THE DISCOURSES AROUND MULTICULTURAL TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH KOREA: TENSIONS AMONG POLICY, ADMINISTRATION, AND TEACHERS By Hyojeong Kim A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education––Doctor of Philosophy 2019 THE DISCOURSES AROUND MULTICULTURAL TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH KOREA: TENSIONS AMONG POLICY, ADMINISTRATION, AND TEACHERS ABSTRACT By Hyojeong Kim This dissertation started from the concern that in order to realize multicultural education successfully, in-service teacher learning should be considered a significant element. Therefore, I investigated how the South Korean government, regional offices of education, and teachers frame and create discourses about teacher learning for multicultural education. In order to understand their discourses clearly, this dissertation includes three separate studies at each level—the government, a regional office of education, and teachers. In the first study, I examined the government documents about multicultural education, especially discourses related to teacher learning and PD programs. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, I attempted to answer questions about the government’s aims for teacher learning about multicultural education, and how the discourses show the mainstreams’ power and social structure for teacher PD. Under the framework of Multicultural Teacher Education, the findings showed that the government has focused primarily on teacher knowledge about and proper attitude for multicultural education and students. Also, the discourses from the government revealed that the teacher PD policies are also the part of maintaining society’s power and culture. The second study was conducted to see the discourse from a regional office of education in order to answer the question, how teacher capacities and practices are discussed and utilized in PD programs for multicultural education. Using Critical Discourse Analysis under the framework of the Dimensions of Multicultural Education, the results of this study showed that the PD programs were giving information about multicultural education to a specific population of teachers, especially multicultural education teachers in each school. Therefore, the programs did not cover teaching practices that are crucially important for teachers to educate multicultural students in their own classrooms. The final study was to listen to teachers’ voices about multicultural PD programs using phenomenological interviews. With their own experiences about PD programs, teachers shared that they were not satisfied with the programs they have participated in so far, and what they have learned was apart from their school context. So teachers were having difficulties in teaching multicultural students since the PD programs they attended were not applicable to their situations. Mostly, teachers felt that multicultural education is another part of administrative work. Also, even though teachers said that they could have changed their belief and awareness toward multicultural students, they still look at multicultural students from the dominant perspective that assumes students should assimilated into the larger society. In conclusion, the three studies uncover the discourses around multicultural PD from the different levels of education. The results show that teacher learning for multicultural education was treated separately from teaching practices. Moreover, multicultural education was considered a part of administration, so that it was a duty for multicultural education teachers in each school. The three studies have implications for understanding the current phenomena around multicultural PD and developing PD programs for in-service teachers to teach multicultural students effectively. Copyright by HYOJEONG KIM 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I appreciate everyone who has seen me progress as a doctoral student. First, I would like to express appreciation to the professors in my dissertation committee, Dr. Patricia Edwards, Dr. Lynn Paine, Dr. Kyle Greenwalt, and Dr. Alyssa Dunn. It was my honor to have them all on my committee. They always support my work and respect my ideas with their broad experiences and knowledge. Especially, I thank Dr. Greenwalt and Dr. Dunn who were willing to become my dissertation director and inspired me in conduncting my dissertation research. I could not be at this stage without their help. I thank Jae-Bum Han, my beloved husband, who always encourages me and supports what I am doing. I also thank my loverly daughter, Gia, who has given me a lot of joy and happiness during my doctoral life. Finally, I would like to give my special thanks to my friend and editor, Rebekah Ewing. I could finish my dissertation successfully with her help. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE: Background and Overview of Dissertation ....................................................... 1 Rationale for the Dissertation Topic ................................................................................... 3 Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 4 Context for the Dissertation ................................................................................................ 6 The Educational Context in Korea .............................................................................. 6 Origin of Damunhwa Kyoyuk: Korean Multicultural Education ................................. 9 Korean Multicultural Education in Policy Contexts .................................................. 12 Multicultural In-service Teacher Education .............................................................. 15 Multicultural In-service Teacher Professional Development Programs in South ........ Korea .......................................................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER TWO: Governmental Approach to Multicultural Teacher PD Policies ..................... 21 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 21 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 26 Data Collection and Sources ............................................................................................. 27 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 29 Critical Discourse Analysis ........................................................................................ 30 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 33 Transforming Teacher Attitudes ................................................................................ 33 Gaining Knowledge About Social Diversity and Multicultural Education ............... 36 Knowledge Distribution through Multicultural Expert Teachers ..................... 38 Shifting Views, Different Knowledge .............................................................. 39 Acquiring Practices for Diversity .............................................................................. 41 Toward the Goal of Social Justice? ............................................................................ 44 Equality of Educational Opportunity ................................................................ 47 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 49 CHAPTER THREE: Implementing Multicultural Professional Development: The Approaches of Teacher Educators in a Region ..................................................................................................... 52 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 52 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 54 Methods............................................................................................................................. 55 Introduction of the region .......................................................................................... 55 Data Sources .............................................................................................................. 56 Subject of the Workshop ............................................................................................ 57 Structure of the Workshop ......................................................................................... 57 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 58 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 58 Content Integration: Inside and Outside the Classroom ............................................ 58 vi Inside the Classroom ........................................................................................ 59 Outside the Classroom ...................................................................................... 60 Prejudice Reduction ................................................................................................... 62 Empowering School Culture ...................................................................................... 64 Teacher Education for North Korean Refugee Students ............................................ 65 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 68 CHAPTER FOUR: Teachers’ Experiences with Multicultural Professional Development Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 71 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 71 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 75 Essence, Reduction, and Imaginative Variation ....................................................... 75 Methods............................................................................................................................. 77 Participants ................................................................................................................. 77 Location of the Schools ............................................................................................. 79 Procedures .................................................................................................................. 80 Phenomenological Analysis ....................................................................................... 81 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 82 Participating in Multicultural PD is like Showing Obligation to the Power .............. 82 Participating in Multicultural PD is like Acquiring Not Applicable Methods .......... 84 Participating in Multicultural PD is like Experiencing Hopelessness ....................... 88 Participating in Multicultural PD is like Conducting Another Administrative Task ..... .................................................................................................................................... 90 Participating in Multicultural PD is like Challenging Teachers’ Belief and Awareness .................................................................................................................................... 93 What is More After the PD Programs: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ................. 95 Similar Feelings About Multiculturalism and Multicultural Students ....................... 97 Acting Korean is the Number One Goal .................................................................... 98 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 100 Further Way to Go for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy ........................................ 100 Teachers Being Objects of Policies ......................................................................... 101 Multicultural Students are the Other ........................................................................ 102 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 103 CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusion .................................................................................................... 105 Chapter Summaries ......................................................................................................... 105 Multicultural Education is a Part of Administration ....................................................... 108 Discourses Around Multicultural Education (MCE) Teachers ....................................... 110 The Multicultural Island .......................................................................................... 110 The Reality and Further .................................................................................................. 112 Implications ..................................................................................................................... 113 CHAPTER SIX: Researcher’s Note ........................................................................................... 114 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 117 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. A Model of Teacher Curriculum for Multicultural Education ....................................... 20 Table 2. Categories of PD Content (from the government policy documents from 2006 through 2017) ........................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 3. Content of PD Program .................................................................................................. 70 Table 4. Teacher Participants’ Background ................................................................................. 78 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Discourse Around Multicultural PD Programs ............................................................... 5 Figure 2. Working Framework for Multicultural Teacher Education .......................................... 22 Figure 3. The Dimensions of Multicultural Education (Banks, 2009) ......................................... 53 Figure 4. Characteristics of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (Gay, 2010) ................................. 74 ix CHAPTER ONE: Background and Overview of Dissertation The purpose of these three related studies is to observe discourse around multicultural teacher professional development as well as the relationship among educational policy, administration, and teacher experiences in South Korea (I will use South Korea and Korea interchangeably throughout this paper).1 Comprised of three related studies, this dissertation will be valuable for scholars and teacher educators interested in how government policy, an office of education, and teachers approach multicultural teacher education. Analyzing first a series of policies, then their implementation in an office of education, and then finally teachers’ reflections on these policies is a productive approach to understanding current in-service teacher education policies and programs in South Korea—as it allows us to see the circulation of power and discourse, staying aware of gaps, tensions, and multiple interpretations at various stages in the process. These studies started from my concerns about students—particularly students who are “othered” in the South Korean context as well as the teachers who are working with them. As it relates to North American research and school contexts, many researchers argue that students in teacher education programs graduate with insufficient knowledge about cultural, racial, ethnic, and language diversity in current education settings (Banks & Banks, 2009; Banks, Cookson, Gay, Hawley, Irvine, Nieto, & Stephan, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2000). In order to understand and implement multicultural education, teachers need to be educated continuously (Banks et al., 2001; Goodlad, 1994). Also, in South Korea, researchers are concerned about the lack of pre- service teacher knowledge and prejudice about diversity (Ha, 2011; Kim, 2008). Taking into consideration these previous studies about teacher knowledge in educating diverse student 1 In South Korea, the name “Korea” is mostly used when it comes to state its national name, and “South Korea” is often used to call its name compared to North Korea. 1 populations, in this study, I will use the North American and South Korean literature and seek to unpack it in the South Korean context. An assumption undergirding much of the research on teacher learning is that continuous and consistent education for teachers can be achieved by professional development (PD)—and that PD can and should be a major component of effective teacher education that will prepare teachers to assist students from diverse backgrounds (Gay, 2010; Nieto, 2000; Pang, 2001; Sleeter & Grant, 2008). For example, Schniedewind (2005) claimed that PD can provide opportunities for teachers to talk about sensitive issues around race and diversity, and that these opportunities can expand teachers’ consciousness about race, racism, and whiteness (Cochran- Smith, 2004; McAllister & Irvine, 2000; Schniedewind, 2005). It is also claimed that for teachers who are not as highly educated about or experienced with diversity, PD that deals with diversity issues can help teachers transform their attitudes towards students’ cultures (Clair & Adger, 1999; Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005) and develop cultural competencies, such as about culture, language, race, and ethnicity (Trumbull & Pacheco, 2005). In this way, research indicates that teachers participating in PD programs can improve their student’ academic achievement, especially students from marginalized backgrounds (Elmore, 2002; Knight & Wiseman, 2005). Based on the literature around PD for diversity and the importance of in-service teacher professional development, I will start with the assumption that high-quality, culturally-responsive teaching can be achieved through professional development. Throughout the dissertation, I will focus on how PD in support of policy implementations does or does not support teacher learning and effective and equitable practice. Across the globe, in-service teacher professional development might have an important role in this era of educational diversity. Attendant upon globalization and global mobility, 2 national student populations are becoming more diverse, and teachers are being asked to learn how to teach diverse populations in effective ways (Banks, et al., 2001). Unless assumptions about homogenous national populations are challenged, culturally and racially diverse students will continue to struggle with traditional school cultures and teaching practices—cultures and practices reflective of hegemonic national norms, and often congruent with teachers’ personal backgrounds (Sleeter, 2012). Because student performance is also related to teacher perceptions towards diverse students (Sleeter, 2012), efforts to enhance teacher practice in order to promote positive educational experiences and academic achievement of students from diverse backgrounds are increasingly common. As such, inquiry into their effects is important. As we shall see, the discourse of multicultural education in South Korea was drawn directly from the American context. This makes these two contexts essential for this dissertation. To begin with, much of the research on multicultural education has North American roots. Not only that, I myself am a native South Korean completing my PhD in the United States while doing research on Korean classrooms. Skillful back and forth between these two contexts is an important part of this dissertation. But one similarity between the two countries should be noted here: both nations struggle to achieve racial equity within their educational systems. For example, a South Korean policy document from 2015 shows higher dropout rates and lower academic achievement of culturally diverse students (MOE, 2015). Rationale for the Dissertation Topic In this dissertation, I will examine the case of Korea, as in-service teacher educators develop and respond to policy-driven PD programs designed to support teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students. In Korea, researchers have focused on government policies aimed at educating teachers 3 to adapt to a more diverse Korean society. For example, Jang (2009) argued that teachers need to develop “multicultural teacher competencies” in order to help culturally and linguistically diverse students understand Korean-specific contexts and have the ability to live their lives fully in Korean society (p. 67). In addition, many Korean scholars have paid attention to subject- specific PD, particularly the teaching of Korean as a second language (Kwon, 2012; Kwon, 2014; Park, 2013; Won & Lee, 2013). Because most reform initiatives in Korea are conceptualized as coming from “the top down,” (that is, from the central Ministry out eventually to the local schools), Korea provides an ideal case for understanding the circulation of discursive power. In my dissertation, I will present three different studies, each attuned to a level of multicultural teacher education in South Korea. The South Korean government now has a ten- year history of multicultural education policies—in this way, multicultural teacher education is still much in its infancy. In the next section, I briefly outline the aims and scope of each separate study of this dissertation. Following that, as I conclude this introductory chapter, I will introduce the Korean context. Organization of the Dissertation The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the discourse around multicultural professional development (PD) programs in South Korea. As I explained in previous sections, it is important to examine specific perspectives and assumptions around multicultural PD programs in the three separate, but related levels (national policy level, regional institutional level, and classroom teacher level). It is also significant to see how each level communicates their positions and what assumptions for effective multicultural PD are contained therein. In order to achieve the purposes of this dissertation, each level of multicultural PD is explained in a different study, 4 each with its own relevant methodologies and data sources. In the three studies, I will examine, in the following order: 1) the Korean Ministry of Education’s (MOE), multicultural PD policy 2) PD programs developed by a regional Office of Education, and 3) teacher experiences of a multicultural PD program (see Figure 1). Based upon analyses of approaches to and assumption about multicultural PD programs, the three studies will describe and analyze the discourse around multicultural PD programs in Korea—ones that often show incongruous and disparate perspectives. Figure 1. Discourse Around Multicultural PD Programs In the first study, I focused on multicultural PD policy at the central government level. Analyses of government policy documents provide a broad picture about multicultural teacher professional development––in terms of its approach, general agenda, and intentions around 5 educating teachers for multicultural education. In the second study, the actual PD programs will be examined as they are conducted by a regional Office of Education. In South Korea, there are various teacher education institutes for pre- and in-service teachers, and among them, regional offices of education in each province plan and conduct multicultural PD programs for their teachers. The focus of this second study is how these multicultural PD programs are planned and provided, with particular focus on the assumptions that undergird them. In these two studies, I utilize document analysis of national policies and regional programs. Finally, the third study will focus on teachers’ experiences in relationship to these programs. This interview-based study provides important knowledge about how teachers experience multicultural PD programs as well as their experiences of teaching “multicultural students.” Taken together, these three studies describe the discourses around multicultural PD programs from three distinct viewpoints. In the next section, I frame the entire dissertation by reviewing the South Korean context, particularly as it relates to multicultural education. Context for the Dissertation The Educational Context in Korea Korea has been facing the realities of economic globalization, especially given the exponential growth of foreign workers from other countries. In the late 1980s, with the growth of the national economy and its integration into a global system, the Korean government widely opened their employment market to foreign workers (Kim, 2009). According to the Korea Immigration Service Statistics, in 2015, the number of foreign workers was 617,145, which is about 2.3 percent of the total number of workers in Korea, and their incoming number has been increasing rapidly (Ministry of Justice, 2015). In 2013, families from other countries and from 6 inter-racial and inter-cultural marriages numbered about 75,000, and the number of their children was about 204,204 (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014). Children from these families go to school with other native Korean students. In 2017, it was estimated that about 1.9 percent (109,387) of the entire student population in Korea was of mixed national, ethnic, and/or racial origins (MOE, 2017). It may seem that the number of culturally and racially diverse students is negligible. However, significance cannot be determined solely by quantitative descriptors. Teachers are legally and morally obligated to consider the needs of all the children they serve, including this population. In addition, the number of racially diverse students is also expected to continue to grow in absolute terms, even as the total number of students is decreasing (MOE, 2016). As I briefly mentioned in the previous section, Korea, a country that had once been considered homogeneous (both by Koreans and the world at large), is now encountering changes because of globalization. With the change in its population, majority Koreans and the public school system are facing a distinct challenge: the need to decouple assumptions about nationality from what it means to succeed in the school, thereby asking new questions about who and what is “Korean.” Majority or ethnic Koreans have relied upon strong, centralized state power to enforce their national vision. This classical view of Korean nationalism is evident through the ideology of Danil minjok. Danil minjok, roughly translated as, “people of a country consisting of a single race,” is “the belief that Koreans form a nation, a “race,” and an ethnic group that shares a unified bloodline and a distinct culture” (Korean ethnic nationalism, n.d.). This notion was established in Korean culture after the era of the Imperial Japan protectorate and in response to the Japanese occupation. Even though Korea has historically had multiple interactions with other 7 countries (sitting at an important historic crossroad between China and Japan), and even though there has long been diversity within the territory (with different ethnicities and cultures), frequent invasions are perhaps one explanation for the Korean focus on unity and collectivism (Kang, 2002). Emphasizing unity and collectivism (Kang, 2002), especially as they underwent Japanese Occupation prior to World War II, Koreans have a history of both assimilation and exclusion of the “Other,” leading to distinct conceptions of “Us” and “Them.” Lee (2009) explained that after independence from Japan, the Korean government needed to unify people for industrial development, and in the process of doing this, Koreans began to have a strong belief that they are a single ethnicity. This made majority Koreans exclude people from other countries and discriminate against people who were presumed to be neither ethnically nor racially Korean. Then, who is the “Other” living in Korea today? Within the educational sector, the Korean government formally addresses “Others” as “multicultural families” and “multicultural students.” Different from the North American context, the Ministry’s use of the terms “multicultural families” and “multicultural students” is a supposedly “value-neutral" way of referencing the “Other” (MOE, 2006). Formally, “multicultural students” are defined as students coming from families that have different ethnic and cultural backgrounds than majority Koreans (MOE, 2006). They are explicitly positioned as “outside” of the nation-state. According to the Korean government, multicultural students consist of two broad groups– students from international marriages and students from foreign families (MOE, 2006). International marriage is between a native-born Korean and those born outside of Korea, and foreign families are those where both parents are foreign-born (including Koreans living overseas) (Hwang, 2016). According to Hwang (2016), currently, a relatively higher number of 8 multicultural students attend primary schools than high schools (2 percent of the entire student population in South Korea), most multicultural students from international marriages live in rural areas, and those from foreign families live in urban areas. By their parents’ nationality, most foreign-born parents are from China (including ethnically-Korean Chinese citizens) and then from Japan, Central Asian, and Vietnam, in that order (Hwang, 2016). In the Korean law, it explains “Act on Treatment of Foreigners Residing in the Republic of Korea” (National Law Information Center (NLIC), n.d.). The law states that foreigners residing in South Korea are those who do not acquire Korean nationality but legally reside in Korea for long. Thus, these people and their children are protected by law to maintain their human rights and receive education and information to live in South Korea. Along with this category of foreigners residing in the Republic of Korea, married immigrants who have married Koreans, and their children also receive education and health care services. The law says that the benefits of married immigrants are provided because most of these people pursue Korean nationality (NLIC, n.d.). This means that the South Korea law only protects legally residing foreigners and their children by providing various services and benefits, but for those who are illegally living in the country and their children are left out. Thus, there are many undocumented multicultural children are currently living in South Korea and their living and educational conditions are not counted in the law and educational policies. Origin of Damunhwa Kyoyuk: Korean Multicultural Education In this section, I explain the origins and meaning of Korean multicultural education. The first step in studying multicultural education in Korea is clarifying the term itself. Korean and English are quite different languages containing distinct contexts. Thus, the term, 다문화교육 (read as Damunhwa Kyoyuk) roughly translated as “multicultural education,” must be examined 9 in order to better understand the specific history and context of Korea of multicultural education. Contemporary discourses about multicultural education in Korea have a relatively short history. In his seminal 1984 work, Kim Jong Suk directly translated the English term, “multicultural education,” into the Korean phrase, Damunhwa Kyoyuk. In this paper, he introduced American multicultural education, its origins, and the theoretical context around it. Subsequent to this initial contribution to the field, there have been many scholars that have discussed multicultural education and its necessity for certain areas of life and learning, such as citizenship education and community building (see, for example, Chung, 1995; J. Lee, 1997; K. Lee, 1997). For example, K. Lee (1997), considering the notion of citizenship in a globalized society, advocated the cultivation of social tolerance. He went on to argue that the goal of having tolerance is to create acceptance among different groups of people living in a society together so as to jointly face and resist social inequality (K. Lee, 1997). As another example, Chung (1995) argued for the deconstruction and decentralization of the physical education teacher education program in South Korea in order to bring about a greater acceptance of diversity. As a third example, J. Lee (1997) examined multiculturalism as it relates to art education. Despite these scholarly examples, it seems that multicultural discourse was limited to academic circles until 2006, when the Korean government first introduced a piece of multicultural education policy (Han, 2016). In Korean, Da means “many,” which represents “multi-” in “multicultural education.” Munhwa represents “physical and psychological gains that are established by the members of a society … in order to realize certain goals and ideals… including languages, customs, religions, knowledge, art, systems” (Korean Dictionary, n.d.)—that is, a material culture, one with discrete boundaries and borders. From this definition, Munhwa is the attainment of these elements—this 10 material culture—by a group of people; thus, this term appears to emphasize collective features of a group of people. In Korea, collective ways of thinking are almost everywhere. Koreans often use “uri,” which means “we,” without consciousness (such as “uri umma/appa,” meaning “my mom and dad,” but saying “our mom and dad,” if translated directly). Collective thinking also applies to Munhwa as well. Saying “our culture” habitually, Koreans are likely to think they have one culture that all Koreans own together, different from people from other cultures. Hence, there exists an ease with which many people draw lines between themselves and foreign workers, limiting their understanding and interaction with them. In contrast, while the North American use of “culture” can certainly share some of these characteristics of collective material culture, it is perhaps also true that North Americans tend to think of and speak about culture as an individual attainment or performance, rather than collective and shared. The proliferation of hyphenated identities, generational discourses, and many other ways of viewing culture means that normative notions of “culture” have given way to a multiplicity of “lifestyles” and “cultures”—each with relatively more fluid boundaries. Therefore, in addition to the definition of the words, the commonalities and the differences between the two—munhwa and culture—are dealt with later in this paper. It is important to realize then, the “strangeness” with which the word Damunhwa will land on Korean ears. And given this strangeness— “many” “discrete material cultures”—what, then, is the definition of Kyoyuk? According to the Korean dictionary, kyoyuk means “teaching knowledge and skills, and growing individual characters” (Korean Dictionary, n.d.). Different perhaps from the connotation of the English word, “education”—which has largely been colonized by school-based discourses of academic learning—kyoyuk includes a strong sense of 11 nurturing individuals, not just teaching them academic knowledge. In their daily life, Koreans use kyoyuk in various contexts, both formally and informally, expressing activities related to teaching and learning in many different contexts. For example, concerning children’s behavior, Koreans talk about kyoyuk as something that parents can do in the home. Thus, kyoyuk in Korean can be defined as “educating,” “nurturing,” “raising,” and “developing”—words which all have slightly different connotations in North America. In this way, the term Damunhwa Kyoyuk takes on a certain ambivalence. It can be understood as the cultivation or raising up of many discreet cultures. In this way, if not approached carefully, it can leave normative notions of Koreanness untouched. Indeed, it is only a short step from “multicultural education”—a term common in the North American context—to “multicultural families,” a term that seems unique to the Korean peninsula. Korean Multicultural Education in Policy Contexts Following the trend of increasing diversity amongst the people living on the Korean peninsula, the Korean government has, as we saw above, recently adopted a discourse of multicultural education. At the level of the centralized education system, there has been a great transformation in educational discourses, impacting national curriculum and teacher education. Since 2006, the Korean Ministry of Education (MOE) has published national policy documents that have included the term “multicultural,” beginning with the report, Educational Support Plan for Students from Multicultural Families. Since that time, the term “multicultural” has been used in many documents. Indeed, the Educational Support Plan for Students from Multicultural Families has been published every year since 2006. In policy documents, “multicultural families” are defined as families that are constructed by people who have different “ethnic and cultural” backgrounds than “us” (uri). Also, stating 12 that multiculturalism is “the opposite concept of monoculturalism,” the document explains that multiculturalism is meant to support diverse cultures within a single nation and society (MOE, 2006). In terms of how the government frames the concept of multiculturalism and multicultural families, the approach that is described above looks supportive at a superficial level but encourages exclusion and assimilation towards the others. In the North American context—using, for example, the seminal framework developed by Banks (2007)—multicultural education is action-oriented and has a focus on equity and justice. It is for everyone. In contrast, in the Korean context, ministry reports are quite clear about the who of multicultural education in Korea: “children from international marriages and those of foreign workers” (MOE, 2006, p. 2). In terms of the purposes of multicultural education, policy documents claim that it is required both to protect the human rights of diverse members of (our) society and to support equity. There is an increasing number of people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds in Korea, and, the policy asserts, there is a need to respect and understand their culture and history. Second, to prevent multicultural students’ marginalization, the plan explains that there is a need to prevent educational inequity—which, by a strange sort of contradiction, means to assimilate into Korean society more effectively. According to the document, multicultural students experience identity crises and perform poorly in their learning because they lack learning abilities and do not adapt to Korean culture. For example, the document states that “in terms of children of female immigrants, their language development is delayed. Because of language development delay and cultural maladjustment, they have low understandings of learning in schools and emotional disorder, like violence and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)” (p. 5). The assumptions embedded 13 here are almost too many to name: gendered (that mothers primarily raise children); linguistic (that the mother tongue of children is not important and that children learning Korean are therefore “delayed”); cultural (that cultural learning is a one-way process, from “foreign” to “Korean”); and so on. That is, the report takes a deficit perspective on the experiences that diverse students bring with them to their schooling. Seen through both word choices and the social attitudes that undergird them, this document appears to pursue the idea of uni-culturalism for “true Koreans” by assimilating “multicultural families” into the larger society. Therefore, while the plan does speak of the need to respect all cultures (presumably in the “private” or family sphere of life), it is also clear that, in this plan, multicultural education is not for everyone, but is geared towards the assimilation of “multicultural families.” Multicultural education in Korea is not for majority Korean students, but for those who are defined as the “Other.” Clearly, this is a different approach than that found in the North American scholarship on multicultural education which is explicit about the need to reconstruct monocultural ideas of who or what is “American”. Given this context, it should be obvious that Korean multicultural education has different characteristics from that of North America—even though the term was directly borrowed from it. Throughout history, Koreans have struggled to see that that their country is already hybrid and multicultural. However, with the rise of globalization and increased immigration from other countries, the Korean government has felt compelled to take public steps towards multiculturalism—perhaps in line with other industrial nations. In this process, the ways in which the introduction and implementation of multicultural education is likely to be antithetical to what I see as its true spirit needs to be studied in greater depth. I am not, however, alone in this. In many studies, scholars have argued that multicultural 14 education should be expanded to all students, to all families, and to society at large (Chang, 2012; Hwang, 2011; Jang, 2015; Lee, 2015; Mo & Lim, 2013). And indeed, recently, there has been some movement in that direction. But the general trend I outlined above remains the norm: multicultural education in Korea is an othering discourse, one that gives “the foreigner” a new and “better” label. So far, I have introduced the sources of ethnic diversity and the history of multicultural education in Korea. From its origin through its recent development, multicultural education has been undertheorized. What, then, of multicultural educational practice? To answer this, teacher roles and capacity must be considered. Thus, in the next section, I will discuss the importance of multicultural teacher education and the discourse that surrounds it. Multicultural In-service Teacher Education Due to economic globalization, diversity in student populations is the global trend. However, national teacher populations are not likely to follow the trend. In the US, scholars are increasingly concerned that the current teacher population is highly homogenous and lacks an understanding of diversity (Banks, et al., 2001; Li, 2013; Philpott, Furey & Penney, 2010; Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, & Curran, 2004). In South Korea, there is no national statistical data about the background of K-12 teachers in terms of their racial and ethnic background. Indeed, asking about teachers’ racial and cultural background is somewhat awkward for Korean teachers because it is commonly assumed that teachers are native Koreans.2 2 Appearing “native Korean” means people have an “Asian” appearance, especially looking like people from Northeast Asian countries like Korean, Japan, and China. I know that there are a few teachers from multicultural families in South Korea, but it is likely that they do not reveal their background to their colleagues and students, especially since they are not differentiated by their appearance. Understanding assimilation and exclusion in Korean society, hiding their background would seemingly be a better option for teachers from multicultural families, not feeling uncomfortable letting others know about their ethnic backgrounds. Acknowledging this fact, I contacted the government statistical service, but the answer is that there are no statistical data for teacher backgrounds in Korea. That said, based on the MOE plan in 2012, all teacher education programs in South Korea are to open their gates for multicultural students to become teachers through special entrance qualification system (MOE, 2012). Thus, over 15 Therefore, for now, in the South Korean context, almost all teachers are majority Koreans. Because teacher behaviors, knowledge, and teaching strategies are often based on one’s own cultural backgrounds (Irvine & York, 1995; Nieto & Rolon, 1997; Philpott, et al., 2010; Rodriguez, 2013; Villegas, 1991; Zozakiewicz & Rodriguez, 2007), such backgrounds are an important consideration. Teacher self-reflection, therefore, must take on greater importance in the teacher education context. If students from diverse backgrounds are to learn in culturally relevant and sustaining ways (Sleeter, 2013), teacher education programs must provide opportunities for teachers to examine their attitudes and improve their knowledge of and for diversity. The North American scholarship is very clear on this point. For example, according to Banks and his colleagues (2001), effective teachers are aware of their own teaching styles and preferences and how these impact their students’ academic achievement. In addition, effective teachers use their students’ ethnicity and culture in their teaching (Banks, et al., 2001). Given that “the teacher is the catalyst for student academic success” (Knight & Wiseman, 2005, p. 388), teacher knowledge and capacities must be shaped to meet the needs of diverse student populations. For teachers who may have had different life experiences than their current students, there needs to be opportunities to learn new contexts and time to consider teaching styles and attitudes that will meet the needs of diverse students. Clearly, teachers need support for this work through some form of professional learning opportunities. As noted above, in this dissertation, the three studies are interconnected under the overarching theme of multicultural teacher education. All in all, three different levels are considered: the national level, the regional level, and the classroom level. Taking all these levels time, it is expected that students could meet teachers from multicultural families in South Korea. 16 together, I aim to understand the current state of Korean multicultural in-service teacher education. Multicultural In-service Teacher Professional Development Programs in South Korea In South Korea, most of the research and policy focus for multicultural education is on pre-service teachers (Na, 2011). In terms of research on in-service PD, scholars have mostly paid attention to subject specific PDs as well as the teachers responsible for multicultural tasks in their schools (Kwon, 2012; Kwon, 2014; Park, 2013; Won & Lee, 2013). Most research on PD programs examines teacher perceptions of multicultural PD and the importance of rich PD programs (Na, 2011). Among these studies, three in particular stand out—all of which show the status of teacher education in South Korea. In 2009, the Korean National Center for Multicultural Education (NCME) analyzed professional development programs around the country. NCME is a government-designated organization that implements a variety of projects for multicultural education, such as supporting MOE policies, publishing multicultural educational materials, and providing professional development sessions. In a nationwide study, researchers focused on PD programs that had been implemented in each school district across the country (Kwon, Mo, Hwang, Park, Park, Kim & Bae, 2009). According to the researchers, teacher education programs offered few courses related to multicultural education, and there were not many in-service teachers taking PD for multicultural education (Kwon, et al., 2009). Of those PD sessions that were implemented for at least 30 hours, the researchers found that PD programs varied greatly in their duration and content. Some programs provided practical courses for teachers, and in some, teachers had opportunities to focus on both theoretical and practical issues for multicultural education. The researchers recommended that PD should be organized based on teacher needs as well as the 17 overarching body of research theory and practice so as to develop teachers’ capacity for multicultural education (Kwon, et al., 2009). In a second study, Chang (2008) provided a model for the curricular development of multicultural teacher education. Synthesizing the work of other researchers, mostly based on Bennett (2007), Chang (2008) developed a model for the curricular development of South Korean multicultural teacher education (See Table 1). In this model, Chang provided six steps in teacher education curriculum development: steps one and two are about knowledge acquisition of race, ethnicity, culture, and gender; steps three and four are for developing proper multicultural attitudes; and steps five and six are for multicultural practice (Chang, 2008). In the first step, according to Chang (2008), teachers acquire knowledge about marginalized social groups. This is a necessity for the following steps and the basis of an equitable education for various groups of students. In the next step, Chang argued that, in addition to the knowledge about diverse cultures, teachers need to have global understanding to help themselves become aware of what is happening around the world and, in this way, to change their attitude toward other cultures. The third step is to support teachers in examining their own racial and ethnic identity in order to have better communication with students from diverse cultural backgrounds (Chang, 2008). Later, through the fourth step, creating attitudes without discrimination and prejudice, teachers learn to have a positive attitude toward other cultures (Chang, 2008). Chang states that it is not easy to change teachers’ attitude with a single course. But through activities such as reflective writing, preservice teachers may create attitude without discrimination and prejudice toward other racial and ethnic groups (Chang, 2008). The last two steps are related to teachers’ practice and action. In the fifth stage, 18 preservice teachers learn about the ways in which teachers might use certain teaching strategies and materials for diverse student populations (Chang, 2008). The last stage is for teachers to develop more critical views towards social phenomena and to act for social justice. Explained above, Chang (2008) provided a possible way of developing multicultural teacher education programs in South Korea. In addition to researchers working in other national contexts, her work gives a direction for changing and reforming multicultural teacher education in Korea. In a third study, Hur, Chang and Park (2010) evaluated multicultural PD programs at eight universities for teachers and principals in K-12 schools. The researchers analyzed the programs from the perspective of teacher knowledge and Chang’s Model of Teacher Curriculum for Multicultural Education. The researchers examined that the previous research on PD programs and mostly verified the limited knowledge to be gained from investigations into teachers’ perceptions of existing PD programs. Arguing that the previous studies did not provide important details about the actual implementation of teacher workshops, the researchers made an effort to analyze PD programs in terms of their structure and curricula in order to suggest the future direction of the workshops. Overall, the researchers found that existing PD sessions consisted mostly of basic introductory ideas of multicultural education. The researchers admitted that this finding is hardly surprising given that multicultural education is itself relatively new and in its beginning stage in Korea (Hur, et al., 2010). On the other hand, given these limited efforts, the researchers argued that there is room for the further development of PD programs (Hur, et al., 2010). These three studies were all conducted 10 years ago, when Korean multicultural education was in its infancy. What—if anything—has changed in the intervening time? The three studies are all large-scale studies that provide only the briefest overview of what and how 19 teachers are learning about multicultural education. They also, I believe, vastly underestimate the time and effort it takes to change individual attitudes as well as social structures and institutions—particularly when relying upon an “imported” discourse that sits uncomfortably within existing patterns of thought and speech. Table 1. A Model of Teacher Curriculum for Multicultural Education Essential Values Education for equity and social justice; Curriculum reform; Multicultural Capacity Multicultural Knowledge Acquisition Multicultural Attitudes Multicultural Practices Lv. 1. Acquiring knowledge of race, ethnicity, cultural and gender Lv. 2. Understanding the contextual relations around the globe Lv. 3. Developing a sense of self and ethnical identity Lv. 4. Creating attitudes without discrimination and prejudice Lv. 5. Developing multicultural abilities for curricular reform Lv. 6. Obtaining practice for social justice Note: Adapted from “Exploring and Developing Model of Teacher Curriculum for Multicultural Education,” by I.S. Chang, 2008, The Journal of Elementary Education, 21 (2), p. 281-305. Clearly, researchers have not paid much attention to government-initiated multicultural teacher education policies. Thus, I argue that by investigating the design and implementation of government policies on multicultural teacher education, teacher educators and stakeholders can obtain a better understanding of the present and future direction of multicultural education in Korea. It is to these three studies that I next turn. 20 CHAPTER TWO: Governmental Approach to Multicultural Teacher PD Policies The purpose of this chapter is to explore government PD policies to understand how the South Korean government constructs what teachers should learn to teach multicultural students. Specifically, I investigate, 1) what the government aims for in terms of teacher learning about multicultural education; 2) how the discourses show the government maintains its power and social structure in the policies for teacher PD. These questions are fundamental to a better understanding of the overall context of multicultural PD policies and potential impact of PD policies on in-service teachers in Korea. In order to answer the research questions, the government documents about multicultural PD policies from year 2006 through 2017 have been examined through Critical Discourse Analysis. The findings of this study show that more systematic and in-depth programs should be emphasized in order for teachers to change their attitudes and have proper knowledge for their actual practices. Also, the discourses in the data showed that the government made changes in its policies under the existing social structures while maintaining its own power. Theoretical Framework The original focus of this study was to seek the characteristics and the capacities of in- service teachers in South Korea to teach multicultural students—assuming that, given the complexity of multicultural education, much of the professional learning that would be required to do this work would take place after initial professional formation. Based upon a review of the literature, I found that, globally, discussion of the key tenets of multicultural teacher education is mostly targeted towards preservice teachers (Chang, 2008; Gay & Howard, 2000; Nieto, 2000). Given this, I then read studies about pre-service teacher education, paying particular attention to its characteristics. From these, I developed a set of implications to be used for in-service teacher 21 professional development. Figure 2 shows the important tenets of multicultural teacher education categorized into four different realms––attitude, knowledge, practice, and the goal. The figure demonstrates that teachers need to be culturally-conscious, life-long learners while having a sense of self and ethnic identity. In addition to examining their attitudes, teachers should acquire various knowledge about other cultures and races. This should be situated within a framework of global understandings as well as within multicultural education theory itself. The area in the very middle shows the practical skills and abilities employed by teachers to support students and their families, all in the quest for the goal of social justice. Each of these aspects will be discussed in greater detail below. For the purposes of this study, this framework will offer a lens to evaluate how the Korean government theorizes what is required to educate their teachers for diversity and, in particular, to evaluate the policy discourses around multicultural teacher education. Figure 2. Working Framework for Multicultural Teacher Education Note: Adapted from Chang, 2008; Gay & Howard, 2000; Nieto, 2000 With a growing number of students from different backgrounds across the globe, 22 researchers have long maintained the importance of teacher education in order to meet the needs of diverse student populations (Cochran-Smith, 2003; Gay & Howard, 2000; Nieto, 2000). From these studies, I have organized what I take to be the main themes of multicultural teacher education. Thus, this first study’s theoretical framework is based upon the tenets of multicultural teacher education as described in fundamental studies by Chang (2008), Gay and Howard (2000) and Nieto (2000) (see Figure 2). The framework was constructed by reviewing literature about multicultural teacher education for both pre- and in-service teachers, and I have grouped these characteristics into four main categories: attitude, knowledge, practice, and the goal. Nieto (2000) argued that teacher education programs should be transformed, making the ability of teachers to meet the needs of diverse students a top priority. Criticizing existing teacher education programs as having deficit theories of culturally diverse students, she suggested three principles for teacher education programs: 1) a collective valuing of social justice and diversity; 2) an infusion of social justice issues across the teacher education curriculum; and 3) support of teachers as life-long learners who must continually challenge their own values and biases (Nieto, 2000). Nieto argued that teacher education programs should provide opportunities for future teachers to reflect on their own identities before teaching students from diverse backgrounds, and to then learn their students’ realities while having strong and meaningful relationships with their students after having practice has commenced. Nieto also recommended that teachers need to have multilingual and multicultural capacities to develop a community—one where colleagues have critical perspective on each other’s teaching and share their ideas in how to best serve diverse student populations (Nieto, 2000). In this way, Nieto tried to posit the importance of continual and ongoing transformation of a teacher’s mindset and capacities as she thoughtfully and reflectively interacts with her students and colleagues. 23 Gay and Howard (2000), on the other hand, sought to ground multicultural teacher education programs in two ways: 1) through acquiring cultural knowledge of self and others; and 2) through developing multicultural pedagogical knowledge and skills. These researchers claimed that preservice teachers often have problematic attitudes and assumptions in teaching culturally diverse student populations, such as being afraid of cultural differences and resistant to dealing with social issues such as race and racism (Gay & Howard, 2000). According to them, most preservice teachers think that multicultural education and academic excellence are in different worlds (and so unable to go together). In this way, the researchers maintained that teacher candidates are often unwilling or unable to have conversations about race and racism–– conversations that are critical in helping culturally diverse students reach their full academic potential. In terms of acquiring cultural knowledge of self and others, Gay and Howard posited the importance of cultural consciousness: that is, critical awareness of one’s own and other’s cultures so that one can overcome cultural biases and prejudices, both towards self and other. In this way, the researchers argued, teachers are well started on the road of teaching diverse student populations. The next step to educating preservice teachers is to develop multicultural pedagogical skills based on the knowledge and attitudes they have acquired (Gay & Howard, 2000). The researchers proposed six main areas of teacher knowledge and skills: 1) multicultural communications; 2) knowledge of multicultural education foundations; 3) multicultural pedagogical skills; 4) multicultural performance assessments; 5) relational skills with family and communities; and 6) multicultural change agency (p. 10). In conclusion, the researchers argued for reform of colleges of education in order to educate preservice teachers effectively, including 24 educating professors of education. While Gay and Howard (2000) focused on preservice teachers, I argue that their suggestions obviously apply to practicing teachers as well. Their lists of required knowledge and skills cannot be limited to preservice teachers but must of course be broadened to practicing teachers. Given the complexity of the practice, multicultural knowledge and skills must be developed throughout a career because teacher learning happens across the career span. In addition to Nieto (2000) and Gay and Howard (2000), I include Chang (2008)’s model for understanding teacher curriculum for multicultural education in South Korea. Work grounded in the South Korea context is important, for it is more likely to demonstrate a richer perspective as it examines the local scene. Explained earlier in this dissertation, in Chang’s model, planning with the three areas––multicultural knowledge acquisition, multicultural attitudes, and multicultural teaching practice—are considered a top priority for multicultural practice for social justice. Under these three areas, teachers’ knowledge about their own selves and ethnic identities are considered as well as global understandings, which should support teachers’ abilities to enact curriculum reform and social justice (Chang, 2008). The latter point is perhaps important, for multicultural and global education are, unfortunately, often not joined in North American discussions. Social justice is an ambiguous term that cannot be defined clearly (Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt & McQuillan, 2009; McDonald & Zeichner, 2008; North, 2006; Zeichner, 2006). However, under the goal of social justice, it is expected that teachers understand multicultural education as the goal of providing a fair and equitable education for all students, regardless of their background, so that they may become successful in their learning and later life. The framework I constructed in Figure 2 is to understand the perspectives from scholars 25 toward multicultural teacher education. In this study, I will look for how Korean government is framing in-service PD under its own context throughout ten years of its policy. Methodology In this essay, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) will be used to examine the data which is at the heart of this study: Korean government policy documents around multicultural education. What is “critical” in CDA is to be understood “as having distance to the data, embedding the data in the social, taking a political stance explicitly, and a focus on self- reflection scholars doing research” (Wodak, 2001, p. 9). Preserving a “critical” attitude towards the data, researchers can investigate the data from the perspective that holds that language is a “medium of domination and social force” (Wodak, 2001, p. 2). This critical and language- focused perspective in CDA is appropriate as I seek to understand the written policy text in relationship to social discourses and institutions. In Discourse and Social Change (1992), Fairclough stated that discourse is widely used in social theory and analysis “to refer to different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social practice” (Fairclough, 1992, p. 3). He described discourse as follows: I see discourses as ways of representing aspects of the world—the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the ”mental world” of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world … Different discourses are different perspectives on the world, and they are associated with the different relations people have to the world, which in turn depends on their positions in the world, their social and personal identities, and the social relationships in which they stand to other people. Discourses not only represent the world as it is (or rather is seen to be), they are also projective, imaginaries, representing possible worlds which are different from the actual world, and tied in to 26 projects to change the world in particular directions. The relationships between different discourses are one element of the relationships between different people—they may complement one another, compete with one another, one can dominate others, and so forth. (Fairclough, 2003, p. 124) As above, in my study, I assert that discourses are neither merely text nor linguistic entity. I take the position that discourses embrace the social phenomena that surround people, times, and places while showing the interconnectedness of all of them within a certain context. Therefore, in my study, the focus of analysis will be on relationships: between Korean society, Korean history, Korean institutions, Korean educational practice and multicultural education policy. Further, according to Wodak (2001), wearing “critical” lenses, CDA researchers must have a specific interest in power, history, and ideology. He also argued that discourse is constructed by social processes and structures, and that every discourse has a relationship to dominance, a time where it is situated, and an ideological bias towards the group who created the discourse. Therefore, CDA helps researchers analyze unequal power relations and specific ideologies that stabilize and naturalize the social structures and conventions that are taken as a “given” (Wodak, 2001, p. 3). In short, CDA can play a significant role in this study by aiding my evaluation of multicultural teacher education policy from a critical and context-specific perspective. Data Collection and Sources In this study, I analyzed Korean multicultural PD policies that are declared in the annual multicultural education policy report, published since 2006 by the Ministry of Education in South Korea. These are the key documents that I was focusing on, and for better understanding of the overall context around multicultural education, I also looked up multicultural-related 27 archives under “Press Release” tab, where the government opens the news and events related to multicultural students. All these data have been collected from the Ministry of Education website (www.moe.go.kr). The policy documents were found in the “Multicultural—North Korean refugee students” tab, under “Primary and Secondary Education Policy.” In this tab, there are other materials for multicultural students living in South Korea, such as statistics about multicultural students and best classroom practices for North Korean refugee students. These materials were not in the focus of my investigation because North Korean students are considered different category with different policies, and other data only show statistical information about the current number of multicultural students and their origins. I collected all 12 annual policy documents (or summaries of policy documents) from 2006 to 2017. The entire length of each document is 12 to 35 pages long.3 Each document includes various information about and plans to support multicultural students living in South Korea. The policy document in 2006 that is the first plan for multicultural students has five sections: 1) background and purposes; 2) beneficiaries of this policy; 3) statistics of multicultural students; 4) summary of the necessity of the policy; and 5) tasks and plans to support multicultural students. The 2006 document is the original plan for multicultural education, so that I read the document thoroughly to understand the overall context and the policy. Then, I mostly focused on the last section, “tasks and plans to support multicultural students,” as it related to PD policies for Korean teachers of multicultural students. In this section, there is the “Policy Vision,” which 3 For some reason, the last archive was uploaded in 2014, and I could not find more recent documents on that list. From this archive, I downloaded several years of policy documents (2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015) for supporting multicultural students, but there were also missing documents in some years (2007, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017). In order to study all the documents from each year, I contacted the MOE to obtain other annual documents that were not uploaded on their website. The documents that I requested are shorter than those in the archive, thus, they appear to be summaries of original documents. Also, in 2012, policy documents were combined with press report. 28 includes sections on “Cultural Democratic Integration” and “Cultural Melting Pot” (MOE, 2006, p. 11). Under this vision, seven tasks are listed with plans to accomplish the tasks–– Task 1: Establishing Cooperation Among Different Institutions to Support Multicultural Families Task 2: Supporting Cooperation of Local Governmental Bodies to Support Multicultural Families Task 3: Consolidating Support for Multicultural Students in School Task 4: Enhancing Teacher Capacity for Educating Multicultural Students Task 5: Including Multicultural Elements in Curriculum and Textbooks Task 6: Expanding Mentoring Service to Multicultural Students Task 7: Different Tasks for Diverse Policy Subjects Similar to the 2006 document, other sequential documents also have similar sections or parts for PD plans. In each policy document, plans for multicultural PD programs are approximately one to two pages long. As I explained in the section above, while I focused on these pages, I also examined the discourse in other portions of the policy to see if and how multicultural PD is referenced either implicitly or explicitly. Data Analysis With the collected data, the main investigation was on what teacher learning and capacities are emphasized in the plans in order to understand the Korean government’s approaches to multicultural PD. Here, I used the framework that I organized, informed by Gay and Howard (2000) and Nieto (2000), and Chang (2008), and represented in Figure 2. Therefore, I categorized and analyzed PD policy plans by these four categories: attitude, knowledge, practice, and goal (See Table 2). Because the purpose of this paper is to see how the South Korean government frames teacher capacities and roles to teach multicultural students, I 29 compared the policy documents to Figure 2 and then tried to figure out what is stated and emphasized for teachers in the government documents. Critical Discourse Analysis In the policy documents from year 2006 through 2017, I focused primarily on sections describing multicultural PD under the main investigation. Also, I read and examined the overall policy documents to understand teacher learning and their roles in multicultural education. In order to analyze the language and its implicit and explicit meanings in the government documents, I used Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as observing social structures and power relations in the texts. Fairclough (1989) explained in his book, Language and Power, how to utilize CDA in practice. In the analysis of texts, as he mentioned the interpretation stage, where the background knowledge of the analyst plays a role to interpret what is in the text. In order to describe the process of interpretation, he listed six major domains of interpretation, and I also used these key elements in the interpretation stage of the data in this study––surface of utterance, meaning of utterance, local coherence, test structure and “point,” situational context, and intertextual context (Fairclough, 1989). According to Fairclough (1989), the first domain is surface of utterance, where the interpreter focuses on the surface level of language, such as sounds, words, and sentences, and this process moves to the next stage, meaning of utterance, as the interpreter to find out implicit meanings of words, using the interpreter’s resources, or background knowledge. The next step is finding local coherence. Here, the interpreter looks for connections between utterances and coherence in the sequence of utterances. After this stage, the interpreter arrives at the text structure and “point,” in which the overall interpretation of text and the topic can be achieved. 30 The last two elements are situational and intertextual contexts. Situational context can be understood at the surface level of information, the situation of the text and the participants of the text, using the background information of the interpreter. The last domain is intertextual context, where the interpreter understands the text within the relationship of previous discourses with the current one. Keeping these domains in mind, I analyzed the policy documents from the text itself to the meanings within the context where the text created as it assumes the power and the social structures. Thus, in this study, I first focused on the words and sentences related to teachers directly and indirectly, such as teachers, teacher capacity, classroom teaching, curriculum, and textbooks. Then, I tried to find meanings within the text and the relations to social contexts and power. The interpretation process was conducted with each individual text and the intertextual relations among the documents. Throughout the interpretation process, I tried to answer several questions, such as what the Korean government aims for in the discourses of teacher learning in multicultural education; how the discourses show the government maintains its power and social structure in the policies for teacher PD; the role of policy documents in sustaining or challenging existing social practice and order. In the next section, I explicate the findings of this study. 31 Table 2. Categories of PD Content (from the government policy documents from 2006 through 2017) Tenets of MTE Social Justice PD Content Appeared in the Documents (Years of Documents) Attitude Knowledge Practice Connecting global citizenship education (2017) Understanding diverse culture/considering minorities in society (2006) Understanding internationality (2007) Changing awareness towards students (2008) Understanding multicultural students (2009) Reconsidering teacher awareness of multicultural students (2013, 2015, 2016) Supporting concerning the characteristics of multicultural students (2017) Principles and practice of multicultural education (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) Cultural diversity (2010, 2011) Multicultural policy (2010) Understanding multicultural families and teaching context (2010) Issues in cultural diversity (2011) Curriculum and multicultural education (2011) Teaching for low-achievement students and preventing school bullying/ Distributing troubleshooting case books (2006) Counseling multicultural students for entering higher education (2016, 2017) KSL and Korean culture (2006) Teaching multicultural students (2009, 2011, 2013, 2016) Teaching practice and discussion (2010) Understanding multicultural families and teaching practice (2010) Counseling multicultural students (2011, 2017) 32 Findings Through its policy documents, the South Korean government shapes what teachers need to acquire in order to understand multicultural education. From the investigation of the policy documents, the following questions are answered throughout this section: What does the government aim for in terms of teacher learning about multicultural education? How do the discourses show the government maintains its power and social structure in the policies for teacher PD? What is the role of policy documents in sustaining or challenging existing social practice and order? The findings of this study indicate that the government approaches to teacher attitude, knowledge, and practices should be more systematic, and in-depth programs should be emphasized in order for teachers to change their attitudes and have proper knowledge for their actual practices. Also, the discourses in the data showed that the government has not changed its focus toward social justice and maintained its own social structure and power from the dominant perspective. Transforming Teacher Attitudes In this section, I will look at the discourses about teacher attitudes in multicultural education, first presented above in Figure 2. The analysis of the data presented that multicultural PD policies are not enough for teachers to challenge their values and attitudes toward multicultural students. The discourses in the government policy documents represented that, from 2006 through 2017, the government has consistently emphasized changing teacher attitudes toward multicultural students. Importance of teacher’s concerns and consideration about multicultural students––the need for teachers, (vice) principals to consider minorities; emphasizing teacher PD and 33 creating teacher guide (to assist their teaching) (MOE, 2006, p. 14) Emphasizing teacher PD for changing awareness toward multicultural students (MOE, 2010, p. 1; 2013, p. 10) As the discourses show above, there are words, such as teachers’ “concerns,” “consideration,” and “awareness” used mostly in terms of teacher attitude. The government did not specify what they mean in teaching multicultural students but implied the basic perspective toward multicultural students. From the dominant society’s perspective, the government requires the need for teachers from the dominant background to acknowledge multicultural students in their classrooms because before releasing 2006 document, “students from other backgrounds have not been considered so far” (p. 6). This is the first step in changing teacher attitudes from the government, and in the subsequent documents, “changing teacher awareness” was stated for teacher attitudes from 2008 (MOE, 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011; 2014; 2015; 2016). Different from the documents in the beginning (MOE, 2006; 2007), the government changed its perspective to view multicultural students not as people who are in need but as people who are becoming the members of Korean society. Therefore, it is considered that Koreans are defined as those who are living in the Korean society and not differentiated by their background. The government tries to achieve the goal of changing teacher attitude through multicultural PD programs. Recommended to include at least two hours of multicultural-related topics in the mandatory PD programs (MOE, 2006, p. 14) Lack of specialist4 PD programs to educate teachers to understand multicultural 4 In 2007 document, the government raised the issue with absence of teacher specialist in multicultural education. Different from other teachers, the government tried to educate teachers in a new category who are experts in 34 education, considering minorities, and counseling (multicultural students) (MOE, 2007, p. 6) Opening multicultural student education PD programs in in-service teacher education institutions (30-hours and 60-hours program) (MOE, 2009, p. 8) Plan for systematic PD programs “basic (for all teachers)” to “advanced,’ and basic programs are distributed via online and mobile (MOE, 2013, p. 10) Aiming for increasing participants of PD programs by 20 percent to 2017 (MOE, 2014, p. 13) Required PD programs for teachers in multicultural-focused schools5 (MOE, 2015, p. 16; 2016, p. 12; 2017; p. 15) The discourses above show that the importance of formal multicultural PD programs has been gradually emphasized. Especially, for teachers working in schools with many multicultural students, attending at least one multicultural PD workshop is required (MOE, 2017). However, where multicultural students are fewer in number, such workshops are merely recommended for teachers of multicultural students, not all teachers. It is not therefore easy to get to know how many and how often teachers are taking multicultural PD programs throughout their career, even though it is likely that such workshops are becoming increasingly common. Over time, the requirement of participating in a more sustained and robust multicultural PD may help teachers examine their attitudes toward multicultural students, but for now, changing teacher attitudes is dealt with as a basic but trivial item by the government. The multicultural education. In this paper, the term, “multicultural expert teachers,” “teachers in charge of multicultural education” are used to call the same teacher role. Later in this dissertation, I will use “multicultural education teacher” for this specific teacher position. 5 In 2010, the government planned to designate schools with over ten multicultural students as multicultural-focused schools that receive Korean language education and other educational support for multicultural students. 35 government currently recommend that teachers volunteer to take 15 to 30 hours of multicultural workshop programs. This is not enough. Teachers’ thoughts and attitudes cannot be transformed after one or two workshops—especially given the longevity of teaching careers in South Korea, with most careers lasting over 30 years. From the data, I suggest that systematic plans for teacher PD to challenge their attitude and prejudice should be planned from the government level, so that not only a few, but all teachers in schools receive the benefits of learning about diversity and multicultural education. Not a single opportunity, but multiple and sustaining PD participation is required for teachers to reflect on their thinking and attitudes toward the new student population and also teaching strategies for the students. The concern I had after analyzing the data above is that under this policy, teacher attitude, mostly dominant perspective cannot be changed easily but maintained. The government can construct the boundaries of what teachers should learn broadly because the number of multicultural students is not very large at this time, and the documents represented that the government set the goal of multicultural education for multicultural students to adjust well into the existing society while developing their talents. Therefore, the government spreads its views about multicultural education in the way of supporting multicultural students and changing the attitudes of teacher and majority students. Gaining Knowledge About Social Diversity and Multicultural Education In this section, I will look at the role of teacher knowledge in multicultural education, first presented above in Figure 2. The findings show that the Korean government emphasizes the general knowledge around multicultural education continually in every document, so that the importance of gaining proper knowledge about multicultural education has been noticed 36 throughout the document. In the documents, teacher knowledge about multicultural education has been emphasized consistently after 2008 document. Conducting teacher PD for multicultural expert teachers about theory and practice of multicultural education (MOE, 2009, p. 7; MOE, 2011, p. 8) Understanding the theory of multicultural education (under the plan for teacher multicultural PD) (MOE, 2010, p. 11) Including “understanding multicultural education” for new teacher PD and systemizing PD programs with basic (recommended for all teachers) and intensive (required for teachers of global leading schools) courses (MOE, 2012, p. 16) As I explained in the previous section, when the government first publish the plan for multicultural students, teachers’ understandings and consideration of multicultural students were emphasized. However, as the discourses show above, since 2008, it looks likely that the government has shifted its gear towards teacher knowledge about multicultural education. The discourses represent that the government did not state exactly what teachers need to learn, other than stating “theory and practice of multicultural education” and “understanding multicultural education.” This nuances that the government decides the content for teacher learning but gives some autonomy to regional offices of education for their own teachers under their own educational contexts. The contextuality of different regions also mentioned documents in 2010 and 2011, stating that “differentiated education and counseling, and constructing PD programs depending on regional context” (MOE, 2010, p. 11; 2011, p. 9). In spite of the centralized educational system in South Korea, the government taking this position seems to give power to regional 37 offices of education in their implementation of PD programs for their teachers. Concerning that different regions having different populations of multicultural students and the differences in their background, this positionality from the government is appropriate in terms of giving independence to regional offices of education in educating their teachers. Knowledge Distribution through Multicultural Expert Teachers In addition to distributing powers to the offices of education and PD institutions, the government has also shared its role of educating teachers to multicultural expert teachers. Across all the documents from 2007 to 2017, the word “teachers in charge of multicultural education” has been used, and these teachers are at the center of multicultural PD programs to enhance their expertise in multicultural education and to assist other teachers. Raising school-based education capacity: activating PD for teachers in charge of multicultural education (MOE, 2007, p. 7) Providing incentives for teachers in charge of multicultural education (MOE, 2009, p. 3; 2010, p. 6; 2011, p. 4) Content: Multicultural phenomena and issues, curriculum and multicultural education (under PD for multicultural expert teachers) (MOE, 2010, p. 11; 2011, p. 9) When the government first started multicultural education policy, one of the effective ways to deliver policy and information is to have multi-dimensional approaches in various levels. The Korean government seems to find the way from designating multicultural education teachers to meet the policy goals even with external motivation, incentives. The teachers who are in charge of multicultural education participate more in PD programs with additional information, such as “Multicultural phenomena and issues, curriculum.” While having an expert on multicultural issues in each school is clearly beneficial, the drawbacks to this approach should also be clear. 38 For these approaches suggest that l multicultural education is not a collective responsibility. Instead, it is treated as “administrative work”—a bureaucratic solution. Shifting Views, Different Knowledge The last thing to notice from the documents was the shifting views from multicultural “education” to “students.” Conducting basic (15 hours) and intensive (30 hours) to understand multicultural students; and recommendation of including “multicultural education” in various PD programs (MOE, 2016, p. 12; 2017, p. 15) Before 2016, the government documents stated that teachers needed to understand “multicultural education,” but since 2016, what teachers should learn has changed to “multicultural students.” This also shows in the overarching motto under “Strengthen teacher capacity” from 2015 to 2017 documents. Raising awareness and understanding about multicultural students through PD and enhancing educational capacity for multicultural student guidance (MOE, 2015, p. 16; 2016, p. 12) Promoting PD about understanding multicultural education in order to support multicultural students based on their characteristics and provide education for understanding (MOE, 2017, p. 15) Previously, I explained that the government documents mostly stated “multicultural education” as a way to teacher learning without specific information about what knowledge teachers are going to learn. However, currently, the documents represent more detailed knowledge that teachers should acquire, that is the characteristics of multicultural students to provide better educational experience, not only focusing on raising teacher awareness. 39 This change was shown in the title of the annual documents as well. From 2006 to 2013, the title of the documents was “Plans for Supporting Multicultural Students” created by “Department of Students Welfare.” Year 2014 and 2015 was transition period: in 2014, “Plans for Activating Multicultural Education—Growing Dreams and Talents Living Together” and in 2015, “Plans for Supporting Multicultural Students.” Since 2015, policy documents have been prepared by “Department of Multicultural Education Support.” After that, in 2016 and 2017, the title was the same as “Plans for Supporting Multicultural Education.” After 10 years of implementing policy for multicultural education, it looks likely that the government tried to make changes in its policy, so that it organized a new team for multicultural education. Therefore, there are changes in teacher learning and knowledge, which is more student-centered and specified compared to those in earlier discourses. Overall, educating teachers to have the proper knowledge about multicultural education and students has been emphasized over time. Since 2013, the government has encouraged all teachers to take basic PD programs that are over seven hours as requirement and once in every five years. As the government set the goal for 20 percent of teachers taking basic multicultural education PD by 2017 (MOE, 2014, p. 13), more teachers will have proper knowledge in teaching multicultural students. In terms of the knowledge about multicultural education, the government has been creating the frame that under the global circumstances, multicultural education is the one that teachers need to know and understand. Therefore, of all things, knowledge about what multicultural education is and how is demographic changes in Korean education has been emphasized. Concerning the centralized educational system, from the government as the initiation of multicultural education policies, what lower levels in educational structure should do 40 has been decided. I think this is a necessary step for introducing a change in education, which challenges teachers in their practice. Acquiring Practices for Diversity In this section, I will look at the role of teaching practices in multicultural education, first presented above in Figure 2. In particular, I analyze how the government frames what teachers should practice and need to learn for their practice in meeting the needs of diverse students. The findings show that the government states policies related to teacher practice implicitly and explicitly throughout the documents not only in teacher PD sections. Also, teacher practices described in the documents are mostly related to outside the classroom practices. What is most important in teacher learning is how much the knowledge is related to teachers’ actual practices. Teachers are meeting multicultural students every day, and what they have learned should be connected to what they do. From the very first policy document, the government planned to educate teachers for their practice for multicultural students. Content about multicultural education understanding, education for underachievers, and school-bullying included for teacher PD more than two hours recommended (MOE, 2006, p. 14) Developing and distributing casebooks about social minority issues and troubleshooting (MOE, 2006, p. 14) PD about understanding multicultural students, customized education, and counseling (MOE, 2009, p. 7) Expanding In-service teacher PD: conducting teacher PD for multicultural education to support career guidance considering characteristics of multicultural students, students at risk, and dropout (MOE, 2016, p. 12) 41 The discourse above describes practical PD programs and the support for teachers’ school experiences with multicultural students. Different from the two tenets of teacher learning presented in the previous sections, the content of PD and practices are described in detail as shown above. However, vocabulary in teacher practices is somewhat negative––“underachievers, school-bullying, troubleshooting, students at risk, and dropout.” In several documents, the government provides the current status of multicultural students, and the characteristics of multicultural students are described from a deficit perspective. Lack of Korean ability because of their mother who are lack of Korean language, and lack of basic learning and challenges in school life (MOE, 2010, p. 5) Multicultural students who were born in other countries do not have understanding and experiences about Korean language and culture, and those are over school ages experience family break, learning vacuum, and so forth, therefore, they are in difficult situation in their school life and entering to the higher education (MOE, 2011, p. 14) They are stressed out mentally and psychologically and challenged economically (MOE, 2011, p. 14) Having psychological challenges with adjusting remarried families and Korean culture, and identity confusion (MOE, 2015, p. 4) When it comes to the source of the policy documents, if the deficit perspective is represented, the situation is going worse because the documents are from the body of authority, the government, which initiates policies and has impact on education for all students. The readers of the documents will be influenced by the government views, and teachers who are educated by PD institutions and regional offices of education will be likely to have similar views as that of the government. 42 In addition to the discourses’ inherent negative perspective on multicultural students, the government has also developed PD and manuals for teachers to follow in their practice. Distribution of three manuals for guiding multicultural students: school register, guidance, and parents counseling (MOE, 2012, p. 16) Supporting multicultural education understanding, applicable teaching practices, and discussions (MOE, 2010, p. 11) Guidance for multicultural students, workshops, and practice (MOE, 2010, p. 11; 2011, p. 9) PD for teaching practice for multicultural students (MOE, 2013, p. 10; 2014, p. 13; 2015, p. 16) Similar to the knowledge I found in the previous section, teacher practice also gained much attention from the government perspective. With the knowledge that teachers would acquire, in PD programs, it seems that the government planned to educate teachers for their “practice” for administrative work as well as for teaching. In terms of teaching practice, with the discourses previously, it is possible that teachers learn about how to deal with “challenging” situations with multicultural students in their lessons. In addition to PD content, the documents imply tasks that teachers would do under multicultural education policies. Emphasis of mutual understanding education for normal students (MOE, 2012, p. 18) Textbook revision in order to promote right understanding of multiculture and to develop multicultural-friendly textbook (MOE, 2012, p. 18; 2013, p. 3; 2017, p. 13) Harmony week related to Together Day (May 20th) (MOE, 2013, p. 12; 2017, p. 12) With many changes by the government, it looks likely what teachers should do loaded 43 more than before. In classroom, teachers’ lessons will be transformed with the textbooks including multicultural-related elements, and in addition to their lesson, teachers perform additional activities, such as Together Day.6 Given that almost all teachers are from ethnic Korean families, it could be argued that teachers require considerably more opportunities to consider racial and cultural diversity of their students, and how to teach multicultural students in supportive ways as well as interacting with their parents who do not have Korean language ability. Therefore, across the discourse, there are many places where teachers’ effort and performance are embraced. Toward the Goal of Social Justice? In this section, I will look at the social justice as the goal of multicultural education first presented above in Figure 2. The finding indicates that so far, the Korean government policies have not been enough to be ready for teachers to pursue social justice in learning and teaching for multicultural education. As the Figure 2 shows, social justice is the end goal for educating teachers for multicultural education, so that other aspects of multicultural teacher education, such as attitude, knowledge, and practice should be considered to meet the goal. Therefore, in order to educate teachers for multicultural education, social justice must be considered at all stages of professional learning (Banks, 2009; Nieto, 2000). The analyses of documents show that the government documents do not allow enough room for social justice in Korean multicultural education. As I briefly mentioned in Chapter One, it is clear that Korean multicultural education is, in fact, discriminating and othering of students 6 The South Korean government urges having “Multicultural Week” in each school in relation to “Together Day”–– a holiday that the government specified in 2007 as a national anniversary to understand and respect diversity in South Korea. 44 from ethnic and cultural backgrounds that are not majority Koreans. The 2006 document is explicit in claiming that multicultural students were unable to adjust themselves into the Korean educational system and had low academic achievement. Across the plans from 2006 and 2016, the explicit focus was on “programs”—most often related to “their” (i.e., multicultural student’s) “issues,” such as challenges in learning and entering universities (MOE, 2006; 2009; 2011; 2013; 2016; 2017). Improving academic achievement is a significant goal in education in general, which leads to success in life. Especially South Korea, where education is considered based on competition, academic success is the number one goal in education, and the system supports to meet the goal. In Korea, nearly 70 percent of high school graduates enter universities, and they have to take the entrance exam that is the most essential element for university admission (Korean Educational Statistics Service, 2017). Achieving a higher score allows a student to enter a better university, which helps the students to have a better job with a higher salary. Every school sets their priority to sending their students to top ranking universities, and high performing students are in the center of schools’ interest. Under this system and educational environment, the position where multicultural students stand is not easily confirmed, likewise, social justice. On a surface level, it may appear appropriate to provide additional support for multicultural students to learn and interact with other students without any barriers. However, regarding the knowledge that multicultural students are learning and the contexts in which they are involved, it is easily understood that multicultural policies make multicultural students accept the majority group’s knowledge and values in the process of their own learning. Moreover, it is clear that multicultural students are the ones who follow the social norms and values of Korea (Choi & Kim, 2013). 45 Below are the discourses that the government described as its goal for educating multicultural students in a successful way. Realization of “no child left behind”7 by analyzing different educational needs following the characteristics of multicultural students and enhancing customized educational support (MOE, 2012, p. 7) Growing multicultural-friendly schools where “no child left behind” (MOE, 2013, p. 1) Providing teachers with teachers’ guide about Korean basic curtesy such as greetings, things to follow in schools, and public order (MOE, 2012, p. 10; 2013, p. 5) Specifically, in the year 2012 and 2013, there is an interesting discourse found in educating multicultural students. That is, the way that the government tried to educate multicultural students is to follow the rules and values of the dominant society. It is before the time when the government organized a new team, and discourses above somewhat represent how the government approaches multicultural education from the perspective of a dominant society. Social justice is the beginning and end of multicultural education (Banks, 2009). It would therefore seem that teachers need to learn and pursue social justice to properly educate their students from different cultural and racial backgrounds. Yet across the documents about teacher learning for multicultural education, Korean multicultural education is explicitly mentioned as improving academic achievement of multicultural students and helping them adjust themselves into Korean social and learning environments, such as stating “Support for school adjustment and basic learning” (MOE, 2013, p. 6). These policy documents do not explicitly mention anything like “social justice.” It does 7 “No child left behind” here is the same wording as “No Child Left Behind,” but it is not related to NCLB in the US. I thought that the best way to translate the Korean expression in this quote is “no child left behind” literally, which means everyone should be successful in their learning. 46 not seem that Korean multicultural education aims for social justice in any way across ten years of policy-making. Multicultural students are considered the target of these multicultural policies (MOE, 2006; Ryu, 2013). From the government perspective, therefore, challenging social inequalities and reforming social structures are not likely to be a primary concern in teacher learning for multicultural education. Equality of Educational Opportunity Over time, as the policy shifts, the discourse on multicultural students has slightly changed. In the 2017 policy document, “global citizenship education,” understood as “educating citizens to understand and practice peace, human rights, and cultural diversity,” was added (MOE, 2017, p. 16). Also, as I explained previously, the 2015 document was the first to be written under the new team, there are places where it shows the government views and foci have changed. Main goal: Realizing Equality of Educational Opportunities and Cultivating Multicultural Talent through Customized Multicultural Education (MOE, 2015, p. 7; 2016, p. 2) Education Acknowledging Differences and Cultivating Multicultural Talent Realization of actual equality of educational opportunity as giving the same starting point to children from multicultural families and as supporting language and basic learning from the kindergarten stage (MOE, 2015, p. 8) The noticeable vocabulary in the discourses is “equality of educational opportunity.” Since 2015, the government started to focus on providing equal educational opportunities for multicultural students by educating them to promote their talents and characteristics in order to be successful in their learning. To meet the equality of educational opportunity, the government stated “customized” education for multicultural students, such as mentoring, Korean language support, and preparatory courses before entering general schools (MOE, 2015; 2016; 2017). In the 2015 47 document, there are pages of description about the achievement and issues of multicultural education, which contains a higher enrollment rate, KSL course operation, multicultural students’ talent development, lack of supporting basic learning abilities of multicultural students, and the need for the sustainability of understanding multicultural education for teachers and students (MOE, 2015). The assessment of multicultural policies made the government to move toward “proactive and customized education for multicultural students, concerning their characteristics (MOE, 2015, p. 7). However, customized education for multicultural students is also a way of absorbing them into the Korean educational system. Under the concept of equality of educational opportunity, multicultural students could have equal opportunities with majority Korean students, regardless of their racial and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, multicultural students receive additional support before and after entering school. Unfortunately, the purpose of providing the equal educational opportunity is for multicultural student to prepare for the dominant group’s educational system. Integrated language education programs with reading, playing, and music education in order not to be retarded in the cognitive development with lower Korean ability (MOE, 2015; p. 8) Operating preparatory schools of intensive learning of Korean and Korean culture for early adjustment of immigrant and multicultural students (MOE, 2015, p. 9) Revision of KSL curriculum for multicultural students and achievement assessment with learning aid and testing tools (MOE, 2015, p. 10) As the discourses show above, the input for the equal educational opportunity is centered on the Korean language ability of multicultural students in order for them to keep up in their learning. 48 The discourses imply that multicultural students should acquire proper Korean language and culture, and without the proficiency, they cannot fit in nor be successful in Korean schools. Putting importance on Korean language and culture is significant but could hurt multicultural students and further hinder them from learning. This is because language contains culture, ways of thinking and behavior of people speaking the same language. While multicultural students learn Korean and its culture, their home languages and cultures could be pushed out from the primary position. As we have observed in the previous sections, in Korean schools, the languages and backgrounds of multicultural students have been treated just as celebrating other cultures and something interesting. The discourses in the government documents assume that learning Korean language and culture is the basic and essential role for multicultural students, and this is how multicultural students are assimilated into the Korean educational system. For multicultural students, learning Korean language and culture is the essential method to having a successful life in South Korean society. On the other hand, the requirement from the schools could make multicultural students fail in their learning. In order to have the equality of educational opportunity that is given from the dominant educational system, multicultural students will have a lot of stress and be overwhelmed and may feel that their own ways of acting from their home are neglected in schools and in Korean society. The learning provided from Korean education system could have the role of preventing multicultural students from adapting to the Korean society. Conclusion In this study, Korean government policy documents for multicultural in-service teacher education have been identified and analyzed in order to understand the content and framing of multicultural education in Korea. 49 In the span of just a few generations, South Korea has undergone a tremendous economic and social transformation. A teacher nearing the end of her career today would have received her initial professional preparation in a very different time, indeed. And given the fact that most South Korean teachers are currently tenured—85.2% in high school, 85.6% in middle school, and 94.4% in elementary school (MOE, 2017)—the issue takes on added importance. The government plans for multicultural PD require teachers to have knowledge about diversity—rooted in information about the “multicultural student” population and their challenges in learning. Flowing from that information, the government recommends counseling as a primary way that teachers can assist such students. The plans highlight the low academic achievement of multicultural students and the need to solve this problem. Naturally, with this information in hand, it is somewhat unlikely that teachers will pay attention to social structures and other materials barriers to equity. Teachers’ learning opportunities have been planned, but not in a sustainable way. As revealed in the government plans, teachers are supposed to be participating in various PD programs, but mostly the programs are for multicultural education teachers and are held not consistently. The government recommends that teachers take multicultural workshops, but it is up to the teacher whether or not to take such workshops. The sustainability of learning opportunities is important for teachers—yet the government has not attended to the continuity of teacher learning, in this way encouraging professional to become life-long learners throughout their careers. The plans are also clear that multicultural education is for “multicultural students”—the emphases are on teachers’ interactions with multicultural students, with special attention to counseling and access to higher education. This approach treats multicultural students from a 50 deficit perspective, or as an administrative burden, all with an assumed goal of assimilation into Korean society. This approach should be revised as all students have assets that will allow them to participate in a globalizing society. This study has implications for teacher professional development for multicultural students in South Korea and also reflects on how a government creates a discourse that sets the framework teacher learning. Under a centralized educational system, government plans are the beginning of a policy—they directly and indirectly impact on teachers. This study has implications for teacher professional development for multicultural students in South Korea and also on how a government creates a discourse around teacher learning for diverse student population. This study is valuable for the stakeholders of teacher education for diverse student population. Especially, under the centralized educational system, the government plans are at the beginning of a certain policy and directly and indirectly impact on teachers. For teacher educators, understanding the government policy documents is necessary to learn about the government’s intention to a certain approach, which makes teacher educators plan their own programs for teachers under the environment that the government created. The limitation of this study is that the government policy documents were not provided in the whole, so that there might be some missing points in the analysis with the absent of some details. However, I have tried to understand the details with reading the full data given with the relationship of other content in the policy documents. This study will be developed with the relationship of other policy enactment to see how the government frame is realized in the actual educational context and how it should develop in a certain way, comparing with other policies nationally and internationally. 51 CHAPTER THREE: Implementing Multicultural Professional Development: The Approaches of Teacher Educators in a Region This chapter focuses on professional development programs developed by the Korean MOE and implemented by regional education districts. Within South Korea, because it is a centralized system, the implemented content and goals of PD are expected to align with what policymakers describe as required in government documents. Thus, each school district needs to follow the guidelines for conducting PD programs for teacher participants, and teacher educators in the PD programs have to plan their lessons or programs following themes and topics described by the school districts. Here, I aim to analyze how teacher educators approach their PD programs, as specified by government policy and guidelines, by examining PD program handouts and PowerPoint slides that they have used in their programs. Specifically, I utilize the following research question: In South Korean professional development programs, how are teacher capacities and practices related to multicultural education discussed and utilized? Theoretical Framework For this study, my theoretical framework will be the Dimensions of Multicultural Education by James Banks (2009) (See Figure 3)––content integration, knowledge construction, prejudice reduction, empowering school culture, and equity pedagogy. According to Banks, the Dimensions of Multicultural Education are useful for teachers as they implement multicultural education in their classrooms. I think that teacher educators need to think about the actual classroom practice of multicultural education for teacher participants to use in their classroom after attending to PD programs. I also think that the application of what they have learned to their classroom is one of the biggest goals for participants of PD programs. 52 Figure 3. The Dimensions of Multicultural Education (Banks, 2009) According to Banks (2009), many teachers believe that multicultural education is related to a course’s content, so it is easy for them to resist multicultural education for their classes. Thus, he argued that multicultural education should be understood broadly, and teachers in all subjects can use it in appropriate ways (Banks, 2009). He suggested multiple dimensions of multicultural education for teachers to employ. As shown in Figure 3, there are five dimensions of multicultural education. The first dimension, content integration, is when teachers use different student groups’ cultures to explain important concepts and theories. The first dimension has particular relevance to social studies, language arts, and music. Next, the knowledge 53 construction process relates to the influence of cultural preferences and biases on constructing knowledge. Using this dimension, students can understand how their experiences are related to social and cultural norms. The third dimension is prejudice reduction. It deals with tasks to help students have positive attitudes toward other cultural and racial groups. Next, an equity pedagogy means that teachers use diverse teaching styles in accordance with students’ various learning styles. Finally, an empowering school culture and social structure is meant to encourage gender, racial, and social-class equity (Banks, 2009). This framework is helpful in evaluating the details of multicultural PD programs in regional school districts, as well as how teacher educators understand and implement PD sessions in relation to government guidelines. Methodology In this study, I will use Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to analyze the data. CDA is to “describe, interpret, and explain the ways in which discourse constructs, becomes constructed by, represents, and becomes represented by the social world” (Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui & Joseph, 2005, p. 366). Handbooks for teachers mobilize discourse to create a vision of multicultural teacher education at the regional level. The teacher education materials represent what teachers need to know and should do under the context of cultural diversity of students. Following CDA, which focuses on language that has a mediating role in power in social practices and structures (Gee, 2011; Rogers, et al., 2005). Gee (2011) explained that in critical discourse analysis, language is always constructed by social practices, and social practices are always associated with politics. Thus, in CDA, language has an important role in explaining and understanding the focused issues we are interested in. Thus, in this study, CDA will help me to analyze each PD program in terms of their basic 54 themes and roles in educating teacher participants. Also, in relationship with policy and social phenomena of student diversity, CDA will show how the handbooks create the actual picture of PD programs and circumstances for teacher participants and further multicultural students. In analyzing the data, I will look at the data with the relationship of government policy documents and specific regional context around cultural and linguistic diversity to see how the discourse in the handbooks shows power and social practice around multicultural PD programs. “Critical discourse analysts begin with an interest in understanding, uncovering, and transforming conditions of inequity” (Rogers, et al., 2005). I conducted this study from the focus on the discourse in multicultural PD programs and their power on teachers and multicultural students, following the stages that Fairclough (1989) specified––“description of text, interpretation of the relationship between text and interaction, and explanation of the relationship between interaction and social context” (p. 109). Introduction of the region Methods The PD programs that I have investigated were conducted in Gyeongnam province in South Korea. In 2014, there were 6,081 multicultural students residing in this region, which comprises 1.3 percent of the entire student population in this area (Gyeongsangnamdo Office of Education (GOE), n.d.). It is the fourth largest province in South Korea, consisting of 8 cities and 10 counties. This region is chosen because I know this province more than other places. I was born in this province, and I have taught students in this region. This region has various natural resources, such as high mountains, farm land, and the sea, and there are many factories using these natural resources, such as industrial sites and shipbuilding companies. Given this location, students of 55 this region have diverse backgrounds, given their parents’ varying occupations and socioeconomic statuses (SES). Within this diversity, some locations have more multicultural students than other places, and they are mostly situated within or near industrial areas. Despite the size and diversity within this huge region, it is considered one area under the governance of an Office of Education. Each city and county have their own district office, but for administrative purposes, they all process their tasks under the district Office of Education, which has jurisdiction over the 18 local offices under its control. Thus, in the professional development of its teachers, the Office of Education plans and exercises programs, and small offices also provide more locally adaptive learning opportunities for their teachers. Data Sources In order to see the discursive construction of multicultural PD at a regional office of education, it is required to examine how it has been educating teachers in their own region. For this purpose, I searched data for this study, visiting National Center for Multicultural Education (NCME) website (www.nime.or.kr). The NCME website shares teacher workshop handbooks in all the offices of education and regional centers for multicultural education. The PD materials have been uploaded since 2007, and among the materials, I chose the ones used in the area that I am interested in. From the Office of Education in the region, there were PD handbooks utilized in 2009, 2011, and 2014. It seems that it is not the obligation of the office to upload the materials on their website. Also, it is likely that the teacher educators in the PD programs did not allow the office to open the materials publicly. When I asked the office for the materials used in other years, they said that the handbooks are copyrighted materials so that they could not provide other materials. Among the materials on the website, there were two pieces of workshop materials in 2011, and I excluded the one because the intended audience of the workshop is elementary and 56 secondary school principals and vice principals. In the 2014 handbook, I only analyzed the latter half of the handbook. The timeline of the workshop shows that the morning session is for the principals, with information similar to material presented in the 2011 workshop. The materials within the handbooks include a collection of articles and PowerPoint slides that were created by the lecturers (teacher educators). Each handbook is 50 to 100 pages long. Subject of the Workshop In study 1, I have examined the discursive construction of multicultural teacher education on the national level. The government plans to educate all teachers regardless of teacher position and tasks, but mostly these documents direct their support towards multicultural education teachers as the multicultural representative and expert in each school. In the workshop materials that I found, titles show that the programs are for teachers who are responsible for multicultural- related tasks. The actual terms used in the workshop titles are different, but likely aim for the same teacher population: teachers who are responsible for multicultural-related tasks, Damumhwa Damdang Gyowon. As I explained earlier in this paper, damunhwa means multicultural. Damdang means “charge and responsible for,” and gyowon means “teacher.” I will call these instructors multicultural education teachers (MCE teachers) throughout this paper. Structure of the Workshop Handbooks describe the timeline of the workshop, with the title of each session and its speakers. The duration of the workshops varied, often scheduled to be held during the day, between 10 am and 6 pm, lasting from five to eight hours. Each session could take between 50 and 90 minutes, and between each session, there was a break time of 10 to 15 minutes. Speakers mostly included professors and teachers. 57 Data Analysis Table 2 shows what is included in the PD handbooks. In the process of categorization, I first looked at the title of the sessions in the content pages, and then analyzed the overall content in each article. Also, I focused on the important terms and expressions as well as the implication of the sections to multicultural PD, teacher learning, and diverse students in Korean context. I also referred to the regional multicultural education plan from the same year that the workshop was conducted (similar to the government plan, each office of education also releases annual plans for multicultural students). After reading the data, I looked for their meanings in relation to teachers and multicultural education that are significant to multicultural students and families. Findings From the analysis of the handbook data, I divided the workshop content into two different categories – Information and Knowledge on Multicultural Students (in addition to a particular focus on North Korean refugees), and Case and Example. These can be seen in greater detail in Table 3. The data show that the workshop structure is generally the same across the three workshops held in different years: 2009, 2011, and 2014. The analysis of the data shows that PD programs conducted by the office of education mostly focused on providing information about multicultural students and cases about multicultural-related school curriculum. The participants were multicultural education teachers of their schools, so that the contents of the workshops were related to the administrative realm of multicultural-related activities. Content Integration: Inside and Outside the Classroom In this section, I focus on how the discourse in handbooks creates teacher learning in multicultural education especially for teachers to use various cultural information and data in their lessons. While reading the handbook materials, I divided the examples into two categories: 58 inside the classroom and outside the classroom. Inside the Classroom In the 2009 handbook, an individual school introduced a project that it was implemented for multicultural education. According to the case, the school created a multicultural curriculum “for students to develop problem-solving abilities and a sense of community living in a multicultural society” (GOE, 2009, p. 47). The curriculum was developed with the modification of the model from Chang (2008) for multicultural teacher curriculum, so that the school reorganized the curriculum for students to learn multicultural knowledge, attitude, and practice (GOE, 2009, p. 47). Thus, the handbook shows that students in this school were to acquire knowledge about ethnicity, race, culture, gender, and disability, to develop self- and ethnic- identity, and to learn the skills to cope with multicultural circumstances. The case shows the examples that the school created a teacher’s guide and example lesson plans along with students learning materials and handouts. In the PD handbook, the content and the lessons were not specifically described only with some screenshots of lesson plans. This section was conducted by a teacher of the school, showing the achievement of their school with the list of programs and changes that the school had made for multicultural education. Students learned the multicultural materials in one semester, for 17 hours in addition to other subject matter. The implication of this project is showing to what extent teachers could use diverse cultural assets to their lessons. The cases were not shown in detail, but reading and listening about this case, teacher participants could learn the possibilities of using multicultural information in their classrooms with their students. The example implies a close connection with other multicultural-related institutions as well as an example of multicultural-infused curriculum to realize multicultural education in an 59 individual school level. Also, different from other cases that I will analyze later in this chapter, this example shows an instance of including multicultural education in a curriculum not as an add-on element. The interesting thing is that school curriculum and classroom activities were organized by the collaboration with experts outside the school. With the help of the outer sources, teachers in the school could tailor their lesson plans for multicultural education. In terms of the target of this workshop, mostly for MCE teachers, this example was likely to show an effective way for teachers to create a curriculum for multicultural education that is context and subject specific for their own schools. On the other hand, compared to other examples, because this case is special, it is not easy for an individual school to follow the example without outside help. Not all schools have the similar support and condition, so that teacher participants could feel meaningless and frustrated. PD programs should be conducted as an opportunity for teacher participants to adapt what they have learned in the PD to their own circumstances. However, the example as the achievement with the outside help raises the issue of the unbalanced distribution of support and power depending on the school. I expect that now the Office of Education aids more schools with professional support, but if this is the case only as a report to teachers from other schools, it is not what teachers need. Outside the Classroom Handbooks start with information about multicultural students including North Korean refugee students and then introduced cases of schools. Handbook materials show much workshop time devoted to examples of school events and afterschool programs that could be held for multicultural students and their families. These examples I categorized as Case and Example in Table 3. These cases could, presumably, lead to interesting learning for students, regardless of 60 their background and whether or not they come from a multicultural family, however, unfortunately, all the activities took place after school or once a year. For example, handbooks from 2009 and 2011 include cases of learning about other cultures that were conducted in some schools. The cases were introduced by the school teacher who was supposed to be Damunhwa damdang gyowon. The cases are about multicultural students learning Korean traditional songs and musical instruments (GOE, 2011, p. 65), having field trips (GOE, 2011, p. 75), and making Korean foods together with Korean and multicultural families (GOE, 2009, p. 19). One of the interesting things was providing a mentoring system to multicultural students (with their school teachers and preservice teachers to receive additional support for their learning (GOE, 2009; 2011), which was provided in addition to afterschool programs for enhancing their academic achievement. This mentoring system was planned by the government as I mentioned in Chapter Two. Reviewing the cases including the mentoring system, the content of PD programs do not support teachers’ practices in their classrooms, even though they acknowledge the need of learning what to do for their students. Concerning the participants of the workshops, who are in charge of multicultural-related tasks in their schools, planning events and multicultural programs will be the main focus of the PD. However, the dangerous thing is if workshops are held in the way of introducing a superficial level of cases that are celebrating diversity, multicultural education cannot be understood appropriately. Then, what do these cases and information show about discourse around multicultural education? Inclusion and assimilation to South Korean society. Providing information about multicultural students and multicultural programs in each school represents how to educate multicultural students well enough to assimilate them into Korean society academically and socially. Here, the noticeable thing is opening afterschool programs for multicultural students. 61 The purpose of these programs is for improving academic achievement of these students who cannot follow well in classrooms as well as supporting them to learn Korean culture and society to live in South Korea as Koreans. This links to the government plans––othering multicultural students and make “Them” learn Korean ways. The right direction of the PD should discuss the current curriculum and what schools mostly do for multicultural students and think about the ways of supporting multicultural students not to feel overwhelmed while participating in so many activities and programs because they are multicultural. Prejudice Reduction In this section, explained by Banks (2009), I analyzed content that are the examples and activities for students to change their attitudes toward diversity to see the specific method that the Office of Education takes to educate their teachers. As Table 3 shows, Case and Example highlights activities held in each school that might seem to target both multicultural students and majority Korean students. The events presented in the handouts are for multicultural students to engage more in their learning and school life and for majority Korean students to modify their attitudes toward other cultures. Earlier in this section, “Inside the Classroom”, I discussed an example of a school in 2009 handbook. The school example also applies to the case of reducing prejudice of majority Korean students. The school reported that they allocated a time each week to do multicultural education for a semester for all students in the school to experience multicultural-related activities and learn about diversity. In addition to this special time, this school teachers made their effort to create multiculture-infused lesson plans to be used in their everyday classroom. Having an open class with other teachers and conference for the curriculum, teachers created a professional learning community to implement multicultural education effectively in their own school. 62 Students, regardless of their backgrounds, in this way might have valuable experiences with other students of different ethnic groups. For students who do not have contacts with people from outside their own cultures, interacting with other cultures and races might not be easy. Under Banks’ model, teachers should assist their students as they work to have positive attitudes towards other cultures—well-planned activities already conducted in other schools might be of some help. The example above is an obvious case showing a way of teaching all students to learn about other cultures and think about diversity in South Korea. Other than the example above, there are instances and cases about activities and programs explicitly targeted to multicultural students, such as teaching Korean language and providing extracurricular programs to experience and learn Korean culture. Or some examples were difficult to tell whether all students are involved in the programs or not, such as a multicultural fair where students have time to experience diverse cultures after school. Also, if all students participated in some multicultural programs, almost all events were afterschool programs or field trips to Korean traditional sites or some regional festivals. The cases and examples in the workshop seem to show the ways to reduce the prejudice that majority Korean students have toward other cultures. However, except for a couple of examples, almost all instances are for multicultural students only, to help them to learn and understand the dominant Korean culture. From the titles of the handbooks and each section, it is easily understood how multicultural education is viewed in the workshops: multicultural education is for multicultural students. The titles of the workshops in 2009 and 2014 are similar to “Workshop for Teachers of Multicultural Students,” roughly translated in English. The section titles are also explicitly showing that the programs and activities are for multicultural students and their families, such as educational plans for multicultural education. 63 To sum up, participating in some multicultural school events, both majority and multicultural students could feel that their schools are open to diversity and differences among students, regardless of their racial and cultural backgrounds. However, if these kinds of events are one-time and inconsistent, they will remain superficial: “tasting” other cultures by listening to language and music while experiencing costumes and foods, which is the low level of multicultural integration (Banks, 2009). Even though there are some cases of involving all students, especially majority Korean students in multicultural programs, they are mostly not infused into their curriculum but optional. Therefore, it is doubtful that most Korean students could change their attitude and have positive view toward minority students with the events mostly programed for multicultural students. It is perhaps possible that these kinds of events are just show: that is, attempts by the school to show regional offices of education that they deserve additional financial resources. In this way, having students simply “experience” other cultures will only be a first and very beginning step of multicultural education, requiring further content integration, greater participation in knowledge construction, and greater attempts at equity pedagogy. Empowering School Culture In terms of this element, empowering school culture, Banks (1991) explained that schools need to change the school structure for students to experience social and educational equality through grouping and collaborating practices with other ethnic and cultural groups, which “increase academic achievement and emotional growth of students from diverse ethnic, racial, and social-class groups (Banks, 1991, p. 7).” Explained in the previous section, most activities are planned for multicultural students, so that restructuring school cultures would not happen often. 64 As seen in Table 3, bilingual speech contests and educating parents from other countries are examples of these events. By participating in these activities, multicultural students might feel that they are receiving attention from their schools and caring for their academic achievement. However, in terms of the target of the programs, it is multicultural students who are in these programs. Among multicultural students, they will interact with other ethnic groups, but with the majority Korean students, the communication and the interaction would be limited. Of course, they will work with the majority students in their own classes, but from the given materials, it is not easy to find those practices. Obviously, students and teachers, especially MCE teachers might build a positive relationship between them by combining various afterschool programs and extracurricular activities on weekends. For minority students, a caring and good relationship with teachers and staff will make them feel involved in their school life. In that way, participating in various school events will be a valuable experience for them. Here, the important thing is that schools should provide these opportunities more often and absorb them into other school events. In order to change the school culture and the power relations, everyone connected to the school should acknowledge the importance of diversity and respect each other’s culture. This cannot be done with limited opportunities. Teacher Education for North Korean Refugee Students In this section, I included content about North Korean refugee students that is included in the workshop materials. All workshops started with an information session about multicultural students. Also, all workshops contained one or two sessions about North Korean refugee students, lumped together with multicultural students. Maybe this is the effect of PD programs, “Understanding umlticultural and North Korean Refugee Students,” which occurred in 2010 and 65 2011 (MOE, 2010, p. 11; 2011, p. 9). In the two years, the government documents showed an example of PD programs that would occur in National Education Training Institute. There was no explanation about the program, except the title. This is the first and the last mentioning North Korean refugee students in the government policy documents. This is likely to show the effect of the power from the government to the institutional level. On the MOE website, there is a tab for multicultural students and North Korean refugee students together. Under this tab, statistical and policy documents about both student groups are uploaded but separately. Earlier in this paper, I explained how the government defined multicultural students, who are from international marriages and foreigner parents, and North Korean refugee students are not multicultural, and they need different educational needs and support from multicultural students. From a government plan for North Korean refugee students in 2011, I could see the government system for North Korean students, which has different divisions and institutions from multicultural students (MOE, 2011a). North Korean students have three different educational systems––initial adjustment education, regular school education, and external school education (MOE, 2011a). According to the plan, this group of students have initial adjustment education in Hanawon. Finishing adjustment education in Hanawon, North Korean refugee students enter the regular education system in South Korea (MOE, 2011a). In terms of teacher education for these students, the plan shows annual teacher education plans, which occurs in government-initiated teacher education institutions (MOE, 2011a). Choi (2012) mentioned that North Korean refugees are on the border of citizen and non-citizen category, so they should be treated differently from people in the multicultural category. This looks like the perspective and approach from the governmental level, then, what about in the practical level? In the 2011 plan for North Korean refugee students, the plan shows a structural process of 66 educational support for these students, where regional offices of education suggest their plans to the government, and then the government supports the plans on financial and administrative levels (MOE, 2011a). In the workshop handbooks in Gyeongnam Office of Education, the titles are diverse, such as “Workshop for Multicultural Education Teacher” in 2009 and 2011, and “Understanding Multicultural and North Korean Refugee Students” in 2014. In 2009 and 2011, even though North Korean refugee students are not stated, their information and educational plans include North Korean refugee students, allocating at least one section for teachers to learn about these students. From the perspective of “Us” and “Them” that I explained earlier, it is likely that North Korean students are also one of “Them.” In the 2009 and 2011 handbooks, information about North Korean refugee students is introduced––the number of these students, where they live, their conditions and characteristics, their challenges in schooling, and support from the government and regional offices of education. The contents are similar in both handbooks, which is likely only to give information about North Korean refugee students. Even though North Korean refugee students are also from foreign-born parents (in North Korea), they are categorized and treated differently. Maybe it is possible to say that as I explained above, North Korean refugee students already had separate education before entering into the regular South Korean educational system, so it looks like no other additional support is provided to the students. However, students who were born in North Korea and are from North Korean parents have difficulties with their learning, so that they also need special support along with multicultural students (Yoon & Kim, 2018). Challenges of North Korean students imply sustaining support for the students from foreign born parents. Regardless of their backgrounds, all students who are involved in a new educational system need to receive additional help 67 continuously. One-time and limited-time only events are not enough for these students and could make them left behind. Conclusion This study was to understand how the actual workshop programs are held from an Office of Education to see its own approach to multicultural teacher education in a certain region. Throughout this study, I tried to see what teacher capacities and practices are focused on in order to realize effective multicultural education under the framework in Banks (2009). Overall, in the workshop time devoted to information about multicultural students, the focus is on knowledge about multicultural students, their backgrounds, and current demographic changes in the system. As Table 3 shows, multicultural teacher education workshops are planned to so as to deliver basic information about multicultural theory, multicultural students, and possible extracurricular diversity celebration events. In addition to teacher knowledge about multicultural students, the PD handbooks shows various examples and cases about implementing multicultural education in several schools. And the examples are mostly for multicultural students and extracurricular events. Thus, more serious and important questions, such as how and what to teach students from different backgrounds, are not considered properly. For teachers who work with multicultural students every day in their classrooms, how to teach these students alongside majority Korean students will likely to be the most pressing demand they face. Unfortunately, the question of classroom practice does not appear to be addressed much in these workshops. This study shows how multicultural teacher education is actually creating discourse about multicultural education in a certain region. The findings indicate that at the regional office of education level, delivering information and showing some examples are the main focus of the 68 workshops. In this way, teachers are viewed as passive learners of the workshop and not active, so that it is their responsibility to pick and choose what they have learned in the workshop for their own schools and classes. Also, the workshops analyzed are for MCE teachers of each school, so it is assumed that participating teachers have the role of utilize the content that they are given to their own contexts. There are limitations of this study with the scope of data and its interpretation. The data that I have analyzed is based on the written handbooks that are easily available from the Office of Education and the National Center for Multicultural Education. The observation and findings from the given materials would be different from the actual workshop programs. The way of delivering the knowledge and materials will be more important than the given texts. For further study, the actual picture of workshops should be analyzed while observing the whole program, so that investigations will be much deeper in terms of the ways of delivering the knowledge, the role of participants, and their reflections as well as the teacher educators. 69 Table 3. Content of PD Program Category Information and Knowledge About Multicultural Families Case and Example Content (year) Understanding North Korean refugee students (09, 11) Direction of multicultural education (11) Plans for teaching multicultural students (11) Understanding Korean as a Second Language (KSL) for multicultural students (14) Understanding North Korean society and characteristics of defection (14) Mentoring North Korean refugee students (14) Educational support for North Korea refugee students (09, 11) Educational support plan for multicultural and North Korea refugee students (14) Cases of counseling and supporting multicultural parents (09) Improving community consciousness through developing and applying multicultural education program (09) Case of teaching and multicultural students (09) Stories from immigrant women (Filipinos and North Korean) (09) Bilingual speaking contest (11) Cases of multicultural-focused schools (11) Remarks 70 CHAPTER FOUR: Teachers’ Experiences with Multicultural Professional Development This chapter focuses on South Korean teacher experiences with multicultural professional Programs development (PD) programs. That is, it focuses on what it is like to undertake a significantly new focus for one’s professional work. In relation to the previous two studies, in this study, multicultural PD programs were described by teachers who participated in various types of multicultural workshop programs. Throughout this paper, I explain how teachers experienced multicultural PD programs in their profession. I do this by asking the following research questions: What is it like for practicing teachers to participate in multicultural PD programs in Korea? What is it like to learn about multicultural education in the context of dominant notions of Koreanness? These questions were answered with phenomenological interviews of teachers working at culturally diverse schools. Theoretical Framework In order to understand teacher experiences around multicultural PD programs, I used Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) (Gay, 2010) as the theoretical framework (See Figure 4). Geneva Gay is a founding researcher in the field of culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010). Although called by many different names, including culturally relevant, sensitive, centered, congruent, reflective, mediated, contextualized, synchronized, and responsive, the ideas about why it is important to make classroom instruction more consistent with the cultural orientations of ethnically diverse students, and how this can be done, are virtually identical. Hereafter, they are referred to by my term of preference, culturally responsive pedagogy. It represents a compilation of ideas and explanations from a wide variety of scholars. (Gay, 2010, p. 31) 71 Gay (2010) explained that culturally responsive pedagogy is “a means for unleashing the higher learning potentials of ethnically diverse students by simultaneously cultivating their academic and psychosocial abilities” (p. 20). Concerning a substantial shift in educating African, Asian, Latino, and Native American students in the US, Gay extensively described in her book the challenges that teachers were facing, the characteristics of culturally responsive pedagogy, culturally responsive curriculum, and teacher and student communication. For the purposes of this study, the role of CRP is important as a frame for understanding teacher experience, attitudes, and knowledge of diversity. CRP describes the goals of teaching diverse students, model teacher roles and possible teaching strategies for diversity. It is, as Howard (2012) stated, an approach that “rejects the deficit-based beliefs… about culturally diverse students” (p. 550) in order to “build critical consciousness in learners … to view themselves as agents of change” (p. 551). CRP is an appropriate framework in this study regarding teacher experiences about something different. As teachers meet with multicultural students every day in their classrooms, they are faced with questions about their own beliefs and actions—questions that CRP can help answer. Figure 4 represents six characteristics of CRP– validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative, and emancipatory (Gay, 2010). Gay (2010) explained six main characteristics of CRP. First, CRP is validating. It means that CRP is to teach diverse student groups with students’ own cultural background knowledge as the frame and as a support for their learning (Gay, 2010). When students learn, they should keep and utilize their prior knowledge and learning styles. They should not be taught that there is any conflict between their own cultural backgrounds and outstanding social contributions or academic achievements (Gay, 2010). Teachers need to organize their lessons concerning 72 different cultural groups of students so that students from diverse cultural backgrounds are not differentiated based on their race and cultures, and further, students use this knowledge to challenge the existing social order and strive for social justice. In terms of supporting culturally and racially diverse students, CRP is not only about academic achievement but also about growing the whole child (that is, CRP is comprehensive). By CRP, students connect with their community. Students learn in interactive and communal ways, in this way supporting their peers as well as their own goals. In terms of multidimensional characteristics of CRP, Gay (2010) believes that CRP teachers cooperate with teachers of other disciplines to teach a topic, such as songs, arts, and protest, to help their students express how they feel and think, through writing, speaking, singing, and drawing. Students build upon their own preferred ways of expression, based on familiar ways in their own cultures (Gay, 2010). In this way, Gay (2010) argued, students learn behaviors and thinking from other cultures under the same topic through multidimensional ways of teaching and learning. In addition to this, Gay (2010) explained that CRP teachers help students believe that they can be successful in their learning, which is the empowerment feature of CRP. Empowerment of students is about encouraging the most marginalized students in the classroom with a supportive environment (Banks, 1991; Gay, 2010). Here, the important thing is that empowerment is not only individual but also social and collective (Gay, 2010). This concept of empowerment is also related to the next characteristics of CRP – transformative. Gay (2010) insisted that “academic success and cultural consciousness are developed simultaneously” (p. 36). This means that CRP is transformative in that it helps students confront cultural hegemony as revealed in the curriculum while developing critical cultural consciousness in order to resist 73 inequity, prejudice, and racism (Gay, 2000). Figure 4. Characteristics of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (Gay, 2010) The last characteristic of CRP is emancipatory. Gay (2010) argued that the center of this feature is making authentic knowledge about different ethnic groups accessible to all students. Liberation of knowledge through fluid teacher-student relationships means valuing questioning, critiquing, and reforming knowledge so that CRP can “lift the veil,” showing the relationship between knowledge and power (p. 38). The six characteristics of CRP provide teachers of diverse students with a set of powerful dispositions and practices. This means, in essence, placing marginalization processes at the 74 center of teacher consciousness. In this way, we might say that the features of CRP are extremely helpful in understanding Korean teacher experiences of multicultural workshops, where teachers are challenged to adopt new ways of professional conduct. Methodology Phenomenology is a qualitative methodology that helps us see and understand our experiences through the description of particular experiences and events (Creswell, 1998). Conducting phenomenological research is questioning the world we are living in and how we experience the world (Van Manen, 2001). Giorgi (1997) explained that the term, “phenomenon” for phenomenology means “the presence of any given precisely as it is given or experienced” (p. 237). According to Giorgi, “givennesses” that are present is the starting point of phenomenology, so that the phenomenological analysis focuses on the phenomena from the objective perspective that shows “an accurate description of the presence… usually contains many phenomenological meanings” (Giorgi, 1997, p. 237). Essence, Reduction, and Imaginative Variation There are important concepts to be understood in phenomenology––essence, epoché, phenomenological reduction, and imaginative variation. Stating “phenomenological research is the study of essences” (p. 10), van Manen (2001) explained that the essence is “the very nature of a phenomenon” (van Manen, 2001, p. 10). In van Manen (2001), phenomenology is to seek the nature or the essence of lived experience that is described in the form of language. In order to conduct phenomenological research, the researcher investigates participants’ experiences from interviews and written texts. Thus, in phenomenology, language is a significant part of the research, and the detailed and clear description of the lived experience can itself become the essence that we are looking for (van Manen, 2001). While reading and listening to 75 the informant’s experiences, the researcher can understand and interpret “what it is like” to have a certain experience. In this study, teachers’ stories reveal the essence of their lived experience related to multicultural PD programs. Throughout phenomenological interviews, I dug into each participant’s lived experience itself in order to have a clear description of their stories and what it means to participate in one of the PD programs. That is, not only what it is like, but what it means—not just for these participants, but for anyone attempting to do what these teachers are doing: learn, under hegemonic conditions, new ways of thinking, relating, and acting. In the process of reading and analyzing the collected language data, the researcher needs to practice “reduction” to understand the essence of human experience (van Manen, 2001). There are several types of reduction (van Manen, 2001). Reduction is to have an open mind to the meaning of the experience. Having “a profound sense of wonder and amazement,” researchers have to control their own experience and feelings not to prevent them from fully understanding “a phenomenon or experience as it is lived through” (van Manen, 2001, p. 185). In reduction, researchers need to keep away from theories and conceptions to see a phenomenon itself. Following these levels of reduction, researchers can see the essence or the nature of phenomenon from the particular lived experiences (van Manen, 2001). After the reduction stage, the next step is imaginative variation (Moustakas, 1994). “The task of imaginative variation is to seek possible meanings through the utilization of imagination, varying the frames of reference, employing polarities and reversals, and approaching the phenomenon from divergent perspectives, different positions, roles, or functions” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 97-98). Moustakas explained that after understanding experiences through reduction, the researcher is to describe what is the essence of the experiences. This is the major task of 76 imaginative variation (Moustakas, 1994). In describing the structure of the essence after reduction, researchers have free imagination to integrate the meanings from the textual data to make the meanings visible (Husserl, 1931). This study is to understand the experience of teachers who have joined in multicultural PD programs that is something different and new from what teachers were used to learning. What teachers describe about the moment of experience will make us understand them vividly so that phenomenology will be suitable for this research. As mentioned above, the purpose of phenomenology is to understand a particular experience through the description of the experience itself. Therefore, in this study, teacher participants’ verbal accounts are the ones that are under investigation. The next section is information about teacher participants, interview process, and the steps of analyzing the data. Methods Participants The participants of this study are three elementary teachers in South Korea. When I first planned to recruit teachers for this study, I contacted both elementary and secondary school teachers, but only elementary school teachers replied to participate in this study due to the burden of in-depth interviews and a lower rate of multicultural students. In order to recruit participants, I contacted the schools that were listed in the multicultural education center website of the Gyeongnam Office of Education. In the list, I chose schools located within the governance of the Office of Education that I am familiar with, such as the city where I taught my students and around my hometown. This intentional choice of the research location allows for a better understanding of the characteristics of the specific area and the student populations. The schools listed on the website are designated as “multicultural-focused schools” by 77 the Office of Education. From the list of schools, I found nine elementary and one secondary school that were easy to approach in terms of the distance. I contacted the vice principals to obtain permission to conduct my interviews with the teachers in their schools. Upon their permission, I sent the recruiting flyer to the potential participants, and I waited for their reply. There is no ideal number of participants in a phenomenological study. When we study experience, we seek the essential, rather than the frequent. Each participant’s experience becomes an opportunity to reflect on what is essential in the experience under consideration. Yet because of the “thickness” of phenomenological interviews, fewer participants are generally preferable to more. In this way, I ended up interviewing three teachers working in culturally diverse elementary schools. Table 4 shows background of each participant. Each participant will also be introduced through the context of their story, as shared later in this chapter. Table 4. Teacher Participants’ Background Name (pseudonym) Ms. Sarang Gender Female Ms. Dohee Mr. Gil-dong Male Female Responsibilities Years of Teaching Multicultural education related tasks/ 5th year homeroom teacher 1st year homeroom teacher Multicultural education related tasks 10.5years 1.5 years 8.5 years In South Korean schools, to support school operation, each teacher is supposed to take one or more tasks, such as curriculum, afterschool programs, counseling, and assessment, to help the school function. Multicultural education is one of these school-wide operations. In each school, therefore, one teacher has the responsibility to manage programs and administrative work related to multicultural education. This teacher processes documents from the Office of Education as a way to report the status of multicultural students and programs inside their school. 78 They also organize community-involved multicultural programs and field trips for multicultural families of their schools. Location of the Schools Of the three interviewed teachers, two teachers, Ms. Dohee and Mr. Gil-dong work in the city Geoje, and the other works in the city Jinju, which is located in Gyeongnam province. Geoje is a Southern island city that has the greatest number of shipbuilding companies in South Korea. With its locational advantage, this city has beautiful scenery, and people exploit its resources to make their living. Thus, this city has a very dynamic population, always mixed with tourists and newcomers, such as Korean transplants, foreign workers, and immigrants, along with its natives. Because of the increasing number of foreign workers due to Korean economic growth, there is a large number of foreign workers in this city. There is no exact statistics about the number of foreign workers and their work places in this region, but according to Microdata Integrated Service (MDIS), in Gyeongnam province, including two metropolitan city, 17.2 percent of foreign workers reside, which is the second largest number following Gyeonggi and Incheon area. Also, MDIS shows that almost half of foreign workers in South Korea are employed in industrial sites (MDIS, n.d.). Concerning the characteristics of Geoje, most foreign employees are working at industrial sites, mostly in shipbuilding companies, and the workplaces related to them. In this city, the incoming population from overseas has brought their families from their home countries, or, they form new families with native Korean and other foreign workers. Thus, schools in this city have a relatively large number of multicultural students compared to other cities (440 students in 2015, which comprises over one percent of the entire schools in the city, according to the local Office of Education). The schools that I have visited in this city also have 79 over 10 percent of multicultural students from international marriages. The school is right next to one of the shipbuilding companies, so the number of multicultural students is higher than other schools in the city. Most parents of multicultural students are the workers in shipbuilding companies. Ms. Sarang works in the city of Jinju. This city is very static in terms of its population, where many schools, universities, and governmental facilities are located. This city also has a variety of industries, such as textiles, paper, and farm machinery. Most multicultural students are living in industrial areas, where their parents work in one of the factories. The school that I visited is located near that area, so most multicultural students have parents working in those industrial sites. Procedures Each teacher of this study participated in one unstructured interview. The interviews were scheduled for 30 minutes to one hour, depending on the length and the depth of the experiences that the participants shared. In the interview, the participants were asked to answer the question, “could you share one of your experiences participating in multicultural PD programs?” Before starting this interview, I verbally asked teachers about their teaching philosophies and their beliefs regarding multicultural education—that is, what they know about multicultural education theory and how it shapes their practice. With this, I started to ask about the experience of participants. In this unstructured phenomenological interview, as is typical in the tradition, I tried to focus on one particularly rich and powerful experience from each participant and ask follow-up questions to have a clearer description of the experience. All interviews were conducted in Korean because Korean is my and their native language. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for further analysis. 80 Phenomenological Analysis In order to analyze the data, I followed five steps that Giorgi (1997) introduced for the human scientific phenomenological method: (1) collection of verbal data, (2) reading of the data, (3) breaking of the data into some kind of parts, (4) organization and expression of the data from a disciplinary perspective, (5) synthesis or summary of the data for purposes of communication to the scholarly community (p. 245). Following Giorgi (1997), first, I collected verbal data from the teacher participant, asking a broad and open-ended question: could you share one of your experiences participating in multicultural PD programs (collection of verbal data)? Then, I read the data to get a global sense of the data from the three teacher participants (reading of the data). During the interview, I was careful not to think about and reflect on my own experience and stories that might be influencing listening to teachers’ own experiences and further conducting phenomenological interviews. That is, I tried to keep the epoché that Husserl (2001) called to achieve the essence, Husserl emphasises the need to undertake the epoché and the reduction. It was only by removing all traces of the natural attitude in regard to our cognitive achievements that their true essences can come into view in an undistorted manner. (p. xliv) After collecting data throughout interviews, I read the data several times to understanding the meaning of the data, to construct the “meaning units” (Giorgi, 1997, p. 246). While rereading the data, I found discrete meanings in common from the teacher interviews (Creswell, 1998). Giorgi (1997) posited that making meaning units depends on the researcher. Because meaning units are not described in the collected data, they are constructed by activity of the researcher (Giorgi, 1997). In the activity of making meaning units, Giorgi (1997) mentioned that the 81 researcher needs to be open-minded to discover any unexpected meanings. Following the entire process above, I organized findings in the next section. The section shows the very experience of teachers participating in various types of workshop programs. Findings Participating in Multicultural PD is like Showing Obligation to the Power From the interviews, I commonly noticed that teachers are participating in multicultural PD by the request of those in the position of power. In terms of the reason they took the particular PD programs, teachers recalled that they had to join because their school leaders or the Office of Education wanted them to do so. Ms. Dohee: … Multicultural Day? Global citizen day? It was something like this. So, it was that kind of day, and teachers were told to do multicultural education for students in their own classrooms… There was a workshop for the week of multicultural education… It was given during the teacher conference held every Monday at 3 pm when teachers have short workshops and meetings for the week. Ms. Dohee remembered her experience of multicultural education workshop in her school. It was her first and one-time workshop about multicultural education that was planned by her school for the multicultural week to celebrate “Together Day.” The website of this day (togetherday.kr) says that Together Day is the “national commemorative day designated to help create a society where Korean nationals and foreigners in Korea respect each other’s culture and tradition and live in harmony” (togetherday.kr., n.d.). As usual, Ms. Dohee had a short meeting that the school planned and learned about what the school is going to do for the week of Together Day. As far as Ms. Dohee remembered, in relation to multicultural education, she has never participated in any forms of workshops from the very first program for the new teachers. For this 82 special week, she was given materials for students to learn about other countries. It was her obligation to plan some activities for her students in that week, and she followed the school policy and plans. Ms. Sarang and Mr. Gil-dong also had the similar experience of participating in different types of PD programs that were planned by the Office of Education to meet their responsibilities of MCE teachers. Clearly, all teachers experienced PD programs coming from powerful others, both inside and outside, not by themselves. With the current student population, multicultural education is a must-have item for teachers, so they are required to take that option by the powers (principals, the Office of Education, and above all, the Ministry of Education). In this process, teachers’ feeling of being an object of multicultural education and PD programs is somewhat obvious. Over time, teachers meet new groups of students, and in turn are required to follow government policies and guidelines to teach them. Teachers wanted help to teach these “newly categorized” students; but this help came in the form of mandates—sticking to what professionals say to them. In this way, teachers felt that they did not have a choice, only compulsion and compliance. Teachers are always in the middle of the process of planning a policy and its realization. Of course, considering the early stage at which we find multicultural education in South Korea, it might be efficient for administrators and government officials to take the initiation. Doing so, however, risks not understanding teachers and their needs. The process continues without regard for teachers’ own voices and their experiences with their students. Teachers, who meet multicultural students every day in their classroom, already experience the need of multicultural education for themselves, as they strive to provide rich educational experience for all of their students. Therefore, in the next section, I explain the status of teachers’ voices in the workshops they have attended and their thoughts about the PD programs. 83 Participating in Multicultural PD is like Acquiring Not Applicable Methods In the previous section, I showed how teachers felt in the workshops that they participated in as compelled by powerful others. In this way, teachers felt that their voices were mostly not heard, and they became the objects or the audience of the policy. In the interviews, teachers explained their own thoughts about the necessity of multicultural education, the potential utility of the workshops, and their unsatisfied experiences around multicultural PD programs. Ms. Dohee: I have been thinking that it is necessary to take multicultural workshops or PD programs… but there are not many programs. Actually, I have difficulties in dealing with some situations with multicultural students in my class. When multicultural students behave this way and that, I do not know what to do and what to say. Teachers recognize that they are situated in a place where they need some help to teach multicultural students. No matter how many workshops they have participated in and how long they have been teaching students, teachers are in the same boat as they attempt to work with multicultural students. They are anxious to seek support from workshops and PD programs. However, their workshop experiences are not likely to meet their expectation about the multicultural workshops and multicultural education. Ms. Sarang: I have been participating in some multicultural PD programs, but I [still] do not know what to do. I think it is better for teachers to attend workshops that are actually helpful for them. It means that the programs should focus on what teachers should do for their students. Most workshops that I have attended did not have that kind of things. What I have noticed in workshops is that they have patterns. They are very trite and theoretical. I think they need to be changed into something about practice, ready to be 84 used in classrooms, improving entire school atmospheres and [teacher] awareness. Unfortunately, in the workshops they attended, most participated involuntarily, teachers had unsatisfying experiences and did not think that the workshops were particularly helpful for them to teach multicultural students. Ms. Sarang is a teacher who has over ten years of teaching experience. As an MCE teacher in her school, she has had many opportunities to participate in PD programs for multicultural education. She argued that teachers need to join various workshops for diversity, but the programs should be revised in a more practical way. Other teacher interviewees also emphasized the necessity of changing current workshop content and programs. Mr. Gil-dong had a somewhat negative response about the multicultural workshop he attended, saying that there will be no difference between the teachers who had the PD and those who had not. In her school workshop, Ms. Dohee doubted the effectiveness of the workshop. Even though it was her first multicultural education workshop and very practical so that she could use the materials that were given, it did not meet her expectation. She said that for her students’ grade, the materials were about teaching students the names of other countries, such as Japan, China, and USA. It was likely that she believed that multicultural education should be taken in the way of changing students’ prejudice and attitude towards other cultures and races. Ms. Dohee: … I was wondering, “is this multicultural education?” I had multicultural- related activities for my students from the materials that I received in the workshop. The materials were about understanding other countries around the globe… First graders do not have concept about other countries. For them, Korea, China, Japan, and United States are all the nations that they know. So, I made them understand various countries, other cultures, and greetings. I questioned if this is right? It was, like, superficial ... Would this 85 change my students’ prejudice? For Ms. Dohee, curiosity about the ways of accepting and conducting multicultural education has started from her own experience with her students. Recalling her workshop experience, she felt that the ways of the workshop and the materials could not change the prejudice and attitude that her students have. Ms. Dohee shared an episode with her students where she has noticed differences among Koreans in how they treat people having different habits and cultures. Ms. Dohee said that she cannot eat kimchi, as she does not like the raw cabbage. For her entire life, she has heard so many questions about why she does not have kimchi. In South Korea, elementary school homeroom teachers have lunch with their students in their classrooms. Because all South Korean schools provide meals, teachers and students have the same lunch all the time. For Koreans, kimchi is a traditional dish, in this way representing Korea and its people. Among Koreans, kimchi is considered a healthy food, a food that all Koreans should eat and enjoy. Parents make their children have kimchi for their meal. But Ms. Dohee cannot have kimchi because she does not like the raw cabbage flavor. So, she said that when her students asked her why she does not eat kimchi, even though she is a Korean, she lied to her students by saying that she is allergic to raw cabbage. This episode represents that even an ethnic Korean teacher can experience pressure to conform and assimilate. Ms. Dohee explained that, with this experience, she could easily choose a video clip about a multicultural student not having kimchi, in this way showing that there are many ways to participate in Korean life and culture. There are Koreans do not eat kimchi, and people from other countries also can enjoy kimchi. In a similar vein, Ms. Sarang shared a story that shows the program that she attended was not applicable to her students. 86 Ms. Sarang: In the conference, I heard that multicultural students are not those in need, but we have to think about the development of their abilities. So, the example was that if there are Filipino students who speak Filipino well, then the school opens a Filipino class. So that the students do something else with their own language in addition to Korean language. But the thing is that in my school, a student who has a Filipino mother does not know the mother’s language. Once, our school held a bilingual contest something like that for multicultural students to keep their mother’s languages, and at that time, a multicultural student of a Vietnamese mother wrote Korean alphabet to read Vietnamese and memorized that. That is the reality. Depending on the region and their population, schools have diverse categories of multicultural students, and the large scale of workshops and conference do not seem helpful for teachers given their specific context. Ms. Sarang is the most experienced teacher among the teacher participants, but she also had the issue of choosing the appropriate multicultural programs. The experiences above indicate that there needs to be diverse approaches of workshops for teachers who do not have enough knowledge about what multicultural education is and what they need to do for the students from diverse cultural and racial backgrounds. In summary, I found that teachers did not experience their programs as related to the actual teaching of multicultural students, instead finding them mostly focused on principles and superficial and generalized activities. In relation to the first section, teachers participated in the workshop programs involuntarily, and even, they thought that they did not acquire valuable knowledge and skills for their students. For teachers, delivering and conducting multicultural education and PD is likely to be an uncomfortable experience. Teachers work in different contexts, and their needs are different. Here, there is a gap between the government approach and 87 the teacher experience. In order for teachers to have a convincing experience, teachers’ needs and conditions should be considered, so that rather than the large conference styles of workshops, small and community-based workshops will be more effective for enhancing teacher learning. Researchers also stated that effective professional development programs focus on collaborative learning environments that help the community of practice and further, school change (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Knapp, 2003). Unsatisfied teachers’ experiences also relate to the stories that I present in the next section––teachers did not receive answers for their own questions. Participating in Multicultural PD is like Experiencing Hopelessness During the interviews, I found that teachers were not satisfied with their experiences in multicultural workshops, and this experience is likely connected to their common stories: teachers have questions about multicultural education and its implementation, but they could not find answers from the workshops they attended. Mr. Gil-dong: It is very hard… I work alone… Anyways, we receive the budget. You know it is difficult to spend the money. We have to plan some programs, but it is not easy to receive support from colleagues… Teachers in the workshop ask that kind of questions a lot… Different schools have different types of multicultural students… Some schools have a lot of multicultural students… Multicultural students show a wide range of academic abilities… Some students do not speak Korean at all… How can we teach students who do not adjust themselves into their schools?… We asked that kind of things of the professor [who is one of the consultants]. But we could not get the answer. I think I have more troubles with it after that consulting meeting. I know that there is no answer though… 88 In the workshop that Mr. Gil-dong participated in, he and other teachers had many questions related to multicultural-related tasks and teaching, but they could not have the right answers even though the meeting was small enough for teachers to talk about their own issues and find the solution. Whether there was an expert present at the workshop or not, teachers were not satisfied with the way the workshops were conducted. For Ms. Dohee’s case, there was no expert in her school so that teachers just shared their difficulties and cases with their colleagues, and Ms. Sarang did not have any opportunities to speak out her own experience with others because of the large-scale lecture-type conference. All teachers attended different types of programs that varied in purpose and scale – a workshop with colleagues, a consulting meeting by the office of education, and an academic conference. Even though they participated in different workshops, teachers have the same feelings about their experiences: They did not receive proper answers to their questions about teaching multicultural students. Teachers are teaching multicultural students, but they did not learn anything concrete or new about helping multicultural students. The teacher participants are all ethnic Koreans and did not have much interaction with people from outside the country and racially and culturally diverse people. For them, it is likely that PD is the only way of learning how they should teach and what they do for their students. In general, their experience represented that, at least for now, teachers could not receive much help from the workshops. Sadly, different types of workshops did not deal with the topics that teachers are concerned about and eager for. From the interviews, what teachers want to learn from the PD programs are specific methods or programs that they could use for their own specific school contexts. Of course, it could not be easy for teacher educators and the conducting body of workshop programs to meet the needs of all teachers, but regarding the purpose of PD, it 89 should promote teachers to have capacities for finding solutions to their own problems. In order to do this, PD programs should be planned and implemented based on what teachers want to learn in their classroom context. Workshop programs are useful for teachers when they work collegially and learn by doing actual practice (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). An ideal way of conducting PD for teachers of multicultural students is to share their issues and discuss possible ways to resolve problems. By sharing their own challenges and finding solutions, teachers could learn from each other and promote professional learning communities in this new phenomenon of education. This is ideal, but it is an evident way of solving all other problems, and it is PD where teachers participate in and find the hope in their teaching. Unfortunately, teacher participants could not have these kinds of opportunities in the PD they have experienced. And maybe teachers’ disappointment to the workshops could be explained in the next section: The administrative roles of multicultural education. Participating in Multicultural PD is like Conducting Another Administrative Task When I contacted schools to recruit teacher participants, vice principals, who typically take responsibility for coordinating outside requests to do research, connected me to MCE teachers. Multicultural education has brought about new types of activities and programs for schools, which leads schools to designate some teachers for multicultural-related work. As I mentioned earlier, MCE teachers do almost all multicultural-related work in their schools – administrative work, planning multicultural programs, workshops for colleagues, and programs for communities. These teachers are the most knowledgeable teachers in their schools about multicultural education and have attended additional multicultural workshops and are responsible for multicultural-related tasks. Like this, multicultural education is considered one of 90 tasks that teachers need to deal with, and teacher participants are completing the necessary requirements for implementing multicultural education in their schools. Mr. Gil-dong: I talked with teachers from other schools. It was like talking about their own challenges by taking charge of multicultural tasks. What is this school doing, and how are they planning programs, and how are they spending their budget… They are all MCE teachers… I know that we have to think about what to do for multicultural education for our schools, and it is important… but we are all taking responsibilities in multicultural education-related tasks. We have to report so many things related to these tasks, taking many photos… we are busy with taking photos of multicultural students [when they are participating in activities]… As an MCE teacher in his school, Mr. Gil-dong admitted that he treated multicultural education as another administrative work that he needs to take, so that he was focusing on what his school has to do in order to use the budget and to report the school’s accomplishment to the Office of Education. The role of MCE teachers is treated this way in other schools as well. Ms. Do-hee said that in her school, the MCE teacher is not an expert in multicultural education but doing multicultural-related tasks like another administrative task that teachers do. Teacher stories showed that, even for teachers who are more closely related to multicultural education and students than other teachers, multicultural education is not as concerned with pedagogy for students from diverse backgrounds, but is mostly considered as a duty for school administration, such as student enrollment, teacher evaluation, student counsel, afterschool programs, etc. This phenomenon was observed best from the interview with Ms. Sarang. When I met her for the interview, she asked me some questions related to her tasks, and in the middle of the 91 interview, she stopped the interview to submit her report to the Office of Education. Ms. Sarang: I direct programs for multicultural students, recruit students for multicultural activities, run activities like experiencing traditional costumes and foods from other countries, and write reports to the Office of Education. And I got a phone call this morning to submit a report by three o’clock today… I have to talk about multicultural education. By the way, I will have a time to educate my school students via school TV. [She explained her plan.] What do you think about this? She set the time for this interview in the middle of school hours, when she has two hours of break. However, in the middle of the interview, the vice principal came up to her classroom to ask her to submit the multicultural report by noon. Because she was in a hurry, I had to wait for her for 30 minutes. She came finished up her work, and we continued to talk about her experience with the conference she attended. As I noted above, for teachers especially those who are working on multicultural-related tasks, multicultural activities and programs are tasks that they have to manage, just like other administrative work. In addition to what they have been doing, multicultural education has been reinforced, so that “intensification” of teacher experience is processed over time. “Intensification” is the term that Apple stated to explain “the work privileges of educational workers are eroded” (Apple, 1986, p. 41). According to Apple (1986), highlighting the effectiveness and product of the work, such as in school curricula and test scores, tasks are overloaded on teachers, which leads to the contradictory consequence in the quality of work process and product. Under the intensification, teachers who are used to having authority in their own teaching tend not to follow the norms and the requirements but also indirectly change the goals that they are supposed to achieve (Apple, 1986). 92 For South Korean teachers who are working in a country where student achievement is one of the primary goals of education, embracing multicultural education that brings a variety of subsequent work and curricula will be another burden that they have to undertake. Especially, like teachers experienced, multicultural education is considered another administrative task delivered from the government. Regarding the quality of multicultural education and teacher skills, how teachers understand and implement this new requirement is an important element for the success of multicultural education. And this is relevant to teachers’ own awareness and attitude under the intensification of multiple workloads. Despite teachers’ somewhat disappointing experience in their workshops, they also shared that their conception about multicultural education and students changed from the education they have received. I will explore this in the next section. Participating in Multicultural PD is like Challenging Teachers’ Belief and Awareness From the teacher interviews, I learned that teachers have changed their thinking after participating in these PD programs—as disappointing as they were. Especially, teachers who attended programs with experts from outside their schools expressed that they had an impact on their own attitudes and awareness towards multicultural students. Mr. Gil-dong: I heard that we call [a certain group of people] “multicultural,” but nowadays, almost everyone is multicultural. When we say multicultural, we think about nationality, but nationality is not the only different thing. Men and women are different. People live in different regions. Everything is multicultural, but we only think about that one thing [nationality]. Mr. Gil-dong was kind of enjoying explaining what he had learned in the conference, saying that “we are all multicultural.” For Mr. Gil-dong, born and raised as a majority Korean without much 93 experience with people from other cultures, accepting the notion that everyone is multicultural was an “aha” moment that changed his own perception about “who is multicultural.” Also, when Ms. Sarang attended a conference, she seemed to learn new things about multicultural education. She remembered a keynote speaker talk, and often mentioned what the professor said at the session, such as “multicultural is like a left- and right-handed issue” to explain diversity as there are people left-handed, and some are right-handed, so that everyone is different. Even though Ms. Sarang and Mr. Gil-dong participated in different types of PD with different principles, they both have been influenced by the workshops, while learning something new and changing their prejudice and attitude towards multicultural students. Teachers seemed to change the way they look at multicultural students and diversity through the conversation and the talk they attended, which has had a positive impact on their ways of treating and thinking about multicultural students. Considering somewhat negative reflections on the workshops from the teachers, this kind of sudden realization was mostly caused by a few sentences and expressions from the teacher educators, and not by the entire session. In the previous section, I explicated teachers’ negative PD experiences and their expectations for future PD sessons to be more helpful. While teachers were disappointed by PD, what has been revealed from the interviews is that there is a trigger that challenges teacher attitude and knowledge about diversity and multicultural education. And what is important here is what they have realized in PD programs, regardless of knowledge and practice, should be retained and affect their teaching and attitude toward multicultural students. Especially, concerning the characteristics of multicultural education and the lack of knowledge of teachers, the change of teacher attitude and knowledge is the first thing that the government and the Office 94 of Education are focusing on in their PD programs to “gain acceptance, commitment, and enthusiasm from teachers and school administrators before the implementation of new practices or strategies” (Guskey, 2002, p. 383). So far, teacher interviews showed that multicultural PD programs are mostly about delivering information about multicultural students and “ready-made” programs that schools and teachers could follow. According to Guskey (2002), teacher attitudes and beliefs cannot be changed by PD itself but the experience of actual practice. When it comes to the actual practice, currently, multicultural PD is likely to focus on extracurricular activities that are special events to celebrate diversity, such as Together Day. At least for now, teachers have challenged their notion of multiculturalism, but whether they change their own attitudes and beliefs and retain what they have learned, remains to be seen. What is More After the PD Programs: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy As I have analyzed in the previous sections, teachers recalled that they did not have learned pedagogies that they could apply in their classes. Ms. Sarang and Mr. Gil-dong have attended various multicultural PD programs, but the programs were mostly focused on teacher attitude and knowledge about multicultural students. For Ms. Dohee, with information about multicultural students, ready-made materials were given to her on a special day for multicultural education. From the interview with teachers, I could acknowledge that teachers were not satisfied with the PD programs whether they were about general information about multicultural students and education or actual materials to be used. In common, after PD programs, teachers had questions about their own contexts and ways for multicultural students to adapt to Korean education and school system. Ms. Dohee: … I have a student from China, so I made activities about China… For 95 multicultural students in my class, there is an identity issue for them. Where is my country? For Korean students, they are wondering whether the students (multicultural students in her classroom) are Korean or Chinese… Sometimes students say to multicultural students, “Go back to your country!” I think my students need education about dealing with those kind of issues. We cannot require multicultural students to be Korean. Ms. Sarang: There is a multicultural student in Class 1, who is Chinese, and he studies well. In Class 2, a multicultural student dances well. I hope teachers highlight what multicultural students do well rather than think they do not study well. Teachers acknowledged that multicultural students should be educated to establish their own identities and maintain their characteristics and talents in schools. Even though they were not satisfied with the PD programs, teachers thought that they should educate their students in a different way in order for multicultural students to participate in the lessons just like other majority Korean students. Maybe this is the current picture of multicultural education. In this transition, teachers could learn what they should change in their teaching. While undergoing this challenge, teachers could find ways to educate students in culturally responsive way. As we have observed in Chapter Two, government policies for multicultural education have changed over time, so that PD programs could change over time to meet the needs of teachers. Concerning the scale and characteristics of PD, all teachers could not have the right answer for their problems but could have a clue for a better direction to teach their students. Teachers are professionals. Within PD programs, teachers have the ability to pick up useful elements for their teaching. One of the positive scenarios is for teachers to have time to share their problems with 96 colleagues to figure out how to teach multicultural students. Ms. Dohee told me her PD experience in her school, where teachers shared students’ characteristics and their backgrounds to fully understand multicultural students. Ms. Dohee: I talked about my student who has lower Korean proficiency… He could not understand what I said, so when I said to him, “Can you close the door?” He did not understand, so I showed the motion to close the door… I am sure that he knows two plus three is five, but with his lower Korean proficiency, he does not do anything during the class. Communication with colleagues makes teachers feel they are not isolated, and there are other teachers in the same shoes. For now, in the initial stage of having multicultural students in class, the meetings with colleagues are just have a time to share their problems, but over time, teachers could also share their successful stories about teaching multicultural students with their colleagues. So far, PD programs were about understanding multicultural students, but teachers cannot ignore or give up on these students. I am sure that teachers do something for multicultural students in their lessons. Teachers know their students more than teacher educators. Based on what they have learned and heard in the PD programs, teachers can do what is best for their students. Similar Feelings About Multiculturalism and Multicultural Students Teachers revealed their feelings related to multicultural students and the phenomena of multiculturalism in South Korea, which shows a mixture of worry and fear toward multicultural students and people from other countries. Mr. Gil-dong: I know that there are problems around multicultural students, such as bullying cause they cannot get along with other students… I think it could become a 97 social problem. Ms. Sarang: These days, when I go to big marts, I see many foreigners. For me, multicultural students are okay because one of their parents is Korean, (so they do not look different from us). But when I see foreigners, I walk away from them. I am a little scared to be with them. As Ms. Dohee shared that she has problems in communication with multicultural students and dealing with their identities, other teachers also worried about interacting with people from other countries. All of them admitted that multiculturalism is a social phenomenon, and it is becoming normal to have more immigrants in South Korea. However, they also felt the underlying problems. Mr. Gil-dong worried about school-bullying and maladjustment of multicultural students, which could be a larger social problem rather than only happening in schools. Different from other teachers, Ms. Sarang also divulged her own feelings against foreigners. As members of South Korean society, teachers showed their own uneasiness towards diversity in Korean society. The diverse physical appearance of minority people could be one reason for making Koreans feel that way. In addition to language, appearance is also the primary thing to notice from people from outside the country, and this affects how multicultural students are treated in schools. Acting Korean is the Number One Goal The interesting thing from the teacher interviews was that all teachers think that if multicultural students study well in school, teachers do not have to be concerned about them. Ms. Dohee: I heard that multicultural students in higher grades do not have problems. They speak Korean well, and they get along with other Korean students… I thought that one of multicultural students in my class should master Korean language as soon as 98 possible because he will live in Korea. So he was the only one multicultural student in this school attending afterschool program. Mr. Gil-dong: There was a multicultural student in my class. But she is Korean Chinese, so we did not know when the student did not speak about her own nationality. So there was no special pedagogy for her… Until last year, in fifth grade, there was a multicultural student, but he was not different from other Korean students, he speaks Korean well. So we did not have any additional class for multicultural education. The episodes above reveal that the number one goal of multicultural students is to act like Korean. Teachers think that multicultural students are okay if they speak the Korean language fluently and have higher academic performance. It may be hard to live in the Korean society as a minority, so that some multicultural students hide their nationality and origin to prevent differential treatment from majority Koreans. This makes it difficult for teachers to notice who is multicultural or not, so that multicultural students could not be educated or taken care of appropriately in their learning. In this process, the dangerous thing is that teachers also think that the positionality that multicultural students take is natural as they live as a member of South Korea. This phenomenon of forcing multicultural students to become Koreans creates another uncomfortable issue in schools. Ms. Sarang: There are voices about reverse discrimination in my school. Multicultural students receive funding for additional afterschool classes. The voices are for students who are ethnic Korean but have lower academic achievement. These students need additional class for learning, but they cannot take them because they are not multicultural. So, in my school, we do not request funding for multicultural students who have higher academic performance, only for the multicultural students of lower 99 achievement. With teachers’ perceptions of multicultural students described above, Ms. Sarang actually faced confrontation with other teachers, and gave up helping an “acting like Korean” multicultural student from additional assistance. This happened from the majority Koreans’ perspective that minorities do not have any problems when they are assimilated into Korean society and live like other Koreans. This overlooks the importance of the affective factors of multicultural students, which is significant for them to live in a society where the majority is different in appearance, language, culture, and the ways of thinking. Conclusion This study started from the questions: What is it like for practicing teachers to participate in multicultural PD programs in Korea? What is it like to learn about multicultural education in the context of dominant notions of Koreanness? In order to answer these questions, interviews with three teachers were conducted and analyzed. Further Way to Go for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy In this study, I used CRP as the theoretical framework. The key focus of CRP is to teach students through social interaction and cultural exchange among and between students and teachers (Gay, 2010). It starts from the notion that there is no exact truth and power in learning and knowledge. No matter what cultural and racial backgrounds students have, their cultural knowledge is a valuable asset in their academic and human development. Students learn and create knowledge based on their cultural background. Respecting this process, in an assets-based approach that promotes social justice for all, is key in multicultural education. This is why I put emphasis on CRP as a way of teacher learning about diversity and effective multicultural education. 100 Earlier in this paper, I argued that CRP allows all students the best chance at academic achievement and success. Every student should be valued regardless of their background. When I conducted teacher interviews, I expected that teachers would learn about how to teach multicultural students without making them feel marginalized. I also expected that in PD, teachers learn how to integrate different cultural backgrounds in planning their lessons. However, the experience of teachers showed that multicultural PD programs do not touch the actual teaching practice for diverse students, but only focus on teacher attitude and general knowledge about diversity and multicultural education. The end goal of multicultural education should be to teach students for social justice and social reform. However, so far, it is likely that PD programs have not touched the essence. Teachers Being Objects of Policies In this study, teachers participated in workshops from the urging of powerful others. For MCE teachers, it was their obligation to join multicultural workshops, and for other teachers, multicultural PD is the thing that the school provides for them to follow. This way of conducting PD would have made teachers feel that multicultural education is another administrative task. Therefore, teachers who have authority in their lessons could not show their autonomy in the workshops without solving their challenges. For teachers who anticipated new learning in the PD programs, the programs they joined did not meet their expectations but still left them with the problems. If there are many multicultural workshops without imperative, teachers could have more opportunities to participate in and find answers for their questions. However, so far, the workshops were not effective for teachers, so that teachers think that multicultural education is another disrupting point in part of their work. This might make another othering mechanism of 101 multicultural students––the word “multicultural” is an additional burden that teachers should take. Multicultural education should not be treated an additional work rather than the framework that they have to consider in planning their lessons. In order to achieve this, the ways of teacher thoughts and attitudes should be changed. Fortunately, participating in the workshops does change teachers’ attitude and knowledge in a way of seeing multicultural students from a different perspective. Teachers said that they had chance to think about who is multicultural, and what attitude they need to have when meeting multicultural students. However, what is important here is for teachers to keep what they have learned in the long term and change their teaching practices. Multicultural Students are the Other During the interview, it was not easy to listen to teachers’ own voices toward multicultural students from the perspective of members of Korean society. Teachers kept their voices from the perspective of teachers, so that I had to infer their own perspective as a majority Korean. From the episodes they have shared, teachers implied that multicultural students are the others who need to adjust to Korean society. In terms of the adjustment of multicultural students, teachers think that when multicultural students speak the Korean language fluently and have high academic achievement, they do not have problems in living in South Korea. Possessing fear and worry underneath, teachers were facing diverse challenges in dealing with multicultural students at school and meeting minorities in their daily lives. Like Ms. Sarang mentioned, in her everyday life, she could avoid minorities, but in schools, she is in the different position as “an expert” to handle difficulties with multicultural students and support them. This situation was overtly expressed from one teacher, but I am sure that there are many teachers who 102 are encountering similar issues. Discussion This study is significant because it focuses on teachers’ own experiences around multicultural PD programs that will have a positive influence on the development of PD programs for teachers of multicultural students. The beginning of this study is to analyze teacher experiences of multicultural PD programs because in most cases of school administration and new policies, teachers’ voices are not often heard, and they became passive learners and the object of the policies. Teachers are at the center of implementing educational policies and meeting students, so what they experience in their career is very important to be understood. In this way, this study provides the first step of observing what is happening to teacher learning for multicultural students. Along with the possible implications for multicultural PD programs, this study also has limitations with conducting and interpreting the interview data. As a teacher who has had experiences with various PD programs and has taught multicultural students, I tried not to reflect on my own experiences while collecting and analyzing the interview. However, there may have been some moments when I recalled my own stories while listening to the participants’ accounts. Also, with its characteristics as a qualitative study, this study includes only some participants’ experiences and limited locations, so that it cannot fully represent a large number of teacher experiences and voices. For further studies, it will be valuable to develop PD programs based on teachers’ own concerns and voices. Also, with the in-depth data of this study, further study that focuses on community-specific and teacher-needs-centered PD program development and implementation is necessary. Also, the large-scale data of investigating teacher need and voices is required to see 103 what are things should be added and revised in order for teachers to have meaningful and helpful experiences in PD programs. 104 CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusion In this dissertation, I conducted three separate—but related—studies to see how professional development for multicultural education circulates discursive power about the Other in South Korea. The studies demonstrate some of the ways that South Korean education has changed as awareness about the “new” population in its system has grown. In what follows, I summarize and synthesize each chapter in relationship to its implications for multicultural professional development in Korea. Chapter Summaries In Chapter Two, I analyzed the policy documents that mandate multicultural professional development from the Korean government. Based on my framework, I examined the capacities and roles that the Korean government constructed for teacher learning for multicultural education––looking for the goal of social justice, and recognition of the importance of teacher attitudes, knowledge, and practice. Overall, the government documents emphasize teacher knowledge about multicultural education from the dominant society’s point of view, especially implying that multicultural education is for multicultural students. In the infancy of multicultural education in Korea, it is likely that the government is trying to educate teachers to acquire knowledge about social diversity and multicultural education. Thus, from the government, the focus of professional development is to provide the environment and conditions for regional offices of education to conduct workshops. “Every educational system is a political means of maintaining or of modifying the appropriation of discourse, with the knowledge and the powers it carries with it” (Foucault, 1971). The Korean government that has the authority in the nation’s education is trying to sustain 105 its own power and the structure in planning and conducting a certain policy, and this approach applies to educating the new population in its own country. In the process, the government does not explicitly mention what classroom practice is needed for teachers to educate multicultural students but nuances that the bodies of lower levels, such as regional offices of education and teachers, conduct in-service teacher PD based on their own contexts. While the government steps back from taking progressive actions relating to multicultural education, offices of education and teachers may also feel that multicultural education is not pedagogy they should take seriously, but one of the policies that the government initiates, so that teachers follow what they have to do, while struggling with what they actually practice in their classrooms. In Chapter Three, I analyzed workshop programs conducted in a regional Office of Education. Following the government guidelines for multicultural education, regional offices of education plan and hold workshop programs for teachers. The handbooks from such workshops show that the target of the workshops were not mainstream classroom teachers, but instead those teachers labelled as building multicultural education teachers—that is, those teachers who are responsible for multicultural related tasks in their schools. The data again showed that the workshops mostly provide information about multicultural students and North Korean refugee students. In addition to the information about these new students, the workshops often were used to share examples of extracurricular events that some schools conducted—examples that other schools could then follow or refer to. In short, it is obvious that the workshops were not meant to educate teachers for teaching their subject-specific matters to multicultural students. Providing appropriate educational experiences to multicultural students can be a huge issue in Korean education. In the 2017 government document, the government stated that nearly 25 percent of multicultural students were born in other countries and are from foreign families. It 106 means that their mother tongue is not Korean, and they should be provided linguistic support for their learning. However, with the PD shown above, students could be left behind in their learning while participating in extra activities because of their origin. This is not a separate issue from the high dropout rate of multicultural students. According to Cho (2018), multicultural students drop out more than ethnic Korean students because of cultural differences and difficulties in learning. This shows that multicultural students are not receiving proper education in uncomfortable cultural circumstances. In Chapter Four, I conducted interviews with school teachers to listen to their experiences with multicultural PD programs. These teachers had diverse PD experiences in terms of participants, contents, and purposes. Regardless of the type of PD program, however, teacher participants’ experiences demonstrated great similarity in structure. The first noticeable thing is that teachers did not have enough opportunities to learn about multicultural education over the course of their careers—it quite simply was never an issue that they were invited to think deeply about, much less challenged to unlearn assumptions about what it means to be Korean. As noted above, PD programs were for MCE teachers of individual schools, and it was not easy for other teachers to find multicultural-related workshops. Teachers also reported that they did not have enough support or learning from the workshops they have attended. Teachers said that they did learn new things from PD programs, but they could not get answers to the concrete classroom challenges they were encountering. Given this, I concluded that teachers felt that they are the objects of policies rather than actors in constructing what policies were needed. Classrooms are always dynamic with interactions between teachers and students. Teachers are experiencing many different stories and cultures that each student brings in to their classrooms. Thus, sometimes, a problem that a teacher spent a sleepless night thinking about 107 how to deal with was not be any issue the next day. However, it looks likely that in the South Korean context, policies that come down to teachers often ignore these dynamics and treat teachers and teaching in a static way. Teacher interviews also showed that what they learned in the workshops were not helpful in their teaching and even cannot be applied to their school context. Policies and policymakers are too far from teachers to listen to teachers’ voices. Teachers who are the object of policies are actually (and should be) the conducting body of the policies. Multicultural Education is a Part of Administration In the first and the second studies, I analyzed the framework and the approaches to multicultural education policy from the government and the office of education levels. In this way, I concluded that the two levels understood their roles as administrative support for multicultural education. First, as I mentioned in Chapter Two, the government policy documents often limited themselves to dictating “administrative supports” related to effective operation of multicultural education. Creating support teams, monitoring PD programs, and improving PD quality were the major “supports” stated in the policy documents, and these are listed as necessary elements implementing for effective multicultural PD programs. Second, as mentioned in Chapter Three, a regional office of education furthered this practice of turning multicultural education into an administrative task—one to be defined, implemented, and monitored. At no time was teacher learning truly put at the center of the system. This approach is problematic on several levels. First, multicultural education should be amalgamated with classroom instruction, not a separate pedagogy. However, in the given contexts, teachers did not receive sufficient aid from PD programs to use multicultural education in their lessons. Teacher interviews also showed that teachers had challenges in interacting with 108 multicultural students and dealing with the difficulties in their classroom. Second, policies supporting teacher learning must take actual teacher learning needs into consideration. This means moving away from knowledge of multicultural students to teacher practices that will allow knowledge for social justice to be co-created between teachers and students. It is simply not enough to create skeletal processes of reform that do not take into account the needs of teachers—needs to unlearn what Korean means while gaining new ideas for how to teach their subject matter in ways that will produce equitable outcomes for all learners. The PD should be planned and implemented from the perspective of teachers. What do teachers want to learn, what they are going to do after the PD, and how to learn is the best way for teachers to apply this learning in their practice are the most significant elements to be considered. By only focusing on multicultural education policy itself, the Korean government and the regional office of education miss this important point in educating teachers. Unfortunately, so far, the PD policies were from the government perspective, so that they failed to consider meeting teachers’ needs. In this one-way policy flow, teachers may have encountered information they do not really need to learn or just tasted multicultural education on a surface level, without getting into the essence of it. This brings serious problems for teachers and students. Not having understood the essence of multicultural education, teachers can easily practice differently from what they intended to do. Students from diverse backgrounds have different stories that teachers should know, and teachers have responsibilities to take care of individual students’ needs. However, under the Korean policy path, for now, teachers and students cannot interact smoothly and sometimes can hurt each other. If the government does not go deeper into the plan for classroom practice, teacher practice is in the blind side, so that teachers struggle to find the solutions by 109 themselves. Discourses Around Multicultural Education (MCE) Teachers One interesting notice throughout the three studies is that just like multicultural students, MCE teachers have been treated differently from general teachers in the discourses around multicultural education. From the very early stage of beginning multicultural education in South Korea, the government created discourses about MCE teachers. As I have shown in Chapter Two, the government created a new role of teachers to deal with tasks related to multicultural education in each school. MCE teachers are the agents for multicultural education, and the government promoted the responsibility while providing incentives to them. Also, in the initial stage of multicultural education policy, most PD programs were targeted for MCE teachers. This was observed in the second and the third studies, where PD handbooks were planned for MCE teachers, and teacher interviews illustrated that MCE teachers are in charge of participating in PD programs and taking care of issues related to multicultural education. The Multicultural Island With multicultural students and specific population of MCE teachers, multicultural education seems like a disparate island in the large South Korean educational system. The three studies showed that there are diverse programs for multicultural students, such as learning Korean language and culture, bilingual contests, and afterschool programs. Under the goal of embracing multicultural students into Korean society, all these programs were planned and carried out in individual schools and school districts with the conduct of MCE teachers. As teachers recalled in their interviews, teachers recognized that it is obvious that MCE teachers are the ones who are dealing with all the tasks related to multicultural students and education. Even though textbooks have been revised to include multicultural contents, it is not 110 required for teachers to have PD programs to learn the new elements. In Chapter Four, Mr. Gil- dong implied that he already knew what multicultural education is, without attending multicultural PD programs. Not having enough knowledge of multicultural education, teachers could have vague or inaccurate knowledge about multicultural education and assume that their knowledge is sufficient. As an MCE teacher, Mr. Gil-dong revealed his own or improper perspective toward multicultural education, so that it will be true for general teachers to see multicultural education. Without making other members of schools learn about multicultural education, MCE teachers and multicultural students do what they should do under multicultural education policy. This makes MCE teachers and multicultural students an island having rare interactions with the mainland. The isolation of MCE teachers and even multicultural education from the major school operation is getting worse concerning who becomes a MCE teacher in schools. In teacher interviews, Ms. Sarang said that the role of MCE teachers is given at the beginning of a new school year. Regardless of teachers’ request, (vice) principals give the role to a teacher to deal with multicultural tasks throughout the year. It depends on school contexts, but in the school where Ms. Sarang works, a teacher who is young and looks better in getting along with students is often chosen as the MCE teacher because they have to spend more time with multicultural students and have an extra field trip with them. Also, she said that mostly elder (experienced) teachers do not want to take the MCE teacher role. They are not willing to learn new types of tasks at school. Under the school operation, MCE teachers do not take the same role the next year. This current system cannot promote expertise of MCE teachers and make these teachers follow what they should do under the multicultural education policy, such as planning a session for multicultural education and afterschool programs and holding some multicultural events. 111 As I explained in Chapter Four, classroom practice could not have reached culturally responsive pedagogy so far, so it is highly likely that multicultural education that operates on an administrative and surface level could be underdeveloped in the future. From the beginning of multicultural education, it has worked for the people who interact directly with multicultural students. The Reality and Further In reality, the findings of the studies show that maybe the conflict between “centrifugal” and “centripetal” forces will at some point be lessened (Bakhtin & Holquist, 1981). For now, the South Korean education ministry imagines that it can control student learning from the top- down, and in this way has no impact aside from creating the type of bureaucratic mandates that allow the status quo to go on indefinitely. This hierarchical process supports the very disparities it supposedly seeks to overturn. Teachers continue to be educated without considering their contexts and needs. All in all, this dissertation shows the power of policy to reinforce hegemonic discursive practices. I am concerned about how these discourses shapes South Korean education, and further, in education globally. If global elites advocate something, then institutions and individuals under their power too often follow—even though such practices are wrong. People who have a consciousness about the current issues and problems need to break the structure and build new ways for the future. This is what multicultural education seeks, and this is why multicultural education is critical. South Korean students who have been called “multicultural” will continue to be discriminated against—intentionally and unintentionally—as long as such discourses left unchallenged. In the future, I will work to find ways to address these problems through in- 112 service teachers’ PD programs. Implications This dissertation has several implications for future research. First, the whole dissertation invites future research about the role of policy-makers in enforcing discursive regimes and how effective PD planning might better challenge such regimes. Especially, small scale PD planning will be a better option for future research. Also, future research might better investigate the policy pathway, because it is not easy to change the current system—therefore, the question of how to make an effective policy pathway under the centralized educational system could be area of possible research. If there is any further research to be reviewed as a good example, comparing different pathway and implementation will be another option for finding a solution to the current challenge. Second, this whole dissertation brings a lot of implications for teacher learning and practice for multicultural education as an initial stage. The findings showed that teachers are not acquiring the knowledge and practice they need. Thus, it is necessary to conduct studies about what teachers want to learn and how to learn for multicultural education. Different from the limited data and participants in this dissertation, large scale and more data could be studied for a better picture about the current status. Also, this study has implications for future policy about teacher PD. Centralized educational systems have contradictory influence on teacher learning. Bureaucratic procedures are efficient and fast when the government initiates a policy down to teachers. However, now that there is a gap between teachers and the government policy, the policymakers should acknowledge the disparities when planning a policy in the future and give opportunities for teachers to plan their own learning for teaching their own students. 113 CHAPTER SIX: Researcher’s Note I have grown up as a “normal” South Korean whose family originated from Korea. Throughout my school life, I did not encounter difficulties in achieving what I wanted. I was a “normal” student, according to the dominant discourse of normality in South Korea, and then I became a middle school teacher. I was content with my students and my job, and one day, I decided to study in the US to improve my teaching skills. I remember the first class in my MA program, where I was frustrated by hardly understanding the lesson, and then I was the only one who needed to overcome the situation as an international student. I faced the hardest challenge in my life as an international student academically and emotionally, so that my life in the US reminded me of some students I met and could have met in my teaching career. I realized that the “normal” life that I have had in South Korea was not “normal” to some people. I remember a student who looked different from other majority Korean students and were made fun of by other students. I also remember a North Korean student who transferred to another school without having adapted to the school. At that time, I thought that the students did not do their best, and this is why they did not perform well in school. I was a teacher, but I did not reflect on my own teaching and school system that prevents minority students from being successful. My experiences as an international student made me reconsider my own perspective as a majority Korean and believe that multicultural students (like myself in the American academic context) have the competence to be successful in their learning, so that my journey as a researcher had started. Conducting my dissertation research made me reconsider the Korean educational system especially for multicultural students. As a teacher who was not informed about multicultural educational policies even though the school had some multicultural students, I expected that 114 teachers had been better educated by now about multicultural students and policies. However, the study showed that little has changed in terms of teacher learning and development for multicultural education. More correctly, teachers have learned about multicultural education and students, but multicultural education was not for making multicultural students maintain their own identities and culture but to be absorbed into mainstream society. Also, multicultural education policy, which has been implemented over ten years has not much influence on teacher learning and classroom practice, but only has only impacted educational administration. As I remember, for a novice teacher, I did not have any chance to learn about multicultural education, and just like other teachers did, I hid multicultural students’ presence from majority Korean students. I have colleagues still talking about multicultural students from the deficit perspective, and not knowing what is right or wrong when they talk about multicultural students. They also say that schools do not have enough room for multicultural students because the priority of school is to send more students to top tier universities. I am sure that I would have been one of my colleagues if I have not had experiences as a minority student and a researcher. One day, I told one of my closest collegues about their attitudes toward multicultural students, but she said that I did not know teachers’ situations, and that what they were doing was the best for the students. After that, whenever I had uncomfortable moments, I chose not to say anything to them. I know that I have to say something to them later, but I think I need time to say the things that I believe are right to my colleagues because I do not want to be othered from the group that I used to be involved with. Honestly, for now, I am already in the minority among teachers. Thus, as a person who has had two opposite identities––privileged and marginalized—I tried to keep a balanced view as a researcher throughout conducting this dissertation study. I 115 observed the slow and steady policy changes from the beginning and teachers’ experiences under the policies. What I wanted to do was to see their similar and different views to understand the current phenomena around multicultural PD programs. This dissertation study made me think about my future studies as a researcher and remind me of my own experiences as a teacher, a student, and a researcher. 116 REFERENCES 117 REFERENCES Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York: Routledge. University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M., & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: Banks, J. A. (1991). A curriculum for empowerment, action, and change. Empowerment through Banks, J. A. (2007). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2009). The Routledge international companion to multicultural education. Multicultural Education, 125-141. London: Routledge. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. G. (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 196-203. Bennett, C. I. (2007). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon. Chang, I. S. (2008). Exploring and Developing Model of Teacher Curriculum for Multicultural Education. The Journal of Elementary Education, 21(2), 281-305. Chang, I. S. (2012). Multicultural education in Korea: Its origin, status, and direction. Multicultural Education Review, 4(2), 60-90. Cho, K. J. (2018). The present condition and improvement plan of the Vietnam youth multicultural human rights education in Korea. Korean Journal of Youth Studies, 25(1), 141-160. Choi, W. O. (2012). Refugees from North Korea and multicultural society: Application of a diasporan viewpoint. The Journal of the Humanities for Unification. 54. 257-285. Choi, M. S., & Kim, S. J. (2013). The analysis of multi-cultural education program in elementary school of Gyeongnam –From the view of inter-cultural education–. Multicultural Education Studies. 6(4). 53-78. Chung, T. (1995). Understanding multicultural education: Decentering dominant discourses in physical education teacher training programs in Korea: From multiple marginality to 118 multiculturalism. International Sport Science Congress in Commemoration of the 1988 Seoul Olympic Games. 12. 1442-1451. Clair, N., & Adger, C. T. (1999). Professional development for teachers in culturally diverse schools. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The multiple meanings of multicultural teacher education: A conceptual framework. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 7-26. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: Teachers College. Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., & Mcquillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education, 115(3), 347-377. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604. Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters. Educational leadership, 66(5), 46-53. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social science information, 10(2), 7-30. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College. Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16. Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge. 119 Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235- 260. Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, Jossey-Bass. 8(3), 381-391. Gyeongsangnam-do Office of Education (2009). 2009 Damunhwagajeong janyeo gyoyuk gansayowon yeonsu [Professional development for teachers of students from multicultural families]. Changwon: GOE. Gyeongsangnam-do Office of Education (2011). Damunhwagajeong janyeo gyoyuk damdangja yeonsu jaryo [Professional development for teachers of students from multicultural families]. Changwon: GOE. Gyeongsangnam-do Office of Education (2014). 2014 Damunhwa talbuk ehae gyoyuk yeonsu [Professional development for understanding multiculturalism and North Korean refugees]. Changwon: GOE. School Statistics (n.d.). In Gyeongsangnamdo Office of Education. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from http://www.gne.go.kr/index.gne?menuCd=DOM_000000109001002001. Ha, H. S. (2011). The counseling strategies based on analysis of teacher`s bias toward Han, G. S. (2016). Nouveau-riche nationalism and multiculturalism in Korea: A media narrative multicultural students. Korean Journal of Counseling. 12(6), 2065-2083. analysis. New York: Routledge. Howard, T. C. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching. In J. Banks. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 550–553). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Hur, C. S., Chang, I. S., & Park, C. H. (2010). A proposal for curriculum of multicultural education through analyzing inservice teacher education program. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(4), 77-101. Unwin. Husserl. E. (1931). Ideas (W. R. Boyce Gibson, Trans.). London, England: George Allen & Husserl. E. (2001). The shorter logical investigation (J. N. Findlay, Trans.). London, England: Hwang, G. J. (2011). A critical analysis on the multicultural education in Korea on the basis of Routledge. multicultural educational theories. Research in Social Studies Education, 18(4), 151-167. 120 Hwang, J. W. (2016). The current status of multicultural students in Korea. Edzine, 43(3), 117- 121. https://www.kedi.re.kr/khome/main/journal/selectJournalForm.do Irvine, J.J., & York, D.E. (1995). Learning styles and culturally diverse students: A literature review. In J.A. Banks & C.A. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education. New York: Macmillan. Jang, D. H. (2015). A study on the review of the issues on the multicultural education legislation and exploration of future directions for improvement. The Journal of Law of Education, 27(1), 163-189. Jang, W.S. (2009). A study on the curriculum for multi-cultural teacher education suitable to Korean society. Social Studies Education, 48(1), 57-79. Kang, M. K. (2002). Yeoksaneun isangui hyunsilhwa guajeongida [History is the realization of the ideal]. Paju, Korea: Changbi. Kim, A. E. (2009). Global migration and South Korea: Foreign workers, foreign brides and the making of a multicultural society. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(1), 70-92. Kim, C.S. (1984). A theoretical study on American multicultural education. The Journal of American Education, 5, 35-60. Kim, M. J. (2008). Living together as a family: Ethnic identities for children of intermarriages between Korean and South/east Asian men. Korean Cultural Anthropology. 41(1). 51-89. Knapp, M. S. (2003). Chapter 4: Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of research in education, 27(1), 109-157. Knight, S. L., & Wiseman, D. L. (2005). Professional development for teachers of diverse students: A summary of the research. Journal of Education for Students placed at Risk, 10(4), 387-405. Korean Educational Statistics Service (2017). Statistical yearbook of education. Department of Education, Korean Educational Development Institute. Korean ethnic nationalism. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_ethnic_nationalism. Kwon, O., Mo, K., Hwang, H., Park, J., Park, J., Kim, E., & Bae, G. (2009). A case study of teacher training program for multicultural education: Focusing on the center for multicultural education. Multicultural Education Research and Practice, 1(0). 15-36. Kwon, Y. S. (2012). A workshop program for the middle or high school teachers; Mentors for the bilingual students in multi-cultural families. The Journal of English Language and Literature, 17(3). 157-173. 121 Kwon, S. H. (2014). Education of Korean language teachers for multicultural background learners. The Education of Korean Language,144, 121-146. http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/search/List_dic.jsp. students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 206-214. Kyoyuk. (n.d.). In Korean Standard Dictionary. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives preparing teachers to teach African American Lee, J. B. (2009). A critical analysis on the language culture of racial discrimination in Korea. Lee, J. Y. (1997). Art education in multi-cultural environment. The Journal of Aesthetics and Lee, K. H. (1997). Multicultural society and citizenship education: Around Generosity. Theory The Journal of Linguistic Science, 48, 125-158. Science of Art, 7(0), 95-106. and Research in Citizenship Education, 25, 279-303. Lee, H. L. (2015). Changes in cultural competence of pre-service early childhood teacher in the multicultural education course. Journal of Children’s Literature and Education, 16(1), 299-324. Li, G. (2013). Promoting teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students as change agents: A cultural approach to professional learning. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 136-143. McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse students: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 433-443. McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Social justice teacher education. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & K. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Microdata Integrated Service (n.d.). Foreign Worker Employment Survey. Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://mdis.kostat.go.kr/search/classificationItem.do?extcTypeDivCD=T&curMenuNo= UI_POR_P1048. Ministry of Education (2006). Educational support for students from multicultural families. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://125.60.48.13/home4/dl_files/edu/001/IM006954.pdf. Ministry of Education (2007). Educational support plans for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=316&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe &m=0302&opType=N&boardSeq=76066#. 122 Ministry of Education (2008). Educational support plans for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=316&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe &m=0302&opType=N&boardSeq=76066#. Ministry of Education (2009). Educational support plans for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=316&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe &m=0302&opType=N&boardSeq=76066#. Ministry of Education (2010). Educational support plans for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=316&lev=0&statusYN=W&s=moe &m=0302&opType=N&boardSeq=76066. Ministry of Education (2011). Plan for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=316&boardSeq=76067&lev=0&sea rchType=S&statusYN=W&page=1&s=moe&m=0302&opType=. Ministry of Education (2011a). 2011 Educational support plans for North Korean refugee students. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from http://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=343&boardSeq=21085&lev=0&sear chType=null&statusYN=C&page=1&s=moe&m=030209&opType=N. Ministry of Education (2012). Plan for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from http://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/list.do?type=default&page=1&m=030209&s=moe&bo ardID=343. Ministry of Education (2013). Educational support plan for multicultural students. Retrieved December 10, 2018, from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=316&boardSeq=76067&lev=0&sea rchType=S&statusYN=W&page=1&s=moe&m=0302&opType=. Ministry of Education (2014). Plan for students from multicultural families. Retrieved April 4, 2018, from https://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=316&boardSeq=73451&lev=0&sea rchType=null&statusYN=C&page=9&s=moe&m=0302&opType=N. Ministry of Education (2015). Plan for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://gw12050300.school2.gweduone.net/normal/normal.do?cmd=view&bNo=3156842 &bcfNo=420219. Ministry of Education (2016). Plan for students from multicultural families. Retrieved December 123 1, 2016, from http://www.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=294&boardSeq=64074&lev=0&sear chType=null&statusYN=W&page=30&s=moe&m=0501&opType=N. Ministry of Education (2017). 2017 Report on educational statistics. Retrieved March 25, 2018, from https://kess.kedi.re.kr/post/6661635?itemCode=04#. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2014). Report on multicultural families. Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.mogef.go.kr/korea/view/policy/policy02_05a.jsp?func=view&idx=691668. Ministry of Justice (2015). Korea Immigration Service Statistics 2015. Retrieved July 10, 2017, from http://www.korea.kr/archive/expDocView.do?docId=38074. Mo, K. H., & Lim, J. S. (2013). Multicultural teacher education in Korea: Current trends and future directions. Multicultural Education Review, 5(1), 96-120. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Munhwa. (n.d.). In Korean Standard Dictionary. Retrieved July 20, 2016, from http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/search/List_dic.jsp. Na, J. H. (2011). A review and synthesis of literature on multicultural teacher education National Law Information Center. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2018, from curricula. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 173-197. http://www.law.go.kr/engLsSc.do?tabMenuId=tab45&query=%EC%9E%AC%ED%95% 9C%EC%99%B8%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%B8%20%EC%B2%98%EC%9A%B0%20 %EA%B8%B0%EB%B3%B8%EB%B2%95#. Nieto, S. (2000). Placing equity front and center some thoughts on transforming teacher education for a new century. Journal of teacher education, 51(3), 180-187. Nieto, S., & Rolon, C. (1997). Preparation and professional development of teachers: A perspective from two Latinas. In J. Jordan-Irvine (Ed.), Critical knowledge for diverse teachers and learners (pp. 89-124). Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. North, C. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of ‘social justice’ in education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507-535. Pang, V. O. (2001). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Park, M. S. (2013). A study on the professionality of the secondary school teachers charging multicultural task. The Journal of Education and Culture, 19(1), 57-82. 124 Philpott, D. E., Furey, E., & Penney, S. C. (2010). Promoting leadership in the ongoing professional development of teachers: Responding to globalization and inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 20(2), 38-54. Rodriguez, L.F. (2013). Learning from Catalina: Reflections on bridging communities and schools in the context of a “post-racial” society. In D. Carter & F. Tuitt (Eds.) Contesting the myth of a ‘post-racial era:’ The continued significance of race in U.S. education (pp. 42-49). New York: Peter Lang. Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416. Ryu, B. R. (2013). A reflection on multicultural education policy and the current state of education in Korea. Multicultural Education Studies. 6(4). 131-149. Schniedewind, N. (2005). “There ain't no White people here!”: The transforming impact of teachers' racial consciousness on students and schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(4), 280-289. Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562-584. Sleeter, C. E. (2013). Teaching for social justice in multicultural classrooms. Multicultural Education Review, 5(2), 1-19. Sleeter, C. E. & Grant, C. A. (2008). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Trumbull, E. & Pacheco, M. (2005). Leading with diversity: Cultural competencies for teacher preparation and professional development. The Education Alliance at Brown University: Providence, RI. van Manen. M (2001). Researching lived experience. Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Cobourg, Ontario: Transcontinental Printing Inc. Villegas, A. M. (1991). Culturally responsive pedagogy for the 1990s and beyond. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25-38. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about – A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In: R. Wodak & M. Meyer, Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1- 14). London: Sage. 125 Won, J. S., & Lee, S.Y. (2013). A study on the effect of the application of the KSL teacher training program for improving multicultural KSL teacher competence. The Journal of Korean Education, 40(2), 5-29. Yoon, H., & Kim, Y. (2018). A study on improvement of educational support for Korean-born children of North Korean defectors based on elementary teacher’s experiences. Korean Education Inquiry, 36(2), 49-67. Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflection of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 326-340. Zozakiewicz, C., & Rodriguez, A. J. (2007). Using sociotransformative constructivism to create multicultural and gender-inclusive classrooms an intervention project for teacher professional development. Educational Policy, 21(2), 397-425. 126