Discursive conflicts in news media and the suspension of a government-led test of English in Korea
Dongil Shin, Eunhae Cho
Language Testing in Asia · 2020
doi:10.1186/s40468-020-00100-7 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
Abstract Drawing on critical discourse analysis methodologies, this study examines the discursive conflicts and strategies employed by newspaper media surrounding the National English Ability Test (NEAT) in Korea. NEAT was reported to cause severe competition among young learners of English and lacked public support. Discursive conflicts over whether NEAT would be legitimized flourished in the media. In this study, the discursive practices adopted by both proponents and opponents of NEAT in two leading Korean newspapers of different political orientations—Chosun Ilbo and Hankyoreh—were analyzed from 2006 to 2016. Over this decade, there were three periods of transformation: creation, expansion, and extinction. During the creation period, the discursive conflict focused on the TOEFL crisis in Korea, expansion on the implementation of NEAT, and extinction on its abolition. From creation to abolition, there were competing rationales for developing, suspending, or abolishing NEAT. This study investigated the underlying orientations (neoliberal and evaluative state) of the two newspapers and found that they examined the pros and cons of using the test. Moreover, the government’s implementation of high-stakes testing and its attempt to reward those who complied and to curb the private education sector stresses market-friendly state interaction, which accordingly perpetuates neoliberal conditions.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.