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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.