In the history of Korean education, state-led and institutionalized education dates back to the Three Kingdoms period on the Korean peninsula. However, specialized teacher education for the purpose of training teachers was not implemented until 1894, with the introduction of the Kabo Reform, the establishment of the School Affairs Office, the reform of the school system, the promulgation of the official system of the Seoul Normal School, and the official establishment of the school. In other words, the beginning of modern teacher education in Korea was promoted simultaneously with the reform of governmental institutions, the reform of the official system, the reform of the status system, the establishment of educational administrative organizations, and the establishment of modern schools. And the original impetus for this series of reforms was not initiated by the Korean government on its own out of a real need, but was carried out under the strong pressure of the Japanese power after the Japanese army forced its way into the royal palace. It is precisely for this reason that the modern teacher education in Korea, which originated with the Kabo Reform, is not developed on the basis of the actual education in Korea through the stages of exploration, practice, and selection, in addition to being strongly transplanted, which has resulted in the impracticality of the system at the institutional level, the insufficiency of facilities and equipment and teachers, the high mobility of teachers and students, and the drift of curricula after the origination of the modern teacher education in Korea. mobility, and a formalized curriculum. Moreover, in the 10 years until the signing of the conclusion of the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty (Ŭlsa Poho Choyak; 乙巳保護條約), Korea had only established the Seoul Normal School, a teacher training institution limited to the training of elementary school teachers, and had not been able to form a systematic teacher education system. This article combines historical data to provide a comprehensive understanding of the background and process of Japan's initiation of modern teacher education in Korea, the formulation of the official system and rules of the Seoul Normal School, and the involvement of actual teaching at the Seoul Normal School, with a view to providing a more comprehensive understanding of the initiation of the modern teacher education system in Korea.

This lecture aims to show the role of the Russian language in the Sovietization of Hungary and other Eastern European countries, and how the Russian language, which is compulsory in school education, became a medium for the ideological and authoritarian purposes of power. The study shows how the Russian language became a quasi-colonial tool in Hungary. The author seeks to contextualise forty years of Russian language teaching in education within a domestic discourse that seeks answers to the question: how can postcolonial and decolonial critique be applied in the post-socialist Eastern European region (Ginelli 2017)? Is there a postcolonial Hungary? The research has its origins in the study of changes in the content and form of Russian language textbooks (2022) and the impact of teaching tools (2023). The research uses a mixed-method approach, which uses the linguistic semantics of political words, expressions and symbols that have determined language teaching to show how they have served ideological integration and orientation. The sources are based on laws (1949, 1961), party decisions (1972), curricula (1950-1989), textbooks and statistics (1948-1989), which determined the teaching of the Russian language. The results of the study show that the Russian language, which aims to unite peoples, despite its changing (decreasing ideological) content, has made little or no contribution to the foreign language skills of Hungarians, and has failed to strengthen internationalism and promote friendly cooperation through language. The theoretical background to this research is new research on the postcolonial character of the region. The findings are controversial, with researchers searching for the specificities of coloniality in Central and Eastern Europe. The former Soviet sphere of interest is described as a "filtered coloniality", a "mutant coloniality", a "post-dependency state". The conceptual approaches of exclusion and inclusion structures, the centre-periphery model, liminality and in-betweenness are used by the authors (Kołodziejczyk, Sandru 2015). The starting point for most of the conceptualizations is I. Wallerstein's interpretation of centre-periphery modernization. Wallerstein sees the historical role of the two great superpowers in the integration of the peripheries into the centre. Wilsonianism envisages the integration of the peripheries in a constitutional form, and Leninism in a revolutionary way (Wallerstein 1972). Hungary, before WWII, colonialist-imperialist aspirations followed nationalist and global racial-civilisational aspirations, but also an East-West betweenness and a critique of the imperialist West. Peripheralization, underdevelopment and emigration developed sympathies with colonial subjects. But also present were alternative colonialisms of semi-peripheral expansionism and racial supremacy (e.g. Balkanism, Orientalism, Turanism). After WWII, state socialist anti-colonial solidarity confronted geopolitical fracturing lines and Western European protectionism. From the 1960s onwards, Hungarian policy tried to compensate for the 'double dependence' of the Soviet Union and the West by opening to Afro-Asian decolonisation (Böröcz 1992). There exists a Hungarian semi-peripheral postcolonial identity politics that sees the country's foreign rulership (Ottoman, Habsburg, Soviet) as a colonial historical experience. Countries in the Eastern European region have a different understanding of decolonization, and a renewed discourse provides new perspectives for interpreting the educational and cultural policies of the former state communist period.