There is still a predominance of audiolingual and grammar translation approaches in English language teaching in Taiwan. Thus, communicative activities and authentic language tasks that are meaningful for the students and create opportunities for them to engage in real communication and social interaction are not often planned for here. While the traditional teaching methodologies do help to prepare students for reading and writing English, they do not give students the opportunity to practice and develop their speaking and listening skills.
Little, if any, practice is provided to develop the students' communicative or pragmatic English competence. Researchers have pointed out that the grammar translation approach is continually reinforced. When some of the students who have been taught with the grammar translation method become English teachers, they are most likely to use the same method in their teaching.
Given the focus of traditional education in Taiwan on rote learning and recitation, the introduction of new methods of teaching and learning is something that many teachers -- especially older ones -- might be uncomfortable with. Such practices may be a cultural step that many senior teachers are unwilling to take too quickly.
For example, a three-year study of elementary school teachers' use of communicative language teaching in Taiwan states that some researchers question the appropriateness of communicative language teaching in Chinese classrooms. Many Taiwanese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers still believe that teaching should focus on the presentation of discrete grammatical points and that students should strive for high accuracy. These classrooms tend to be teacher-centered.
Task-oriented or problem-based learning is often not perceived as serious learning. So while researchers here have proposed the adoption of more communicative approaches to teaching EFL, the traditional grammar-translation and audiolingual methods continue to be the dominant methods.
The Cambridge Examinations Center published a study of English proficiency of Taiwanese children in 2004 and ranked them 11th among the 16 nations that took part in the study -- down from 9th in 2003.
The main reasons for this deterioration in English proficiency were that most English classes in schools focus primarily on reading and writing skills, and that the traditional grammar translation method remains the most common approach used by EFL teachers. Many children are thus not provided opportunities to use language for genuine communication, and their English communication ability remains at a low level.
Lin Wen-chi (
The Taipei Times article "Poor English skills are hurting nation's competitiveness" (July 5, 2005, page 10) reported that Taiwanese Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) test-takers have been gradually losing competitiveness in the finance and technology fields owing to poor English skills. According to Education Testing Services, Taiwanese students scored an average of 523 points on the TOEIC, ranking 8th among the 15 Asian nations that make up major Asian financial and technology markets.
English instruction is still too exam-oriented because teachers must prepare students for the Scholastic Aptitude Tests and tests administered to applicants for entry into particular university departments. Even though the Joint College Entrance Examination (JCEE) was abolished in 2001, it was replaced with the Diversified College Entrance Package in 2002.
The English components of the examinations are similar to the English tests on the JCEE exams: They focus primarily on testing grammatical knowledge, reading comprehension and vocabulary. Little change has actually occurred in elementary and high school English classrooms. Students are still not encouraged to use English in authentic communicative situations such as exchanging information, arranging meetings, solving problems, engaging in daily business and shopping transactions and other tasks.
Apart from the impact of the traditional method of teaching and learning, there are other constraints on teachers that might negatively impact on their ability or interest in using more communicative approaches in the classroom, such as a lack of funding for teacher training, staff shortages and large class sizes.
Another factor that might hinder communicative language teaching is the fact that teachers want to ensure that their students will pass the school entrance exams for admission to respected junior and senior high schools and universities. Given the large amount of information students need to retain for these exams, using a time-consuming communicative approach may not be a priority.
Thus, once they pass the university entrance exams, students find themselves unprepared for the communicative-based university EFL programs. Native English speaking EFL instructors often say that Taiwanese university students, who have had several years of English language education prior to university, are still unable to communicate effectively and lack the self-confidence to express themselves clearly.
Because public schools tend not to encourage creative thinking, open discussion, opinion-sharing or critical analysis, many students are not prepared to participate in communicative, problem-based EFL classes at university. University students who have studied English in the public school system using grammar translation and audio-lingual methods tend to have learning preferences that are more form-focused or grammar-oriented than communicative.
Native English speaking EFL instructors in universities meet many students who appear emotionally and academically unprepared for autonomous, cooperative and communicative learning. Many of these students prefer a teacher-centered, lecture-oriented and text-based pedagogy in which the teacher lectures and covers a blackboard with facts and information for students to record and then repeat in examinations. As a result, the motivation to use English communicatively is quite low among many students.
Despite many teachers' understanding of the new goals and policies prescribed by the Ministry of Education which emphasize a focus on meaningful language use and movement away from grammar translation instruction, communicative language teaching and strategy training do not seem to be a priority for instructors.
Teachers who operate within school cultures and belief systems that are not commensurate with the principles espoused by communicative language teaching are less likely to be in a position to abandon the traditional approaches to teaching.
Fred Shannon
Chinese Culture University
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS