Recently I attended a conference on English-teaching and learning in Taiwan. One would expect high school teachers, bushiban language instructors and experts on language pedagogy as speakers and participants at such conferences, for it is this group of professionals which, one would assume, is most directly involved in the English-teaching business.
Both guesses are wrong. Speakers at such conferences are nearly exclusively English department doctoral candidates, lecturers and professors. This is surprising because one would assume that English-learning and teaching do not represent academic subjects and need not take place at university departments. Teaching languages is simply not a professor’s cup of tea; it is not an academic enterprise. But this is another wrong guess.
It appears that the opposite view prevails; it seems to be taken for granted that this is exactly what they should do at their departments. Many of those expert professors of English teach at applied or practical English departments, where the vast majority of students, according to their own perceptions, sit in classes to learn English. The curriculums there support these expectations. They are designed accordingly, with an emphasis on basic language skills such as listening, writing, reading and speaking.
The idea behind applied language departments is to offer an education that is supposedly better suited to the labor market than, say, that offered by literature departments. Consequently, communicating in English within specific professional contexts has become a key academic objective.
But what expertise are students to acquire at applied language departments? Is speaking good English the goal, as many would say? This would make for a rather poor academic harvest and is usually not accomplished anyway.
There must be something else, and this is often considered to be English for specific purposes (ESP). But what expertise is offered, say, in the case of business English? Such courses do not prepare you for the business world unless you understand business first; business departments do a better job in this aspect.
What about teachers? Most of them are professors and, apart from language teaching, they also research strategies and techniques related to improvements in the learning and teaching of foreign languages.
So why do students at applied English departments have to learn teaching techniques, considering that conducting linguistic research is not part of the job profiles for the positions that they usually seek after graduating?
They usually go into business, and even if they become teachers, they teach languages rather than conduct research.
But applying teaching skills is not enough. Students don’t learn a language just by being exposed to the “right” technique. This approach ignores the individual dimension of learning and teaching. Essay writing, for instance, can only be taught meaningfully if students are exposed to examples of good practice, along with explanations of why they constitute good practice.
Language teachers don’t need to know how to generate research on language teaching; they need to understand how language works and when to apply which teaching skills in accordance with their personal teaching style.
Their teaching strengths must be the interpretation, contextualization and application/rejection of teaching skills from a pool of options to meet ever-changing classrooms conditions.
Most importantly, they need to be able to provide examples of good practice. In writing classes, for example, they must be good writers to inspire students to write well.
This is supported by philosophical insights and the latest findings in the neurosciences. Learning — especially learning a language — is an individual act and only takes place if the learner is inspired actively to integrate new material into his or her knowledge.
This integration does not happen in the form of applying certain techniques but in the form of interpreting new material as good or bad examples, for which the brain finds and creates rules, resulting in a new world view as it integrates the material into its understanding.
Learning means that the person who learns is changing. Bad teaching does not reckon with changing individuals and traditional societies fear change.
But all this is wrong anyway, because academic institutions such as universities should not need language instructors at all. What should be enhanced and challenged there are brains, not tongues.
Students should be exposed to intellectual and academic practices such as logical thinking and arguing, making sound and balanced judgments, understanding alternate views, thinking abstractly and practicing analytical and critical skills necessary to explore any subject. Literature and other disciplines from the humanities would be apt candidates for such goals.
Stanley Fish calls this “academicizing” the content of study. This can and ought to be standard practice when one is involved in the study of a foreign language at an academic institution.
English departments that do not focus on literature could still make vocational and academic sense if they prioritized academic skills as an important educational element. If mastered, these skills could be applied in any professional circumstances — including the “application” of English.
Any higher education should have this as a goal; any successful profession or society needs people with these skills.
If, however, the applied aspect of the subject dominates teaching, then the academic dimension is lost. Academic institutions turn into vocational schools where the idea of higher education is replaced by professional training programs that prepare students for specific jobs, rendering the institutions superfluous.
Herbert Hanreich is an assistant professor in the Applied English Department at I-Shou University in Kaohsiung County.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS