The article of "ESL or EFL-Does It Matter?" by Ke Xu considers the distinction between EFL and ESL, being a much discussed and controversial issue for many years, has been broadened by in varied contexts. First the issue of ESL curriculum in EFL world and EFL techniques for the immigrants and the indigenous inhabitants was examined by Hoelker, Reutzel, and Harris (2007). This article then shows Anderson, the former TESOL president argues against the conceptual dichotomy of the two, and supports his position with three observations: teaching in both situations using same material overlapping methods, huge immigrants living in linguistic isolation, and the case of EFL becoming like ESL by the increased use of English in Japanese mass media and elsewhere. However, the opponents of them maintain the distinction for valid reasons, related to pedagogical goals, student types, material development, and other factors. Thus it is still necessary and considerable for the regions and environment. These issue and debate are left open ended. The author, Ke Xu thinks that it is important to fit student needs and to adjust teaching method adapting to learning environment. Although he gives some references to these contrary opinions and the facts, it would be better to contain more results and opinions of survey and cases from teachers and students in those situations. I can see that he slightly sidesteps his position from the matter of the distinction among them, and he leaves it all to the English teachers to compromise and to adjust their teaching to the real situation. In Korea, most as like an EFL setting, ESL is being set in some immersion programs such as English Village, English kindergartens, and an international school. They try to teach ESL curriculum, and affects positive ways. Even they speak in mother language after come back home but they spend more time to be exposed to ESL setting than EFL situation. Recently, in terms of EIL and WE, the government is providing facilities for English immersion education and we are also in the increased use of English like Japanese case which given by Anderson from Ke Xu's article, but yet for explaining Korean situation is much appropriate to EFL. I consider that the standard for the distinction of EFL and ESL is to reflect student's linguistic environment first, and then to modulate the teaching method for approach to the goal.
ESL or EFL Does It matter? Name doesn't matter. meaning still matters.
Dr. Ke Xu, member of Testing Board of Jiangsu at Education Department of Jiangsu province, China, EFL-IS Chair 2008-2009 at TESOL, wrote a journal regarding the distinction between EFL and ESL and expressed that it has been a much discussed and controversial issue for many years. With 3 current changing circumstances, 1. The teaching methodology in both situations is becoming identical: teachers in both situation using the same books, same methods, and so on. 2. 2. ESL situation are becoming more like EFL situation with a vast number of immigrants from different countries living in near linguistic isolation. 3. EFL situation are increasingly becoming like ESL situation as can be judged, for example in Japan, by the increased use of English in the mass media and elsewhere.
As per those reasons, Dr. Xu offering the ideas that “defining EFL or ESL doesn’t matter. It matters ELT professionals is to understand the nature of their job; to stay alert to the changing setting of their teaching and student needs; to be aware of the approach options available; and finally, to be able to adapt to change.” (Conclusion:p11)
However, though gap between EFL and ESL are narrowing and there’s various new situation to make hard to configure the EFL and ESL as we are now living in globalized world, Dr. Hu(2003) mentioned that we still need to use differentiated approach tool for student, EFL, just like the case of China and Japan as they showed strong resistance when there was ESL approach. The reason is there are more facts we need to consider with, such as culture affective filters, academic style, LET teachers way of teaching and purpose of learning language.
By the trend of globalization, Yes. I do also agreed that 3 facts that Dr. Xu found out blurring the boundary of EL and ESL. I still need more time to witness the real scene and have new forms of EFL and ESL that adopt their new circumstances.
I agree that wasting time to configure what is EFL and ESL and teachers are to support whatever the student needed to have, but teachers are still require to have strong sense of different start and use different approaches between EFL and ESL as we just can not give any clothes to student without asking what they need to wear just because the clothes are looks similar.
The author, Ke Xu, brought up an issue about ESL versus EFL. In his article "ESL or EFL-Does it matter?", he mentioned two big examples which have been a controversial issue for many years. The first issue was "Geograghy alone can no longer determine what EFL and ESL mean", which is about even in countries with English as their first language cannot be implied ESL situation due to immigrants' society. The second one is about whether "English language teaching professionals should move away from the conceptual dichotomy of ESL versus EFL", which refers that English teachers should not think EFL and ESL as a seperate things. According to the athor, two issues mentioned above have both advantages and disadvantages and he claims the most important thing for ELT professionals is "to understand the nature of their job".
By reaing this article, I have found this authors claim insightful because teaching environments are changing everyday and as an English teacher, I also think it is not important to distinguish ESL or EFL. But it is important to realize what my teaching environments are and to adapt to change as the authour mentioned before. However I found the author's claim a little abstract. It would have been much more explicit if he supported his claim with athentic teaching situations. In that way ELT teachers in various environment would have had some practical advices in teaching.
The author mentioned that the distinction between EFL and ESL has been a much-discussed and controversial issue for many years.
He's telling us that it was a matter of geography to make the definitions of EFL or ESL, however it doesn't match in some cases. And he also pointed out that the different language context in many countries makes the confusion with dividing two concepts and adapting the proper one. So the debates still goes on as he said in the article. ESL or EFL does it matter? or not? The writer insists that there's more important question over this debate : Are English teachers able to adapt to change?
In the field of Korean education, there is a saying "The quality of education can not excel the quality of a teacher" I think he didn't consider teachers' perspectives on this issue. The preparation for English class should be different whether it's based on ESL or EFL situation. The appropriate assessments for ESL or EFL can not be the same. And what about the huge expense for educating so many teachers in the world? I think we should choose the right one for our own context.
When it comes to English education environment of Korea, I insist that the suitable one is EFL in most cases. ESL can give too much hard time for teachers and students yet.
The distinction between ESL and EFL by geography became inappropriate these days. Some advocate that the distinction between the two should be blurred while others believe that the distinction between the two is too important to be ignored(Ke Xu, 2007). The author, Ke Xu, thinks that what matters to ELT professionals is not the distinction between the two, but understanding the nature of their job and having flexibility in approaches according to classroom settings and students' needs. I agree with the author's statement about geography does not mean a lot to the distinction between ESL and EFL because of the activated globalization. In this respect, not only for ESL and EFL, but many other dichotomies could disappear, including distinction between west and east. We could not ignore the existing difference between EFL and ESL environments. I also sympathize with the opponents to argue the importance of the distinction between the two. I think introducing ESL techniques to EFL environments would be burdensome to students. Regarding this affective aspect, I understand that Japanese students resisted to an U.S teacher who tried to import ESL approaches to their university. What I want to know more about Japanese case is whether there are any other reasons why students were objectionable for ESL techniques. Finally, I would like to add that many other approaches as well as ESL and EFL approach should vary according to students' needs. There is no one standard approach for either EFL or ESL class. I believe that teachers could make an optimal class for their students, when they are aware of this flexibility.
The article "ESL or EFL - Does it matter?"(by Ke Xu) states which have been a controversial issue for many years. The author claim that it doesn't mean too much to distinguish ESL(English as a Second Language) and EFL(English as a Foreign Language) clearly. Nowadays, "Geography can not determine what ESL and EFL mean."
There are two persistences. One is that it should be blurred to distinction. And another one is that it is too important to be ignored. I agree with two perspectives. We can not have clear cut distinction because of globalization and blurring boarders. And actually we don't have to say which is more efficient and which is better. Both language learning situations have advantages and disadvantages and I think both of them are important.
And the author, Ke Xu, thinks that what matters to ELT professionals is not the distinction between the two, but understanding the nature of their job and having flexibility in approaches according to needs of students and class room settings. I think that we need to collect and combine advantages and adopt these to specific cultures by situations. ESL could exist in overseas teaching situations and EFL could occurring in U.S We still have open perspectives and don't have distinction clearly. It could be happen anywhere and anytime.
The author, Ke Xu, said "The debate on ESL or EFL still remains open. However the blurring of the distinction between the two may not necessarily mean the total irrelevance of the distinction."
There is still a border between ESL and EFL. Learning ESL is English within a culture where English is spoken natively. Learning EFL is English in one's native culture with few immediate opportunities to use the language withing the environment of that culture. To be exact, ESL and EFL are not the same.
However, the ELT(English Language Teaching) is changing. English is English. English which is used in India and English used in Korea are the same English. We need to recognize English as an international language.
I subscribe to Ke Xu's opinion. It is meaningless to draw a distinction between ESL and EFL.
ESL or EFL- Does It Matter? The central issue that Ke Xu addressed in this article is about the distinction between ESL and EFL. As he said "The debate remains open.", it is not an important matter between both of them. ESL or ESL could be determined by environment around the students, not geograpy alone. Communities, students' needs, teaching situations are considered an environment.
According to this article, I think it is not valid to distinguish both of them. "What matters to ELT professionals is to understand the nature of their job".(page.11) I agree that because teachers in various environment should adapt the new situations and adopt new activities and techniques of teaching.
In korea, as growing of English proficiency some schools try to provide the students ESL curriculum such as English zone or English libraries even EFL world. Before practicing this, however, we have to consider of suitability for our teaching environment and students.
The author "Ke Xu“ questioned about the validity of distinction between EFL and EFL in his article of "ESL or EFL -Does it matter?". He mentioned some examinations that was executed by Hoelker, Reutzel, and Harris for supporting that the distinction between of two is not important and become unmeaningful. For support their claim, Hoelker provided some EFL programs to the students in their EFL culture. Reizel examined about providing ESL curricular to Native American Idian tribes in California and she claimed EFL curricular is more appropriate for them than ESL curricular. Harris maintained student teachers who are supposed to teach students in immigrant communities are required EFL techniques. Because immigrant communities in United States are dominated by their own language other than English. The author also cited observations of Neil Anderson about unmeaningfulness of distinction between of two. The one of observations is that teaching methodology of both situation is becoming identical. The rest of them is that ESL situations and EFL situation are become more similar with each other. In conclusion, the author mentioned that ELT professionals have to perceive changed setting in their teaching and be able to apply changes to their teaching.
The position of author, as title of this article is shown, is closed to answer that distinction of two is unmeaningful. He dealt with a lot of statements and examinations of proponents who claim distinction of two is unmeaningful. On the other hand, his writing is shown of lack about examinations of opponents. Thus It is questionable whether he considered enough about both positions while writing this article. Nevertheless of these arguments, my position is closed to proponents aforementioned and this is true that this article gave a chance to think about setting of my teaching. The intensive exposure of English is still needed for students and students still feel resistance when they listen, speak, read, write in English in my class. I think that I have to more focus on needs of students and more struggle with teaching method for getting rid of their negative feeling.
The author, Ke Xu deals with the matter of the blurred distinction between EFL and ESL in his article, ”ESL or EFL- Does It Matter?” He presents “Geographically Challenged EFL-ESL” which means geography alone can no longer determine what EFL and ESL mean, as an example.
For the advocates for this issue, he shows that Hoelker’s doubt about the effectiveness of providing an ESL curriculum in an EFL culture. He also shares Reitzel’s experience with Native Americans that revealed the standard American English is a foreign language for Native American youth. He added Harris’s comment that U.S. immigrant communities should be defined as an EFL Setting. Moreover, Neil Anderson’s presentation he wrote briefly supports this issue by three suggestions-1.The teaching methods in both situations become identical. 2.ESL situations are becoming more similar to EFL situations because of numerous immigrants. 3. EFL situations are becoming like ESL situations by increase use of English in the media.
However, He also mentioned about opponents’ voice for this issue. According to them, “The distinction between the two was introduced for valid reasons, related to pedagogical goals, student types, etc.” They also pointed out the weakness of Neil Anderson’s suggestions that only considered the two situations, not the students. That is, when the students’ resistance is strong, all the ESL techniques are useless.
Lastly, he concluded that teachers should stay alert to the changing of their teaching setting, understanding the nature of their job, whether they are in the ESL or EFL environments.
In my opinion, the author has more emphasis on the advocates’, because he presented more instances on them, but I totally agree with his conclusion.
The author, "Ke Xu“ who wrote the article "ESL or EFL -Does it matter?", presented the distinction between ESL and EFL as a controversial issue for many years. He introduced the assertion of both positions citing by authorities on English education in his article. He mentioned EFL/ESL boundaries increasingly blurred because of following reasons. First, "the teaching methodology in both situation is becoming identical"(p.10), second "ESL situations are becoming more like EFL situation"(p.10) such as immigrant communities in the U.S. Third, "EFL situation are increasingly becoming like ESL situation"(p.10) by mass media, On the other hand, he cited that "It is unrealistic to copy all the ESL models and use then in the EFL field"(p.11) and also "The teacher was met with strong resistance from the students" in Japan.(p.11) Finally he proposed that teacher's gob is to adapt to change appropriately for student needs.
I found that the EFL/ESL distinction is still important to English teachers. For one thing, when the author mentioned "geography" as a factor of distintion, he excluded psychological aspect. For example, the author cited immigrants in the U.S might be appropriated to ESL curricula. He assumed immigrants in the U.S. stayed in ESL settings. In my opinion, the standard of distinction is the environment where is compelled to speak English and English only is spoken. They might be surrounded by their first languages not English in their communities. When we can provide those physical and psychological conditions, we can call ESL settings. Besides, I wondered if "the teaching methodology in both situation is becoming identical" will be effective to teach English to leaners in EFL settings, because I could not find any detail supports in his article. I think English teachers have to create learning materials that are culturally relevant and personally meaningful to the students. I believed that language skills develop from experience and the need to communicate and share these experiences with others.
For another thing, I think the output is also important to practice English. The author cited that "EFL situation are increasingly becoming like ESL situation"(p.10) by mass media. Contrary to the past, I agreed leaners can have enough English input but I discovered that we can learn a language by using it. Retuning to immigrants in the U.S., they might listen sufficiently English through the radio or the T.V but they might limit the opportunity of practicing English in their communities. If they do not produce any comprehensible output, they will not be able to speak English fluently. In these points, I think the distintion between ESL or EFL valid remains still and influenced English teachers to select the teaching strategy.
In conclusion, The author presented the EFL/ESL distinction was not matter then teacher should change appropriately for student needs. But I think learners can be stimulated by effective teaching methods because the distinction between ESL and EFL remain still. So I believed that teachers should gradually evaluate and adopt a teaching method appropriate to the educational goals, student interests and the various educational environments.
The author, Ke Xu, raises the matter of the distinction between EFL and ESL are blurring. The author deploys his topic by representing the examples with the viewpoint of geography.
The author starts with the most recent example. Which is " a panel presentation given at the 2007 TESOL convention in Seattle". One of the panels, Hoeker, claims " Both the textbooks and the professors are from the United States in the Gulf region,...it is a good idea to provide an ESL curriculum in a non-English-speaking environment..." Another panel, Reitzel, sharing her years of experience working with K-2 students from three major native American Indian tribes in California believes that " EFL rather than ESL curricula will suit the needs of Native American much better. The other panel, Harris, points out"... English is rarely used in daily life in U.S. immigrant communities.
The author continues to present the examples to show the reason. one of them is the debate that was sparked by Neil Anderson former TESOL president at a Japan Association for Language Teaching conference. He suggested that " English language teaching professionals should move away from the conceptual dichotomy of ESL versus EFL." He made three observations in support of his position. But the author also presents the strong oppositions to his suggestion. Those are valid reasons, related to" pedagogical goals, student types, material development, and other factors. The author shows two more opposite examples to the dichotomy between ESL and EFL.
Though the debate" ESL or EFL- does it matter?" remains open, the author seems to believe the blurring of the distinction between the two. And the author concludes his writing by adding that " ELT professionals is to understand the nature of their job; to stay alert to the changing setting of their teaching and student needs; to be aware of the approach options available; and finally, to be able to adapt to change".
I think the article was written in logical order. The author seemed to describe about the phenomenon objectively. Even though the dispute is remained open the writer shows inclination to the diminishing the distinction between the two. And conclusively he finish his writing just with mentioning his opinion about the necessity which ELT professionals are to consider. I think in Korea the same phenomenon is happening in the ELT spot now.
I generally agreed with what Dr. Ke Xu mentioned in the article. Firstly, the distinction between ESL and EFL by geography is fading away. However, "the distinction, they maintained, was introduced for valid reasons, related to pedagogical goals, student types, material development and other factors are too important to be ignore between the two". Therefore the ELT practitioners are "to understand the nature of their job" and "to be able to adapt to change".
I can see the bigger picture, but I cannot see the details of where there is specific crossover or specific cases of this and how we have to approach it in the Korean education setting. Maybe it is the Korean teacher's role to find this out. I know that EFL is learnt to pass specific exams, to be necessary as part of someones education or for career progression. Whereas ESL is usually designed as part of an integration or citizenship program for immigrants into a native English speaking country. How I can bridge the gap between these two different approaches within my teaching practice I am not sure.
The author of the article "ESL or EFL-Does It Matter?" mentioned two opposing opinion about the distinction between ESL and EFL. First, according to the opponent of the dichotomy of ESL versus EFL, "geography alone can no longer determine what EFL and ESL means"(p.1) because even within U.S, there could be areas in which native language is not English such as in immigrant communities or on Native American reservations. In addition, the teaching methodology in both situation is becoming identical as well as both situations are becoming like each other, blurring the clear distinction between the two. However, the proponent of the distinction argued that "the distinction was introduced for valid reasons" and "too important to ignore"(p.1), saying that "It is unrealistic to copy all the ESL models and use them in the EFL field"(p.2). To both of the arguments, the author seems to try to place himself in a neutral position, suggesting that what's important is "to be alert and adapt to changing setting of their teaching and student needs"(p.2).
In some respects, I agree with the author, especially in that teachers should adjust to the teaching environment and students' needs that are changing. However, to find out the best approaches and options available in the given situation, identifying and recognizing the teaching environment is a prerequisite. We can be helpful and beneficial to our students only when we exactly understand the learners' situation and needs in it. Therefore, as a teacher, I think that the distinction between ESL and EFL, even though it is being blurred and teaching methods are inter-changable in both situations, could be a useful tool to define the environment and figure out its characteristics. Definitely, the teaching and learning environment of EFL is different from that of ESL and of course, the optimal methodology for each is undoubtedly not same. Accordingly, it's essential for us to recognize the characteristics of the environment of EFL and devise optimal ways of teaching in our situation. I hope we could be all wise and make the best of our environment.
The distinction between EFL and ESL has been discussed for many years. EFL and ESL have been determined by Geography, but the fact is not true. Of course, EFL may be appropriate to English learners such as immigrants in the USA, and ESL has used in campuses of U.S. universities overseas. However, the distinction between ESL and EFL is getting to be blurred and both are effective for English learners regardless of where they learn English. The writer said in this article " the distinction between two is too important to be ignored" so we can definitely know the fact that the distinction between EFL and ESL is getting to be disappeared. In Korea, we have used EFL for teaching. EFL is effective , but for naturally speaking English ESL also can be beneficial for learners even though they live in English speaking countries such as the USA and England. To be exposed to the English speaking environment, ESL is much better for learners because EFL usually focuses on teaching English for foreigners, but ESL can help learners to use authentic and real English.
The idea of the author whose name is Ke Xu is that it does not important to divide between ESL or EFL anymore because people increase to use English as a world language more and more, so the dichotomy of ESL or EFL might be meaningless. It seems like it is not necessary to divide these two different situations anymore and there is a reason which is just about geography problem. However, this geography problem cannot be the standard to divide into these two situations. For example, if someone boned in Korea and she emigrated in USA when she was 25. But, she lived in Korean town. In this case, is she in the ESL or EFL situation?
According to Neil Anderson who is the former TESOL president, "the teaching methodology in both situations is becoming identical"; "ESL situations are becoming more like EFL situations with a vast number of immigrants from different countries living in near linguistic isolation"; "EFL situations are increasingly becoming like ESL situations, for example in Japan, by the increased use of English in the mass media and elsewhere" (Xu, p.10 cited in Scott)
The point is that the dichotomy of ESL or EFL is still an important part of principle of teaching English although it is controversial issue these days. For instance, when English learners study the principle of teaching English, it is required to learn about different situation of ESL or EFL seriously. If this principle keeps changing as the author said, do we need to learn about this?
Therefore, we should think about his idea more seriously.
Dr. Ke Su mentioned that EFL (English as the First Language) and ESL (English as the second language) has got no meaning anymore. According to him, SE (Standard English) or RP(Receptive Pronunciation) are overwhelmed by English as an international language. To support this, he shows examples of ESL situation which are getting similar with EFL situation.
In my point of view, it “does matter” to consider differences between EFL and ESL settings. Particularly, in Korea, most English educations are frequently occurred in the ESL environment and it is difficult to avoid the situation that stress on the university entering exam. The exam requires the ability to read and understand the general context of the textbooks that used in colleges. It is no surprised that the English education in Korea would be practiced in GTM (Grammar Translation Methods) because the exam does not include communicative skill.
It seems to definitely difficult to regard the Korean education setting like as an EFL settings. The main reason for that is that we can not manage the every day life in English. As the author of the article said, even immigrants in USA do not really use English. Then, how would the Korean situation be on that? Comparing with the 30 years before, English is still the advantage and a rain ticket to manage privileged life to people who are fluent.
On the other hand, it is inevitable factors that the structure of mother language is on the contrary of second language. Unlike the Europeans, most Asians has more got trouble with learning English because of that. So basically, it is not easy task for Korean to get used to using English. Apart from them, there exists social stereotype about English in Korea that the English is not a kind of language. It is the thing that they have to master it for the stable life.
For all that, we cannot deny that Ke su’s proposal is right up to point. That is because languages are the promises among members of society and it keep change its mechanism and paradigm . Originally, to follow the main stream, English education in Korea would play hardball.
In this article, the author, Ke Xu tried to take neutral position regarding the controversial issue: "ESL(English as a Second Language) or EFL(English as a Foreign Language) - Does It Matter?"(Ke Xu. p.1) However, although he suggested facts dealt with in conference, and introduced both proponents and opponents viewpoint in relation to this controversial issue to obtain objectivity and neutrality, his taking negative position on the issue "cannot be blurred." In addition, this article makes readers confusing, since what he wanted to say is not clear. Even in the last part of the article, he concluded his writing with somewhat irrelevant comment hard to be connected with its topic. I expected, when I saw the topic, that he will develop his writing in a way of answering the topic. However, he answered to the question, "ESL or EFL-does it matter?"(Ke Xu. p.1) with this response, "ELT(English Language Teaching) professional will be able to adapt to change".(Ke Xu. p.2) I think that it is a little apart from the point, which is called "red herring". Thus, although this is seemingly a good-shaped, or well-organized article, he, I think, fell into two fallacy: one is excessive centrism by restricting his voice, the other "red herring" apart from the point. In addition, in the process of quotation, he regarded the results of the conference as prevalent phenomena in the real situation, in which it can be said that this text includes some factors enough to bring about "overgeneralization", since there are still many countries where most of the people cannot feel any necessity of using English.
In terms of the topic, before a country is defined as an ESL or an EFL situation, two things related to the country must be considered: political and economic aspect, and English environment. First of all, in political and economic aspect, Korea cannot be regarded as the country, where all the people have to use English for survival due to the inevitable political and economic aspect. Accordingly, author's comprehensive approach to the matter of distinction between ESL and EFL, is reasonable, but if his approach is applied in Korean situation, his viewpoint needs to be specified. Many proponents of introducing ESL to Korea, of course, may worry that in continuously changing world, we cannot survive and progress without English, since without knowing that English, they assume, we cannot trade goods and exchange political and economic perspectives with other different countries. However, all the people in Korea live by trading and they are a diplomatic officers? In addition, think about why do all the Korean students learn English in schools? We can rarely say that they learn English as a "subject" that hard, because they will work in that kind of business, and without English, they have difficulties communicating too many foreigners who they unavoidably have to meet everyday. After all, almost all the reasons Korean students learn English are related to entering their dreamed university, and higher class. Thus, they do not worry about adaptation to the changing world, and "blurring" the distinction between ESL and EFL, is the premature issue at least in Korea. Secondly, one of the important thing when we talk about "ESL or EFL" is that there are little differences in materials and teaching methods between the two. However, the problem is the matter of "ESL or EFL" is closely related to the English learning Environment, not materials and teaching methods. Introducing ESL curriculum into Korea cannot be completed with changes just in materials and teaching method. Introducing ESL instead of the existing EFL, I think, means creating ESL environment. Any government will not expect that their students can speak English very well just because of ESL curriculum. Therefore, huge investment in making English Environment such as "English Villages" must be followed. As I mentioned in the previous essay, "English Village" have many problems of efficiency. Of course, in Korea, there are some daughters and sons, whose English environment is very difficult to define, but for whom it is also difficult to invest with plenty of money. Taking those into account, "ESL or EFL - It Does Matter"(Ke Xu. p.1) in Korea.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe article of "ESL or EFL-Does It Matter?" by Ke Xu considers the distinction between EFL and ESL, being a much discussed and controversial issue for many years, has been broadened by in varied contexts. First the issue of ESL curriculum in EFL world and EFL techniques for the immigrants and the indigenous inhabitants was examined by Hoelker, Reutzel, and Harris (2007). This article then shows Anderson, the former TESOL president argues against the conceptual dichotomy of the two, and supports his position with three observations: teaching in both situations using same material overlapping methods, huge immigrants living in linguistic isolation, and the case of EFL becoming like ESL by the increased use of English in Japanese mass media and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the opponents of them maintain the distinction for valid reasons, related to pedagogical goals, student types, material development, and other factors. Thus it is still necessary and considerable for the regions and environment. These issue and debate are left open ended. The author, Ke Xu thinks that it is important to fit student needs and to adjust teaching method adapting to learning environment.
Although he gives some references to these contrary opinions and the facts, it would be better to contain more results and opinions of survey and cases from teachers and students in those situations. I can see that he slightly sidesteps his position from the matter of the distinction among them, and he leaves it all to the English teachers to compromise and to adjust their teaching to the real situation.
In Korea, most as like an EFL setting, ESL is being set in some immersion programs such as English Village, English kindergartens, and an international school. They try to teach ESL curriculum, and affects positive ways. Even they speak in mother language after come back home but they spend more time to be exposed to ESL setting than EFL situation. Recently, in terms of EIL and WE, the government is providing facilities for English immersion education and we are also in the increased use of English like Japanese case which given by Anderson from Ke Xu's article, but yet for explaining Korean situation is much appropriate to EFL. I consider that the standard for the distinction of EFL and ESL is to reflect student's linguistic environment first, and then to modulate the teaching method for approach to the goal.
ESL or EFL Does It matter?
ReplyDeleteName doesn't matter. meaning still matters.
Dr. Ke Xu, member of Testing Board of Jiangsu at Education Department of Jiangsu province, China, EFL-IS Chair 2008-2009 at TESOL, wrote a journal regarding the distinction between EFL and ESL and expressed that it has been a much discussed and controversial issue for many years.
With 3 current changing circumstances,
1. The teaching methodology in both situations is becoming identical: teachers in both situation using the same books, same methods, and so on.
2. 2. ESL situation are becoming more like EFL situation with a vast number of immigrants from different countries living in near linguistic isolation.
3. EFL situation are increasingly becoming like ESL situation as can be judged, for example in Japan, by the increased use of English in the mass media and elsewhere.
As per those reasons, Dr. Xu offering the ideas that “defining EFL or ESL doesn’t matter. It matters ELT professionals is to understand the nature of their job; to stay alert to the changing setting of their teaching and student needs; to be aware of the approach options available; and finally, to be able to adapt to change.” (Conclusion:p11)
However, though gap between EFL and ESL are narrowing and there’s various new situation to make hard to configure the EFL and ESL as we are now living in globalized world, Dr. Hu(2003) mentioned that we still need to use differentiated approach tool for student, EFL, just like the case of China and Japan as they showed strong resistance when there was ESL approach.
The reason is there are more facts we need to consider with, such as culture affective filters, academic style, LET teachers way of teaching and purpose of learning language.
By the trend of globalization, Yes. I do also agreed that 3 facts that Dr. Xu found out blurring the boundary of EL and ESL. I still need more time to witness the real scene and have new forms of EFL and ESL that adopt their new circumstances.
I agree that wasting time to configure what is EFL and ESL and teachers are to support whatever the student needed to have, but teachers are still require to have strong sense of different start and use different approaches between EFL and ESL as we just can not give any clothes to student without asking what they need to wear just because the clothes are looks similar.
The author, Ke Xu, brought up an issue about ESL versus EFL. In his article "ESL or EFL-Does it matter?", he mentioned two big examples which have been a controversial issue for many years. The first issue was "Geograghy alone can no longer determine what EFL and ESL mean", which is about even in countries with English as their first language cannot be implied ESL situation due to immigrants' society. The second one is about whether "English language teaching professionals should move away from the conceptual dichotomy of ESL versus EFL", which refers that English teachers should not think EFL and ESL as a seperate things.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the athor, two issues mentioned above have both advantages and disadvantages and he claims the most important thing for ELT professionals is "to understand the nature of their job".
By reaing this article, I have found this authors claim insightful because teaching environments are changing everyday and as an English teacher, I also think it is not important to distinguish ESL or EFL. But it is important to realize what my teaching environments are and to adapt to change as the authour mentioned before.
However I found the author's claim a little abstract. It would have been much more explicit if he supported his claim with athentic teaching situations. In that way ELT teachers in various environment would have had some practical advices in teaching.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe author mentioned that the distinction between EFL and ESL has been a much-discussed and controversial issue for many years.
ReplyDeleteHe's telling us that it was a matter of geography to make the definitions of EFL or ESL, however it doesn't match in some cases. And he also pointed out that the different language context in many countries makes the confusion with dividing two concepts and adapting the proper one. So the debates still goes on as he said in the article. ESL or EFL does it matter? or not? The writer insists that there's more important question over this debate : Are English teachers able to adapt to change?
In the field of Korean education, there is a saying "The quality of education can not excel the quality of a teacher" I think he didn't consider teachers' perspectives on this issue. The preparation for English class should be different whether it's based on ESL or EFL situation. The appropriate assessments for ESL or EFL can not be the same. And what about the huge expense for educating so many teachers in the world? I think we should choose the right one for our own context.
When it comes to English education environment of Korea, I insist that the suitable one is EFL in most cases. ESL can give too much hard time for teachers and students yet.
The distinction between ESL and EFL by geography became inappropriate these days. Some advocate that the distinction between the two should be blurred while others believe that the distinction between the two is too important to be ignored(Ke Xu, 2007). The author, Ke Xu, thinks that what matters to ELT professionals is not the distinction between the two, but understanding the nature of their job and having flexibility in approaches according to classroom settings and students' needs.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author's statement about geography does not mean a lot to the distinction between ESL and EFL because of the activated globalization. In this respect, not only for ESL and EFL, but many other dichotomies could disappear, including distinction between west and east. We could not ignore the existing difference between EFL and ESL environments.
I also sympathize with the opponents to argue the importance of the distinction between the two. I think introducing ESL techniques to EFL environments would be burdensome to students. Regarding this affective aspect, I understand that Japanese students resisted to an U.S teacher who tried to import ESL approaches to their university. What I want to know more about Japanese case is whether there are any other reasons why students were objectionable for ESL techniques.
Finally, I would like to add that many other approaches as well as ESL and EFL approach should vary according to students' needs. There is no one standard approach for either EFL or ESL class. I believe that teachers could make an optimal class for their students, when they are aware of this flexibility.
The article "ESL or EFL - Does it matter?"(by Ke Xu) states which have been a controversial issue for many years.
ReplyDeleteThe author claim that it doesn't mean too much to distinguish ESL(English as a Second Language) and EFL(English as a Foreign Language) clearly.
Nowadays, "Geography can not determine what ESL and EFL mean."
There are two persistences.
One is that it should be blurred to distinction. And another one is that it is too important to be ignored.
I agree with two perspectives. We can not have clear cut distinction because of globalization and blurring boarders. And actually we don't have to say which is more efficient and which is better. Both language learning situations have advantages and disadvantages and I think both of them are important.
And the author, Ke Xu, thinks that what matters to ELT professionals is not the distinction between the two, but understanding the nature of their job and having flexibility in approaches according to needs of students and class room settings.
I think that we need to collect and combine advantages and adopt these to specific cultures by situations. ESL could exist in overseas teaching situations and EFL could occurring in U.S We still have open perspectives and don't have distinction clearly. It could be happen anywhere and anytime.
The author, Ke Xu, said "The debate on ESL or EFL still remains open. However the blurring of the distinction between the two may not necessarily mean the total irrelevance of the distinction."
ReplyDeleteThere is still a border between ESL and EFL. Learning ESL is English within a culture where English is spoken natively. Learning EFL is English in one's native culture with few immediate opportunities to use the language withing the environment of that culture. To be exact, ESL and EFL are not the same.
However, the ELT(English Language Teaching) is changing. English is English. English which is used in India and English used in Korea are the same English. We need to recognize English as an international language.
I subscribe to Ke Xu's opinion. It is meaningless to draw a distinction between ESL and EFL.
ESL or EFL- Does It Matter?
ReplyDeleteThe central issue that Ke Xu addressed in this article is about the distinction between ESL and EFL. As he said "The debate remains open.", it is not an important matter between both of them. ESL or ESL could be determined by environment around the students, not geograpy alone. Communities, students' needs, teaching situations are considered an environment.
According to this article, I think it is not valid to distinguish both of them. "What matters to ELT professionals is to understand the nature of their job".(page.11) I agree that because teachers in various environment should adapt the new situations and adopt new activities and techniques of teaching.
In korea, as growing of English proficiency some schools try to provide the students ESL curriculum such as English zone or English libraries even EFL world. Before practicing this, however, we have to consider of suitability for our teaching environment and students.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe author "Ke Xu“ questioned about the validity of distinction between EFL and EFL in his article of "ESL or EFL -Does it matter?". He mentioned some examinations that was executed by Hoelker, Reutzel, and Harris for supporting that the distinction between of two is not important and become unmeaningful.
ReplyDeleteFor support their claim, Hoelker provided some EFL programs to the students in their EFL culture. Reizel examined about providing ESL curricular to Native American Idian tribes in California and she claimed EFL curricular is more appropriate for them than ESL curricular. Harris maintained student teachers who are supposed to teach students in immigrant communities are required EFL techniques. Because immigrant communities in United States are dominated by their own language other than English.
The author also cited observations of Neil Anderson about unmeaningfulness of distinction between of two. The one of observations is that teaching methodology of both situation is becoming identical. The rest of them is that ESL situations and EFL situation are become more similar with each other.
In conclusion, the author mentioned that ELT professionals have to perceive changed setting in their teaching and be able to apply changes to their teaching.
The position of author, as title of this article is shown, is closed to answer that distinction of two is unmeaningful. He dealt with a lot of statements and examinations of proponents who claim distinction of two is unmeaningful. On the other hand, his writing is shown of lack about examinations of opponents. Thus It is questionable whether he considered enough about both positions while writing this article.
Nevertheless of these arguments, my position is closed to proponents aforementioned and this is true that this article gave a chance to think about setting of my teaching. The intensive exposure of English is still needed for students and students still feel resistance when they listen, speak, read, write in English in my class. I think that I have to more focus on needs of students and more struggle with teaching method for getting rid of their negative feeling.
The author, Ke Xu deals with the matter of the blurred distinction between EFL and ESL in his article, ”ESL or EFL- Does It Matter?” He presents “Geographically Challenged EFL-ESL” which means geography alone can no longer determine what EFL and ESL mean, as an example.
ReplyDeleteFor the advocates for this issue, he shows that Hoelker’s doubt about the effectiveness of providing an ESL curriculum in an EFL culture. He also shares Reitzel’s experience with Native Americans that revealed the standard American English is a foreign language for Native American youth. He added Harris’s comment that U.S. immigrant communities should be defined as an EFL Setting. Moreover, Neil Anderson’s presentation he wrote briefly supports this issue by three suggestions-1.The teaching methods in both situations become identical. 2.ESL situations are becoming more similar to EFL situations because of numerous immigrants. 3. EFL situations are becoming like ESL situations by increase use of English in the media.
However, He also mentioned about opponents’ voice for this issue. According to them, “The distinction between the two was introduced for valid reasons, related to pedagogical goals, student types, etc.” They also pointed out the weakness of Neil Anderson’s suggestions that only considered the two situations, not the students. That is, when the students’ resistance is strong, all the ESL techniques are useless.
Lastly, he concluded that teachers should stay alert to the changing of their teaching setting, understanding the nature of their job, whether they are in the ESL or EFL environments.
In my opinion, the author has more emphasis on the advocates’, because he presented more instances on them, but I totally agree with his conclusion.
The author, "Ke Xu“ who wrote the article "ESL or EFL -Does it matter?", presented the distinction between ESL and EFL as a controversial issue for many years. He introduced the assertion of both positions citing by authorities on English education in his article. He mentioned EFL/ESL boundaries increasingly blurred because of following reasons. First, "the teaching methodology in both situation is becoming identical"(p.10), second "ESL situations are becoming more like EFL situation"(p.10) such as immigrant communities in the U.S. Third, "EFL situation are increasingly becoming like ESL situation"(p.10) by mass media, On the other hand, he cited that "It is unrealistic to copy all the ESL models and use then in the EFL field"(p.11) and also "The teacher was met with strong resistance from the students" in Japan.(p.11) Finally he proposed that teacher's gob is to adapt to change appropriately for student needs.
ReplyDeleteI found that the EFL/ESL distinction is still important to English teachers. For one thing, when the author mentioned "geography" as a factor of distintion, he excluded psychological aspect. For example, the author cited immigrants in the U.S might be appropriated to ESL curricula. He assumed immigrants in the U.S. stayed in ESL settings. In my opinion, the standard of distinction is the environment where is compelled to speak English and English only is spoken. They might be surrounded by their first languages not English in their communities. When we can provide those physical and psychological conditions, we can call ESL settings. Besides, I wondered if "the teaching methodology in both situation is becoming identical" will be effective to teach English to leaners in EFL settings, because I could not find any detail supports in his article. I think English teachers have to create learning materials that are culturally relevant and personally meaningful to the students. I believed that language skills develop from experience and the need to communicate and share these experiences with others.
For another thing, I think the output is also important to practice English. The author cited that "EFL situation are increasingly becoming like ESL situation"(p.10) by mass media. Contrary to the past, I agreed leaners can have enough English input but I discovered that we can learn a language by using it. Retuning to immigrants in the U.S., they might listen sufficiently English through the radio or the T.V but they might limit the opportunity of practicing English in their communities. If they do not produce any comprehensible output, they will not be able to speak English fluently. In these points, I think the distintion between ESL or EFL valid remains still and influenced English teachers to select the teaching strategy.
In conclusion, The author presented the EFL/ESL distinction was not matter then teacher should change appropriately for student needs. But I think learners can be stimulated by effective teaching methods because the distinction between ESL and EFL remain still. So I believed that teachers should gradually evaluate and adopt a teaching method appropriate to the educational goals, student interests and the various educational environments.
The author, Ke Xu, raises the matter of the
ReplyDeletedistinction between EFL and ESL are blurring. The author deploys his topic by representing the examples with the viewpoint of geography.
The author starts with the most recent example.
Which is " a panel presentation
given at the 2007 TESOL convention in Seattle".
One of the panels, Hoeker, claims
" Both the textbooks and the professors are from the United States in the Gulf region,...it is a good idea to provide an ESL curriculum in a non-English-speaking
environment..."
Another panel, Reitzel, sharing her years of experience working
with K-2 students from three major native American Indian tribes in California believes that " EFL rather than ESL curricula will suit the needs of Native American much better. The other panel, Harris, points out"... English is rarely used in daily life in U.S. immigrant communities.
The author continues to present the examples to show the reason. one of them is the debate that was sparked by Neil Anderson former TESOL president at a Japan Association for Language Teaching conference. He suggested that " English language teaching professionals should move away from the conceptual dichotomy of ESL versus EFL." He made three observations in support of his position. But the author also presents the strong oppositions to his suggestion. Those are valid reasons, related to" pedagogical goals, student types, material development, and other factors. The author shows two more opposite examples to the dichotomy between ESL and EFL.
Though the debate" ESL or EFL- does it matter?" remains open, the author seems
to believe the blurring of the distinction between the two. And the author concludes
his writing by adding that " ELT professionals is to understand the nature of their
job; to stay alert to the changing setting of their teaching and student needs; to be
aware of the approach options available; and finally, to be able to adapt to change".
I think the article was written in logical order. The author seemed to describe about the phenomenon objectively. Even though the dispute is remained open the writer shows inclination to the diminishing the distinction between the two. And conclusively he finish his writing just with mentioning his opinion about the necessity which ELT professionals are to consider. I think in Korea the same phenomenon is happening in the ELT spot now.
I generally agreed with what Dr. Ke Xu mentioned in the article. Firstly, the distinction between ESL and EFL by geography is fading away. However, "the distinction, they maintained, was introduced for valid reasons, related to pedagogical goals, student types, material development and other factors are too important to be ignore between the two". Therefore the ELT practitioners are "to understand the nature of their job" and "to be able to adapt to change".
ReplyDeleteI can see the bigger picture, but I cannot see the details of where there is specific crossover or specific cases of this and how we have to approach it in the Korean education setting. Maybe it is the Korean teacher's role to find this out. I know that EFL is learnt to pass specific exams, to be necessary as part of someones education or for career progression. Whereas ESL is usually designed as part of an integration or citizenship program for immigrants into a native English speaking country. How I can bridge the gap between these two different approaches within my teaching practice I am not sure.
The author of the article "ESL or EFL-Does It Matter?" mentioned two opposing opinion about the distinction between ESL and EFL. First, according to the opponent of the dichotomy of ESL versus EFL, "geography alone can no longer determine what EFL and ESL means"(p.1) because even within U.S, there could be areas in which native language is not English such as in immigrant communities or on Native American reservations. In addition, the teaching methodology in both situation is becoming identical as well as both situations are becoming like each other, blurring the clear distinction between the two. However, the proponent of the distinction argued that "the distinction was introduced for valid reasons" and "too important to ignore"(p.1), saying that "It is unrealistic to copy all the ESL models and use them in the EFL field"(p.2). To both of the arguments, the author seems to try to place himself in a neutral position, suggesting that what's important is "to be alert and adapt to changing setting of their teaching and student needs"(p.2).
ReplyDeleteIn some respects, I agree with the author, especially in that teachers should adjust to the teaching environment and students' needs that are changing. However, to find out the best approaches and options available in the given situation, identifying and recognizing the teaching environment is a prerequisite. We can be helpful and beneficial to our students only when we exactly understand the learners' situation and needs in it. Therefore, as a teacher, I think that the distinction between ESL and EFL, even though it is being blurred and teaching methods are inter-changable in both situations, could be a useful tool to define the environment and figure out its characteristics. Definitely, the teaching and learning environment of EFL is different from that of ESL and of course, the optimal methodology for each is undoubtedly not same. Accordingly, it's essential for us to recognize the characteristics of the environment of EFL and devise optimal ways of teaching in our situation. I hope we could be all wise and make the best of our environment.
The distinction between EFL and ESL has been discussed for many years. EFL and ESL have been determined by Geography, but the fact is not true. Of course, EFL may be appropriate to English learners such as immigrants in the USA, and ESL has used in campuses of U.S. universities overseas. However, the distinction between ESL and EFL is getting to be blurred and both are effective for English learners regardless of where they learn English. The writer said in this article " the distinction between two is too important to be ignored" so we can definitely know the fact that the distinction between EFL and ESL is getting to be disappeared. In Korea, we have used EFL for teaching. EFL is effective , but for naturally speaking English ESL also can be beneficial for learners even though they live in English speaking countries such as the USA and England. To be exposed to the English speaking environment, ESL is much better for learners because EFL usually focuses on teaching English for foreigners, but ESL can help learners to use authentic and real English.
ReplyDelete(I wrote this writing again..)
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the author whose name is Ke Xu is that it does not important to divide between ESL or EFL anymore because people increase to use English as a world language more and more, so the dichotomy of ESL or EFL might be meaningless. It seems like it is not necessary to divide these two different situations anymore and there is a reason which is just about geography problem. However, this geography problem cannot be the standard to divide into these two situations. For example, if someone boned in Korea and she emigrated in USA when she was 25. But, she lived in Korean town. In this case, is she in the ESL or EFL situation?
According to Neil Anderson who is the former TESOL president, "the teaching methodology in both situations is becoming identical"; "ESL situations are becoming more like EFL situations with a vast number of immigrants from different countries living in near linguistic isolation"; "EFL situations are increasingly becoming like ESL situations, for example in Japan, by the increased use of English in the mass media and elsewhere" (Xu, p.10 cited in Scott)
The point is that the dichotomy of ESL or EFL is still an important part of principle of teaching English although it is controversial issue these days. For instance, when English learners study the principle of teaching English, it is required to learn about different situation of ESL or EFL seriously. If this principle keeps changing as the author said, do we need to learn about this?
Therefore, we should think about his idea more seriously.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDr. Ke Su mentioned that EFL (English as the First Language) and ESL (English as the second language) has got no meaning anymore. According to him, SE (Standard English) or RP(Receptive Pronunciation) are overwhelmed by English as an international language. To support this, he shows examples of ESL situation which are getting similar with EFL situation.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view, it “does matter” to consider differences between EFL and ESL settings. Particularly, in Korea, most English educations are frequently occurred in the ESL environment and it is difficult to avoid the situation that stress on the university entering exam. The exam requires the ability to read and understand the general context of the textbooks that used in colleges. It is no surprised that the English education in Korea would be practiced in GTM (Grammar Translation Methods) because the exam does not include communicative skill.
It seems to definitely difficult to regard the Korean education setting like as an EFL settings. The main reason for that is that we can not manage the every day life in English. As the author of the article said, even immigrants in USA do not really use English. Then, how would the Korean situation be on that? Comparing with the 30 years before, English is still the advantage and a rain ticket to manage privileged life to people who are fluent.
On the other hand, it is inevitable factors that the structure of mother language is on the contrary of second language. Unlike the Europeans, most Asians has more got trouble with learning English because of that. So basically, it is not easy task for Korean to get used to using English. Apart from them, there exists social stereotype about English in Korea that the English is not a kind of language. It is the thing that they have to master it for the stable life.
For all that, we cannot deny that Ke su’s proposal is right up to point. That is because languages are the promises among members of society and it keep change its mechanism and paradigm . Originally, to follow the main stream, English education in Korea would play hardball.
ESL or EFL - Does It Matter?
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the author, Ke Xu tried to take neutral position regarding the controversial issue: "ESL(English as a Second Language) or EFL(English as a Foreign Language) - Does It Matter?"(Ke Xu. p.1) However, although he suggested facts dealt with in conference, and introduced both proponents and opponents viewpoint in relation to this controversial issue to obtain objectivity and neutrality, his taking negative position on the issue "cannot be blurred." In addition, this article makes readers confusing, since what he wanted to say is not clear. Even in the last part of the article, he concluded his writing with somewhat irrelevant comment hard to be connected with its topic. I expected, when I saw the topic, that he will develop his writing in a way of answering the topic. However, he answered to the question, "ESL or EFL-does it matter?"(Ke Xu. p.1) with this response, "ELT(English Language Teaching) professional will be able to adapt to change".(Ke Xu. p.2) I think that it is a little apart from the point, which is called "red herring". Thus, although this is seemingly a good-shaped, or well-organized article, he, I think, fell into two fallacy: one is excessive centrism by restricting his voice, the other "red herring" apart from the point. In addition, in the process of quotation, he regarded the results of the conference as prevalent phenomena in the real situation, in which it can be said that this text includes some factors enough to bring about "overgeneralization", since there are still many countries where most of the people cannot feel any necessity of using English.
In terms of the topic, before a country is defined as an ESL or an EFL situation, two things related to the country must be considered: political and economic aspect, and English environment. First of all, in political and economic aspect, Korea cannot be regarded as the country, where all the people have to use English for survival due to the inevitable political and economic aspect. Accordingly, author's comprehensive approach to the matter of distinction between ESL and EFL, is reasonable, but if his approach is applied in Korean situation, his viewpoint needs to be specified. Many proponents of introducing ESL to Korea, of course, may worry that in continuously changing world, we cannot survive and progress without English, since without knowing that English, they assume, we cannot trade goods and exchange political and economic perspectives with other different countries. However, all the people in Korea live by trading and they are a diplomatic officers? In addition, think about why do all the Korean students learn English in schools? We can rarely say that they learn English as a "subject" that hard, because they will work in that kind of business, and without English, they have difficulties communicating too many foreigners who they unavoidably have to meet everyday. After all, almost all the reasons Korean students learn English are related to entering their dreamed university, and higher class. Thus, they do not worry about adaptation to the changing world, and "blurring" the distinction between ESL and EFL, is the premature issue at least in Korea. Secondly, one of the important thing when we talk about "ESL or EFL" is that there are little differences in materials and teaching methods between the two. However, the problem is the matter of "ESL or EFL" is closely related to the English learning Environment, not materials and teaching methods. Introducing ESL curriculum into Korea cannot be completed with changes just in materials and teaching method. Introducing ESL instead of the existing EFL, I think, means creating ESL environment. Any government will not expect that their students can speak English very well just because of ESL curriculum. Therefore, huge investment in making English Environment such as "English Villages" must be followed. As I mentioned in the previous essay, "English Village" have many problems of efficiency. Of course, in Korea, there are some daughters and sons, whose English environment is very difficult to define, but for whom it is also difficult to invest with plenty of money. Taking those into account, "ESL or EFL - It Does Matter"(Ke Xu. p.1) in Korea.
ReplyDelete