It seems to me that there is a continuing cultural fascination among Taiwanese policy makers for everything foreign, especially when it comes to teaching English. Many Taiwanese seem to think that just because a curriculum or educational concept is foreign-based, it must be superior to existing ones employed in Taiwan.
This has clearly not been the case with the subject of math; Taiwanese students used to rank very high globally in terms of math skills until a European model was adopted some years ago.
The same can be said within the field of teaching English. I have seen many foreign EFL/ESL curriculums used with little success (we must not limit ourselves to British and North American, rather we must incorporate the fine programs out of Australia and New Zealand as well). Part of it has to do with the Taiwanese obsession for the new.
Many Taiwanese love to try something simply because it is novel, whether it is a new food product or an ESL/EFL curriculum. As such, many models adopted by the public and private school systems here have not been fully developed in the country of their origin before being used in Taiwan. Consequently, problems ranging from obtaining an adequate supply of teaching materials to basic "bugs" in some curriculums have not been worked out.
Equally germane, many foreign ESL or language arts curriculums were never intended to be used outside of the country of their origin. Therefore, critical cultural issues relevant to Taiwanese learners were never considered and yet entire curriculums have been imported and implemented without proper modification, obviously with limited success.
As an example, the theory of cooperative education in all subject areas should suffice. It was all the buzz in western Canada as the last century came to a close. I have seen it attempted in Taiwan, but with minimal success because of simple space considerations (too many students per class) and because Taiwanese learners are culturally not used to breaking into groups and working together as North American students are. It is worth mentioning that even among English-speaking countries, some educational concepts have not been so successfully transplanted.
When a pedagogically sound curriculum is imported and effectively adapted, often enough time is not allotted to see the results and it is abandoned too soon, often after considerable effort and finances have been devoted to its use in Taiwan. All too often, only a year or two is given to try a new curriculum when in reality it takes years of skill building to bear fruit. Again, I believe that this is a cultural phenomenon; many times I have had to explain to puzzled parents why their child is not fluent in English after only a few months of studies. It takes years to master Mandarin in a predominantly Mandarin-speaking environment, so why would they believe that it would be easier to learn English in a non-English environment like Taiwan?
This brings me to my last two inter-connected concerns: the role of the parent and the role of the teacher in Taiwan today.
Educators in general believe that learning can be maximized by direct positive parental involvement in their child's education. But during my time in Taiwan, I have seen many parents become less supportive of the teacher and more apathetic in terms of their child's education.
Likewise, the status of teachers in Taiwan has dropped since the 1990s. Indeed, at that time they were often erroneously viewed as almost infallible in most classroom matters. However, the pendulum has now swung too far to the other extreme and their every action is unfairly questioned.
Dan Ritco is a certified teacher from British Columbia, Canada, and has been an ESL/EFL teacher.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then