During a meeting with a group of high-school students late last month, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) suggested replacing the English subject portion of the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) with an English proficiency test, which has generated a lot of discussion.
It is unclear whether Tsai made the remarks on the spur of the moment or whether they were the result of long-term deliberation. The question is: Would her proposed changes be feasible in education in Taiwan?
It is undeniable that Taiwanese English tests emphasize reading and writing over listening and speaking, which are definitely weak spots for most students. Language is a tool of communication and, over the long run, if Taiwan wants to become a bilingual nation, fundamental changes need to be introduced in the education system.
As instruction is oriented toward exams, if the content of tests remain unchanged, students would still be able to score high on reading and writing simply by practicing sample questions from previous exams, memorizing vocabulary and phrases, focusing on grammar. In that case, it might be unrealistic to ask them to emphasize more pragmatic listening and speaking skills.
Apart from creating an immersive environment for English acquisition, changing test methods and content is a direction that deserves discussion, which Tsai might have sought to spark.
Education needs a long-term plan that cannot be changed on a whim. In response to public concerns over Tsai’s proposal, Minister of Education Pan Wen-chung (潘文忠) said that the joint college entrance exam would remain unchanged next year.
What should happen then? Should Taiwan follow global trends by introducing changes to its education system? What about issues of fairness?
The government should consider the opinions of teachers, parents and students when creating a long-term plan, and there should be a “transitional period.” This would be the right way to reform the system.
First, the most pragmatic issue is money. Tsai said that if the new policy is adopted, students could take the English proficiency test “any time.” This would relieve the pressure of having to perform well in an all-determining test, as a student’s future would no longer be determined by a single exam. On the other hand, economically disadvantaged students would have fewer opportunities to take the test than their better-off peers.
The registration fee for a Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), for example, is NT$1,600, compared with NT$560 for a beginner-level General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). This means that TOEIC is three times more expensive than GEPT. For economically disadvantaged households, their children can hardly afford to take an English proficiency test “any time.” Even if the government could provide subsidies for their first test, what about the second or third tests? So the question of fairness is likely to come up.
Besides, exactly which English proficiency test should the government adopt: TOEIC, GEPT or something else? Under such circumstances, would students “put the cart before the horse” by giving up English classes in school to prepare for a proficiency test?
The issue of instruction being exam-led is a result of “credentialism.” As Taiwan reforms the joint college entrance exam system, authorities should not switch back and forth, and keep changing their minds. With a look at the system over the past few years, after constant adjustment and fine-tuning, teachers, parents and students have experienced chaos.
Despite Tsai’s good intentions, any changes should not be implemented rashly without complementary measures.
Bob Chiu is a junior-high school teacher.
Translated by Eddy Chang
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS