1
THE JOURNAL OF ASIA TEFL Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-34, Summer 2008
Current Trends and Issues in English Language
Education in Asia
Yeon Hee Choi∗
Ewha Womans University, Korea
Hyo Woong Lee
Korea Maritime University, Korea
This study has surveyed current trends and issues in English language
education in Asia, that is, 16 nations including Hong Kong and Taiwan
(total 18 regions). The results of the survey reveal commonalities and
diversity across Asian regions in the following aspects: the starting
grade, class hours, national curriculum, textbooks, the medium of
instruction, the use of computer, university entrance examination,
teachers, tertiary English education, and problems and concerns. English
language education in each Asian nation/region seems an outcome of
diverse factors including political environment, social and individual
needs, and resources (e.g., teachers and computer). The findings from
the survey raise five key issues to be resolved: the amount of time
allotted for English language education; the use of English as the
medium of instruction; centralization or decentralization; teachers; and
the nation-wide university entrance examination.
Key words: starting grade of English language education, curriculum,
class hours, textbooks, medium of instruction, use of computer,
university entrance English exams, English teachers, tertiary English
education
∗ Yeon Hee Choi is the correspondent author; Hyo Woong Lee is the coauthor.
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
2
INTRODUCTION
Today, no one would doubt the fact that English has become an
international language. According to Crystal (1997), English is the language
that has spread throughout the world most extensively and is dominating in a
number of important fields including international commerce, education, and
communication. Asia is not an exception to such a global trend. Many Asian
countries have included English in the school curriculum in recognition that
“it can contribute to students’ personal, linguistic, social, and cultural
development” (Le, 2004, p. 167). For example, in many post-colonial countries
such as India and the Philippines, English was chosen as one of the official
languages and is still effectively functioning as a dominant language.
Moreover, the countries which had once opposed foreign influence such as
Korea, Japan, and China are now giving English language teaching and
learning much greater priority in their foreign language policy (Tsui, 2004).
These imply the significance of English language education in Asia.
However, not much comprehensive information is available on English
language education across Asian countries. Therefore, there is a need to
investigate it in Asian countries from a synthetic perspective. This study has
conducted a survey to gather information on English language education in
Asia, that is, in 16 Asian countries (18 regions in total) including Korea,
China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan), Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand,
India, Pakistan, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Based on the
results of the survey, current issues and challenges in English language
education in Asia are discussed.
SURVEY ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
In order to gather information on English language education in Asia, a
survey was conducted in 2007 in 16 countries: Korea, China (including Hong
Kong and Taiwan), Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the
The Journal of Asia TEFL
3
Philippines, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iran, Israel,
and the UAE. One or two English language education specialists from each
nation/region provided information on their nation/region. All of them are
professors in ELT or English-related departments.1 The survey consisted of
open-ended questions on the status of English (ESL or EFL); the starting
grade of English language education; English class hours per week; the
national curriculum; school textbooks (e.g., types and authors); the use of
computer (computer-assisted language learning); the instructional medium of
English classes; nation-wide university entrance examinations; tertiary
English education; teachers (e.g., native speakers or non-native speakers);
English-medium subjects; and main problems and issues.
THE CONTEXT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
The Status of English
Is English used as a second or foreign language in Asia? It is not always
easy or straightforward to answer this question, as Greenbaum (1996) states
that the neat division into first, second and foreign languages “masks the
untidiness in the real world” (p. 241). It may be a matter of the attitude of
users towards English (Rahman, 2007); thus, it is necessary to consider
“political, social, cultural and economic ideologies” (Rahman, 2007, p. 84) to
explore the status of English in each Asian region. The results of the survey
on the status of English illustrate that English is used as a second language
(ESL) in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, as shown below, while it
is used as a foreign language (EFL) in nine countries (e.g., Korea, China,
Thailand, and Israel).
1 The survey participants provided information on general trends in English
language education in their nation/region. Some information might not be applicable
to all the areas within the nation/region due to regional or school variations.
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
4
ESL context: Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka
ESL/EFL context: Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the UAE
EFL context: Korea, China, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Iran, Israel
Interestingly, it is used both as a second and foreign language in Hong Kong,
Singapore, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and the UAE. These countries/
regions are known as ESL context; however, English is not entirely used for
intranational or intraregional communication, as David C. S. Li points out in
the survey “the majority of Hong Kong people (i.e., over 95 per cent of ethnic
Chinese) tend to be reluctant to use English entirely for intraethnic
communication (EFL feature).” All the Asian nations/regions where English
is used as a second language are post-colonial countries where English was a
colonial language (e.g., Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, India, and the
UAE). Is this due to the impact of the colonial period? The answer may be
‘yes’; however, the influence of the pragmatic needs of those countries
cannot be neglected, as noted in Tsui (2004). In other words, it is the result of
a tension between the ‘national-functional paradigm’ (Fishman, Rubal-Lopez,
& Conrad, 1996) and the ‘international-critical paradigm’ (Pennycook, 1998;
Phillipson, 1992; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) in order to “retain or erect neocolonial
superstructures internationally for their own benefits” (Tsui, 2004, p. 6).
On the other hand, all the Asian nations/regions where English is not used
for everyday communication outside class, just learned as a foreign language,
are the countries/regions which were not former British or American colonies.
This does not mean that in these countries English is not as important as in
the British or American post-colonial states/regions. In most countries, these
days, top priority is given to English proficiency and English language
education for individual career or welfare as well as national development
and globalization (Choi, 2007; Tsui, 2004), as Koike (2007) suggests the
adoption of English as a second language in Japan.
English continues to spread extensively around the world. No one would
doubt that it is a dominant second or foreign language in Asian countries/
regions. English language proficiency functions as gatekeepers to individual
The Journal of Asia TEFL
5
career or welfare as well as national development. This implies the essential
role of English language education in Asia.
The Starting Grade of English Language Education
English language education starts at first grade in 11 nations/regions, as
shown below, which means that students study English for about 10-13 years
in these regions, excluding tertiary English education.
1st grade: Hong Kong (including kindergarten, nursery school), Taipei in
Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the UAE
3rd grade: Korea, China, 9 cities in Taiwan
4th grade: Israel
6th grade: Iran, Vietnam
7th grade: Japan, Indonesia
It starts at third grade in Korea, China, and nine cities in Taiwan; at fourth
grade in Israel; and at sixth grade in Iran and Vietnam; and at seventh grade
in Japan and Indonesia (no official primary English education).
The nations/regions where English is taught from first grade are all of the
ESL countries except for Taipei. Although the results of the survey illustrate
that in Japan and Indonesia English is officially educated at the seventh grade,
it is taught at private primary schools (Kim, 2005; Suwarsih Madya, 2008).
In Korea, primary English language education will start two grades earlier
from 2009, which illustrates the government’s effort made for strengthening
English language education for national competitiveness in the age of
globalization (MOE&HRD of Korea, 2006).
The results of the survey reveal that most of the Asian countries/regions
start English language education from first grade, which is earlier than most
of the European countries (e.g., from third grade in Germany) (Yun, 2005).
This can be accounted for by the fact that they are formal British or American
colonies, except for Thailand and Taipei.
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
6
English Class Hours
More English class hours per week (from 4 to 10 hours) are noted in the
primary English education of the Asian countries in ESL context (e.g., Hong
Kong, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Pakistan) (see Table 1). In Thailand,
which is an EFL context, English is taught from first grade, as seen in the
previous section, and primary English class hours per week (about 3 or 4
hours) are larger than the other Asian countries in EFL context (e.g., 1 to 4
hours). The discrepancy of English class hours per week between the nations/
regions in ESL and EFL context is reduced in secondary schools, though
hours of English instruction are still larger in ESL context.
TABLE 1
Primary and Secondary English Class Hours in Asia
Nation/Region Education System
(P-M-H-T)
English Class Hours per Grade
Korea 6-3-3-4 (1)-(1)-1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-4
China 6-3-3-4 0-0-3-3-3-3-5-5-5-5-5-5
Hong Kong 6-5-2-3 8/10-8/10-8/10-8/10-8/10-8/10-8/10-8/10-8/10-
8/10-8/10-8/10-8/10
Taiwan 6-3-3-4 0/2-0/2-0/2-1/2-1/2-1/2-3-3/4-4/5-4/5-4/5-4/5
Japan 6-3-3-4 0-0-0-0-0-0-3-3-3-6-5-5
Indonesia 6-3-3-4 (2)-(2)-(2)-(2)-(2)-(2)-4-4-4-4-4/5-4/5
Malaysia 6-3-3-4 5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5
The Philippines 6-4-4/5 or 7-4-4/5 7.5-7.5-7.5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5
Singapore 6-4-2-4 4-4-4-4-4-4-5-5-5-5-6-6
Thailand 6-3-3-4 3/4-3/4-3/4-3/4-3/4-3/4-4/6-4/6-4/6-4/6-4/6-4/6
Vietnam 5-4-3-4 0-0-0-0-0-3-3-3-3-3-3-3
Bangladesh 6-4-2-4 6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6
India 8-2-2-3 4/4.3-4/4.3-4/4.3-4/4.3-4/4.3-4.3/5-4.3/5-4.3/5-
4.3/5-4.3/5-4.3/5-4.3/5
Iran 5-3-4 0-0-0-0-0-2-2-2-2-2-2-2
Pakistan 5-3-2-2-2 6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6
Sri Lanka 5-8-3/4 5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5
Israel 6-3-3-4(3) 1/2-1/2-1/2-3-4-4-4-4-4-3/5-3/5-3/5
The UAE 6-3-3-4 4-4-4-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6
Note: P = primary; M = junior secondary; H = senior secondary; T = tertiary
The Journal of Asia TEFL
7
What is further noticeable is secondary English class hours in Vietnam and
Iran. Compared to the other Asian nations/regions, their hours of English
language education are relatively small (2-3 hours). This might result from
their political environment. For example, Vietnam was a French colony till
1954, when French was used as the medium of instruction in schools (Le,
2007), and then it had a strong alliance with the Soviet Union until the mid-
1980s, which implies the need for learning Russian in the country. Since then,
a need of learning English has emerged, especially for individual job security
as well as national development, as part of the impact of the implementation
of free-market reforms known as ‘Doi Moi’ (Renovation Policy) in 1986 (Le,
2007). Compared to the other Asian nations in EFL context (e.g., maximum
912 hours from grade 7 to 12 in Indonesia, Suwarsih Madya, 2007), however,
English class hours are still small in Vietnam: a total 700 hours from grade 6
to 12 (Le, 2007).
Contrary to primary or secondary English class hours, the number of
required credits of tertiary English for non-English majors varies with
universities in all the Asian nations/regions shown below, while India
requires 4 credits and Hong Kong, 6 credits.
4 credits: India
6 credits: Hong Kong
varies with universities: Korea (3-6), China (12-16), Taiwan (4-8), Japan,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines (9), Singapore, Thailand (6-18),
Vietnam, Bangladesh (0-9), India, Sri Lanka, the UAE
no required credits: Israel
Interestingly, Israeli universities do not require any fixed number of credits.
Though undergraduate students must complete a course that is at the level of
reading comprehension of advanced university texts in English, they may
also be exempted from taking any courses if they reach a certain level on the
English part of their university entrance examination.
What is also noticeable is the large number of required credits in China,
where non-English majors have four English class hours per week for the
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
8
first two years (300 hours in total) (Wen & Hu, 2007) due to the college
English teaching reforms in China to strengthen the nation’s power at the age
of globalization. This clearly illustrates the undeniably crucial function of
English in Asian countries.
National English Curriculum
The national curriculum functions as the basic guideline and principle on
what and how to teach or learn, and what and how to test, for example, by
specifying learning contents, achievement standards, and teaching methods
and testing. It is commonly regarded as an effective and efficient means for
achieving national educational goals (Kang, Lee, Ryu, Lee, & Kim, 2006).
The results of the survey reveal that all the 18 Asian countries/regions have a
national curriculum for primary or secondary English, as shown below.
1st to 10th grade: the Philippines
1st to 12th grade: Taiwan (Taipei and 9 other cities), Malaysia, Singapore,
Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, the UAE
1st to 13th grade: Hong Kong
1st to graduate level: Pakistan
3rd to 12th grade: Korea
3rd to college: China
4th to 12th grade: Israel
6th to 12th grade: Vietnam and Iran
7th to 12th grade: Japan, Indonesia, and Taiwan (in other areas)
The national curriculum covers first-grade English to the highest high school
grade English (10, 12, or 13th grade English) in the countries/regions where
English is introduced from first grade (e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore, Sri
Lanka, and Pakistan). In Pakistan, interestingly, the national curriculum
covers up to the graduate level.
In Korea, China, Israel, Vietnam, Iran, Japan, Indonesia, and Taiwan (in
other areas than Taipei and 9 cities), the national curriculum covers from the
grade where English is introduced to the end of secondary education, except
The Journal of Asia TEFL
9
for China. Chinese national curriculum covers up to college English (CE).
This demonstrates the central control of the Chinese government on higher
education, which is illustrated by the fact that China has a professional
committee responsible for CE (a government organization) (Wen & Hu, 2007).
Primary or secondary English classes are fundamentally based on the
national English curriculum in all the Asian nations/regions except for India,
where the curriculum can be revised depending on locally available cultural
and natural resources. The curriculum can also be revised in Taiwan (in
Taipei and 9 other cities), and Indonesian teachers can develop their own
syllabus. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, the national curriculum is fundamentally
for state-run schools.
School Textbooks
The textbook is a fundamental means of achieving educational goals, as its
significance has been noted in education or language learning (Lamie, 1999).
It provides the basic learning contents and classroom activities. The results of
the survey on English textbooks reveal that primary and secondary English
textbooks are national or government-authorized commercial, especially for
state-run or public schools, in 12 Asian nations: Korea, China, Japan,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Iran, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, and Israel. This implies the government’s central control on primary
and secondary English language education, as Choi (2006) stated about the
Korean context. In the other six nations/regions (Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and the UAE), however, primary and
secondary English textbooks seem open to free competition of commercial
books. They are also constructed by teachers in Singapore.
Compared to primary and secondary English textbooks, none of the Asian
nations/regions uses national textbooks at universities, except for Sri Lanka.
Each university selects a commercial textbook or develops its own textbook
(e.g., Korea, India, and the UAE); teachers or English-related departments
develop their own teaching materials (e.g., Korea, China, Japan, the Philippines,
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
10
Thailand, Bangladesh, and Israel). These findings suggest the lack of the
government’s strict control on tertiary English language education, as it is
illustrated in the quality control of tertiary English teachers in Asia (Choi &
Lee, 2007).
Primary and secondary English textbooks are selected by national or
regional governments or governmental agencies (e.g., the National Institute
of Education in Sri Lanka) in the seven countries which use national
textbooks: China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Iran.
In the other Asian nations/regions where the textbooks are commercial
(including government-authorized commercial books), primary or secondary
English teachers have the right of textbook selection (e.g., Korea, Taiwan,
and Japan); school boards with or without teachers (e.g., Indonesia), school
principals (e.g., the Philippines), heads of the department (e.g., Singapore), or
appointed book selection committees (e.g., Thailand) are also main textbook
selectors. At universities, English textbooks are mostly selected by
universities, academics of universities (including department) or school
boards (e.g., Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri
Lanka); by department heads with or without faculty members (e.g., China,
the Philippines, Singapore, and Israel); by supervisors of the English
language program (e.g., Korea and the UAE); by an appointed textbook
selection committee (e.g., Thailand); or by faculty members or teachers (e.g.,
Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, India, and Iran).
National publishers, governments, or governmental agencies are the main
authors of primary or secondary English textbooks in China, Vietnam,
Bangladesh, India, Iran, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the UAE, while publishers
are also one of the main authors in Pakistan; English professors and teachers,
in Bangladesh; and English teachers, in India. On the other hand, primary or
secondary English textbooks are written by English language professors
(including English language education, literature or linguistics) and teachers
in six Asian nations/regions: Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Singapore. In Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia (only for secondary textbooks), and
Singapore, native speakers also participate in the construction of the textbook.
The Journal of Asia TEFL
11
In Thailand, the main authors are professors or publishers. In Hong Kong
(especially experienced teachers), the Philippines, and Israel, English teachers
are the main authors of the textbook.
University English textbooks are mainly written by professors in 12 Asian
nations/regions: Korea, China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, and Israel. However,
textbooks produced by international publishers are also used in Korea,
Indonesia, and Malaysia. Professors collaborate with national publishers in
China. Publishers are also the main producers in Taiwan, Thailand,
Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and the UAE, while the main authors are
professors and native speakers in Taiwan and native speakers in Iran.
The finding that primary or secondary English textbooks are national or
government-authorized in many Asian countries/regions illustrates the direct
control of the government on primary or secondary English language
education and the lack of teacher autonomy in the construction of their own
materials. On the contrary, a more bottom-up approach is used in the
construction and selection of university English textbooks.
Teaching English Through English
English is instructed in English (Teaching English Through English,
henceforth TETE) regardless of school levels in the five Asian countries in
ESL context: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and the UAE.
Interestingly, English is also taught in English in Israel regardless of school
levels, though English is not an official second language. Besides these
countries, primary school English is taught in English in Taiwan (required,
but not in remote areas), as shown below.
primary English: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, the UAE,
Israel, Korea (recommended, but mostly not), Taiwan (required,
but not in remote areas)
junior secondary English: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka,
the UAE, Israel, Korea (recommended, but mostly not), Indonesia
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
12
(varies with schools), Hong Kong (30%), India
senior secondary English: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka,
the UAE, Israel, Korea (recommended, but mostly not), Indonesia,
Hong Kong (varies with schools), India, Bangladesh (mixed)
tertiary English: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, the UAE,
Israel, Korea (varies with schools/courses), Taiwan (mixed),
Indonesia, Hong Kong, India, Bangladesh (mixed), China (mostly),
Thailand (mostly)
Though in Korea TETE is recommended in the national primary and
secondary English curriculum, most of the English teachers do not instruct
English in English. Primary or middle school teachers sometimes use
classroom English, but the whole class is seldom instructed in English (KICE,
2004a, 2004b).
In addition to the ESL countries mentioned above and Israel, English is
instructed through English in junior or senior secondary English in India,
Indonesia (varies with junior secondary schools, but instructed in English in
senior secondary schools), and Hong Kong (30 percent in junior secondary
schools and varies with senior secondary schools). In Bangladesh, English is
taught in both English and the native language in senior secondary schools.
At universities, English courses are instructed in English in more Asian
countries/regions, compared to primary or secondary schools, for example,
all ESL countries except for Bangladesh (mixed with the native language),
Israel, Indonesia, China (mostly), Thailand (mostly), Korea (varies with
schools/courses), and Taiwan (mixed).
Similarly to (As in / Similar to) the results of the survey on English class
hours, English is not taught in English in any school levels in Vietnam and
Iran. TETE is not also implemented in Japan regardless of school levels,
which might be accounted for by the English proficiency levels of Japanese
teachers and students, as it is the main reason why TETE is not actually
practiced in Korea (Kim, 2002; Woo, 2004; Yeo, 1998).
The Journal of Asia TEFL
13
The Use of Computer for English Language Education
Advances in information communication technology (ICT) have promoted
computer-assisted language learning (CALL) (Jones & Fortescue, 1987),
multimedia-assisted language learning (MALL) (Warschauer & Kern, 2000),
and e-learning (Khan, 2003). Along the lines of this, the computer is used for
English language education in most of the Asian nations/regions surveyed,
except for Japan, Bangladesh, India, Iran, and Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, This
trend may be closely related to ICT development in each Asian country.
The school year or level where computer is used for English language
education varies with Asian nations/region. For example, it is used from 1st
grade in Taiwan, Malaysia, and the UAE; from 3rd grade in Korea; from 6th
grade in Vietnam; and from 8th grade in Indonesia. This is related to the
starting grade of English language education in these countries. However, the
facility and resources available in the nation and costs also seem to affect
computer use; for example, the computer is not used at all in any schools in
Bangladesh, India, Iran, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka; it is used only from high
schools in the Philippines and from colleges in China to compensate the lack
of college English teachers (Wen & Hu, 2007).
Most of the Asian countries utilize CDs or CD-ROMs (often developed for
the textbooks) (e.g., Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, the
Philippines, and Israel) and power point (PPT) (e.g., Korea, China, Taiwan,
the Philippines, Vietnam, and Israel). The Internet is also commonly used in
six nations/regions: Korea, China, Hong Kong, the Philippines, and the UAE
(for the tertiary level). Word processors are not marked as a frequently used
tool in the survey, except for three countries (the Philippines, Bangladesh
(only for individual work), and Israel), though students often do their
assignments using them. It might be due to the fact that word processors
themselves are not used as a learning or teaching tool. Taiwan is the only
country which uses e-books, though Korea and Singapore also have e-books,
which are not actually used in the classrooms (Kim, 2004; MOE & HRD of
Korea, 2008).
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
14
ICT facilities are usually utilized for whole-class or individual work in
most of the Asian nations/regions surveyed: Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Israel, the UAE, Vietnam (only for
whole-class work), and Bangladesh (only for individual work). Only in Israel
and the UAE is it used for group or pair work. This might be accounted for
by technological limitations.
Moreover, ICT is used mainly in class or at home in most of the Asian
nations/regions: Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, Israel, the UAE, Vietnam (in class only), and Bangladesh (at home
only). In Thailand ICT facilities are used in self-access learning centers as
well as in class.
ICT is used mainly for listening, reading, writing, pronunciation or
grammar in most of the Asian nations/regions surveyed: Korea, Taiwan,
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Israel,
and the UAE. Not many countries use computer to learn or teach speaking or
vocabulary.
CALL, MALL, or e-learning is a common trend in Asian countries/regions.
The computer is often used for whole-class work in English classrooms.
However, it should not be ignored that the use of computer itself cannot
enhance the quality of English language education or replace human teachers
(Kawabata, 2006; Warschauer, 1996). Training of the teachers and the
students must precede computer use for its effectiveness and efficiency, as
noted in Choi and Kang (2002) and Wen and Hu (2007).
The University Entrance Examination
Most of the Asian countries/regions surveyed have a nation-wide
university entrance examination, as shown in the list below. It was first
administered in 1949 in China; in the 1950s in Hong Kong, Thailand, and Sri
Lanka; in the 1960s in Korea and Taiwan; in the 1970s in Singapore, the
Philippines, and Bangladesh; in the 1980s in Israel; and in 2001 in the UAE.
Nation-wide exams: Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia,
The Journal of Asia TEFL
15
Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Iran, Sri Lanka, Israel,
the UAE
No nation-wide exams: Malaysia, the Philippines, India, Pakistan
Malaysia, the Philippines, India and Pakistan do not administer a nationwide
university entrance examination. In Malaysia, however, an English test
named Malaysia University English Test (MUET) is administered for
university admission; in the Philippines and Pakistan each college or
university administers its own entrance examination, as shown in the
following list.
English as a required subject test area: Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia (MUET), Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam,
Bangladesh, Iran, Israel, the UAE, Pakistan/the Philippines
(administered by individual universities)
No required English test: India, Sri Lanka
What is noticeable is that Sri Lankan nation-wide university entrance
examination does not include an English test; thus, the Sri Lankan ELT
specialist who participated in the survey suggests making general English
scores mandatory for university admission.
MCQs (multiple-choice questions) are the test format most prevalently
used across the Asian nations/regions, as shown in the list below. Fill-in-theblanks
are also another common format as well as TF (true-false) questions
and SAQs (short-answer questions). These trends may be accounted for by
the issue of practicality and reliability (Kwak, 2004).
MCQ: Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Iran, Israel, the UAE
TF question: China, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand,
Vietnam, Bangladesh
Fill-in-the-blank: China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh
SAQ: Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Bangladesh
Essay: China, Hong Kong, Taiwan (Paragraph writing), Malaysia, the Philippines
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
16
(in some universities), Singapore, Vietnam, Bangladesh
Oral test: China (for English majors), Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore,
Bangladesh
Summary test: Bangladesh
Letter writing: Bangladesh
Translation: Taiwan
Besides, oral or written tests are also administered in several nations/regions,
most of which are in ESL context (e.g., Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore,
and Bangladesh).
As shown in the following list, most of the Asian nations/regions surveyed
test reading, grammar, and vocabulary. This might be due to easiness in test
construction and administration and the main learning content of secondary
English.
L: Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan
S: (Korea), Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Pakistan
R: Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Iran, Israel, the
UAE
W: (Korea), China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, (the Philippines),
Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, the UAE
G: Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Iran, the UAE
V: Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines,
Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Iran, the UAE
Spelling: China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, the UAE
P: Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Pakistan
Listening or writing is also tested in eight or nine nations/regions (e.g.,
Korea, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Pakistan). However, only
four regions which are all in ESL context administer speaking tests. This can
be accounted for by the low practicality of administering direct speaking tests.
Lack of direct speaking or writing tests is also noted in the suggestions for
reforming the university entrance examination provided by the ELT specialists
The Journal of Asia TEFL
17
who participated in the survey as shown below.
- administration of a nation-wide test (the Philippines)
- making general English scores mandatory (Sri Lanka)
- year-round administration or multiple administration per year (Korea,
Japan)
- using other criteria besides the exam (Israel)
- teachers’ participation in the development of the test (the UAE)
- making the test standardized, reliable and valid (Bangladesh)
- updating the testing format and system (Pakistan)
- criterion-referencing (Hong Kong)
- including direct testing of speaking (Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) and
writing (Korea, Japan, and Thailand), including listening tests (Taiwan),
revision of the speaking and writing tests (Malaysia)
- using a variety of text genres (Thailand)
The administration or revision of direct speaking or writing tests is highly
suggested in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Malaysia or Thailand. Moreover,
updating of the testing format (Pakistan) and standardization or validation of
the examination (Bangladesh) are also suggested. This implies the need of the
efforts making the university entrance examination more valid and reliable in
Asian countries.
English Teachers
Who teaches English from primary to tertiary schools was surveyed in 18
Asian nations/regions. The results reveal that primary English is taught by
English specialty teachers in seven nations/regions (e.g., China, Malaysia,
and Israel), while it is taught by generalists in five nations (e.g., the
Philippines and Sri Lanka) or by either one in five nations/regions (e.g.,
Korea, Indonesia and Singapore), as shown below.
Generalists: the Philippines, Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
English specialty teachers: China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Vietnam, India,
Iran, Israel
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
18
Generalists or English specialty teachers: Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia,
Singapore, the UAE
In most of the Asian countries/regions, primary teachers teach all subjects
including English. Interestingly, primary English teachers are English
specialty teachers in Vietnam and Iran, where primary English education is
not official or compulsory. This might be related to the primary teacher
education which lacks training in English language teaching. On the other
hand, some ESL countries (e.g., Sri Lanka, Singapore, and the UAE) do not
prefer English specialty teachers because their primary teachers seem to have
enough English ability to teach, whereas some ESL countries/regions (e.g.,
Hong Kong, Malaysia, and India) prefer English specialty teachers.
Whether English teachers should be native English-speaking teachers
(NESTs) or non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) was surveyed
since NESTs have been recruited as school English teachers as a government
policy in some Asian countries including Hong Kong (since the 1950s),
Singapore (since 1970), Japan (since 1985), and Korea (since 1992) (Choi,
2006; Koike, 1994; Kwon, 2000). As shown in the list below, the majority of
English teachers are NNESTs throughout all the school levels; however,
NNESTs have native or native-like proficiency in Hong Kong, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Israel, and the UAE,
most of which are ESL countries. The number of NESTs increases at tertiary
schools (e.g., Korea, China, and the UAE).
NNESTs: China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India,
Iran, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Israel, and the UAE (primary and
secondary); Taiwan (secondary)
NNESTs (and some NESTs): Korea, Indonesia, Thailand (primary and
secondary); Japan (secondary); China (tertiary)
NNESTS and NESTs: Hong Kong, Singapore (primary and secondary);
Taiwan (primary and tertiary); Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand,
Israel (tertiary)
NESTs and (some NNESTS): the UAE (tertiary)
The Journal of Asia TEFL
19
A large number of NESTs teach English at universities in Korea, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Israel. This clearly
illustrates a demand on the higher English proficiency level of university
English teachers.
Tertiary English Education
All the Asian nations/regions surveyed have general English courses
(English for General Purposes, henceforth EGP) at universities, except for
Israel, which offers mainly EAP (English for Academic Purposes, henceforth
EAP). As mentioned before, university EGP or EAP courses are instructed in
English in the Asian countries/regions in ESL context except for Bangladesh
(mixed with the native language), Israel, Indonesia, China (mostly), Thailand
(mostly), Korea (varies with schools/courses), and Taiwan (mixed). General
English programs are coordinated by both English-related departments or
English language centers in Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan; only by the
departments in most of the Asian countries (China, Japan, Indonesia,
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Iran, and
Pakistan); and by language institutes or English language teaching centers or
units in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Israel (EAP programs), and the UAE.
Except for Israel, tertiary English courses are EGP courses in most of the
Asian countries/regions. This raises a question on the aim of tertiary English
education.
English-medium Subjects
English is used as the medium of instruction in non-language classes (e.g.,
math or science) (English-medium Instruction, henceforth EMI) across
school levels in four Asian nations where English is used a second language,
as shown in the list below: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri
Lanka.
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
20
Primary classes: Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and India (only in Englishmedium
schools), Korea (only in immersion programs), the Philippines
Junior Secondary classes: Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, India, Hong Kong (in
English-medium schools), Indonesia (in bilingual programs), Thailand
(in English programs)
Senior Secondary classes: Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, India, Korea (only in
specialized schools, e.g., international high schools) the Philippines,
Hong Kong (in English-medium schools), Indonesia (in bilingual
programs), Thailand (in English programs), Pakistan
Tertiary classes: Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, India, Korea (in several
universities, especially top universities), the Philippines, Hong Kong,
Indonesia (in international programs), Thailand, Pakistan, Taiwan,
Bangladesh, Israel, the UAE, China (very few courses in top
universities)
In India, English is also used as an instructional medium for non-language
classes in the English-medium primary schools and all secondary and tertiary
schools. Besides these ESL countries, junior and senior secondary nonlanguage
classes are also taught in English in Hong Kong, Indonesia and
Thailand, but only in English-medium or bilingual programs. In Pakistani
senior secondary schools non-language subjects are also instructed in English.
Compared to primary and secondary schools, non-language courses are
taught in English more extensively in Asian universities, except for Japan,
Vietnam, and Iran. In most of the Asian countries/regions, science-, technologyor
business-related courses are instructed in English, which implies the
essential role of English in these fields strongly interwoven with globalization
or national development. In Korea and China top universities provide
English-medium courses since they place high priority on globalization in
order to play a leading role in the higher education of the world. Every year
the number of English-medium courses increases in Korean and Chinese
universities (Park & Park, 2006; Wen & Hu, 2007).
The Journal of Asia TEFL
21
Problems and Concerns in Primary and Secondary English Education
The Asian EFL specialists’ responses on the problems and concerns in
primary and secondary English language education are classified into nine
categories, as shown in Table 2. One of the problematic areas is related to the
sociocultural or linguistic context. For example, the lack of authentic
language use environment is problematic in China, Taiwan, Indonesia, and
even Hong Kong and the UAE, though these two regions are in ESL context.
Local nativization of English is also noted as a concern in the Philippines and
Singapore because it can lower the effectiveness of communication or lead to
a communication breakdown in the global community. Secondly, the lack of
government support for English language education is observed as national
policy problems in Taiwan, India, Pakistan and the UAE, especially for
primary English education, as the lack of primary English education is noted as
a major concern in Japan. The third problematic area is class size and hours.
As discussed before, only one or two class hours per week are allotted to
primary English education in Korea and Taiwan, and two class hours, to
secondary English in Iran, which raises the issue of limited exposure to
English and of inefficiency. The large class size is also pointed out as a
problem in Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Israel.
Next, curriculum and learning contents are noted as an issue. The gap
between the contents of primary and secondary English leads to the lack of
continuity between primary and secondary English education in Korea: too
little weighting on written language instruction in primary English conflicts
with a focus on reading or a balanced approach to four skills in secondary
English (Choi, Lee, Boo, & Lee, 2003). The curriculum standard is too low in
the UAE. The fifth concerned area is inadequacy of teaching methods or lack
of teaching materials or resources. English language education overly depends
on rote learning and testing-oriented system in Bangladesh, Pakistan, the UAE,
and Taiwan.
Authoritarian classroom culture is also noted as a problem in Bangladesh.
Proper resources and teaching materials are not sufficiently provided in
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
22
TABLE 2
Problems and Concerns in Primary and Secondary English Education in Asia
Areas Specific Problems and Concerns
Sociocultural
or linguistic
context
- lack of authentic language use (speaking) environment: China(P/S),
Hong Kong(P/S), Taiwan(P), the UAE(P/S), Indonesia(S)
- nativized form of English: the Philippines(P/S), Singapore(P/S)
- struggle with their native language: the UAE(P)
- high state of competitiveness vs. cooperation: Singapore(S)
English
language
education
policies
- lack of government support for English education (national policy
problem): Taiwan(P), India(P/S), Pakistan(P/S), the UAE(P)
- programs not suitable for the cultural milieu of the learner: India(P/S)
- implementation of primary English education: Japan(P)
- implementing policies (e.g., using IT in ELT, teaching): Thailand(S)
- research studies for academic promotion: Thailand(S), Vietnam(S)
Class size and
hours
- large class size: Korea(P/S), Taiwan(P), the Philippines(P/S),
Bangladesh(P/S), Pakistan(P/S), Israel(P/S)
- lack of class hours: Korea(P), Taiwan(P/S), Iran(P/S)
Curriculum
and learning
contents
- lack of the continuity between primary and secondary English:
Korea(P)
- too much focus on oral English: Korea(P)
- low curriculum standard: the UAE(S)
- introduction of English in class VI in some places: India(S)
- ignorance of speaking and writing: Korea(S)
Teaching
methods and
materials
- authoritarian classroom culture: Bangladesh(P/S)
- over-dependence on rote learning and testing-oriented system:
Bangladesh(P/S), Pakistan(P/S), the UAE(S), Taiwan(S)
- lack of proper resources and materials: China(P/S), Taiwan(S),
Indonesia(P), the Philippines(P/S), Bangladesh(P/S), India(P/S),
Pakistan(P/S), Sri Lanka(P/S), the UAE(P/S)
- spelling problems: Singapore(P)
- introducing extensive reading: Israel(P)
Students - special needs of students (those who are from poor families, nonreaders):
the Philippines(P), Israel(P/S)
- gap among students’ English proficiency: Korea(P), Taiwan(P)
- spoilt children: Singapore(P)
- lack of learners’ motivation: Indonesia(S), Malaysia(S),
Singapore(S), Vietnam(S)
Teachers - lack of qualified teachers: Korea(P/S), China(P/S), Taiwan(P),
Indonesia(P/S), the Philippines(P/S), Thailand(P/S),
Bangladesh(P/S), India(P/S), Pakistan(P), Sri Lanka(P/S), Israel(P/S),
the UAE(P)
- lack of teacher training: Japan(P/S), India(P), Pakistan(P/S)
- lack of trained teachers in rural areas: Malaysia(P/S), Sri Lanka(P/S)
- senior teachers’ resistance to new teaching strategies: Taiwan(S)
- teachers’ excessive workload: Japan(S)
Parents - lack of parents’ support for English education in rural areas:
Malaysia(P)
Note: P = primary; S = secondary
The Journal of Asia TEFL
23
China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and
the UAE. It seems a common problem shared by many Asian countries.
Introduction of extensive reading is also a concern in Israel.
The last three problematic areas include concerns with human factors
involved in English language learning: students, teachers, and parents. A
wide range of English proficiency within a class is noted as a problem in
Korea and Taiwan, especially in primary classes, due to the impact of private
education (Choi, 2008; Park, Park, Choi, & Lee, 2007), which is also
observed in Hong Kong (Miller & Li, 2008). Lack of students’ motivation is
another concern in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam, especially
in secondary English education. Cultivating or securing qualified English
teachers, and teacher training are key problems in the majority of the Asian
countries including Korea, China, Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand,
India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Israel, and the UAE, as noted in Koike (2007) for
Japan and Le (2007) for Vietnam. Likewise, the need of trained English
teachers is desperate in rural areas in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, as the lack of
trained teachers is noted as a problem leading to a gap between the quality of
English education in urban and rural schools (Data’ Hjh Noor Rezan Bapoo
Bt. Bapoo Hashim, 2008). Besides, teachers’ excessive workload (Japan) and
senior teachers’ resistance to new teaching strategies or methods (Taiwan)
are concerned issues. Miller and Li (2008) also note resistance from English
teachers in Hong Kong against implementing top-down curriculum reforms
due to their heavy teaching loads and large classes and also public
examinations. Finally, the lack of parents’ support for English education in
rural areas is also noted as a problem in Malaysian primary English education.
ISSUES AND CHALLENGES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
EDUCATION
The findings from the survey illustrate some key issues in English
language education in Asia. One of the issues is the amount of officially
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
24
allotted time for English language education, especially in primary and
secondary schools: its starting grade and class hours per week. This issue is
related to the amount of exposure to English. As discussed above, English
language education starts at first, third, fourth, sixth, or seventh grade in the
Asian countries/regions surveyed. There is no one agreement on when to start
second/foreign language learning. It is often stated, however, that “the longer
the exposure to the L2, the more native-like L2 proficiency becomes” (Ellis,
1985, pp. 105-106) or “as far as success in pronunciation is concerned,
younger learners do better” (Ellis, 1985, p. 106). These common beliefs are
often substantiated (Krashen, Scarcella, & Long, 1982; Long, 1993). No one
can deny age effects in second/foreign language learning (DeKeyser, 2000).
In the nations/regions where English language education begins at sixth or
seventh grade (e.g., Iran and Japan), thus, a second thought should be given
on its starting grade for its effectiveness. Furthermore, class hours per week
are not large enough, which leads to low efficiency in some Asian EFL
countries (e.g., Korea (primary English),Vietnam, and Iran). The inefficiency
issue caused by the lack of class hours (e.g., 1 hour for third or fourth grade
in Korea) leads to a distrust in public English education so that the number of
young children who study abroad has increased (Choi, 2007). As a minimum
of about 2,200-2,400 hours is suggested to acquire a new language (Yonhap
News, August 14, 2006), the significance of constant exposure to English and
of the intensity of learning, especially in EFL context, cannot be neglected
(Collins, Halter, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Lee, 2003). Thus, it would be
desirable to take a serious consideration on class hours in Asian EFL
countries with limited class hours to enhance the effectiveness of English
language education as much as possible in Asian ESL countries.
The next issue is related to TETE or EMI: should English be taught in
English or should English be used as the medium of instruction in non-
English subjects to enhance the effectiveness of English language education?
Expansion of the number of English-medium subjects in Asian countries such
as Hong Kong (Miller & Li, 2008), Korea (Choi, 2007), and China (Wen &
Hu, 2007) clearly manifests the essential role of English in a global
The Journal of Asia TEFL
25
community. Furthermore, it is the impact of the promotion of the benefits of
content-based instruction (CBI): “fostering academic growth while also
developing language proficiency” (Pessoa, Hendry, Donato, Tucker, & Lee,
2007, p. 102). In CBI classes language is used as a means of instruction or
communication so that language learning can be more meaningful since
language is used for real interaction rather than studied as the target object
(Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989; Richards & Rogers, 2001). It is not simple
to implement TETE or EMI because the former requires the teacher’s high
proficiency in English and the latter requires the teacher’s dual ability in
content and English or a team teaching of content and English teachers. No
one can ensure that EMI actually enhances the effectiveness of English
language education in Asian countries. However, it is a commonly shared belief
that EMI or TETE can lead to the improvement of the student’s English ability,
as shown in the survey of Korean undergraduates on this issue (Jung, 2007).
Consequently, they can be suggested as a way to reform English language
education in Asian countries.
The third issue is related with centralization or decentralization of English
language education in terms of the national curriculum and English textbooks.
The national English curriculum is often revised as an effort to enhance
English language education or to reflect emerging needs of the society, as
noted in Korea (KICE, 2004a, 2004b) and Indonesia (Suwarsih Madya, 2008).
The finding that primary and secondary English education is framed by the
national curriculum in the 18 nations/regions illustrates that in Asia education
seems centrally controlled by the government. The curriculum seems basically
developed by the means-ends model (a rational-planning model), which is a
top-down product-oriented curriculum development (White, 1988) rather
than a school-based curriculum development allowing school autonomy.
Moreover, the findings from the survey reveal the lack of teachers’
adaptation or revision of the English textbook in Asian countries, as shown in
the lack of teacher autonomy and the control of the centralized national
curriculum on teaching methods in Jordan (Mustafa & Cullingford, 2008).
This top-down approach is no longer an effective means in the period of
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
26
decentralization, as decentralization of education has been mandatory in
Indonesia since 2003 (Suwarsih Madya, 2008). As suggested in Kang et al.
(2006), the national curriculum should play a role of a basic guide rather than
control details in English language education. School-based curriculum
autonomy (the adaptation of the national curriculum) or diversification of the
national curriculum should be promoted. English language education should
also be adapted for regional needs, as shown in China, which allows
economically developed areas, such as Shanghai, to construct their own English
syllabi to encourage educational innovation and diversity of English provision in
order to cater for varying local needs (Hu, 2005). This decentralization issue is
also related to problems caused by discrepancy in students’ English ability.
Though a diversity in English abilities is noted between students of
metropolitan areas and those in remote island areas because of their socioeconomic
context (e.g., private tutoring, contact with native speakers, or
language training overseas) (Choi, 2007) as well as within a class (Park et al.,
2007), the students of diverse English abilities have to study English using
the same textbook based on the same national curriculum. Regional
development or adaptation of curricula or textbooks, or school discretionary
activities should be thus ratified to meet such individual or regional needs, as
planned in Korea (Choi, 2007). In addition, diverse supports for schools that
are lagging behind in socio-economic aspects (e.g., financial support or ICT
materials) should be provided, as the lack of proper resources and teaching
materials is noted as a problem in primary and secondary English education
in Asia such as China, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.
English teachers are another issue: who should teach across school levels
or how qualified English teachers should be cultivated or secured. As the
quality of education cannot exceed the quality of teachers, teachers are a key
to educational reforms, as in Hargreaves and Fullan (1992) and Suwarsih
Madya (2008). Who should teach English at primary school, generalists or
English specialty teachers? The former is highly recommended by primary
English education specialists due to the cognitive and affective development
of primary students, while foreign language specialty teachers tend to be
The Journal of Asia TEFL
27
suggested in American or British primary schools (Yoon et al., 2007). Moreover,
should NESTs replace NNESTs to enhance English language education? The
answer may be ‘no.’ It is not a simple question to answer since each group of
teachers has their own merits and demerits, as noted in Medgyes (2001).
Hong Kong SAR Government adopted the employment of NESTs as an
initiative to enhance English language education (Miller & Li, 2008); Korea
maintains the One NEST per School Policy in primary and high schools and
will place a NEST per middle school by 2010 (Kim, 2007). However, it may
not be a key means for improving English language education, as Korean
middle school students or parents illustrate the same criteria for qualified
teachers regardless of NESTs or NNESTs (Chang, 2005; Kim, 2007). Medgyes
(2001) states that “the “ideal teacher” is no longer a category reserved for
NESTs” (p. 440), though the ideal NNEST is a teacher with a native-like
proficiency in English. Only the NESTs with good pedagogical knowledge and
skills, attitudes, and awareness, which are key components of teacher quality
(Choi & Lee, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1983), are regarded as good teachers.
Consequently, a balance of NESTs and NNESTs complementing each other in
their advantages and disadvantages may be ideal (Medgyes, 2001). If it is not
plausible throughout the whole nation in Asia, one NEST per school may be
a second choice, as in Korea. NESTs can play a meaningful role in fostering
NNESTs’ English proficiency and assisting them in the development of
teaching materials and tests.
The contents and the testing method of the nation-wide university entrance
examination is the final issue to be discussed. It is not an overstatement that
testing determines learning or teaching in English language education, as noted
in Korea (Son, Kim & Choi, 2006) and Japan (Brown & Yamashita, 1995;
Koike & Tanaka, 1995). The findings from the survey have illustrated that
MCQs are the most common technique, and reading, grammar, and vocabulary
are the key contents in most of the Asian countries. If the aim of English
language education is fostering all language skills, but the contents of the
nation-wide or university-based college entrance examination do not contain
direct testing of some skills, it would be needed to give a second thought on
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
28
them to enhance the validity of the examination and improve English language
education in the country, as in Hong Kong. The public English examination
was reformed in Hong Kong to give more weight on to its oral component
(from 10 per cent until 1994 increased to 18 per cent in 1996) in order to
enhance students’ oral proficiency with an expectation of its positive washback
effects on the teaching of oral English in schools (Miller & Li, 2008).
CONCLUSION
English language education has been surveyed across 18 Asian nations/regions.
Commonalities and variations among the Asian nations/regions have been
revealed. English language education in each Asian nation/region seems an
outcome of diverse factors including political environment, social and individual
needs, and resources (e.g., teachers and computer).
The findings from the study have provided a general picture of English
language education in Asia in the topics surveyed. Further investigations are
needed to present a more penetrating depiction. In addition, a survey is needed on
the topics not investigated such as teaching methods and techniques, and teacherstudent
interaction in order to shed light on what happens in real classrooms.
THE AUTHORS
Yeon Hee Choi is currently professor of English Education at Ewha
Womans University in Seoul, Korea, and Asia TEFL books editor-in-chief.
She received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. She was vice president of KATE (Korea Association
of Teachers of English). Her primary interests include discourse analysis and
TESL/TEFL (reading and writing). She has published books on English
language teaching and a number of articles on L2 reading and writing,
discourse analysis, assessment, and English language education policies.
The Journal of Asia TEFL
29
Email: yhchoi@ewha.ac.kr
Hyo Woong Lee is professor of English Language & Literature Department
at Korea Maritime University, Korea. He received his Ph.D. in English
Education from Kyungbuk National University. He founded Asia TEFL (The
Asian Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) on March
15, 2003. He is president of Asia TEFL. He was president of KATE (Korea
Association of Teachers of English) and PKETA (Pan-Korea English Teachers
Association). He is mainly interested in language learning motivation and
strategies and effective English teachers. He has published a number of
articles on those areas.
Email: hwlee@hhu.ac.kr
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to express our great appreciation to Professor Zhizhong_Yang,
David C. S. Li, Chinfen Chen, Yiu-nam Leung, Yasukata Yano, Suwarsih
Madya, Malachi Edwin Vethamani, Luz C. Vilches, Phyllis Chew, Suchada
Nimmannit, Pham Hoa Hiep, Arifa Rahman, Ravinder Gargesh, Sabiha
Mansoor, Ryhana Raheem, Bahram Behin, Susan Holzman, Christine Coombe,
and Fatma Alwan for their participation in the survey.
REFERENCES
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second
language instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Brown, J. D., & Yamashita, S. (1995). English language entrance exams at Japanese
universities: What do we know about them? JALT Journal, 17, 7-30.
Chang, S. (2005). Who do you like?: Korean parents’ preferences in the selection of
English teachers for their children. English Language Teaching, 17(4), 1-31.
Choi, Y. H. (2006). Impact of politico-economic situations on English language
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
30
education in Korea. English Teaching, 61(4), 3-26.
Choi, Y. H. (2007). The history of and the policy of the English language education in
Korea. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History
and policies (pp. 33-66). Seoul: Asia TEFL.
Choi, Y. H. (2008, January). Initiatives and issues in primary English education in
Korea. Colloquium paper presented at the 2008 Thailand TESOL International
Conference, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Choi, Y. H., & Kang, M. (2002). Online multimedia programeuy junghakgyo yeongeo
sueopeyeuy jeokyong hyogwaey daehan saryeey yeongu (A case study on the
implementation of online multimedia instruction for middle school English).
English Teaching, 57(2), 293-322.
Choi, Y. H., & Lee, H. W. (2007). A model of English teacher development in Asia
based on surveys on teacher qualifications and training programs. The Journal
of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 1-35.
Choi, Y. H., Lee, W., Boo, K., & Lee, J. (2003). Junghakgyo yeongeogyoyukey siltae
bunseokeul thonghan chodeungyeongeogeyoyukeuy hyogwa geomjeung: haksaeng
jaryo bunseokeul jungshimeuro (Effects of elementary school English education on
middle school English education: Focused on the analysis of students' survey
response). Primary English Education, 9(1), 131-165.
Collins, L., Halter, R. H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). Time and the
distribution of time in L2 instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 655-677.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Data’ Hjh Noor Rezan Bapoo Bt. Bapoo Hashim. (2008). ELT curriculum innovations
and strategies for implementation in Malaysia. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky
(Eds.), ELT curriculum innovation and implementation in Asia (pp. 131-143).
Seoul: Asia TEFL.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499-533.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Fishman, J. A., Rubal-Lopez, A., & Conrad, A. W. (Eds.) (1996). Post-imperial
English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Greenbaum, S. (1996). Afterword. In R. J. Baumgardner (Ed.), South Asian English:
Structure, use and users (pp. 239-245). Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (Eds.). (1992). Understanding teacher development.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Hu, G. (2005). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems.
The Journal of Asia TEFL
31
Language Policy, 4, 5-24.
Jones, C., & Fortescue, S. (1987). Using computers in the language classroom.
London: Longman.
Jung, H. (2007). TETEey daehan daehaksaengeuy inshikey daehan yeongu (A study
of university students’ perceptions on TETE). Unpublished master’s thesis.
The Graduate School of Education of Dankook University, Jukjeon, South
Korea.
Khan, B. H. (2003). E-learning strategies. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Kang, H., Lee, D. Ryu, J., Lee, J., & Kim, M. (2006). Gukga gyoyukgwajeong
daeganghwaeuy banghyanggwa gawjey: Gyoyukgwajeong cheyjeyeuy gaejeongeul
jungshimeuyro (Direction and task for slimming the national curriculum:
Centered on revision of curriculum system). Journal of Secondary School
Education, 54(1), 221-251.
Kawabata, T. (2006). The use of computer-assisted language learning for literacy
development. Retrieved January 19, 2008, from http://www.eltnews.com/features/
special/.
KICE (Korea Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation). (2004a). Yeongeokwa kyoyukgwajeong
gaeseon banghyang yeongu (Analysis and evaluation on appropriateness of
learning contents of the curriculum) (Research Report RRC 2004-1-11). Seoul:
KICE.
KICE. (2004b). Yeongeokwa kyoyukgwajeong silthae bunseok mit gaeseon banghyang
yeongu (Analysis of the practice of the English curriculum and research on the
directions for its revision) (Research Report RRC 2004-4-12). Seoul: KICE.
Kim, H. (2007). The Korean middle school EFL learners’ perception towards NESTs
and non-NESTs. English Teaching, 62(4), 195-220.
Kim, J. S. (2004). Chodeunghakgyo yeongeo jeonjagyogwaseo gaebal dangyeywa
banghyang (A study on the development phases and the direction of the
electronic textbook for primary English education). Foreign Languages Education,
11(2), 227-247.
Kim, M. (2005). Hangook, ilbon mit junggookeuy yeongeo gyoyukgwajeong bigyo (A
study on comparison of the English curriculum in Korea, Japan, and China).
Unpublished master’s thesis. The Graduate School of Education at Gyeongsang
National University, Jinju, South Korea.
Kim, S. (2002). A critical reflection on the ‘teaching English through English’ classes
in the Korean context. English Teaching, 57(4), 315-346.
Koike, I. (1994). A general survey of English language education: Problems and
policy initiatives. The Proceedings of the International Conference of the
English Language and Literature Association of Korea on English Studies in
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
32
Korea Retrospect and Prospect (pp. 85-104). Seoul: The English Language
and Literature Association of Korea.
Koike, I. (2007). Historical view of TEFL policy in Japan. In Y. H. Choi & B.
Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies (pp. 95-116).
Seoul: Asia TEFL.
Koike, I., & Tanaka, H. (1995). English in foreign language education policy in
Japan: Toward the twenty-first century. World Englishes, 14, 13-25.
Krashen, S., Scarcella, R., & Long, M. (Eds.) (1982). Child-adult differences in
second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kwak, Y. M. (2004). Daehaksuhakneungryeoksiheom eoygukeoyeongyeok naeyong
thadangdo bunseok (An analysis of content validity of English test in the
College Scholastic Ability Test). Unpublished master’s thesis. The Graduate
School of Education of Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul, South Korea.
Kwon, O. (2000). Korea’s English education policy changes in the 1990s: Innovations
to gear the nation for the 21st Century. English Teaching, 55(1), 47-91.
Lamie, J. M. (1999). Making the textbook more communicative. The Internet TESL
Journal, 5(1). Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://iteslj.org/.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). Training teachers or educating a teacher. In J. D. Alatis, H.
H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages
and Linguistics 1983 (pp. 264-274). Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Le, V. C. (2004). From ideology to inquiry: Mediating Asian and Western values in
ELT practice. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 1(1), 167-183.
Le, V. C. (2007). A historical review of English language education in Vietnam. In Y.
H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies
(pp. 167-179). Seoul: Asia TEFL.
Lee, B. (2003). EFL yeongeohakseup hwangyueongeyseo hakseupshiganeuy euymi
(The importance of instructional time in EFL learning environment). Foreign
Languages Education, 10(2), 107-129.
Lee, J. (2007). Where to start teaching English through English: Based on perceived
effectiveness of teachers’ English use. English Teaching, 62(4), 335-354.
Long, M. (1993). Second language acquisition as a function of age: Research findings
and methodological issues. In K. Hyltenstam & A. Viberg (Eds.), Progression
and regression in language (pp. 196-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Medgyes, P. (2001). When the teacher is a non-native speaker. In M. Celcel-Murcia
(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 429-
442). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Miller, L., & Li. D. C. S. (2008). Innovations in ELT curricula and strategies of
The Journal of Asia TEFL
33
implementation in Hong Kong SAR. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), ELT
curriculum innovation and implementation in Asia (pp. 71-100). Seoul: Asia
TEFL.
MOE&HRD (Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development) of Korea.
(2006). Chodeung yeongeogyoyuk yeonguhakgyo 50gaegyo seonjeong: 2nyeongan
unyeong hu 1, 2haknyeon doip yeobu gyeoljeong (Selection of 50 primary schools
as model schools for primary school education: The implementation of earlier start
of primary English education from first and second grade to be decided after a twoyear
experiment). Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://www.moe.go.kr.
MOE&HRD of Korea. (2008). Gyoyukbu, miraegyoyukeul wuihan digitalgyogwaseo
gaebal saeop chaksu (Start of the digital textbooks development project). Retrieved
January 19, 2008, from http://www.moe.go.kr.
Mustafa, M., & Cullingford, C. (2008). Teacher autonomy and centralized control:
The case of textbooks. International Journal of Educational Development, 28,
81-88.
Park, H., & Park, I. (2006). Gangeuy eoneoga gangeuy manjokdoey michineun
yeonghyang (The effect of instructional language on overcall course satisfaction).
Journal of Educational Studies, 37(3), 319-337.
Park, Y., Park, K., Choi, H., & Lee, E. (2007). Chodeunghakgyo jogi yeongeogyoyuk
hwakdae banganey kwanhan yeonku (A study on earlier implementation of
English education in Korean elementary school). Primary English Education,
13(1), 5-47.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
Pessoa, S., Hendry, H., Donato, R., Tucker, G. R., & Lee, H. (2007). Content-based
instruction in the foreign language classroom: A discourse perspective. Foreign
Language Annals, 40, 102-121.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, A. (2007). The history and policy of English education in Bangladesh. In Y.
H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History and policies
(pp. 67-93). Seoul: Asia TEFL.
Richards, J. C., & Rogers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching:
A description and analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education: Or worldwide diversity
and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Son, D., Kim, K.-H., & Choi, Y. H. (2006). Yeongeogyoyuki naahgayahal banghyang
mit injeop hakmuneuy yeokhal (Future directions for English education in
Korea and the role of its related disciplines). English Teaching, 61(special
issue), 219-246.
Current Trends and Issues in English Language Education in Asia
34
Suwarsih Madya. (2007). Searching for an appropriate EFL curriculum design for the
Indonesian pluralistic society. TEFLIN (Teaching English as a Foreign
Language in Indonesia) Journal, 18, 206-229.
Suwarsih Madya. (2008). Curriculum innovations in Indonesia and the strategies to
implement them. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), ELT curriculum innovation
and implementation in Asia (pp. 1-38). Seoul: Asia TEFL.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Language policies in Asian countries: Issues and tensions. The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 1, 1-25.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: An introduction. In S.
Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wen, Q., & Hu, W. (2007). History and policy of English Education in Mainland
China. In Y. H. Choi & B. Spolsky (Eds.), English education in Asia: History
and policies (pp. 1-31). Seoul: Asia TEFL.
What is the problem of English education in Korea?: English language ability. (2006,
August 14). Yonhap News.
White, R. V. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation, and management.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Woo, J. Y. (2004). Yeongeoro jinhaenghanun yeongeosueop(TETE)i jungdeunghakgyo
hakseupjaeuy heungmido yubalgwa hakseup seongchwidoey michinun yeonghyangey
gwanhan yeongu (An investigation of the interest of ‘Teaching English Though
English’ in middle English language teaching). Unpublished master’s thesis.
The Graduate School of Education of Dongguk University, Seoul.
Yeo, Y. S. (1998). Chodeungyeongeo gyoshileyseo gyosaeuy yeongeosayonggwa
bulandowaeuy gwangye (The correlation between teachers’ use of English and
teachers’ anxiety in primary EFL classrooms). Unpublished master’s thesis.
Ewha Womans University, Seoul.
Yoon, Y. B., Ihm, H., Kim, H., Min, D., Hong, K., Oh, M., & Park, M. (2007).
Gyoyukdaehakgyo yeongeogyoyukgwa phyojun shimhwagwajeong gaebal
yeongu (A study for the development of a standard curriculum in primary
English education as a second major at national universities of education).
Primary English Education, 13(1), 95-125.
Yun, J. (2005). Jogi yeongeogyoyuki ihu hakseupey michinun yeonghyang (Effects of
early English education on subsequent language learning). Unpublished
master’s thesis. The Graduate School of Education of Daegoo University,
Daegoo, South Korea.
