants. According to Migrant Policy Institute (2011), foreign-born im m igrants in new destination states are less likely to be naturalized U.S. citizens and also less likely than im m igrants elsew here to have health insurance. In a study based in Lexington, Kentucky on new immigrants from M exico, Rich and M iranda (2005) found that local authorities

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

and business leaders were the first to promote a paternalistic response to new com ers. In contrast, working-class w hites and blacks are m ore prone to develop xenophobic and racist responses. These are some of the challenges that new im m igrants in new destination states are likely to encounter. The number of school-aged children who speak languages other than English at home is significantly increasing in K-12 school environm ents. According to the U .S. C ensus Bureau (2014), approxim ately 21% of students speak languages other than English. Spanish as a heritage language is one of the m ost com m on languages other than English, spoken by about 13% of students w ho are identified as English language learners (ELLs). The focal state in this paper, Florida, is one of the traditional gateway states and also considered a borderland state due to its long coastlines. According to a report by the Florida D epartm ent of Education (FLD O E, 2017-2018), m ore than 250,000 ELL students were enrolled in K-12 schools in Florida. These students m ade up m ore than 10% of total student enrollment (FLD O E, 2017-2018). In term s of percentage of English language learners (ELLs), the m ajority of students w ere Hispanic students (76.1% ). Florida is also one of the departure states where migrant w orkers set off from hom e to follow crops in other states. C hildren of m igrant w orkers follow their parents on this journey each year, w ith interrupted and very short stays in each school, which is detrim ental to their schooling. Students of m igrant agricultural w orkers w ho m iss schools on a regular basis or move from school to school frequently are sometimes referred to as students with

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

lim ited or interrupted form al education (SLIFE) (D eCapua & M arshall, 2011; Freem an, Freeman, & M ercuri, 2001).

5. Explanation of current teacher education in changing environments Based on dem ographic changes in K orea and the U.S., the need is urgent for teacher educators to prepare preservice teachers w ith respect to m ulticulturalism and multilingualism . Through previous studies, we w ill review how both countries have im plemented m ulticultural and m ultilingual education in schools and teacher education program s in the era of globalization and transnational hum an m obility. Korean schools have been facing a serious new challenge of em bracing and ensuring a concept of diversity in K-12 as Korea transform s from a hom ogeneous society to a m ulti-ethnic society as of 2000 (Jeon, 2009). Given this situation, Chang (2015) exam ines K orean

mainstream

teachers’ attitudes and perceptions about

m ulticultural education and multicultural students in the context of globalization. T he study findings indicate that m ost K orean teachers recognize the im portance of multicultural education in K-12, but that they don’t feel w ell prepared to teach diverse students in their ow n classroom s. In particular, in-service teachers feel they did not receive proper training while in their teacher education program s. Cho and C oady (2015) conducted a case study that exam ined

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

K orean teachers’ attitudes and perceptions tow ards biracial children in K orea. The purpose of this study w as to understand racial stratification (racial hierarchy) am ong four biracial students in a K orean m ulticultural school. C om paring tw o groups of biracial students, the study reveals that students w ho com e from a W hite heritage background are w ell accepted in the school environm ent and are m otivated to become bilinguals in both English and K orean. H ow ever, non-W hite biracial students are not as w elcom ed in the school and do not receive enough support from teachers and the curriculum . These non-w hite students are marginalized and punished by teachers and system ic inequity. In addition, em bedded white supremacy can also affect teachers’ attitudes and perceptions tow ards biracial students. The authors conclude that K orean m ulticultural schools strongly favor being K orean, speaking English, and valuing w hite

culture.

“Racism

is

perpetuated

through

institutional

discrim ination, such as a color-blind curriculum , biased attitude, and m ore caring tow ards prioritized students” (p. 112). The authors claim that educational reform in term s of m ulticultural education in K orea is necessary. Am ong 12 elem entary preservice teacher education programs in Korea, 10 programs provide multicultural education courses (Table 4). Eight out of the 10 schools have only one course on multicultural education as an elective course, and only one out of 13 courses is required. In a study investigating current trends in multicultural teacher education in Korea, M o and Lim (2013) conclude that m ulticultural education courses should be mandated in teacher education program s

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

nationwide so that all preservice teachers are fully equipped w ith ample knowledge and experiences in terms of how to teach m inority students in K -12. In addition, the authors em phasize educating elementary preservice teachers since m ost m ulticultural students in Korea are placed in elementary schools. Given this situation, there is an urgent need for teacher educators to prepare elementary preservice teachers to have understanding of diversity through coursew ork. Table 4. M ulticultural Courses in Elem entary T eacher Education School

Courses

Credits

Required/ Elective

A

- Understanding M ulticultural Education

2

Elective

B

- Understanding M ulticultural Education

2

Elective

C

- M ulticultural Society and Family

2

Elective

- Understanding Multicultural Education at School

2

Elective

M ulticultural Education

2

Elective

- Multi-cultures & Korean as a Second Language (KSL) Education

2

Elective

- Korean Language Education in M ulti-cultural Era

2

Required

- M ulti-cultures & Korean Society

2

Elective

F

- Understanding M ulticultural Education

2

Elective

G

- M ulticultural Education

2

Elective

H

- M ulticulturalism & Ethics

2

Elective

I

- M ulticultural Education

2

Elective

J

- Multicultural Society & Multicultural Education

2

Elective

D

E

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

In addition, School E provides a course of 'M ulti-culture & KSL Education’ relating to bilingual and m ultilingual education for im m igrant students. The rest of m ulticultural education courses do not deal directly with multilingual education in regards to teach CLD students. In her intention of designing multicultural education courses into interdisciplinary courses relating to practical art education, Jeon (2011) recognizes that m ulticultural education courses in elem entary preservice teacher program s are m ostly connected to social studies. As depicted in Table 4, multicultural courses in Korean preservice teacher education programs seem to be infused w ith social studies rather than applied linguistics or bilingual/m ultilingual education. In addition, she suggests that m ulticultural courses should be separately designed and incorporated into a professional track and a liberal arts track in teacher education. Compared to Korea, the U.S. has a com paratively long history of m ulticulturalism through im migration and slavery, but discrim ination and segregation has been a basis of prevalent ideology throughout the U .S. history of education. M ulticultural students have been m inoritized based on country of origin, skin color, language, and religion, among other factors. Advocates have long been fighting for educational equity in schools. Equity pedagogy is especially important in guaranteeing opportunities for CLD students to learn (Nieto, 2015). One of the ways to conduct and practice equity pedagogy for multicultural students is to understand and incorporate “culturally responsive teaching” in teacher education programs (Gay, 2004; 2010). Gay (2010) defines culturally responsive

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

teaching as “using the cultural know ledge, prior experiences, fram es of reference, and perform ance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them ” (p. 31). Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) is a term interchangeable w ith culturally responsive pedagogy (CR P), culturally com patible teaching, culturally congruent teaching, culturally relevant teaching in the area of m ulticultural education (Irvine & A mento, 2001). C RT has been w idely proposed in m ulticultural teacher education fields as a way of rethinking instructional practices in an effort to im prove the educational perform ance of African A m erican, Latino/ a, Native Am erican, and various A sian Am erican students (G ay, 2010; H ow ard, 2010). According to Sim et al (2008), who examined U.S. universities w ith departments of m ulticultural education, currently, U .S. m ulticultural teacher preparation courses can be classified into four interconnected contents: 1) m inority studies in school settings, 2) pedagogy and counseling for m inority students, 3) English to Speakers of O ther Languages (ESOL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) education, and 4) second language literacy education (see Table 5). The first two contents in Table 5 are related to culturally responsive teaching (CR T) for culturally diverse (C D) students. Sim ilarly, the latter tw o contents are close to linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) appropriate for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD ) students, ESO L students, or foreign-born im m igrant students.

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

Table 5. Contents of Courses Taught in U.S. Teacher Education Programs Course Contents Black Studies in Schools Asian/Latino Studies Imm igrant Students in Schools

U.S. Teacher Education Programs University of W ashington, University of Arizona, University of Texas-Austin, etc.

University of W ashington, Pedagogy & Counseling for Minority UCLA, Columbia University (Teacher’s College), University of Alaska, Harvard Students University, etc. University of W ashington, ESOL/ESL/Bilingual Education for University of Arizona, UCLA, M inority Students University of Texas-Austin, etc. University of W ashington, UCLA, Second Language Literacy Education Columbia University (Teacher’s College), for M inority Students Purdue University, University of TexasAustin, Harvard University, etc.

Regarding Florida-based m ulticultural teacher education, there are m any notable studies. Bondy, R oss, Gallingane, and H am bacher (2007) dem onstrate how to successfully im plem ent CR T in teacher education program s in a Floridian context. This study focused on teachers’ practices during the first tw o hours of the first day of school. It was designed to be exploratory and descriptive in three classroom s, using videotaped and interview data. The study findings reveal that the novice teachers focused on developing relationships and establishing expectations using “insistence” and a culturally responsive com m unication style. By incorporating C RT m ethods, teachers insist on respectful behaviors and establish a caring,

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

task-focused com munity. The authors argue that teachers create environm ents of success and resiliency for C D students. Grounded by CR T and/or m ulticultural education, H ow ard and Terry (2011) call teachers’ attention to how to integrate their students’ unique cultural and linguistic know ledge into school curriculum . Through knowledge (re)construction, teachers can create an inclusive curriculum for diverse students (Howard & Terry, 2011). In addition, teachers should

be able to

facilitate students’ cross-cultural

communication skills through quality education. By doing so, teachers can promote students’ self-aw areness by challenging the status quo in societal and institutional system s (H ow ard, 2010). In their study of Florida’s m ultilingual teacher education for C LD im m igrant children, de Jong and H arper (2005) reveal that “just good teaching strategies” do not necessarily translate into preservice teachers’ implementation of ESOL specific pedagogy, although ESO L courses provide preservice teachers w ith opportunities to learn about ESO L know ledge. It is necessary for teacher educators to encourage preservice teachers to utilize ESO L pedagogy such as ESO L differentiation and accom modation w hen teaching content subjects in low -incidence settings of im m igrant children in the near future. Coady, Harper, and de Jong (2015) examined attitudes and teaching practices of in-service teachers w ith Florida ESO L endorsem ents, aiming at ensuring that teacher education programs effectively prepare preservice teachers in term s of cultural and linguistic diversity. The study results revealed that the in-service teachers’ instructional

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

practices are m ainly shaped by “best teaching practices” (p. 21) by a general education paradigm . W hen teachers have “low -incident settings” (p. 21) of linguistically diverse English language learners (ELLs), such as having few English language learners (ELLs), they are not able to system atically address students’ needs. As result, the teachers rarely differentiate their instructions based on im m igrant students’ proficiency levels.

6. Juxtaposition of comparative issues For our com parison of m ulticultural and m ultilingual teacher education, this section w ill establish sim ilarities and differences and rotate and w eave the comparative issues betw een tw o countries. As noted, teacher education for m ulticultural education should be designed and assessed based on the diversity m odel rather than a deficit ideology or assimilationist model. This com parative discussion, thus, w ill unfold through the perspective of the diversity m odel. M ore specifically, w e w ill deal w ith the follow ing three issues in K orea and the U.S., focusing on Florida: key policies relating to m ulticultural teacher education, the cultural diversity m odel, and the linguistic diversity m odel.

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

7. Comparison of policies and diversity models 1) Key policies relating to multicultural teacher education In the 1980s, Korean m en living in rural areas began to find their spouses through international m arriage brokers, and the num ber of international m arriage am ounted to 14% of total m arriages in 2005 despite the long-lasting one-blood ideology. The num ber of international couples and their children w as rapidly increasing, and the Korean M inistry of Gender Equality and Fam ily’s (M O GEF) established and im plem ented the M ulticultural Fam ily Support Law in 2008. "The Fram ew ork Act on Education and the Enforcem ent D ecree of the Elem entary and Secondary Education A ct prevents discrimination against children of other races and enables convenient school adm issions and transfers for children protected by a foreign native" (Chang, 2012, p. 75). In 2012, the M inistry of Education announced multicultural education and m ulticultural teacher training m ainly for Korea-born CD students of international couples, rather than C LD imm igrant students. The noticeable increase of biracial and bi-ethnic children since 2000s is the cause of the birth of m ulticultural education and m ulticultural teacher education, but the history of education practices is quite short. Chang (2012), in reviewing the policies about multicultural education in Korea, argues that "Korean society is equipped with a legal system for protecting the basic rights of foreign natives and m ulticultural families, yet discrimination against race and ethnicity still exists" (p. 75).

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

Although the government has introduced policies to protect m ulticultural students, the m ain departm ent responsible for m ulticultural children of international couples is the not the M inistry of Education, but the M inistry of Gender Equality and Family. Therefore, it is not easy to firm ly establish m ulticultural education and to m andate m ulticultural education courses for preservice teachers. In contrast, the U .S., with a long history of racial diversity from the beginning its foundation, has kept a perspective of segregation and assim ilationist policies. Since the Civil R ights M ovem ent in the 1960s, the legislation concerning the education of racial m inorities and im m igrant students has seen slow and gradual progress tow ard equality. Am ong the m ajor legislations, Title V I and Title VII of the C ivil R ight A cts of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion or national origin in program s or activities that receive federal financial assistance (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Lau v. Nichols (1974) w as a U .S. Supreme Court ruling that lack of special instructional and curricular support for ELLs in public schools, som etim es referred to as the "sink-or-sw im " policy, is a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 guaranteed students equal access to public education regardless of their im migration status and prohibited school districts and public colleges denying undocum ented im m igrant students’ rights to public education. The Florida C onsent Decree w as signed into law w ithin this context in 1990 for the purpose of aligning Florida’s educational policy concerning im m igrant English

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

language learners (ELLs) with federal legislative guidelines and ensuring equal educational opportunities for CLD language learners in Florida.

2) Cultural diversity model in teacher education There is a huge gap betw een K orean governm ent policies and actual teaching practices in the field (Brannen & M acLellan, 2014). As noted above, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family has been the m ajor control tow er of im plem enting the law s of m ulticultural children in Korea. The M inistry of Education, as a cooperative departm ent, does not require both preservice teachers and in-service teachers to com plete m ulticultural courses in teacher education program s. Ten program s out of 12 elementary preservice teacher education schools offer m ulticultural education courses w hich are m ostly elective (Jeon, 2012). M ost preservice teacher education schools also provide m ulticultural education courses as electives for teacher educators majoring in social studies with emphasis on K orean national identity and mainstream cultural ideology rather than m ultidim ensional diversity. In this regard, w hat is w orrisom e is that the m ulticultural education courses m ay not be built on the tenets of the diversity model of actively utilizing cultural diversity as an educational resource. Through the elective course(s), preservice teachers do not easily learn that they should not force m ulticultural children to be assim ilated into m ainstream Korean national identity. In addition, no program s of m ulticultural specialist certification, managed by the Ministry of Justice, are connected to teacher education

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

program s (M inistry of Justice, 2012). In the U.S., students from racially different fam ilies have different values and different educational experiences. C D children, especially, African Am erican children, have different racial and cultural values from those of the W hite mainstream society. CR T is a teaching philosophy w hich positively em braces different cultures of racially m inoritized African Am erican or other m inority students in the U.S. (Gay, 2002, 2010). The backgrounds of CD students may cause them to feel alienated in classroom s; they m ay perform ance poorly in school assessm ents and have high dropout rates. The overall U .S. dropout rate is 2225% , but the rates are higher am ong racially m inoritized Black, H ispanics, and N ative Am erican (Kao & Thom pson, 2003; Tyler & Lofstrom , 2009). W hen C D students are taught in C RT, their school perform ance is likely to im prove (Gay, 2002). W hen schools are culturally responsive rather than color-blind or assim ilationist, they can no longer be “drop-out factories” (Bank, 1999; Harmon, 2012).

3) Linguistic diversity model in teacher education The Korean Ministry of Education offers teacher certificates through teacher education program s in m any different disciplines, including K orean, English, and m athem atics, etc. How ever, the Korean as a Second Language (K SL) teacher certificate is issued by the M inistry of C ulture, Sports, and Tourism, separated from the M inistry of Education taking charge of teacher education. The K SL teaching

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

certificate w as never introduced into elem entary preservice teacher education. K SL education courses have focus on how to teach the K orean language to im m igrant people w ithout utilizing linguistic diversity as an educational resource from a multicultural perspective. As noted earlier, only one teacher education program provides a K SL course to elem entary preservice teachers. O verall, preservice and in-service teachers are rarely trained in term s of m ultilingual education for C LD im m igrant students. In the U.S., many mainstream teachers were not effectively prepared to teach C LD English language learners in the past (N ieto, 2015). Teacher educators realized that educating preservice teachers for English language learners w as a critical issue. T he fram ew ork of linguistically responsive teaching (LR T) is an im portant guideline for educating m ainstream teachers in the ESL/ESO L field. Because LR T is an em ergent paradigm of m ulticultural education for CLD students, preservice teachers should take not only m ulticultural education courses but also multilingual education courses, that is, LRT/ESOL courses (Lucas & Villegas, 2010; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). As previously mentioned, Florida’s legislation governing the education of English language learners is the Florida C onsent Decree. The Florida C onsent Decree m andates requirem ents for the education for im m igrant students in five sections, including 1) Identification and Assessm ent, 2) Equal A ccess to Appropriate Program m ing, 3) Equal Access to Appropriate C ategorical and Other Programs for LEP Students, 4) Personnel, and 5) M onitoring Issues (FLDO E, 2017-2018).

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

The Florida Consent Decree requires elem entary school teachers to receive 300 hours of ESO L professional development, which is equivalent to five three-credit university level courses from an accredited higher educational institution. Secondary content area teachers (m athem atics, science, and social studies) are required to undertake 60 hours of ESO L training. In 2003, the Florida Consent D ecree updated its requirements to include school counselors and administrators to receive 60 hours of ESOL professional developm ent. Furthermore, teachers in charge of affiliated subjects, such as music, P.E., and arts, are also required to take ESO L professional developm ent or equivalent coursew ork. So far, Florida is one of only four states, along w ith Arizona, C alifornia, and N ew York, to have specific coursework or certification requirem ents for all public school teachers. LRT, such as ESOL methodology and accommodations, began to be introduced in multilingual teacher education for teaching C LD im m igrant children.

8. Implication and conclusion Previous studies had demonstrated that many m ainstream teachers in Korea are not effectively prepared to teach CLD students (C hang, 2015; C ho, 2015; Jeon, 2011). In this regard, educating K orean preservice teachers for CD /C LD students is a national priority as these teachers will play an important role in future K-12 classrooms. In the U.S., based on Black Studies and Critical Race Theory, scholars

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

have developed culturally responsive teaching (CRT) for CD students (Gay, 2010, H ow ard, 2010). Recently, Lucas, V illegas, and Freedson-Gonzales provided a comprehensive understanding of how to educate and prepare preservice teachers to becom e culturally and linguistically responsive teachers (2008). Specifically, the linguistically responsive teaching (LR T) framework is an important guideline for educating mainstream teachers w hen considering the m ultilingual teacher education field. Lucas and Villegas (2010) specifically focus on the linguistic issues of CLD students, especially English language learners (ELLs), in teacher education. After com paring and review ing m ulticultural teacher education program s betw een K orean and U.S. contexts based on Florida state, this article calls for more research to transform K orean teacher education program s and curricula to effectively prepare preservice teachers to work w ith diverse students. A lthough m ost teacher education program s offer m ulticultural education courses, it is not sufficient enough for Korean preservice teachers to go beyond deficit ideology and assim ilationist approach to m ulticultural CD students. Thus, due to the increasing numbers of multicultural students, including linguistically different KSL students in K -12, m ultilingual education research should develop a com prehensive understanding in designing and redesigning the teacher education program s for their prom ising teachers. M oreover, m ulticultural education courses rarely include contents of teaching m ethodology for w orking w ith foreign-born C LD im m igrant students. Thus, based on the LR T conceptual

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

fram ew ork, more teacher educators in Korea should m odify existing curriculum and focus their attention to m ore LR T in order to prepare all Korean preservice teachers for teaching CLD students. It is suggested that K orean teacher educators should focus on their attention to the m ultilingual teacher education in the line w ith m ulticultural teacher education. To educate preservice teachers in terms of multicultural and multilingual education, we call for infusing culturally responsive teaching (CR T) m ethods to teach Korea-born C D students. A t the sam e tim e, K SL teaching strategies and accom m odations, based on linguistically responsive teaching (LR T), should be infused into multicultural teacher education for m ainstream preservice teachers w ho w ill w ork w ith C LD imm igrant students. In sum , through applying CR T m ethods for C D students and LRT m ethods for CLD imm igrant students in preservice teacher education program s, K orean m ulticultural and m ultilingual teacher education w ill have a valuable implication from the U.S. m ulticultural history.

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •

References Banks, J. A. (1988). “Approach to multicultural curriculum reform”.

Multicultural Leader, 1(2), 1-3. Banks, J. A. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education. New York: Holt, Friedrich Schneider. Bondy, E., Ross, D. D., Gallingane, C., & Hambacher, E. (2007). “Creating environments of success and resilience: Culturally responsive classroom management and more”. Urban education, 42(4), 326-348. Brannen, F., & MacLellan, D. (2014). “A perspective of cultural change in Korea and its effect on multicultural children”. J Humanit Soc

Sci, 19(6), 19-30. Chang, I. S. (2012). “Multicultural education in Korea: Its origin, status, and direction:. Multicultural education review, 4(2), 60-90. Chang, Y. M. (2015). “Teachers’ perspectives: Making sense of ethnic nationalism, ethnic identity and multicultural education in South Korea”. International Journal of Education, 7(2), 17-37. Cho, H. S. & Coady, M. R. (2015). “A case study of racial stratification and intersectionality in a multicultural school”. Korean Journal of

Comparative Education. 25(5), 85-117. Cho, H. S. (2015). “Race, Language, and Identities of Biracial Children in Multicultural Schools in South Korea”. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Florida. Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & De Jong, E. J. (2015). Aiming for equity: “Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms?”

TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 340-368. de Jong, E. J., & Harper, C. A. (2005). “Preparing mainstream teachers

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

for English-language learners: Is being a good teacher good enough?”

Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101-124. DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H. W. (2011). “Reaching ELLs at risk: Instruction for students with limited or interrupted formal education”. Preventing

school failure: Alternative education for children and youth, 55(1), 35-41. Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) 2017-2018. Student Information System Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Mercuri, S. (2001). “Keys to success for bilingual students with limited formal schooling”. Bilingual

Research Journal, 25(1-2), 203-213. Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). “Environments deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning”.

Education and Urban Society, 36, 150-168. Gay, G. (2002). “Preparing for culturally responsive teaching”. Journal of

Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. Gay, G. (2004). Curriculum theory and multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on

multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 30–49). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and

practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Harmon, D. A. (2012). “Culturally responsive teaching through a historical lens: Will history repeat itself?” Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching

and Learning, 2(1), 12-22. Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing

the achievement gap in America's classrooms (Vol. 39). Teachers College Press. Howard, T., & Terry Sr, C. L. (2011). “Culturally responsive pedagogy for African American students: Promising programs and practices for

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. • enhanced academic performance”. Teaching Education, 22(4), 345 -362. Irvine, J. J., & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching:

Lesson planning for elementary and middle grades. New York: McGraw Hill. Jeon, S. K. (2012). “Study on the actual conditions of organization and operation of ‘multicultural education’ lectures and on the relation of elementary practical arts education”. Journal of Korean Practical

Arts Education, 24(1), 213-239. Jeon, W. H. (2009). “The multicultural education policy in Korea”.

Multicultural Social Studies, 2(2), 125-148. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). “Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment”. Annual Review of

Sociology, 29, 417-442. Kim, T. (2009). “Transnational academic mobility, internationalization and interculturality in higher education”. Intercultural education, 20(5), 395-405. Lewis, O. (1965). “The culture of poverty”. Scientific American, 215, 19-25. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2010). “The missing piece in teacher education: The preparation of linguistically responsive teachers”.

National Society for the Study of Education, 109(2), 297-318. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). “Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education”,

Theory into Practice, 52, 98-109. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). “Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners”. Journal of Teacher Education,

59(4), 361-373. Menchca, M. (1997). Early racist discourses: The roots of defict thinking. In R. Valencia (Ed.), The evolution of deficit thinking (pp. 13-40).

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

London: Falmer. Migrant Policy Institute. (2011). Immigrants in New-Destination States. Retrieved from: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigrantsnew-destination-states. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2010). The current situation of the students

from multicultural familes. Sejong : Ministry of Education of Korea. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2012). Educational plans for multicultural

students. Ministry of Education of Korea. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF). (2013). Settlement of

Multicultural Family in Korea during Last Three Years. Sejong: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family of Korea. Ministry of Justice. (2012). Regulations of specialists of multicultural societies (Grade 2). Mo, K. H. (2009). Policies and directions of multicultural teacher education in Korea. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 26(4), 245-270. Mo, K. H., & Lim, J. S. (2013). “Multicultural Teacher Education in Korea: Current Trends and Future Directions”. Multicultural Education

Review, 5(1), 96-120. Moon, J-H, Cho, H-S, & Lee, E-J. (2016). Research on school-aged children

of multicultural families in Busan. Busan Women and Family Development Institute. Nieto, S. (2015). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning

communities. Teachers College Press. Retrieved from: http://www. fldoe.org/accountability/data-sys/database-manuals-updates/201718-student-info-system/ Rich, B. L., & Miranda, M. (2005). The sociopolitical dynamics of Mexican

immigration in Lexington, Kentucky, 1997 to 2002: An ambivalent community responds. New destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States, 187-219. Sim, B-S, Mo, K-H, Lee, K-S, Kim, K-L, Choi, Y-R, Hwang, H-W, & Lee,

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. • S-Y. (2008). Development of multicultural education programs (30

hours) for mainstream teachers. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2001). “Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership”. Education and Urban Society, 33, 235-259. Trethewey, A. R. (1976). Introducing Comparative Education. Ruthcutters, Australia. Pergamon Press. Tyler, J., & Lofstrom, M. (2009). “Finishing high school-alternative pathways and dropout recovery”. The Future of Children, 19(1), 77-103. U.S. Department of Education. (2015). “Education and Title VI”. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq43e4.html. United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). (2007). “Concluding comments of the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: Republic of Korea”. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw 37/ concludingcommentsAU/Poland_Advanced%20Unedited%20Version.pdf. United States Census Bureau. (2014). 2014 American Community Survey 1year Estimates. Retrieved February 22, 2016 from: http://factfinder. census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_ 11_1YR_S1601&prodType=tableU.S.English.In%2520(http://www.us-english. org/view/13).

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

【초록】 한국은 문화 언어적으로 다양한 사회로 급변하고 있지만, 교육부의 다문화 교육 정책은 학교 현장에서 성공적으로 정착되지 못하였다. 제기된 주요 문제는 문화 언 어적 다문화 학생에 대한 교사의 경험 부족, 역사적으로 순혈주의적인 관념에 의한 교실 내 차별의 일상화, 다문화 학생 내의 다양한 집단에 대한 교육 정책의 부재 등을 포함하고 있다. 이러한 시급한 요구에 부응하기 위해, 본 연구는 비교 교육적 방법론에 기초하여 한국과 미국의 다문화 교사교육과 다중언어 교사교육을 비교 고찰하고자 한다. Bereday의 기술, 설명, 병치 및 비교의 방법론적 과정을 거치면 서, 본 연구는 다문화 교육적 관점과 다중언어 교육적 관점을 통하여 한국의 교사 교육과 미국의 교사교육을 비교하였고, 다문화 학생을 위한 통합적 접근법을 탐색 하였다. 한국과 미국의 다문화 교사교육 비교를 통하여, 국내출생 다문화 학생과 이민배경 다문화 학생을 위하여 문화 감응적 교수법과 언어 감응적 교수법으로부터 시사점을 얻을 수 있음을 덧붙였으며, 마지막으로 다양한 학습자를 가르칠 수 있 는 교사교육과 교육과정이 필요함을 강조하였다.

주제어: 다문화 교육, 다중언어 교육, 교사 교육, 비교 교육, 문화 감응적 교수법, 언어 감응적 교수법, 다문화 학생

A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S. •



A Comparative Study of Multicultural and Multilingual Teacher Education in Korea and the U.S.

Yong-Jik Lee (University of Florida) Hyoung-Sook Cho (Seowon University) Shuzhan Li (University of Florida)

Although South Korea has rapidly changed into a culturally and linguistically diverse society, the Korean Ministry of Education s policies regarding multicultural education have not been successful. Some problems include: a) lack of teacher experience in teaching diverse students; b) classroom-based discriminations formed on pure-blooded ideology; and c) lack of educational policies reflecting intra-group differences within multicultural children. In an effort to respond to this urgent need, this study utilized a comparative education method to contrast and compare multicultural and multilingual teacher education in Korea and the U.S. Throughout the steps of description, explanation, juxtaposition, and comparison, this study aims to understand not only multicultural perspectives but also multilingual perspectives in order to shed light on a holistic approach in education for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students. This article suggests that culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and linguistically responsive teaching (LRT) should be implemented in school, calling for more research to transform Korean teacher education programs and curricula to effectively prepare preservice teachers to work with CLD

문화와 융합 제40권 6호(통권 56집)

students.

Key words : Multicultural Education, Multilingual Education, Teacher Education, Comparative Education, Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), Linguistically Responsive Teaching (LRT), Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students

이 논문은 2018년 9월 10일에 접수 완료되어 2018년 9월 27일에 심사가 완료되고 2018년 10월 10일 편집위원회에서 게재가 확정되었음.