Ever since the government proposed that Taiwan be transformed into a bilingual nation by 2030, people have been debating the policy’s pros and cons. Experts and academics have offered various theoretical arguments, but one standard answer has not surfaced. In my view, as a teacher, achieving the policy requires a review of the issues from a practical perspective, from the viewpoint of Taiwan’s educational structure and characteristics.
The education system is dominated by test-oriented learning. Most regular teachers view bilingual instruction as extra work, while teachers of subjects tested in the joint entrance exams even view it as a threat.
The paradox of bilingual education lies in the incompatibility between the new policy and the classroom situation. Schools have long emphasized academic performance for the sake of being accepted to the next tier of education. To guard the academic reputation of schools and have graduates accepted to their preferred universities, students are trained to strive for high test scores. Test-taking skills are the focus of this educational environment.
For example, with this test-oriented instruction, most students learn English just to pass English listening, reading and writing tests. As spoken English is not included in the joint entrance exams, students generally do not practice speaking it.
As a result, in real-life situations — such as watching English-language movies, listening to English-language radio stations or interacting with foreigners, students find it difficult to translate what they have learned in class into actual conversation.
Students might be good test takers, but that does not mean that they know how to apply the language. This is especially true in Taiwan’s education system.
This situation makes implementing the bilingual policy difficult, because it is not taken into consideration by the Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students, or by the General Scholastic Ability Test and Advanced Subjects Test for senior-high school students. For example, all of the questions in these exams are in Chinese.
Teachers, who are the executors of the will of the state, have long been conditioned by these exams. The authorities’ will might satisfy parents’ fantasies about bilingual education, but they are overlooking teachers’ hard work in the classroom as they add additional education measures.
What about the children? Due to the country’s long-standing “credentialist” approach, they continue to take the same tests in new forms, generation after generation.
The government’s bilingual policy and Taiwan’s test-oriented education system clash with each other. Unless half of the questions are given in English on exams, it will be difficult to promote bilingual education in tested subjects.
On the other hand, many schools have started the bilingual teaching of non-tested subjects. For example, elementary and junior-high schools in Taipei are recruiting a large number of bilingual teachers this year for non-academic subjects not tested in the exams.
This highlights how inconsistent the education system is, and the lack of equivalence between subjects. One could hope that the bilingual policy will be more pragmatic, and that top decisionmakers will be more idealistic and down-to-earth.
To create a solution that benefits everyone, the authorities should visit schools and listen to what teachers have to say. Bilingual education needs a balance between the goal and the actual, detailed implementation.
Tao Yi-che is a teacher at Affiliated High School of National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
An American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) spokesperson on Saturday rebuked a Chinese official for mischaracterizing World War II-era agreements as proving that Taiwan was ceded to China. The US Department of State later affirmed that the AIT remarks reflect Washington’s long-standing position: Taiwan’s political status remains undetermined and should only be resolved peacefully. The US would continue supporting Taiwan against military, economic, legal and diplomatic pressure from China, and opposes any unilateral attempt to alter the “status quo,” particularly through coercion or force, the United Daily News cited the department as saying. The remarks followed Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial
RSS