A Hermeneutic Inquiry into the Conflicts of Native English Speaking Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization has made English a pivotal language for global communication. This has increasingly made a great number of native English speakers move to Korea and teach English at all levels of education from kindergarten to university year after year. Most of them have not only little or no training as language instructors, but also little or no teaching experience. Many may wonder how they teach students with little understanding about teaching in a foreign country. At the same time, they may also surmise that they would endure many difficulties in their profession. As a faculty member working with them for over fifteen years, I have also had such questions. Especially, I was curious what conflicts they bear in their minds and how they respond to differences between Canadian and Korean culture and pedagogy. This study is grounded on the hermeneutic tradition which ultimately pursues humane lives. This hermeneutic tradition leads me to the conflicts that native English speaking teachers have experienced, to the implications embedded in the Korean and English language, and to the differences between Canadian and Korean ways of thought. While following the hermeneutic tradition, I am aware that there was little or no communication between the Canadian and Korean teaching staff, which resulted in their alienated lives and in living in a world of exclusion from their schools, disregard about their profession, and indifference from their students. The hermeneutic tradition guides me in a path toward restoring the deteriorated humane aspects of their lives as teachers. As a ground for understanding them, I attempt to define the notion of the in-between on the basis of equality and respect which are rooted in the concept of the Korean language for the in-between. This conceptual elaboration enables me to conceive that differences are not objects to exclude, to disregard, or to be indifferent, but motives to perceive the necessity to reform and to change the inequality and injustices. In this light, I propose that educational institutions allow them to participate in decision making, open a special in-service teacher training program for them, and provide them with a support system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".