Teaching functional English
The state of TEFL (teaching English as a foreign language) in Taiwan continues to languish.
The recent test results of English as a foreign language (TOEFL) among Taiwanese nationals and the writing skills of high school students have recently shown significant declines.
The decline points to one major culprit: A lack of analytical abilities spawned by an educational system that relies heavily on memorization and mechanical learning.
The TOEFL test results started to hit a severe decline after the spoken English component was introduced, which indicates that the problem basically lies in a skill that requires the creative production of meaningful utterances (the same applies to writing), unlike the listening and reading components.
The latter are passive skills as the materials in the exams are already provided. This is a clever strategy and cramming could help the test taker in listening, reading and grammar structure, but not in the speaking and writing components, because in this case the materials are not provided, and the examinees are expected to create meaningful materials — a daunting task for learners who have spent years consumed learning by rote.
From kindergarten all the way to college, the craze to spell correctly, memorize vocabulary and acquire “good” pronunciation is almost always the be-all and end-all of English language teaching.
Learning how to grow, socialize and meaningfully communicate using English is more foreign than the language itself. English is phonics, vocabulary-building, pronunciation (and tongue twisters), prescriptive grammar rules, idiomatic expressions and proverbs.
So-called English courses are often an invitation to meaninglessness, irrelevance and the artificial delivery of the materials taught. Kids are asked to mechanically repeat words or phrases out of context. High school students are required to memorize between 5,000 to 7,000 words — in most cases out of context.
In many institutions of higher learning, students continue to be exposed to materials that are nothing but an extension to the materials taught in high school, materials that are barely conducive to independent thinking — the core skill required of a college student.
Far-fetched sentences, adages, and famous quotes (that bear no hallmarks of meaningful interconnectivity) dot hallways and bathrooms in every school in the country. These sentences are given only eye service — and rightly so.
Further, since the target is to teach phonics, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, idioms, proverbs — and more tongue twisters, the semantic component of language is usually not factored in, which gives rise to boredom and/or frustration — which could, in turn, lead to an aversion and probably hatred of the language and the agent that doles out this “language.”
Finally, what is the purpose behind learning a language if language does not create knowledge? Vocabulary out of context does not create knowledge; vocabulary in utterances that bear no homogeneity, coherence and cohesion will not create knowledge — and will only garner very low scores in achievement tests, especially in speaking and writing.
Knowledge, however, creates useful and frequently used vocabulary. When students learn prescriptive grammar rules, they are in fact not learning language, they are — as William Moulton, a prominent ESL educator, put it — learning about language, and learning about language is obviously not learning that language. The language is stripped of its essence, and the culture that is attached to it is extracted, rendering it non-functional lingo.
A need for a significant change in how language is taught is warranted. However, the hurdles that could hamper this change are too many to overcome: Adopting a novel approach to the teaching of English would necessitate an overhaul of the whole educational system.
The change would be met with resistance from teachers who find convenience in lecturing and spoon feeding. It would be met with resistance from those who advocate the preservation of traditional cultural values through the teaching of English in the mother tongue. It would also be met with resistance from prospective employers who could see a future empowered work force as a threat to the smoothness in employer-employee dynamics, and ultimately to productivity.
Additionally, potential local teachers of English who are very proficient in English would look elsewhere before they give the slightest thought to taking up teaching English as a profession.
As an MOE task force is set up to put Taiwan’s educational system under the chisel in the near future, let us hope that the state of TEFL is given some credence, and while we cannot expect drastic changes, a positive change — though small — should act as a springboard for better things to come — a new TEFL: Teaching English as Functional Language.
MO REDDAD
I-Shou University,
Kaohsiung County
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS