"I Tried My Best": The Hidden Curriculum in Student Self-Assessments in a Korean University EFL Classroom

Abstract

This study explores the implicit values and cultural norms embedded in student self-assessment essays submitted as part of a grade justification task in a Korean university English course. Through discourse analysis of 75 student reflections, I identify recurring themes of obedience, effort, attendance, and humility that reflect a hidden curriculum of behavioral conformity. Special attention is given to how students position themselves in relation to grading authority, how deference operates within their writing, and what this reveals about institutional expectations in EFL contexts. Rather than demonstrating critical self-analysis, students overwhelmingly perform moral worthiness through culturally conditioned codes of apology and compliance, suggesting that academic writing in this context functions as much as moral performance as linguistic practice.

Keywords: hidden curriculum, critical discourse analysis, EFL pedagogy, student self-assessment, cultural scripts

Bio: Maria Lisak EdD (How to cite)

With over 30 years of EFL experience, Maria Lisak, EdD is a Full-time Professor in the Department of Administration Welfare at Chosun University, where she teaches social entrepreneurship in English using experiential learning and sociocultural approaches. Her work integrates constructivist and emancipatory frameworks, with research focusing on funds of knowledge, Gwangju as Method, and social justice education. She also designs educational materials for diverse ESP contexts, linking classroom practice with community needs. Her current interests include literacy, culture, and language education, and participatory frameworks for teacher wellbeing. She is the current President of the Gwangju-Jeonnam Chapter of KOTESOL, and a lifetime member of KOTESOL and AsiaTEFL. Her interdisciplinary work invites reflection on multimodal pedagogies, material making, and context-driven innovation in borderland spaces.

Introduction

At the end of last semester, I asked my Korean university students to justify their final grades in a five-paragraph English essay. What I expected were reflections on learning outcomes, struggles with specific skills, and honest self-assessments of their English development. What I received instead were 75 essays that read more like apology letters than academic reflections.

"I know I'm not good at English, but I always listened carefully and never missed class," wrote one student. Another began with, "I'm sorry that I can't speak well in English. I know I need to improve." Essay after essay emphasized effort over achievement, attendance over analysis, and humility over honest self-evaluation. Students who had demonstrated genuine growth in their writing seemed unable—or unwilling—to claim credit for their progress.

This disconnect between what I asked for and what students produced led me to examine these essays not just as language learning artifacts, but as windows into what Philip Jackson (1968) famously termed the "hidden curriculum"—the implicit lessons schools teach about behavior, values, and power structures that exist alongside the official academic content. In the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education in Korea, these student reflections expose an invisible layer of institutional socialization where success becomes tied not only to English proficiency but to learned codes of humility, deference, and compliant self-presentation.

The stakes of this analysis extend beyond mere curiosity about student writing patterns. As EFL educators, we often focus on linguistic competence while remaining blind to the cultural and ideological work our assignments perform. When students write in English, they're not just demonstrating language skills—they're negotiating identity, authority, and belonging within educational systems that carry specific expectations about how "good students" should present themselves. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for creating more equitable and empowering pedagogical practices.

Theoretical Framework

Hidden Curriculum and Educational Socialization

The concept of hidden curriculum, first articulated by Jackson (1968) and later developed by critical educators like Michael Apple (1979) and Henry Giroux (1983), refers to the unwritten lessons students learn about hierarchy, conformity, and social relations through the structure and practices of schooling. While official curricula focus on academic content, the hidden curriculum teaches students how to navigate power structures, what kinds of behavior are rewarded, and how to position themselves as legitimate participants in educational spaces.

Apple's (1979) analysis of how schools reproduce social inequalities helps us understand that curriculum is never neutral—it carries ideological messages about what knowledge counts, whose voices matter, and how students should relate to authority. In language learning contexts, this dynamic becomes particularly complex because students must not only acquire linguistic skills but also learn the cultural codes embedded within the target language and its educational practices.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Language as Social Practice

Norman Fairclough's (1995) framework for Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) provides tools for examining how language both reflects and constructs social relationships. Rather than viewing student writing as simply demonstrating language proficiency, CDA encourages us to analyze how discourse positions speakers and listeners within particular power relationships and ideological frameworks.

Van Dijk's (2006) work on discourse and dominance further illuminates how seemingly neutral language practices can reproduce social hierarchies. In the context of student self-assessments, we can examine not just what students say about their learning, but how their linguistic choices position them in relation to institutional authority and cultural expectations of appropriate student behavior.

Confucian Heritage Culture and Educational Values

The Korean educational context brings additional layers of cultural meaning to classroom interactions. Scholars of Confucian Heritage Culture (CHC) in education have identified specific values that shape East Asian learning environments: emphasis on harmony, respect for hierarchical relationships, reverence for teachers, and the moral significance of diligent effort (Yum, 1987; Robinson, 2003).

These cultural values aren't simply background context—they actively shape how students understand their roles, responsibilities, and relationships within educational settings. The emphasis on collective harmony can discourage individual self-promotion, while respect for authority may limit students' willingness to challenge or critically evaluate their educational experiences. Understanding these dynamics is essential for interpreting student discourse in Korean EFL contexts.

Moral Selfhood and Technologies of Self

Michel Foucault's (1988) concept of "technologies of the self" offers a framework for understanding how individuals learn to constitute themselves as moral subjects through specific practices of self-examination and self-narration. In educational contexts, assignments that require self-reflection can function as technologies of self, teaching students not just to assess their learning but to construct themselves as particular kinds of subjects—obedient, grateful, appropriately humble.

Michalinos Zembylas' (2003) work on emotion and self-formation in education extends this analysis, showing how educational practices shape not just what students think but how they feel about themselves and their place in institutional hierarchies. The emotional labor of performing appropriate student identity becomes a crucial component of academic success.

Context and Method

Classroom Context

This study emerges from my teaching in an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course designed for welfare major students at a mid-sized university in South Korea. The course, required for all students in the department, focuses on developing academic writing skills while introducing content relevant to welfare administration practice. Students are primarily Korean, with occasional international students from other East Asian countries.

Throughout the semester, students practiced standard five-paragraph essay structure through weekly assignments that received both written feedback and individual conferences. I consistently emphasized the importance of clear thesis statements, evidence-based arguments, and critical analysis. Students had access to rubrics, sample essays, and detailed feedback on previous assignments, creating what I believed was a transparent assessment environment.

The final grade justification assignment emerged from my desire to promote student reflection and agency in the assessment process. Rather than simply assigning grades based on my evaluation, I wanted students to engage in metacognitive analysis of their own learning and advocate for their performance. The prompt was straightforward: "Write a five-paragraph essay justifying the grade you believe you deserve in this course. Consider your participation, assignment quality, improvement over time, and effort throughout the semester."

Data Collection

At the end of the semester, 75 students submitted their grade justification essays through a Google Form. All essays were written in English, following the five-paragraph format we had practiced throughout the course. Students understood that these reflections would be considered alongside my own assessments in determining final grades, adding a practical dimension to the assignment beyond mere reflection.

The essays varied in length from approximately 300 to 800 words, with most falling in the 400-500 word range. While some students demonstrated sophisticated analysis of their learning progression, the majority followed remarkably similar patterns in their rhetorical strategies and thematic emphases.

Analytic Method

I approached these essays using discourse analysis techniques informed by Critical Discourse Analysis, focusing on recurring rhetorical patterns and thematic content rather than linguistic accuracy or formal essay structure. My analysis involved multiple readings of the complete dataset, identifying patterns in:

Lexical choices: Frequency and context of specific words and phrases, particularly those related to effort ("try," "hard," "difficult"), apology ("sorry," "forgive"), and gratitude ("thank you," "appreciate")

Moral language: How students constructed concepts of deserving, responsibility, and worthiness in relation to their academic performance

Subject positioning: How students positioned themselves and their instructor within hierarchical relationships, including analysis of active versus passive voice constructions

Cultural scripts: Recurring narrative patterns that suggested shared cultural understandings of appropriate student behavior and self-presentation

The analysis was inductive, allowing themes to surface from the data rather than imposing predetermined categories. However, my theoretical framework in critical pedagogy and discourse analysis inevitably shaped what I noticed and how I interpreted student language choices.

Findings

"I Always Listened Carefully": Obedience and Deference as Self-Justification

The most striking pattern across student essays was the consistent emphasis on behavioral compliance over academic achievement. Students repeatedly justified their grades through appeals to their conduct rather than their learning outcomes:

"I know I'm not good at English, but I always listened carefully and never missed class. I sat in the front row and never used my phone during lesson."

"Even though my English is still poor, I was always respectful to teacher and followed all the rules. I never talked with friends during class time."

"I may not be the best student in writing, but I was never late and I always brought my textbook and notebook."

This rhetorical strategy reveals a fascinating displacement: rather than analyzing their English development or critically evaluating their academic performance, students constructed their worthiness through demonstrations of institutional compliance. Perfect attendance, physical positioning in the classroom, and adherence to behavioral expectations became the primary evidence for grade justification.

What makes this pattern particularly significant is how it positions students in relation to educational authority. Rather than claiming agency over their learning or advocating for recognition of their intellectual growth, students present themselves as objects of institutional approval who have successfully performed the role of "good student" through obedience and deference.

"I Tried My Best": The Work Ethic as Redemption

Perhaps the most frequently recurring phrase across all essays was some variation of "I tried my best" or "I worked hard." This appeal to effort appeared in multiple contexts:

"I know my grammar is not perfect, but I tried my best every week. I did my homework even when it was very difficult and I didn't understand."

"Maybe I can't speak English fluently, but I always tried hard. I spent many hours studying vocabulary and practicing writing."

"I tried my best in every assignment. Even if my grade was not high, I never gave up and always submitted my work."

The rhetorical function of these statements extends beyond simple descriptions of study habits. Students consistently used effort as a form of moral currency, suggesting that sincere trying should be rewarded regardless of outcomes. This reflects a particular understanding of educational justice where moral worth—demonstrated through hard work and persistence—becomes more significant than academic achievement.

Interestingly, many students seemed to view effort and ability as mutually exclusive categories. Rather than arguing "I worked hard and therefore improved," the typical pattern was "I may not be skilled, but I worked hard." This construction reveals an internalized belief that claiming competence might be inappropriate or arrogant, while claiming effort remains safely humble.

"I'm Sorry I Can't Speak Well": Hierarchy and Apology

A substantial portion of essays began or concluded with explicit apologies, positioning students as inherently deficient and appropriately remorseful:

"I'm sorry that I can't speak well in English. I know I need to improve more and I will study harder next semester."

"I apologize for my poor pronunciation and grammar mistakes. I understand that I am not a good English student yet."

"I'm sorry to disappoint you with my English level. I know I should be better after taking this class."

These apologies reveal a complex negotiation of face and hierarchy. Students position themselves as subordinate subjects who recognize their inadequacy while simultaneously demonstrating their appropriate humility. The apologies function not just as expressions of regret but as performances of cultural competence—showing that they understand their proper place within educational hierarchies.

The structure of these apologies also suggests an internalized sense of personal responsibility for systemic challenges. Rather than acknowledging the difficulties of second language acquisition or the constraints of their educational context, students frame their limitations as personal failures requiring apology and future redemption.

"I Was Helped by This Class": Passive Voice and Deflected Agency

Analysis of grammatical patterns revealed a strong tendency toward passive voice constructions, particularly when students described positive outcomes or improvements:

"My writing was improved through this course." (Rather than "I improved my writing")

"I was helped by the teacher's feedback." (Rather than "I used the teacher's feedback to improve")

"My confidence was built by practicing presentations." (Rather than "I built confidence through practice")

This consistent deflection of agency suggests a cultural script that discourages claiming ownership of success or improvement. While students were willing to take responsibility for failures or limitations, positive outcomes were typically attributed to external forces—the teacher, the course, or helpful circumstances.

The pattern becomes even more pronounced when contrasted with how students described their efforts and intentions, which consistently used active voice: "I tried hard," "I studied every day," "I attended every class." Students claimed agency over their moral performance while deflecting ownership of their academic achievements.

Discussion

These findings reveal that grade justification essays function as sites of complex cultural and ideological work that extends far beyond language learning assessment. Students are not simply reflecting on their English development—they are performing their understanding of appropriate relationships to authority, knowledge, and selfhood within Korean educational contexts.

The Performance of Moral Worthiness

The consistent emphasis on effort, attendance, and behavioral compliance suggests that students understand academic success as fundamentally moral rather than intellectual. This aligns with Confucian educational values that emphasize diligence and respect for authority, but it also reveals how these values can become divorced from critical thinking and self-advocacy.

Students constructed elaborate cases for their worthiness based on their moral performance rather than their learning outcomes. This creates a problematic dynamic where academic achievement becomes secondary to the demonstration of appropriate cultural scripts. The danger is not in valuing effort and respect, but in allowing these values to substitute for intellectual engagement and critical self-analysis.

Subject Formation and Educational Authority

Following Foucault's analysis of technologies of self, these essays reveal how students learn to constitute themselves as appropriate educational subjects through practices of self-examination and confession. The grade justification assignment, intended to promote student agency, instead became a vehicle for reinforcing hierarchical relationships and cultural expectations of humility.

Students consistently positioned themselves as objects of institutional judgment rather than agents of their own learning. Even when advocating for higher grades, they framed their appeals through demonstrations of compliance and appropriate deference. This pattern suggests that educational practices designed to promote student voice may inadvertently reinforce existing power structures if they fail to address underlying cultural scripts about appropriate student identity.

The Cultural Specificity of Self-Assessment

The striking consistency of these patterns across 75 essays suggests that students are drawing on shared cultural resources for understanding how to present themselves in educational contexts. These are not individual personality traits but learned strategies for navigating institutional expectations.

This cultural specificity became particularly evident when compared to essays from the few international students in the class, whose reflections followed markedly different patterns. While Korean students emphasized effort and apology,

Implications for Critical Pedagogy

These findings challenge educators to examine how our assessment practices may inadvertently reproduce cultural patterns that limit student agency and critical thinking. The grade justification assignment, designed with good intentions to promote reflection and advocacy, instead became a site where students performed cultural scripts of deference and self-diminishment.

This doesn't mean abandoning reflective assignments, but rather developing more awareness of the cultural and ideological work these tasks perform. We need pedagogical approaches that honor cultural values of respect and humility while also creating space for students to develop critical analytical skills and claim agency over their learning.

Implications for Teaching

Recognizing the Moral and Affective Dimensions of Language Learning

EFL educators must develop greater sensitivity to the moral and emotional labor students perform when writing in a second language. For Korean students, writing in English involves not just linguistic translation but cultural navigation—deciding how to present themselves within educational systems that may carry different expectations about appropriate student behavior.

Understanding these dynamics can help teachers interpret student writing more accurately and respond more supportively. When students emphasize effort over achievement, they may be drawing on cultural scripts that value humility and hard work rather than simply avoiding critical analysis of their learning.

Designing More Equitable Reflection Tasks

Writing tasks that ask for self-assessment need careful consideration of how they position students in relation to authority and cultural expectations. Rather than generic prompts that may inadvertently invite performances of worthiness, educators can design reflection tasks that specifically scaffold critical analysis while respecting cultural values.

Prior to this assignment of "justify your grade," I asked the students to "identify two specific areas where your English improved this semester and explain what learning strategies contributed to that growth." This reframes reflection around learning processes rather than moral worthiness while still encouraging metacognitive analysis. While many students reused and paraphrased these prior assignments, as I had encouraged them to do, some students still did not apply this scaffolding.

Supporting Agentive Academic Identity

Helping students develop more agentive relationships to their learning requires explicit attention to cultural scripts about appropriate self-presentation. Teachers can model language for claiming achievements ("I successfully developed my argument structure through...") and create low-stakes opportunities for students to practice advocating for their intellectual contributions.

This doesn't mean abandoning cultural values of humility and respect, but rather expanding the repertoire of ways students can present themselves as legitimate academic participants. Students need opportunities to practice intellectual confidence alongside cultural appropriateness.

Creating Dialogue Rather Than Confession

Moving away from assessment practices that position students as supplicants seeking approval, educators can design reflection tasks that invite genuine dialogue about learning experiences. This might involve structured peer discussions about challenges and strategies, collaborative analysis of learning goals, or teacher-student conferences that position both parties as contributors to understanding student development.

The goal is creating educational relationships where students feel safe to honestly analyze their strengths and limitations without performing elaborate demonstrations of worthiness or appropriate deference.

Conclusion

Grade justification essays offer a valuable lens into the hidden curriculum of EFL education in Korean universities, revealing how academic writing becomes a site for performing cultural scripts about appropriate student identity. Rather than simply demonstrating linguistic fluency, students express themselves through culturally conditioned codes of effort, apology, and obedience that may inadvertently limit their development of critical analytical skills.

These findings don't suggest that cultural values of respect and humility are problematic, but rather that educators need greater awareness of how these values interact with pedagogical practices designed to promote student voice and critical thinking. When students consistently apologize for their English abilities while demonstrating genuine growth, or emphasize behavioral compliance over intellectual engagement, they reveal the complex cultural work involved in second language academic writing.

For educators committed to more equitable and empowering pedagogical practices, attending to these discourses helps us understand how classroom practices can inadvertently reproduce limiting scripts about student identity and appropriate academic behavior. By developing more culturally responsive approaches to reflection and assessment, we can create educational spaces that honor students' cultural backgrounds while supporting their development as confident, critical participants in academic communities.

The patterns revealed in these essays invite further research into how cultural scripts operate in other EFL contexts and how pedagogical practices might better support students in developing both linguistic competence and intellectual agency. As language educators, our responsibility extends beyond teaching grammar and vocabulary to creating learning environments where students can develop authentic, empowered academic voices that honor both their cultural identities and their intellectual capabilities.

This research emerges from ongoing efforts to examine and transform power dynamics in language education. I am grateful to my students for their trust in sharing their reflections and for continually teaching me about the complexity of cross-cultural pedagogical relationships.

References

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.

Foucault, M., Martin, L. H., Gutman, H., & Hutton, P. H. (1988). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. Tavistock.

Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin & Garvey.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Longman.

Robinson, J. (2003). Communication in Korea: Playing things by eye. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 57-64). Wadsworth.

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383.

Yum, J. O. (1987). Korean philosophy and communication. In D. L. Kincaid (Ed.), Communication theory: Eastern and western perspectives (pp. 71-86). Academic Press.

Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions, resistance, and self-formation. Educational Theory, 53(1), 107-127.

Find my other research papers here.

Search This Blog

Literacy Culture and Language Education