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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS