Using Korean Stories for Oppositional Readings

Oppositional Reading – Lesson Plan

Background: 

I have 2 different classes at DKU: Reading and Writing, and Listening and Speaking.  All of my classes are Beginner level or first year students that have not been leveled. The same lesson plan will be used for both classes.  In the reading class, I give them a copy of the story.  In the listening class, I read it 2 or 3 times.

Prior to the lesson elucidated below, I have already given them a lecture on “Interpreting Stories”.  This lecture covers the basics of plot, characters, setting, conflict, themes, lessons/moral of the story etc. 

I have also introduced them to oppositional reading by giving them examples of an oppositional interpretation.  I explained that a received reading was when the reader understands what the author intended; an oppositional reading is essentially any other reading/interpretation that you can formulate that makes sense.  In some of the more fluent classes I have given a more detailed and intricate explanation.

They have had a significant amount of practice at using specific details to guess at the setting.  They have also had to read stories and decide what the major themes were.  The focus was getting them to extract the lesson/moral of the story/message.  I have taught them to try and formulate the lesson/moral as an “If _____, then _______” kind of statement. 

Using the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” as an example, “If you tell lies, then people will stop believing what you say.”

A student described the movie “Old Boy” as having this lesson: “If you get too focused on revenge, then bad things will happen to you.”

We have done several stories designed to illustrate the importance of HYO (filial devotion).

Most of my lessons follow the same basic format:

(a)    A few discussion questions related to the text to get them warmed up and introduce the general topic.

(b)    The reading/listening of the text.

(c)    Content questions to ensure they understood the plot and anything else I deem important.  They have time to discuss these questions in pairs, and then we discuss the answers as a class.  (Round 1a)

(d)   More general questions based on opinions/judgments/analysis.  These questions lead to more questions about the important themes and the intended lesson.  After pair discussion, we discuss all of these questions as a class.  (Round 1b)

(e)    Time to come up with an oppositional reading with a partner or small group.

(f)     Before anyone shares their “oppositional reading” I give them a second round of questions designed to lead them to an oppositional reading.  (Round 2)

They are given more time to try and come up with an oppositional reading based on the 2^nd round of questions, then we discuss the answers to the leading questions they just worked with. 

(g)    Students are then invited to share their oppositional reading with the class.  Most of my classes have many students who are quite eager to share their readings.  

In my 2 or 3 classes where the fluency is so low that they do not often volunteer to share their oppositional reading, I just go through the 2^nd round of ‘leading’ questions and try to have them develop an oppositional reading as a class.  (This method is not as interesting because they always end up with MY oppositional reading, rather than some of the readings I get in other classes that I would never have generated myself.)

(h)    Once we have heard a variety of oppositional readings, I try to give them questions to further identify and emphasize the injustice.  I also get them to try and come up with practical measures to address/correct/eliminate/prevent further injustices. (Round 2b)  When soliciting answers on how to combat injustice, I sometimes let them answer in Korean, but then the rest of the class has to try and put that answer into English.

My classes are all two 50 minute periods; one lesson will take up the entire 2 periods.

I usually do not give them more than 2 or 3 questions at a time unless it is in round 1a and the questions only require short/simple answers.  This allows me to leave out some questions in Round 2 if they have already grasped enough to formulate an oppositional reading.

The focus for me is not so much the formulation of an oppositional reading.  The oppositional reading is merely a step in the process.  I focus more on getting them to utilize an oppositional reading to identify injustice; the most important part is trying to come up with practical measures to deal with injustice.  The ultimate goal is to empower students: I want them to be aware of injustice, but more importantly, I want them to believe that they have the power to change the world they live in.

The Introduction:

Before I give them the text I give them 2 or 3 discussion questions to warm up.

1. Do you want to get married?

2. When do you want to get married?

3. What qualities/characteristics will you look for in a spouse?

The idea with these questions is to subtly introduce the ideas of agency and choice into the discussion of marriage.

The Text:

The Poor Scholar and the Minister’s Daughter

In Choson Korea, there was once a government minister who had a beautiful daughter. When she came of age, the minister began to look for an intelligent young man to be her husband. Shortly afterwards, a young scholar came to see the minister to seek his daughter’s hand in marriage. The minister, seeing his poor and shabby appearance, refused him immediately.

However, as it was just past midday, he asked the young man to stay for lunch, and had a table prepared for him, laden with sumptuous dishes and expensive wines.

The poor scholar’s eyes opened wide at the sight of delicacies, which he had never eaten or even seen before. However, he did not eat, but began to wrap up the food and put it in a bag he was carrying.

Greatly surprised, the minister asked the young scholar why he was storing the food away instead of eating it.

The young man replied, “I have never seen such fine dishes before, and so I am taking them home to give to my mother.”

The minister, deeply touched by the man’s devotion, instantly changed his mind and gave him permission to marry his daughter.

The young scholar was the famous Yi Wonik (1547~1634)[1], and went on to become a government minister like his father-in-law.

ROUND 1a

1. Identify the main characters.  Give you partner as much detail as possible to describe each character (Use your adjectives!).  Describe who they are, what they look like, their relationship to other characters, how they behave etc.

2. Discuss the setting.

3. Discuss the basic plot.  Try to agree on what the most important parts of the plot were.  Try to explain the important parts of the plot in as few sentences as possible. 

4. Why did the minister say that the scholar could not marry his daughter?

5. Why did the poor scholar not eat the food that was given to him by the Minister?

6. Did the Minister change his mind and allow the Poor Scholar to marry his daughter?  If so, why did he change his mind?

Round 1b

1. Do you think the Minister made the correct decision?  Why or why not?
2. What would you have done if you were the Minister?
3. How many themes can you find in this story?
4. What theme was most important to the author?
5. What is the moral of this story?  What lesson does it teach?
6. Why would Korean parents read this story to their children?
7. Would you read it to your kids?  Why or Why not?

(The received reading they eventually espouse is usually one of two things.  “If you practice hyo, then good things will happen to you.”  Or, “You should not judge a book by its cover.”  They always agree that the lesson regarding hyo is most likely the received reading that was desired by the author and adult reading it.)

Round 2 (gender issues)

1. Is the Minister’s family similar to Korean families today?  How is it the same?  Different?

2. Does the Minister discuss the Scholar’s proposal with anyone?  What does this tell us about Korean culture at the time?

3. How would you feel if your parents told you that you had to marry someone like the Poor Scholar?

If necessary I would end with much more leading questions like:

1. The Poor Scholar and the Minister make a private agreement about who the daughter will marry.  Do you think they view her as a piece of property that can be given from one man to another without any concern for how she feels or what she thinks? 

2. If so, what does this tell us about the power structure of the Minister’s family?

Round 2b

3. Are there any similarities in the way women were viewed/treated in the story and the status of women in Korean society today?

4. In what ways are men and women equal, or not equal, in Korea today?

5. If there is a power imbalance and/or inequality, is that ok, or is it something that should be changed?

6. If things need to be changed, how can changes be effected?

(REMEMBER THE DOCUMENTARY WE WATCHED ON THE TUNISIAN REVOLUTION.  When it comes to questions about fighting injustice, answers like “the problem is too big to be changed” or “we are only 1 small group of students” ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE ANSWERS!)

Round 2a and b (class issues)

1. The Minister initially refuses the Poor Scholar because of his appearance (and the conclusion based on his appearance that he was poor), do you think this was fair/wise/right? 

2. Do you think that people still judge others based on their appearance and whether not they are affluent?

3. Is it ok to discriminate against someone because of their class?

4. If it is ok in some contexts (choosing a spouse), is it ok in every context? 

5. Is it ok to refuse to hire someone for a job, or enter an elite university, or consider them for a diplomatic post, because their parents are poor?

6. Is ok to give preference/special treatment to people from the landed, or wealthy, class?

7. Is there a difference between showing favoritism to people from a wealthy family and discriminating against someone from a poor family?

8. Can you see any ‘class discrimination’ in the world today?  What about in Korea?

9. If this type of discrimination exists, should we try to stop/prevent class discrimination?  If so, how?

---

Fearlessly ridding the classroom of obstacles to critical thinking

           We were all given a daunting problem to solve.  The ‘problems’ were a variety of obstacles to critical teaching in Korea.   The problem that my expert valiantly and adroitly overcame was the Korean students’ familiar proclivity for refusing to think for him or herself.  We have all observed students’ penchant for simply regurgitating what they believe the teacher wants to hear rather than risk a potentially catastrophic foray into critical thinking.  (Note that we are not addressing the related, and equally pervasive, phenomena of Korean students’ devotion to maintaining homogeneity.) 

            The first, and perhaps most important, step in neutralizing the students’ debilitating tendency to try to find something to memorize is to recognize that the students' objective in attempting to discern what the teacher wants to hear is essentially an aspiration to gain favour.  This drive for acceptance may be based on the sheer enjoyment of pleasing the teacher, or it may be an egocentric ploy to obtain an A+. 

Regardless of the motivation for students’ compulsive desire to tell the teacher what they believe the teacher wants to hear (hereinafter referred to as “x”), it is something that should be encouraged, harnessed, and exploited to promote the teachers' agenda of critical teaching.

Given the foregoing, alleviating the stated problem should be a simple matter of engaging in some “learner training” (thanks Douglas!).  The instructor who is determined to teach critically must force the students to understand that she/he does not want the students to continue in their mindless spewing of “x”, but rather they will be expected to actually think for themselves and express an opinion (preferably an opinion supported by reasons and based on evidence).  They must understand that critical thinking and oppositional interpretations are what they teacher wants.  It could possibly also help if the instructor adopted a marking scheme that rewarded the desired behaviour rather than testing their ability to memorize massive amounts of linguistic information that they are incapable of ever using.

In order to assist students with the potential trauma that will be encountered during the transition to the new “critical curriculum”, my expert also made the following practical suggestions:

1.                            It is imperative to create a classroom environment where everyone feels comfortable speaking and safe expressing their opinions.

2.                            The teacher should try to avoid criticizing a student's opinion or saying something is “wrong” (even if it appears to be poorly reasoned); instead, she/he should encourage the student to try and formulate a new opinion/interpretation.  Leading students in a Socratic manner may be a useful skill when encountering an opinion that is nonsense.

3.                            Exams should avoid using multiple choice and should reward creative and logical answers.

4.                            Discussions and testing should commence with ensuring that the materials were comprehended, but they should also ask about personal opinions.  Students should be questioned (by both the teacher and the other students) on their reasons and evidence for the opinions and interpretations they articulate.

5.                            Smaller classes where students could discuss their opinions and interpretations in groups would allow everyone to have a voice, and it may lessen the stress of speaking in front of an entire class.

6.                            With older and more advanced students, both the teacher and students should learn to play Devil’s Advocate.  On one hand this is the practice of perpetually disagreeing with what a student says in order to force them to explain and defend their utterances.  On the other, it means that the teacher should occasionally “test” the class by floating some ridiculous and unsubstantiated opinions or interpretations so that the students are prodded into disagreeing with the teacher.  When students show the courage and conviction to dare to question or argue with the teacher, they should be publicly praised; the public acclaim will hopefully encourage the other students to engage in similar dissent.