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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS