Like Beating a Dead Horse: Reflections on a Lesson in Intercultural Competence

                                                                

With the ICC lesson plan completed, I was eager to find out if my procedures were practical for my students. Through my lesson, I sought to heighten intercultural competence by leading students through a discourse analysis based on the common Korean perception that America is a country of 'White people'.  Even as I write this blog, I am unsure as to whether 'White' is the term I should use for this lesson.  This nagging uncertainty existed as I wrote the lesson plan and was further perpetuated when a student laughed at my use of the term 'white people'.  She pointed to a sheet of paper and said, "That is white."  From my experience, the terms 'white people' and 'black people' are socially and politically acceptable by most Americans. Yet, my student's reaction to the term 'white people', caused me to question the appropriateness of these terms when teaching Korean students, who tend to be overly literal.  On many occasions, a student has corrected me after hearing me call myself 'black'.  They tell me that I am brown.  I always agree and move on.  What I realize, at this very moment, is that I should be teaching my students honestly.  If they have a literal interpretation of 'white people' or 'black people', then I need to explain what the terms mean to the majority of Americans.  Korean students should be taught that 'white' and 'black' are words used to refer to groups of people who share common ancestries based on a shared ancestral continent.  They should be taught that the terms are NOT literal and that people in both groups are diverse in skin coloring.  The point is that I should be the one to teach them these facts.  I doubt that white teachers in Korea are faced with this racial dilemma in the classroom.  In Korea, a white American is called an American and a white Canadian is called a Canadian.  Black people are called African and nationality is always questioned.  The constant doubt of my nationality is rooted, not in antagonism, but in ignorance.  

                                       
                                        This is what my students probably wanted to say to me.

As I considered the different forms of discourse that could be used in my ICC lesson, I could not stop thinking about the posters, fliers and brochures that are used as advertisements for my academy.   I asked my students to compare the group of American students shown on our academy's brochure with pictures of real groups of American students.  I introduced the lesson by showing a food advertisement depicting Psy and students were immediately engaged.  As I went through the first half of my lesson, I was confident in my teaching plan.  The students were interested and responsive and learning the new vocabulary needed for the discourse analysis activity.  As I began the comparison activity, my confidence slowly began to diminish.  My greatest mistake was in the initial discourse task, "Look at the pictures.  Find the similarities and differences."   It was entirely too broad and the answers were based on moods.  Instead of asking a more specific question, I began to monopolize the discourse with further instruction for the same task.   It was beating a poor dead horse again and again.   At one point, I say, "Hmm, I have to change this."  The next question I asked was, "What do they look like?"  They then responded by describing hair color and clothes.  I was struggling as I failed to provoke the intended response.  I thought it was obvious.  The brochure shows a group of all white children.  The authentic pictures show groups of students of many different colors.  With my eyes on the clock, I said, "I'm going to have to change this again."   One student used the brochure to hide her expression disapproval.  The lesson was crumbling before my eyes and I said, "What color are these people?"  While I viewed the question as crass, I was genuinely interested to hear the answer to my final question. I realize the biggest fault in my planning was the impractical expectation that the students would be sensitive to the racial difference.  Secondly, my task instruction was too broad and greatly failed to incite the intended feedback.  Lastly, in my frustration I failed to be calm and monopolized the discourse.  In the future I must carefully plan my wording for task instruction.  I should spend more time thinking of every possible flaw in my planning and not be overly confident.  This is especially true when teaching new lessons or using new techniques.  

Once the students were able to recognize the racial contradictions of the two groups, I asked, "Why did [our academy] choose these students for the brochure?  Why not a group of many different colors? Why does the brochure show only light people?"  Although I asked too many questions and cut off a student as she attempted to answer the first question, once I closed my mouth my students had some very interesting responses.  The most interesting was that 'people of the world' like white people the most.  The student agreement on this point was extremely revealing, as it suggest that some Koreans view themselves in some way inferior to white people.  The short closing discussion ended with the consensus that no one group is better than another.  Even if the students are not convinced that this is true, I hope that our discussion has resulted in positive introspection.  I'll call this lesson, "baby steps."