In teaching, less is more
Julie Barff ("English teaching: Check the theory," March 8, page 8) has some harsh words for Chen Shu-chin (
Without joining in the name-calling, let me briefly point out that Barff has not represented my work correctly: Contrary to Barff's statement, I do not maintain that language acquisition ability declines after age six (although some scholars do).
As for the issue of early English, I agree with Chen Shu-Chin: Starting English too early and emphasizing "English-only" education for very young children can crowd out other valuable learning experiences.
But there is another very good reason to reduce emphasis on English in the very early years. Starting later and doing less is actually more efficient for acquiring English: Studies consistently show that older children are significantly faster than younger children in second language acquisition.
In addition, a solid foundation in the first language makes a strong contribution to second language development: Those who are more literate in their first language acquire literacy in the second language more quickly, and those who know more, thanks to a good education in their first language, understand more of what they read and hear in their second language, which speeds acquisition. Ironically, "less is more" in this situation.
Starting English later and devoting more time to developing a strong foundation in Chinese will actually promote English language development. It will also ensure quality education for Taiwanese children and the development of the first language.
It is a win-win situation. Premature and excessive English is lose-lose, bad for both English and academic development.
An important additional point: In situations in which English is crucial for daily life, as in the US, non-English speaking children should begin English as a second language (ESL) classes the first day they enter school.
But the most effective programs also include a great deal of education in the child's primary language.
Research shows that these programs teach English at least as well, and usually better than, all-day English programs.
Barff is correct in her reporting of the results of Canadian French immersion: It is true that these programs produce very good results, and in the original version, early total immersion, instruction is primarily in the second language in the early years.
Research over the last three decades, however, has shown us that there are more efficient models.
In fact, studies show that given an equal number of hours of exposure, children who begin immersion programs later make more progress than those who begin younger, confirming that older children acquire faster.
In my view the research supports the desirability of a strong foundation in the primary language for all students.
I also agree with Barff that our attention should be directed at whether our ESL classes are as effective as they could be.
Use of the most efficient methods (which also happen to be the most pleasant), combined with wide recreational reading in English, will easily produce adequate levels of English-language competence, without starting too early and without crowding other important subjects out of the curriculum. The problem is not lack of time devoted to English, it is methodology and a failure to encourage wide reading.
I presented a paper on this topic, Dealing with English Fever, at the International Symposium sponsored by the English Teachers' Association/ROC last November in Taipei. It can be found on my Web site, www.sdkrashen.com, and in the conference proceedings, published by the Crane Publishing Company in Taipei.
Stephen Krashen
Professor emeritus of
education, University of Southern California
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers