“‘We Learn English for Our Revolution': English Education in North Korea”
“‘We Learn English for Our Revolution': English Education in North Korea.” Journal of British & American Language, Literature and Education 25.1 (2009): 77-97
English language usage is thought of as a barometer of a nation?s modernity. Although North Korea in recent years has made strides in English education, particularly in obtaining native-speaking teachers, they are still behind in many areas of development. This paper reviews the few available academic and journalistic publications on English education in North Korea, through pre-war Korea, cold war, and the new millennium as English has grown in use and value around the world. It goes on to review the current state of affairs of ideology-driven English-language education in North Korea, utilizing personal interviews with key figures in the efforts to bring English education to North Korea. It concludes with an appraisal of the situation.
Key Words: English education, North Korea, Tim Kearns, Rev. Don Borrie, Grahame Bilbow, The British Council, New Zealand/Democratic People?s Republic of Korea Friendship Society (NZ-DPRK Society), The Global Aid Network (GAIN), Institute for Strategic Reconciliation (ISR), Juche idea, Kim Jong Il, Kim Il Song
North Korean English Textbook for Primary School
1. INTRODUCTION
As the lingua franca of the world, English is often thought of as a barometer of a nation?s cultural, financial, scientific, and technological modernity. In Korea, there is an expectation for educated people to communicate in fluent English (Prey 9). Similarly, all over the world, the ability to speak English has become an indicator of personal status, sophistication, and worldliness. As a result, English has become a business, which is an indicator of a nation?s aspiration for modernity and international status (Singh, Kell, and Pandian 106). As communist and former communist nations rush to develop, North Korea struggles to keep up. Despite having developed nuclear arms, the country lags behind in many areas of development.
Since the report given by Song in “The Juche Ideology: English in North Korea” in 2002, North Korea?s progress in obtaining native English speaking instructors, however small in number the arriving natives have been, has risen in recent years. The number of North Koreans taking the TOEFL since 1999 has increased three-fold to 4,783 test takers in 2005-6 (“Once-Banned Tongue Is All the Talk in N. Korea: Finding Good English
Teachers Difficult in Pyongyang.”). In 2008, North Korea scored a 72 on the internet-based TOEFL (out of a maximum of 120), while South Korea scored a 78, the Chinese scored a 76, and the Japanese scored a 66. There is still much room to grow; Finnish is as distant from English as Korean, while Finland scored a 97 in the same year (“Test and Score Data Summary for TOEFL Internet-based and Paper-based Tests”). ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 2
This paper is based on academic and journalistic publications, most of which were published within the last fifteen years, and internet informational resources on English education in North Korea. It also uses personal correspondence with key figures in the Inner Circle in the effort to send native-speakers to North Korea.
This paper first reviews the history of English in North Korea, and goes on to examine the current state of affairs in English education in North Korea, and concludes with an appraisal of the situation.
2. HISTORY OF ENGLISH EDUCATION IN NORTH KOREA
Politics is rarely the sole impetus for a language?s introduction into a country previously not exposed to it. Missionary, military, and business interests usually accompany and often supersede it during a foreign presence, however limited its influence at first may be. The introduction of English to North and South Korea was no different.
2.1 Pre-War Korea
English was first introduced to Korea in 1882-3 after the signing of the treaties of amity (friendship) with the United States and Great Britain. Under Japanese colonial rule from 1910, English was available to a select few who attended high school. After the start of the war between Japan and the United States in 1941 to its end in 1945, English education was banned. Before the partition of Korea (1945-8), English education was sporadic in the Russian sphere of occupation north of the 38th parallel. During this period, Russian quickly became the most prominent foreign language in the North, as English became in the South.
2.2 The ?50s to ?70s
With the ceasefire between the North and the South in 1953, the teaching of English and Japanese came to an end during the North?s campaign for the “purification” of Korean, an effort limiting foreign influence. A watershed was reached in 1964 when the North Korean Workers? Party (communist party) of the Central Committee issued an edict promoting foreign language study; English education in secondary schools began again. English and Russian were taught on a 50/50 basis, but students did not choose the language they took (Kaplan and Baldauf 1028). In part, its justification came from Kim Il Sung?s idea of another war with the West. In 1971, Kim Il Sung, in reference to ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 3
English language learning, said: “In order to win the battle, you have to know your enemies language” (“??? ?????:?????? ?????). In addition, he had dictated to the people of the North that they “must be able to say military words such as „raise your hands? or „we will not shoot if you drop your guns and surrender? in English and Japanese” (“??? ?????:?????? ?????”).
2.3 Late Cold War: The Rising Star of the English Language
North Korea?s recognition of America?s rising prestige with the opening of diplomatic relations with China, and the Soviet Union?s diminishing status due to a weak economy and ethnic divisions, English had become the sole mandatory foreign language in secondary schools by 1975, replacing Russian (“??? ?????:?????? ?????). Out of about 500 students studying abroad in 1979, 100 were studying in Guyana; Guyana was the only English-speaking nation North Korea had close relations with (Park 273). The year 1980 saw English and Russian now taught on an 80/20 basis, which Kaplan and Baldauf believed, in view of the competition between the North and South, might have been motivated by the need for scientific and technological knowledge (1028). According to Park, 7.5% of the six-year secondary school curriculum in 1984 was taken by foreign language study, a good portion of that being English language (273). By 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, English completely replaced Russian as the sole foreign language in secondary schools.
2.4 Post-Soviet Era
Kyeong-ok Kim (alias), a defector now in South Korea who taught English in North Korea in the „90s, said the provisions for and conditions in schools were poor. She reports that there were fifty students for each class.1 Students shared textbooks, and reused them for several years. Moreover, the textbook ordinarily did not give enough classroom content to support her class; teachers had to supplement it with their own knowledge. Kim?s
1 In 2003, the North Korean Ministry of Education stated that the teacher to student ration was actually 1:21 (Tan and Postiglione). Whether this number changed significantly in ten years, the ratio is higher for English classrooms, the teacher defector was mistaken or lied, or the North Korean government was giving misinformation are unknown. ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 4
salary was 100 won a month. She observed that those who showed interest in English usually went on to study it at university (“I was an English Teacher in North Korea.”)
The government sanctioned English language teaching on the national TV network in 1993, in which English “was possibly their [North Korea?s] only ticket to surviving as the only viable communist nation in the world” (Baik 128-9).
2.5 New Millennium
From the new millennium, there were a number of diplomatic overtures made by North Korea regarding cultural exchanges and English. In October 2000, Kim Jong Il asked US Secretary of State Madeline Albright for native-English speaking instructors.2 3 In the same year, UN delegates from North Korea visited Georgetown University and American University. In the fall of 2001, North Korean students attended training in English and international trade at Portland State University. A year later, the British Council, an international cultural relations organization, sent three British teacher trainers to North Korea after the two nations established diplomatic relations (“English Education in North Korea: A Peak into the Unknown”). Yet, to this day, no diplomatic relations exist between the US and North Korea.
2 Song says Kim might have been unhappy with his own translators (Song 51). This might have some weight; the Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK (North Korea) often uses tortured prose to describe its adversary: “The US imperialist robbers have stretched their crooked tentacle of crime-woven aggression with wild ambition,” where the US will “Meet the fate of forlorn wandering spirits,” while calling a North Korean defector a “dirty and silly guy” (“North Korea’s Confusing Brand of English”).
3 In the 80?s, Kim Jong Il himself went to Malta and learned English up to an intermediate level (Smith 111).
3. CURRENT STATE OF ENGLISH EDUCATION IN NORTH KOREA
3.1 Context
3.1.1 Ideology-Based English
Song believes that English has perhaps reached its current level of importance because of both the regime?s need for science and technology knowledge and the need for a universal medium to propagate Kim Il Sung?s own brand of communist ideology (the juche idea) to the rest of the world, particular to the third world. Kim?s third world project was a failure. Song also states that English language learning is a tool for the regime to strengthen its hold ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 5
on its people, with “ideology-driven English-language education likely to remain ideology-based for some time to come” (Song 51).
A dialogue from a middle school English textbook is illustrative of North Korea?s “ideology-driven” English education:
Teacher: Han Il Nam, how do you spell the word “revolution”?
Student: R-E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N
Teacher: Very good, thank you. Sit down. Li Chol Su, what?s the Korean for
“revolution”?
Student: Hyekmyeng.
Teacher: Well, Kim In Su, what do you learn English for?
Student: For our revolution.
Teacher: That?s right, we learn English for our revolution. (Baik 313-4).
Everything must serve the revolution, including education. “All levels of education are completely politicized and exist to buttress the socialist system” (Park 269).
From Song, a paradox can be read confronting the regime. English is needed to advance, yet language education is rarely separable from cultural influence. Kim Jong Il and his successor will have to, at the same time, expose the North to and protect itself from foreign influence (Song 47). Perhaps, the North will continue to import English instructors from the third world, while minimizing the risk of exposing itself to Western values.
3.1.2 Limited Exposure to the Outside World
Most officials learn English in North Korea. A few top students leave the country, many to India, and learn English through movies like “Jaws” and “Titanic” (“Once-Banned Tongue Is All the Talk in N. Korea: Finding Good English Teachers Difficult in Pyongyang.”). But these are the exceptions.
[V]irtually no one in North Korea, except the foreign diplomats of the highest rank, ever meets or converses with an English speaking foreigner. Moreover, it also means that very few people, except those who actually inspect and translate foreign publications written in English, are ever actually exposed to English medium reading materials
(Baik 211).
In addition, “unlike China or Cuba, there is no channel of underground information (e.g. Voice of America, BBC) through which people that are dissident from the current „regime of truth? in North Korea can find out about the world outside” (Baik 215). Cell phones were completely banned in 2004, and the few who have internet access cannot reach outside of the country (Zeller). ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 6
3.1.3 North Korean Approach to English Education
Kyeong-ok Kim (alias) says this about how English is conducted in North Korea:
I think the English I learned is not American English nor British English but North Korean English. When you go to middle school, teachers show you pictures, tell you a word or an easy sentence which explain the pictures, and make you repeat after. After doing that for 11 hours, we get the hint of how English is put together. After that, we learn phonetic signs for four hours. The styles of learning grammar aren?t really different from that of South Korea, but learning how to speak English is very different (“I was an English Teacher in North Korea.”).
With nearly all North Koreans? exposure to anything foreign completely restricted, Nick Shaw, a Briton currently teaching in North Korea sent by the British Council, says exposure is limited to schools and universities found in “old” textbooks (“Teaching English in N.K.”). The exception is three universities in Pyongyang that use up-to-date language teaching materials. However, most students use English translations of the aphorisms of Kim Il Sung and 19th century authors like Charles Dickens as learning materials. The best libraries in Pyongyang that were accessible to a Canadian teacher had no books from the West produced in the last fifty years (“Once-Banned Tongue Is All the Talk in N. Korea: Finding Good English Teachers Difficult in Pyongyang.”) For freshman English classes at Pyongyang universities, simple greetings are continuously practiced, with emphasis on pronunciation. English classes are conducted in Korean (“Pyongyang College of Foreign Languages Allows Escape from „Closed Society?”).
3.1.4 Analysis of English Language Textbooks
With the hermetic seal that blocks North Korea from the rest of the world, much of the information about English education comes from analyses of English textbooks used in North Korea. Since studies on education in North Korea, let alone English education, are rare and limited to its political ideology or defectors? reports, textbook analysis is the only way to deduce the teaching methods used in English education in North Korea. Kim and Choi compare textbooks and teaching methods in the North and South. According to the authors, English teaching in the North utilizes both the oral and grammatical methods in a teacher-centered classroom. The authors state that North Korean educators employ Russian foreign language teaching methodology from the 1960s, citing Mlikotin?s idea of “conscious automation”, which is language transferred from the conscious to the unconscious mind, making the employment of language a habit (Kim and Choi 193). Through the analysis of textbooks, “English teaching in North Korea places an emphasis on cultivating students? ability to produce oral language by repetition and ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 7
memorization of material rather than developing the communicative ability to be able to engage in longer discourse” (193). In contrast, in South Korea, since the seventh national curriculum (1997), educational policy has been fostering communicative ability (193).
3.2 Native Speakers in North Korea
3.2.1 The British Council’s Teacher Training Program
Since 2002, the British Council has been sending two teacher trainers every year. This figure has recently risen to four. In an interview with the author, Grahame Bilbow, Director of English at the British Council in Beijing, has remarked that the program has been run quite smoothly. The Council is “delivering high quality courses in teacher development for English teachers and education professionals, developing a group of Korean teacher trainers, [and is] working on curriculum and materials development with universities and the Ministry of Education” (G. Bilbow, personal communication, May 8, 2009). Some of the activities in the teacher development program entail pedagogical theory, classroom methodology, lesson planning, classroom observation and feedback, and English language instruction for about 450 North Korean teacher-trainees and professors (“??, ??? ??? ??, ??? ??? ???? ?? ??.?? « ??? ?? ???? ?????”).4 The Council offers the latest EFL teaching methodologies, stressing student-centered, communicative teaching methods based on a task-based syllabus (G. Bilbow, personal communication, May 8, 2009). Brian Stott, English project manager from the British Council, says:
4 Native-speaking teacher trainers estimate the professors? fluency at an intermediate level (“??, ??? ??? ??, ??? ??? ???? ?? ??.?? « ??? ?? ???? ?????”).
[The teacher training program] will be used to develop English teacher training capacity within the DPRK [North Korea] higher and secondary education system [where North Korean English teachers] will later be deployed to provincial education universities and colleges as well as schools [where] the project [will have] an obvious multiplier effect (“Teaching English in N.K.”). ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 8
By 2010, because of high demand, the Council will expand its program, perhaps to send more native-speaking teacher trainers (“??, ??? ??? ??, ??? ??? ???? ?? ??.?? « ??? ?? ???? ?????”).
3.2.2 Tim Kearns and the New Zealand/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Friendship (NZ/DPRK) Society
In 2006, Tim Kearns, a New Zealander, was sent by The New Zealand/DPRK Friendship Society, an organization established by theologian Don Borrie and an economist in 1973. Kearns served as a volunteer teacher at Kumsong College and Kumsong Middle School No. 1, first for six, then four weeks (D. Borrie, personal communication, May 5, 2009; T. Kearns, personal communication, May 15, 2009). Kearns observes that the North Koreans “were clearly more at ease talking about wife-swapping than their country’s nuclear program or the all-pervasive Marxist regime. How the rest of the world sees North Korea is simply something we cannot discuss” (“A Look Behind the Curtain of Repression and Isolation.”). Kearns followed the curriculum for the younger grades, but was encouraged to use his own teaching style for the older grades, using the communicative method to stimulate group and class discussion and debate. English teachers and the administration were open to a “liberal delivery” of the curriculum. While his North Korean colleagues lectured, Kearns was able to employ pair and group discussions, drama, role-plays, debate, and the occasional “odd experiment,” in classes with about 25 students (T. Kearns, personal communication, May 15, 2009). He would hold after-class conversation sessions with a few of his students, where his students expressed interest in Kearns? home country of New Zealand, and, in particular, sports. Kearns was impressed with the level of English of his students, which “would shame a few native speakers,” stating that they, as second language learners often have, had a better grasp at grammar. Moreover, he had no discipline problems – his students would greet while standing, giving a hearty “Good morning, sir!” at the beginning of every class (T. Kearns, personal communication, May 15, 2009). The North Korean English teachers were passionate about English, teaching, and expressed interest in Kearns? teaching techniques (“NZ Friendship School”). Yet, their source material was scarce, and although some of the better equipped schools had British textbooks published by Oxford, they were, according to Kearns, dated. Moreover, there was a dearth of authentic material. Despite this, Kearns? students were highly motivated, where he estimates that 90% of them will enter the computer science field. Kearns hopes to return some ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 9
day, though he can only have contact with one person via email since internet access is so scarce (T. Kearns, personal communication, May 15, 2009).
The New Zealand/DPRK Friendship Society is, according to Borrie in an interview with the author, investigating the possibility of sending a retired New Zealander couple to teach in North Korea. Borrie states that his organization is assisting in facilitating other New Zealander educational contacts entering in negotiations with North Korea on their own volition (D. Borrie, personal communication, May 5, 2009).
3.2.2 The Global Aid Network (GAIN)
The Global Aid Network (GAIN), a Canadian humanitarian relief organization, sent teachers to train scientists and engineers in English in Pyongyang in 2004. A year later, the North Korean government asked for GAIN to withdraw, but has recently been invited back to send more native teachers (“??,???? ??? ?? ??”).5 On GAIN?s website as of May 2009, there is an advertisement for a three-month position teaching English at the English training program at the Kum Song Computer Talent Training Centre (KCTTC) in Pyongyang for selected students (“English Instructors Needed – Global Aid Network, Canada”). The position is open to only Canadian citizens.
5 Warren Harder, a Canadian, however, was recently sent through the China Educational Exchange, a US-Chinese non-governmental organization, and taught in North Korea for six weeks (“A Challenge for Peaceful Engagement”).
3.2.3 Institute for Strategic Reconciliation (ISR)
In 2001, South Korea?s Sunshine Policy, supported by the US?s “coordinated engagement,” included proposals for American educators to teach in North Korea (“Nautilus Institute Policy Forum Online: North Korea: Avoid Another Crossroads”). It finally happened in July 2008 when Americans were invited to teach through a “knowledge exchange” project. Though the Institute for Strategic Reconciliation (ISR), an American non-for-profit think tank, nine college students, among them five second-generation Korean Americans, taught in middle schools and high schools (“English Lesson in N. Korea”). This effort is just a single drop in a vast sea of mutual antagonism. Whether the necessary climate for more cultural exchanges with the US will exist in the near future remains to be seen. ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 10
4. CONCLUSION
According to Kim Il Sung in his 1977 Theses on Socialist Education, a “good” education is the means for correcting the errors of the past, the protection of the revolution from “reactionaries” in the present, and, in the end, achieving communism. His will, expressed in his corpus of writings, became, and still becomes, official policy (“Theses on Socialist Education”).
On the assumption that once a student reaches university, their instructors? level of English ability must be greater than their counterparts in secondary and primary schools. No instructor, other than one either for a considerable number of years was immersed in English in an English-speaking nation, or a native-speaker will do. This need will become more apparent as more North Koreans attend institutions of higher learning.
The year 2002 was a defining moment, with the British Council sending the first native-English speaking teacher trainers. As to whether this will be a direction the North will continue to take remains to be seen. But, the North Korean state, as the exclusive provider of goods and services, employment, culture, and information, whose sole intention is to remain in power, will only continued to be supported and expand English education if it remains to be beneficial to the state and to the juche idea. “The purpose of learning and introducing things from abroad should always be to gain a better understanding of our own things and to carry out our revolution and construction more efficiently” (“Theses on Socialist Education”).
It is likely that English education will continue to be ideologically-influenced as an antidote to the growing necessity of openness that studying English requires. Tan and Postiglione state that as knowledge of the outside world grows the task of indoctrination increases (271). Kaplan and Baldauf assert that the North Korean government has tried hard to create a completely monolingual society with one objective (1031). Foreign languages, like English, are seen as a means for socialist construction, taught for political purposes (Kaplan and Baldauf, 2005).
In 1958, Kim Il Sung delivered a speech on educational matters, giving six major goals for school instruction; the second is relevant here: “[T]hings new are destined to conquer things old” (Kim, Hyung-chan 836). English has been the medium of communication for much of the world for some time now; although North Korea has made progress in the provision of English education, however small, in recent years, much work remains. ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 11
Francis Fukuyama?s „end of history? is the final destination of mankind?s ideological evolution. It is where western liberal democracy is the final human government – witnessed from the collapse of the Soviet Union. We might have to wait to the final end of the cold war until North Korea pulls ahead in English education with determined stride, among other things, and join the world community (“The End of History?”).
References
???. “??? ?????:?????? ?????. (Foreign Language Education in North
Korea: From Russian to English).” DBPIA – ?? Database ???. 29 June 2009
<http://www.dbpia.co.kr/view/ar_view.asp?arid=93606>
?, ??. “??, ??? ??? ??, ??? ??? ???? ?? ??.?? « ??? ??
???? ????? (Extension and Expansion of English Education by a Native English
Teacher in North Korea).” VOP.co.kr 23 May 2008. 9 May 2009 <http://news.vop.co.kr/A00000207237.html>.
?, ??. “??,???? ??? ?? ?? (North Korea, High Interest For Training English Teachers).”
voanews.com 14 July 2008. 9 May 2009 <http://www.voanews.com/Korean/archive/2008-
07/2008-07-14- voa14.cfm?renderforprint=1&textonly=1&&TEXTMODE=1&CFID=189150253&CFT OKEN=96309886&jsessionid=de3012f4857587495b8d79131f33695c655c>.
“A Challenge for Peaceful Engagement.” MCC Washington Office Guide to North Korea.
(Mennonite Central Committee). n.d.
<http://mcc.org/us/washington/resources/guide/northkorea_guide.pdf>.
Baik, Martin Jonghak. Language, Ideology, and Power: English Textbooks of Two Koreas.
Seoul: Thaehaksa, 1994.
Bilbow, Grahame. “North Korean Teacher Training Programme.” E-mail to Michael Schulman.
8 May 2009. ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 12
Borrie, Donald. “Your North Korean Teacher Program.” E-mail to Michael Schulman. 5 May
2009.
Bowers, Andy. “North Korea’s Confusing Brand of English.” National Public Radio (NPR). 10
October 2006. 8 May 2009.
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6231074>.
“Country Profile: North Korea.” Library of Congress – Federal Research Division. June 2007. 8
May 2009. <http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/North_Korea.pdf>.
“English Instructors Needed – Global Aid Network, Canada.” Global Aid Network, Canada. 29 June 2009
<http://www.globalaid.net/projects/dprk-north-korea>.
“English Lessons in N. Korea.” 25 July 2008. Dong-A Ilbo.
<http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2008072541188
Fouser, Robert J. “English Education in North Korea: A Peak into the Unknown.” 2001. 8 May
2009. <http://yuldo.net/asian-eng/abstracts/seminar-23-fouser.pdf.>
Fukuyama, Francis. “The End of History?” 2003. 8 May 2009.
<http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm>.
Kaplan, Robert B., Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. “Language-in-Education Policy and Planning.”
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Hinkel, Eli, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2005.
Kearns, Tim. “A Look Behind the Curtain of Repression and Isolation.” Telegraph.co.uk. 11
Oct. 2006. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1531187/A-look-behind-the-curtain-of-repression-and-isolation.html >.
_________. “Some More Saturday.” E-mail to Michael Schulman. 16 May 2009.
_________. “Tim K Friday.” E-mail to Michael Schulman. 15 May 2009.
Kim, Eun-ju and Yeon-hee Choi. “An Analysis of English Textbooks and English Teaching
Methods in South and North Korea.” English Teaching. 54.4 (1999): 177-98.
Kim, Hyun. “N. Korea Welcoming Native English Teachers with Open Arms.” Siam Daily ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 13
News. 14 Feb. 2009. 8 May 2009. <http://english.siamdailynews.com/asia-news/eastern-asia-news/korea-news/north-korea-news/north-korea-welcoming-native-english-teachers-with-open-arms.html.>
Kim, Hyung-chan. “Ideology and Indoctrination in the Development of North Korean
Education.” Asian Survey. 9.11 (1969): 831-41.
Kim, Il Sung. “Theses on Socialist Education.” Korea Computer Center in DPR Korea. 2002.
8 May 2009. <www.kcckp.net/en/book/download.php?/+2002>.
Kim, Kyeong-ok (alias). “I was an English Teacher in North Korea.” Citizens’ Alliance for
North Korean Human Rights. 6 Nov. 2008. 8 May 2009
<http://eng.nkhumanrights.or.kr/bbs/bbs/board.php?bo_table=evidence&wr_id=110.>.
Lamers, Matthew. “Teaching English in N.K.” The Korea Herald. 7 Oct. 2008.
<http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2008/10/07/200810070036.a
sp>.
Marshall Cavendish Corporation. World and Its People: Eastern and Southern Asia. New York:
Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2007.
“N. Koreans, S. Koreans Have Similar TOEFL Average: Report.” Yonhap News. 14 Feb 2008.
8 May 2009. <http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2008/02/14/76/0401000000AEN20080214005200315F.HTML>.
“North Korea: Higher Education.” Country Studies Series. June 1993. 8 May 2009.
<http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9545.html>.
“NZ Friendship School.” NZ-DPRK Society.
<http://sites.google.com/site/nzdprksociety/nz-friendship-school>.
Park, Youngsoon. “Language Policy and Language Education in North Korea.” Korea Journal
[Seoul]. 31.1 (1991): 28-41.
______________. International Handbook of Reading Education. Hladczuk,
John and William Eller, eds. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1992.
Postiglione, Gerard A., and Jason Tan. “Going to school in East Asia – Google Books.” Google Books. 29
June 2009 <http://books.google.com/books?id=HuE– ‘We learn English for our revolution’ 14
CIdDuEC&dq=Going+to+School+in+East+Asia.&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=aGGiT-
jx1j&sig=LBCzn-
tSHq7NufX1Rd0YOAxnuoE&hl=en&ei=am4KSoTkOZPEtAP569TYCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=re
sult&resnum=4>.
Prey, Robert. “How Do You Say „Imperialism??: The English Language Teaching Industry and
The Culture of Imperialism in South Korea.” Master?s Thesis. Simon Fraser U, 2005. <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/dspace/retrieve/2080/etd1708.pdf>.
“Pyongyang College of Foreign Languages Allows Escape from „Closed Society?.” Digital
Chosunilbo (English Edition). 21 Dec. 2001. 8 May 2009. <http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200112/200112210187.html>.
Singh, Michael, Peter Kell, and Ambigapathy Pandian. ” Appropriating English: The Global Business of Teaching
English in South East Asia.” Google Books. 29 June 2009
Smith, Hazel. “Bad, Mad, Sad or Rational Actor? Why the ‘Securitization’ Paradigm Makes for
Poor Policy Analysis of North Korea.” International Affairs. 76.3 (2000): 593-617.
Song, Jae-jong. “The Juche Ideology: English in North Korea.” English Today. 18.1 (2002):
47-52.
Taylor, William J. “North Korea: Avoid Another Crossroads.” Nautilus Institute Policy Forum
Online. 13 March 2001. 8 May 2009.
<http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0102F_Taylor.html>.
| “Test and Score Data Summary for TOEFL Internet-based and Paper-based Tests.” ETS. 1 Jan. 2009. 22 June 2009 <http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/test_score_data_summary_2008.pdf> |
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
