With the global expansion of English, the use of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has been a growing phenomenon, often tied to discourses on internationalization in the reform of higher education.
In Taiwan, the number of EMI programs has steadily increased since the government joined the WTO in 2002.
EMI has been promoted through a series of policy statements and funding schemes, such as the Challenge 2008: National Development Plan and the Aim for the Top University Project. The Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council has accredited 121 programs taught in English.
Taiwanese universities regard EMI as indispensable, not only to enhance institutional academic ranking, but also to increase staff mobility, graduate employability and international student exchanges.
However, EMI’s rapid expansion faces much controversy, especially concerning the actual implementation of classroom teaching.
Depending on social and educational needs, switching the medium of instruction is not merely a matter of translation, but may involve a more complex restructuring of pedagogy, as well as modified linguistic practices.
Specifically, many academics highlight the effect of disciplinary differences on EMI, arguing that English might be suitable for teaching some subjects, but not others.
This concern is reflected in the disproportionate distribution of EMI courses across academic disciplines on the Study in Taiwan Web site, where most of the accredited EMI programs fall into engineering, technology, agriculture, fishing, medicine, and environmental studies.
Although EMI programs in business and management share a considerable proportion, those that are categorized in the social sciences and humanities only comprise approximately one-eighth of the list.
This discipline imbalance regarding EMI also drew public attention in a heated debate last year when policymakers at National Chengchi University tried to enforce regulations on the number of EMI courses that each professor, regardless of discipline, should teach.
Because the school takes pride in its leading role in the social sciences and humanities in Taiwan, a number of professors from the faculties of history, literature, and philosophy worried that using a foreign language to deliver highly complex and contextualized concepts would compromise the quality of education.
However, how can the effect of disciplinary differences on EMI be explained?
A fundamental point to acknowledge is that the language of instruction is deeply implicated in the construction and communication of meaning across disciplines.
First, knowledge is constructed differently in the sciences than in the humanities. Knowledge structures in the sciences tend to be more linear and cumulative, often operating on an agreed set of specialist terminology as well as established methods and procedures for conducting research.
By contrast, knowledge structures in the humanities are characterized as interpretive and context specific, where the focus is placed on creative thinking and fluent expression.
Because of this, linguistic demands in the humanities are heavier compared with those in the sciences, making a change in the language of instruction less welcomed.
Second, communication in different disciplines varies largely according to a discipline’s educational objectives.
For example, some subjects emphasize their contribution to the international academic community, which makes English a practical choice as the language of instruction. However, some subjects are more concerned about their connection to local society, and thus using English might not be an immediate need.
This difference in communication goals across disciplines may touch on a more important question: Is EMI necessary for all?
Imagine the nation’s future veterinarians and nurses struggling to communicate with farmers and patients because of their English-only training.
This example might seem extreme, but it could become a reality if EMI is uncritically accepted.
The promotion of EMI may differ across disciplines, depending on the respective knowledge structures and educational objectives. However, as residents of various nation-states and disciplines continue to interact and cross boundaries in the era of globalization, this does not simply mean that EMI should be advocated for some subjects and restricted from others.
There is no doubt that globalization is changing the relationship between language and learning, but as a contested concept, EMI also requires policymakers, both at the national and institutional levels, to firmly ground their decisions in additional classroom-based research.
To make the implementation of EMI pedagogically and socially just, the role of English across disciplines should be carefully explored and defined.
More specifically, within the overarching discourse of internationalization, how English enhances or constrains the effectiveness of teaching and learning must be understood.
It is time to move Taiwanese discussions on EMI beyond one with a sociopolitical focus on institutional ranking and branding to one that considers the more fundamental concerns of education.
Cindy Chang is a doctoral candidate at the University of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
The greatest pressure Taiwan has faced in negotiations stems from its continuously growing trade surplus with the US. Taiwan’s trade surplus with the US reached an unprecedented high last year, surging by 54.6 percent from the previous year and placing it among the top six countries with which the US has a trade deficit. The figures became Washington’s primary reason for adopting its firm stance and demanding substantial concessions from Taipei, which put Taiwan at somewhat of a disadvantage at the negotiating table. Taiwan’s most crucial bargaining chip is undoubtedly its key position in the global semiconductor supply chain, which led
RSS