While I have enjoyed the chance to answer Dr. Liberman’s query, the difficulties of raising children in the lifestyle of an English teacher is really a side issue that resulted from speculation on my categorization of English teachers as economic migrants. If it is the case that English teaching can only be explained as economic migration, certain other issues are bound to arise. But rather than focus on the potential social problems of English teachers inAsia, I want to try and summarize why I categorize us as economic migrants.

The Central Issue

Since sometime in the late 1980′s, an enormous number of Anglo-americans have flooded East Asia to teach English. The English teaching market for Anglo-americans existed in Asia before this time, but it appears there was little supply of teachers. Since that time, a number that I estimate to be close to a million Anglo-americans have taught English in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. This movement of people shows no sign of stopping — or even slowing down. While a large market for native-speaker English teachers exists in other Asian countries, such as China, Thailand, and Vietnam, Anglo-americans English teachers seem concentrated in the affluent regions of north-east Asia.

I have vigourously explored a number of other explanations to explain this observation but have been unable to find one more satisfactory than this. I am of course open to other explanations or even refutations of the validity of my data.

What is a Migration?

Perhaps the strongest point of disagreement I have encountered concerns what I call a ‘migration’. My use of this term is quite technical and varies somewhat from the way in which the term is used colloquially. Colloquial usage often refers to a conventional American sense of usage that distinguishes between ‘sojourners’ and ‘settlers’. A great deal was written about these concepts by sociologists and historians dating back to the 1920′s, and this ultimately led to the concept of American migration as a ‘melting pot’. This usage contrasts sharply with a more contemporary understanding of migration based on more complete data. Highly readable research based on this more contemporary understanding can be found in Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin. In this volume, one of the leading sociologists writing in this field, Charles Tilly, discusses different types of migration.
Tilly urges readers to (p. 88),

…stop thinking about migration as a single homogeneous experience and start recognizing its sharply contrasting forms.

He continues with a discussion of 5 different types of migration: colonizing, coerced, circular, chain, and career. English teaching as I am describing it resembles most closely what Tilley calls ‘career migration’ which,

…characterizes individuals and households that move in response to opportunities to change position within or among large structures, such as corporations, states, and professional labor markets.

Although I suspect that in many ways English teaching is coming to resemble ‘circular migration’, which he states,

…consists of the creation of a regular circuit in which migrants retain their claims and contacts with a home base and routinely return to that base after a period of activity elsewhere in the circuit.

A closer reading of the volumes technical literature available on the great migrations that populated the Anglo-american world, as well as South and Central America, point to several other important characteristics.
a) Return migration was extremely common. Depending on the ethnic group, return migration may have been the norm, with some individuals returning twice or even three times before finally going ‘home’ for good.
b) Migrants do not move as individuals. Rather, their movement is typified by groups that form networks of culturally and linguistically similar peoples in communities that live and often work together.
c) These migrations were not driven by poverty and desperation, but were frequently highly literate people for whom opportunity (rather than food) was the biggest drawing factor.
d) While we hear mostly of the immigrant success stories, migration is typified by vice which, depending on ethnicity, may include gambling, drug use, and prostitution and occasionally leaves behind broke, destitute migrants.

What an Explanation of English Teachers Must Explain

I have talked about this elsewhere, but here I will try to summarize why I say that English teachers in Asia are driven by economic forces.

Many individuals have written me to suggest that they personally were driven by some force other than money in their move to East Asia. I do not doubt the authenticity of any individual narrative. Nor do I doubt that the money to be made in Asia is less than in the mother country of most English teachers. However, neither of these points seems a particularly strong rebuttal of anything I have said.

“English teaching’ is a social phenomena that needs an explanation. Where did it come from? Why is there a seemingly endless mass rush out of Anglo-american nations?

An explanation of this mass exodus must explain other characteristics as well. In the past, emigration from the USA moved predominantly to other highly developed, English-speaking nations, such as Canada. While tens of thousands of people moved to such places as Japan, Mexico, and Israel, this migration was motivated by ethnic affiliation. For example, Americans Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States reports that from 1970 to 1974 over 23,000 Americans emigrated annually to Japan. Almost certainly, all of them were Americans of Japanese ancestry and not white or Americans of African ancestry. The migration of English teachers would appear to be the first large scale movement of Americans to a significantly lesser developed region. Why is this decision being made now?

Anglo-american groups are represented inEast Asia as English teachers in proportion to their disadvantage in their domestic labour markets. My anecdotal evidence is that English teachers are overwhelmingly liberal arts graduates. While there are some working as English teachers who have science or professional backgrounds, they represent a tiny minority. Also, I have statistical evidence that citizens ofSouth Africa andCanada are overrepresented by teachers at the lowest level of employment while Americans are overrepresented by teachers in the most competitive jobs. If this is correct, why would it be so?

While the commercial English teaching markets of the better-paying nations are increasingly so full of teachers that businesses and governments have reacted to the oversupply, the poorer-paying markets can’t seem to attract enough. It is widely believed among teachers in Taiwanand South Koreathat better paying jobs in Japanare unobtainable. This is increasingly the case in Taiwanas well. In China, Thailand, and Vietnam, on the other hand, jobs are so easily obtainable that there is no need to think of getting one as a problem. In fact, I have heard of Chinese universities knowingly hiring high schools graduates to teach their students.

The Social Problems of English Teachers

It is the social life of English teachers that I have the least factual information to refer to. Unfortunately, it is also the aspect of the discussion that attracts the most information. For example, it was my speculation that the children of some English teachers could go on to suffer from social and linguistic disadvantage that initially attracted attention to my posts.

In fact, my speculation is based on a very small sample of people that I know personally. I will readily admit that I may be way off base on this one. Still, I often wonder what will happen to those that we all know who have taught English for years, but saved absolutely no money. This may represent a fringe element of long-term foreign English teachers — although I am not really sure about this one either — but it is a problem that will occur. While Japan may have the economy and social development to handle this, South Korea and Taiwan do not.

The kind of problems I am speculating about may or may not be common enough for our growing community to be forced to deal with. But there will be problems like this, even if there are only a few, as the population of long-term foreign residents ofTaiwan and other Asian nations increases.

These reforms have come under heavy criticism. It is not clear to me how much of this criticism is aimed at the concept of reform or at the way these reforms have been progressing. Nevertheless, one of the main foci of criticism has been the significantly smaller role that paper-and-pencil tests will play in selecting and promoting students.

Paper-and-pencil placement tests have been until very recently a very large part of schooling as developed for Taiwan by the KMT government. The public rationale for this is often centered on the term ‘fair’. In this case, ‘fair’ has come to be defined as an objective number that would be replicated if the same test score were counted again by a different grader. Until only a few years, almost all educational decisions related to student placement were bound up in a web of paper-and-pencil tests administered centrally through the Ministry of Education and the Examination Yuan.

Recently, I had a significant experience relating to why the MOE would appear so desperate to change this system. And in the course of this experience, I have come to agree that such serious flaws exist in the system of high stakes competitive testing established under KMT rule that only massive reform can prepare the nation for a competitive future.

The Problem

The problem of testing in the Republic of China on Taiwan is straight forward. These tests are not at all fair. That is, they are not effective at selecting for those who best know the subject being tested. The result of this is a whole host of significant problems that include a huge washback effect that damages students and interferes with educational innovation.

Does the system of testing developed by the KMT’s MOE and the Examination Yuan actually select the best candidates? Although I implied above that the answer is no, the real answer is that no one knows. Neither the MOE nor the Examination Yuan carry out the kind of analysis on their tests that mark the Western concept of a scientific test. They are constructed according to legal mandates conceived early in the life of the KMT’s Republic of China.

You have all heard the complaint that selection by testing in the end selects for people who are good at tests. This complaint is perhaps more widespread in Taiwan than anywhere you are likely to go. Those of us whose lives are defined by a world of school and institutional excellence are not likely to come across this belief, but it is rife among Taiwanese. I was first exposed to it by a former roommate who was a 4th year Sociology student at NTU. He explained to me it was unlikely local shopkeepers in our working-class neighborhood thought he was particularly ‘smart’. Instead, he related to me, they probably thought he was just “good at taking test.”

The all-or-nothing test system creates a vast number of other problems. From the proliferation of expensive preparation schools to the stress that robs children of their childhood, newspapers are full of complaints. The MOE has its own concerns. Emphasis on unchanging goals stifles the drive for innovative teaching techniques. There are many very skilled public school teachers in Taiwan who want desperately to make their students more talented. This is difficult in a system where life changing knowledge is defined by paper-and-pencil tests whose basic design has not been changed in decades.

The Anatomy of a Good Test

While the macro aspects of the testing problem are well understood, the micro aspects are not at all clear. There is good testing available, and by this I mean, it is well understood how to create exams that consistently select for a defined standard. Tests such as TOEIC, TOEFL, LSAT and others of the Educational Testing Service are designed along these criteria. I would never defend the ETS as the bastion of fairness, but at least I do know what their tests test are selecting for. The same can not be nor could have ever been said for those of The ROC’s Ministry of Education and Examination Yuan.

The construction of the kind of tests I am talking about is complex and beyond the discussion here, but I would like to point out some aspects of the kind of tests I am talking about.

Language tests are conventionally divided into achievement and proficiency tests. For example, a test that purports to determine a student’s ability to answer the phone in English would be an achievement test. Tests such as the TOEIC or TOEFL that are designed to examine a generalized English ability are proficiency tests. It is not clearly understood what kind of test the English section of the JCEE or even other entrance examinations are supposed to be.

The design and planning of a proficiency test is quite complex and should involve the piloting of questions and an examination of results using powerful statistical procedures. It is crucial that proficiency test questions have certain statistical properties. Questions on exams such as the JCEE were written according to procedures that allowed for use on only a single administration of the test. To assure that the testing was ‘fair’, following an administration of the test, questions and correct answers were made public in newspapers.

We all know that the MOE’s English tests do not select for proficiency in English. Everyone knows that students at top schools like National Taiwan University (NTU) have achieved tremendous scores on the English section of their entrance test. This has always been true. Yet despite this, the communication ability of an average NTU student is extremely poor – unless they have received outside instruction from a commercial language school. These tests could in no sense be construed as proficiency tests. Yet if the test is not a proficiency test, what ability is it selecting for? Could it be that language exams such as the JCEE are neither proficiency nor ability tests? The thought of this distorts my mind.

Testing in Taiwan

An Examination Yuan official once described to me how professional selection examinations are made. Test writers are selected from a list of approved people and assigned writing tasks by the member of the Examination Yuan whose job it is to supervise that test’s construction. The questions are collected together and then sent across the road to the Ministry of Examinations to be copied and assembled. For this process, the selected staff of the Ministry of Examinations are sequester. Following the administration of the tests, the qualified person who wrote the examination marks the questions that he or she wrote. Selection examinations for high schools and universities use a multiple-choice format, but the point remains the same that none of the standard procedures for test development or verification are carried out on official examinations in Taiwan.

The problems created by this system of test construction are strange. Because there are only limited guidelines for the construction of test items, there is as much leeway in marking an exam as there would be in a classroom test. The answer to the question “What is the law?” depends very much on who is grading the test. As a result, the leading test preparation buxibans keep a close watch on the experts used to write professional selection tests and also on their research and class teaching materials. I have been told of bar exam prep schools finding out who is writing certain sections of the test and then prepping their students on what that professor teaches in his or her class.

The problems of the construction of multiple-choice examinations are even more difficult to understand. In the past, the Joint College Entrance Examination contained compulsory examination of subjects that included English. While multiple-choice examination seem straightforward – either the answer is correct or incorrect – this is not true. In fact, it is not true in Mathematics, and it is not at all true for language testing.

My Story

Questions can be written in such a way that actually knowing the material is a distraction to finding the correct answer. That’s right. What I’m saying is there are questions about English that have a clear and reproducible answer that are made more difficult to find by a strong knowledge of English. This fact is well understood by Taiwanese, but its full significance did not drive home to me until a very recent experience gave me insight into what kind of skills a good test taker in Taiwan truly has to master.

One of my projects at Ming Chuan is working as part of a team developing a testing system to replace the current test used for in our English program. As part of this program we’re using Rasch Modeling to assess the usefulness of individual items for future tests. Several other team members are MBA students in the business program here.

The other night, we were discussing the criteria for placing items on a test and how some items that seem good intuitively are in fact very bad items. Rasch Modeling uses a statistic called point-biserial correlation to determine the quality of items on a test. Briefly, the point-biserial correlation measures the relationship between answering a particular item correctly and your score on the entire test. Did testees who answered an item correctly also get better overall scores on the entire test? And did testees who answered the item incorrectly get lower overall scores on the entire test? The statistical test results in a number between 1.0 and -1.0, where acceptable items have as high a positive number as possible.

One of the things that our new development program has pointed out to me is just how hard it is to write test items with high positive point-biserial correlations. The program has been able to identify a large number questions from our previous testing program that had negative point-biserial correlations. That’s right. There are actually questions that students whose total test score is high are more likely to get wrong. And all of them were written by highly experienced language teachers. I suspect that what most classroom teachers think of as ‘hard’ questions or ‘detailed’ questions are in fact questions that select against language proficiency.

But back to Taiwan. Taiwanese know all this. They know about it so well there are buxibans established with the purpose of teaching students how to identify and answer this type kind of question when it appears on an official examination – such as a university entrance test. Ask your Taiwanese friends about this. All of my friends and students know answering such questions correctly is necessary for admission to the most prestigious institutions. In fact, it may even be more important than actual language proficiency, which would explain how those with poor proficiency could get higher scores.

What Does All This Mean for Taiwan?

It’s true that the high stakes, test-driven system powered Taiwan industry during its decades of growth. In fact, similar systems existed in Japan and Korea during their economic miracles and exist in China right now. But there are other characteristics of schooling that are not taken into account with this explanation, and it may be these characteristics that were more significant. And it may be that the benefit of these characteristics are coming to an end.

In a world where almost no one has the money to study at the top universities in America or Europe, cash is an advantage. In the coming competition of this century, paying tuition will not be enough, and a system that selects for students with questionable ability is bound to affect competitiveness.

The fact is that current government and education officials have all been selected by a meritocratic system based on paper-and-pencil test results and as such are extremely conservative about accepting reforms that would dramatically alter what defines excellence. Despite this, there has been so much public outcry over the high stakes testing system and its consequences that they have been forced to act. But, as I said earlier, what the final results will be is anybody’s guess.

January 21, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Fantastic post. What are the English tests selecting for? Students with psychological insight into the construction and taking of tests (“they probably think I’m just good at tests”). Students with a demonstrated willingness to commit to the test-dispensing regime to the extent that they reshape themselves to survive in that System. Highly intelligent people who have completely internalized System values….

Michael

Posted by: Michael Turton | January 22, 2007 at 10:08

The internalization of system values…that’s a good point. I think that was my roommates point that any reform in membership selection process, no matter how small outsiders may see it, is seen by this group as radical change. ‘Outsiders’ I suppose would include not just foreigners, but Taiwanese who not members of this internally consistant group.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | January 22, 2007 at 11:12

You capture much of problem well Scott, and I think although Michael is being cynical, the internalization of values is exactly the point. However, where I part ways with Michael (I suspect) and maybe you, is that the “fair” part is not what you point out at all. Everyone knows the exams are somewhat random in their quality and consistency, I mean just watch the news during exam time, it is always a lead story how something was screwed up. Yet, at least the exams are made by real teachers, and those people are NOT government employees, but rather the job moves around to different universities, bringing in different people over time. There is a long, complex, and expensive process of putting question makers away for weeks, closing not only doors but all windows, sending food up in elevators, without any personal contact, etc. Why? Because although the exam system has many flaws, it is an attempt to get away from the biggest flaw that would swamp it in a minute: corruption. This is what the reaction to reform is based on. With so many interview-based admissions now (each with a fee), parents feel schools are just sucking down cash flow while actual admitted students are getting in due to guanxi and money.

Thus, the system is “fair” only in so far as it avoids the straight out payment for positions. But this is not the main idea either. Fair comes from the fact that when a student does do well in the exam, she is totally free to choose whatever school she likes. The exam system actually has nothing to due with rankings or school choice. For example, Tai Da has no rules about scores for students entering. There is no system of filtering based on score. The “fair” is that all the school ranks and all the department entrance scores are decided totally by the choices of the students. In this way, it is a very democratic system. Let me repeat that, because I know when I first saw it in action it totally flew in the face of what I thought the exams stood for: The exams only determine who chooses their department first, not which department they will choose.

In reality, however, by the time one actually internalizes the whole testing paradigm, which is a full time job from elementary school on, the objective becomes very blurred, and the pressure to do as others have done before is huge. Thus a high school student may have a strong interest in electronics, but he has a score that can get him into Tai Da’s animal science department. Well, parents and family may encourage that choice over the young man’s own interest. And I ask, is that wrong?

Wu Jing’s reforms should have broken this dilemma by making so many school choices, but in the end what we have gotten are many bad schools who’s goals are clearly profit. Students graduate lacking basic skills in the areas they hold degrees in. Is it any wonder that we are then right back where we started, pushing our kids to get into the school with the best name because it buys so much here?

It sounds so easy to hear things can be made “better,” yet, as your post points out, the complexity is very high, and I argue that the underlying assumptions in the society, the expectations, the behaviors (generally labeled culture) push everything right back, or at least confound such attempts at change. As a parent with children in the system I can say I don’t find the current reforms any better than the “unreformed” system. The whole thing is more complex than ever and all the same people are all still competing to get those high exam scores. Thus, all the reform is meaningless to the demographic that participated in the system previously. The big change is more university students in the system and the elimination of the vocational system. Rather than drop outs, you have students, and rather than skilled workers for a production economy you have service workers. Seems like things are working.

Posted by: Clyde Warden | January 23, 2007 at 00:08

Clyde, thank you very much for comment, It helps bring a side of this issue that both Michael and I lack. Still, I am confused about whether your concern is about the way in which this reform is being done or whether reform is even a good idea.

I think I need to restate my position on this. I am not advocating either reform or a neoconservative testing regime. My position is that the testing regime itself leaves out talented people and that it does this not just by accident, but systematically. I speculate that it is this that the MOE is concerned about. The reforms themselves are the result of a long struggle begun initially with the protests of public school teachers about curriculum, textbooks, and testing started almost as soon as teachers were legally able to speak publicly on these matters.

The place of parents in policy is complex position. While they are a key stakeholder, their interests are hardly paramount. Education as an element of a nation’s economic and business policy instructs that schools should find the most efficient balance between the workplace needs of a nation and the skills of the workforce. As such, it is important if a student with no interest at all ends up in veterinary school instead of engineering. In fact, I suspect it is one of the factors I hear expressed by Western professionals working in Taiwan when they speak of how professionals here lack autonomy.

While I can understand that some parents would be confused by the evolving standards under discussion, this is only one of the considerations that the MOE should be taking into account. The reality is that even with alternative entrance standards in place, the majority of students are still admitted via examination, and at national schools, it is probably almost everyone.

My interpretation of Taiwan is that it is a highly homogeneous society comprised of many different groups with differing histories, identities and needs – cultures if you will. While some parents no doubt ascribe to a vision of education tightly circumscribed by conservative examination, I have found a very different picture among urban professionals. Speaking on their experience and expectations about education, many have told me that public education did not at all prepare them for the current demands of their professional work lives. As such, they have no expectation it will do so for their children. Many in this group are actively seeking alternative routes to educate their children through supplementary education or even schooling outside Taiwan. Not coincidentally, it is this group that is currently fighting with the MOE over bilingual kindergartens and other forms of supplementary education.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | January 24, 2007 at 17:54

The reform is great, in so far as more competition in the market, but my point is that reform to the examination system is almost meaningless. It is not the exam that creates the mismatch of education with reality, but the choices of those who are involved in the exam system.

Those professionals you talk to may tell you one thing, but I observe they act out another. The reality is that there are only limited numbers of spaces at NTU, and everyone wants in. If you eliminate the exams in order to prevent the backwash issue, then just get ready for another type of backwash. Maybe instead of cramming for exams from the first grade, students will need to start bank accounts to prepare the red envelopes needed for payoffs when college entrance interviews come.

Again, my point is that the backwash is not from the exams, but from the choices made by those participating! Those behaviors are not going to be modified by any entrance system anyone can come up with. The exam system doesn’t place anyone, it is the choices of the students that make the placements! It is not an “all or nothing” system, and never has been. Sit down with a high school student and look at the paperwork they complete for the exams. The way they choose universities and the way the scores impact those choices. The system is only all or nothing for those who select the same schools and departments that everyone else is chasing after. This results in so many students targeting so few spaces that they all their choices are missed.

Most students know this risk very well and always have a back up choice that is known to be lower (and for some students this may even be a preferred choice, that their parents wouldn’t approve of). I think you are misinterpreting the exams and you are buying into standardized scripts that everyone in Taiwan knows how to repeat by heart. I’ve sat in rooms with parents waiting for our kids to come out of cram school classes, or exams, and we all say the same thing: “the system sucks, so much pressure, no fun, so confusing,” bla bla bla. But those same parents turn right around and push their kids into departments the children have no interest in just because it is at a national university. This is the heart of the issue, not the exams!

Posted by: Clyde A. Warden | January 27, 2007 at 22:01

Clyde is right — I was thinking in my comments about how what kind of student is being created by the system, not what kind of system there is.

To answer Clyde’s question, the system is markedly inefficient and definitely unfair. I do not see it as democratic at all; testing and the test system are fundamentally authoritarian in nature. This is for practical reasons — it favors nuclear families over extended families, mandarin users over Taiwanese users — but also because the test system, and education in CHinese culture in general, is viewed as a weeding out process rather than an enhancement process. When you make it all the way through the System, you belong to an elite, and now the choices are yours. The idea of educating everyone to that elite level, which underlies democratic education in the US, is foreign to here. Thus the system is hugely inefficient.

Clyde’s observation that families force kids into things they don’t like is spot on. That’s a gross system inefficiency.

Further, you can claim that it is producing fewer technical workers than it needs, and that might be true, but nowhere in the system does there appear to be a process that assesses future economic needs and then assigns parts of the educational system to fulfill them. Instead, intakes are regulated by the MOE according to the infrastructure of the school, not according to the needs of the economy. So there is no point of view from which the system can be viewed as efficient.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Turton | January 28, 2007 at 14:23

Michael, once again, I like your point. Thank you for helping with clarity.

Clyde, I think there are a number of points being confused here. My post was about the poor design of entrance exams. The significance of this is that poorly designed tests can not consistently select for anything. In particular, I used the example of English tests that seem to select for nothing for all. In fact, it seems from a strictly technical point of view that these tests are not tests in any sense that we would have learned about in school, baring much more resemblance to the teacher evaluations we talked about earlier. They seem to be, as Michael puts it so well, merely obstacles.

The term “all or nothing” is incorrect and that is why I did not use it in my post. The term I used is “high stakes testing”, which is a widely used term in education and correctly used in this case. My point is that high stakes testing results in structural aspects of education that are not desirable for a nation in the current position of Taiwan.

The issue of parents is something I brought up only because it is the focus of your comment. As I pointed out above, parents are only one of the stake holders the MOE should be considering. In fact, it could be argued that parents are among the least significant of these stake holders.

Anyway, the professionals I talk to have children that are either in elementary school, so no one knows what they will do when their children are old enough, or they are sending their children overseas for schooling. Regardless of what they will feel when their choices comes down to it, there is a clear feeling expressed that MOE schools can not provide education in the skills they know professional workers need. In fact, I would say that this struggle between professionals and the MOE has been one of the defining characteristics of schooling since the conception of the ROC. But that’s another story.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | January 28, 2007 at 20:51

The weeding out direction Michael brings up is good. Can you imagine any other way here in Taiwan, we are talking about a fundamentally punishment oriented culture, not a reward one. But I don’t see that the US approach is any better, where everyone gets to be above average and one third of your students cannot pass high school exit exams.

I agree, these exams, and all exams, cannot be equally fair to everyone, that is a fact. My point is that this is as good as you can get in a setting where social pressures can easily push things to be even more unfair. The MOE often tweaks with score adjustments to address the very issues you raise Michael. You say that the elite get to choose, but my point is what is it they choose? It is their attitudes, so deeply ingrained, that perpetuate the problems. Can’t we even say a big so what? With schools like CYUT, why can’t students get an even better education there–more aligned with economic realities, and their entrance was not so influenced by exam scores? Do the scores even matter? You and I know the answer, I think, and that is that even these students are so bought into the system’s assumptions that nothing changes.

Of course, it would be great if the exams could be more aligned with some economic realities, and then the prep for the exams would help everyone involved build up useful skills, but hey, let’s look at reality. These kids spend how much time on Chinese character memorization alone–without any chance in hell a more rational approach like simplified characters (not to mention bigger changes) being implemented.

Who can decide such things in a political environment? Wouldn’t it be nice for the MOE to get out ahead and do as you say, making a more systematic approach to the exams. I agree. This would benefit everyone, even those who do not do so great on the exams will at least not be wasting their time with silly exam topics that have use in reality. It doesn’t have any chance of ever happening though. Anyone who has sat in academic meetings about the exam topics and been in the scoring committees knows the very strong currents to test details that are detached from reality.

Posted by: Clyde Warden | January 28, 2007 at 21:27

I suspect this last comment came in before my response, but here goes anyway.

Clyde, the key point you make comes at the end of your comment,
“Wouldn’t it be nice for the MOE to get out ahead and do as you say, making a more systematic approach to the exams…Anyone who has sat in academic meetings about the exam topics and been in the scoring committees knows the very strong currents to test details that are detached from reality.”
This is probably why the MOE is trying to hand more of this responsibility over to the schools and other responsible parties. Despite this, the reality is almost all students are still admitted through some kind of examination.

I can understand the fear that parents have with changes coming to system that has shown only the tiniest of change since its conception 3 decades ago, but the MOE does have to consider greater issues. The situation now is that talent is systematically being bypassed because it does not conform to the test-based placement system.

It’s true that professional parents will respond to whatever system is on place to get their children the label and skills they believe they need. On the other hand, it is these parents who have the strongest belief that the system just doesn’t do it. And it is these parents’ whose hearts the MOE must win in a democratic society.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | January 28, 2007 at 21:43

This is a big assumption:
“The situation now is that talent is systematically being bypassed because it does not conform to the test-based placement system.”

With nearly everyone now taking the entrance exam getting some acceptance at some school, how is it that talent is being bypassed? Isn’t what you mean to say is that individuals don’t get to just apply to departments and get accepted based on the department’s definition of skill? That is exactly what everyone is afraid of!

Currently many departments can admit up to 1/3 of their students in exactly this way. Do you think those applying are exhibiting skill or even interest in the specific department? The answer is no. They go to cram schools where they get all the points on how to prepare a project to show the entrance committee, they get told what to say in interviews, etc.

I’ve sat on these entrance committees and watched as high school buses pulled up with 50 or more kids all ready for their interviews, and guess what, like robots they all had very similar, and at times exactly the same, things to say and show. Your whole concept of professional simply is confounded by the local traditions and behaviors Scott. The people you talk to are giving you pre-canned scripts, especially useful when faced with a Western intellectual, but the values they hold are in a very different direction.

Posted by: Clyde Warden | January 30, 2007 at 13:17

Clyde, I’m a little confused by your response. I think I mentioned above that the reforms we are talking about began under pressure from Taiwanese school teachers and parents in the early 1990′s. For the most part, anything I say could be a paraphrase of remarks that appeared in teacher’s professional magazines, reported in communique of the Legislative Assembly, or said in public groups set up specifically with the purpose of addressing educational issues such as ubiquitious test with political content.

I can agree that the current government is not doing a good job of these reforms, but the pressure to limit the affects of testing and change textbooks began more than a decade ago by Taiwanese urban professionals. In fact, I would say the historical record shows this goes back almost a century, but that’s another story.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | January 30, 2007 at 13:53

Let me make this point with this example: The MOE “limited” the effects of the exams by not allowing schools to continue classes during vacation time (used to cram more for the exams). Great.

The result is, before vacations teachers ask students who volunteers to come to school during the break (normally everyone volunteers). And because the time is officially not school time guess what–parents get to pay in cash to support the effort. My daughter is in class now even though the semester is over.

Words differ from behavior and I live in the world of behavior Scott, and I’m telling you there is NO change among a certain large segment of the population in their own emphasis on the exams (and as I said earlier, it is not the exams but the opportunity to choose a result that is socially preferred) and nothing done by anyone has changed it over the past twenty years I’ve been here. Do you see what I’m saying? There have been many structural reforms, but I’m adding to your point by saying those reforms do not change behavior and it is the behavior that causes the issues not the government regulations.

Posted by: Clyde Warden | February 02, 2007 at 22:56

I don’t doubt that some segments of Taiwan have not changed at all perhaps even in decades. This might (or might not) be a large segment of Taiwan or even a majority. My point is that what is called Taiwan ‘society’ is a heterogeneous group composed of diverse groups with largely different histories, interests, and cultures.

But in fact, in all the excitement of these comments, I have become sidetracked from what was intended as my main point. Clyde, your comments focus on university entrance exams, but my post was intended as a larger critique of the way that testing has been used in the ROC. Ironically, my critique of entrance and professional testing was the same as your comments about teacher evaluations; without proper measurement of results, test questions can not be written so they systematically select for their stated purpose. In Taiwan, this problem has been compounded by test specifications determined not by professionals themselves but by legal mandates. As I put it in this post

http://scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweblog/2006/04/lin_tu_tee_and_.html,

test questions frequently address matters irrelevant to the practice of the profession being selected. Professionals and even Examination Yuan officials do not want such questions included.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | February 03, 2007 at 00:17

At least on Dave’s ESL Cafe, some of the most difficult issues that English teaching in Asia is currently struggling with concern the professional status of the occupation. Dave’s regularly posts discussions that address whether or not there is such a thing as a ‘real teacher’, what qualifies one to be a ‘real teacher’, and discussions of the personal behaviour and deportment of people involved in teaching English in Asia. TEFL in Asia is not a particularly self-reflective occupation. What I mean is that while there is a great deal of discussion about the status and qualification of TEFL teachers, there seems to be very little effort toward understanding the problem. The only academic discussion that I am aware of is David Nunan’s . However, his thoughts on the matter draw from a model of professionalism based in a sociological theory called structural-functionalism. Subsequently, his analysis focuses on the education and self-regulation of practitioners. While not wrong, it fails to take into account many of the more important aspects of professionalization that TEFL in Asia is struggling with. More recent studies of professional development, such as Burrage and Torstendahl, Thomas Haskell , and Terence Johnson’s 1972 classic ‘Professions and Power’ describe professions that work in a very different fashion from that which David Nunan assumes, and thus raise some different questions for the professionalization of TEFL in Asia.

What qualifies someone to teach TEFL?

From my point of view, the most significant questions concerning this issue involve the problem of certification. What qualifies someone to teach TEFL? The answer to this question varies enormously depending on who you ask. TESOL qualifications, for example, except at the lowest levels (in language schools for overseas students and migrants), are decided by the same groups that decide who teaches math in your public schools. Likewise, the practitioners of TEFL have very little say about what is important in a practitioner. The licensing of TEFL practitioners in Asia is decided by immigration and labour bureaus of the national governments when they issue working permits.

Is there such a thing as an ‘English teaching qualification’?

The reason for this last point is one of the main problems that continually emerge on Dave’s ESL Cafe; what does one can call a TEFOL qualification? While there is little doubt that an M.A.TESOL from the Monterey Institute of International Studies ‘qualifies’ one to teach language, what about the myriad of other qualifications available? This is especially disturbing when it comes to the well-known language teacher training programs referred to as CELTA and DELTA. Individuals qualified by these programs insist that they are among the highest level certification possible. Needless to say, this is not a universally recognized opinion.

While each individual reader will have a clear idea about the answer, it is important to realize that there is no standard answer to this question.

What is the relationship between TEFL and education?

Related to the questions above is the problem of where people with a B.Ed, M. Ed, or GDE sit in all of this. Should training that would qualify one to teach TESOL in a public school qualify one to teach to teach TEFL? Holders of an M.A. TEFL that I have spoken to don’t always express positive opinions about such degrees. And if that’s the case, where does this leave holders of an M.A. in linguistics or English?

It is possible to establish a hierarchy of qualification, and this is what employers do in real life. But if this is a legitimate practice, does that mean that someone with an M.A. in sociolinguistics or even no degree at all could also be ‘qualified’ if an employer deemed it necessary or appropriate?

How can ‘qualified’ English teachers recognize each other?

Much of the problem of qualification has arisen because there really is no standardized body of knowledge that ‘qualified’ English teachers need to master to become qualified. Put another way, could a ‘qualified’ English teacher detect someone who was not really qualified? My experience is that the answer to this is no. Unlike well-organized professions, such as medicine or law, the holder of an M.A.TESOL would not know questions or standard practices that would differentiate themselves from colleagues without such education. I base this statement on personal observations of colleagues who hold an M.A.TESOL who have called similarly qualified colleagues “unqualified”. In one case, the teacher became quite upset when I confronted him with the fact that the colleague in question did in fact hold the same degree as he did.

My feeling is that what a TEFL/TESOL practitioner ‘knows’ is much more related to what kind of certification they have and where it was obtained than anything else. Different kinds of certification stress different aspects of language; different schools stress differing amounts of practice or theory–or even completely different theories.

I may be wrong with this point, but if I am, I would like someone to point out the questions or practices that would make such a distinction.

What is the function of our professional organizations?

What all of this boils down to is the inability of TEFL organizations to gain control over the process that qualifies its practitioners. In fact, such organizations repeatedly state that they want nothing to do with advocacy for their members. While TESOL in the USA is attempting to establish a strong police voice and every state has a teacher’s organizations that advocate for political power for members, TEFL in Asia lacks any such organizations. As a result, TEFL practitioners left at the mercy of government regulatory bodies, are unable to define themselves.

Medicine is the king of the professions. Every occupation that has organization as a goal wants to be like Medicine. In discussions about professionalization and credentialism, English teachers in Asia often draw some kind of comparison with Medicine. Yet, Medicine as a profession is not what it seems.

Medicine is the oldest professionally organized occupation. It is not clear what the term ‘profession’ really refers to, and sociologists have stopped trying to define it. In a sense, the only thing that a profession is is what people call a profession. Professions define themselves, and in this sense, Medicine is the king.

It is often stated that Medicine is the king because medical technology is so powerful. This is wrong. Medicine was the king long before medical technology had any serious scientific power. The American Medical Association was founded in 1847, when life span was about 40 years. The causal connection in this case is backward. Medicine controls powerful scientific technology because it is the king of professions.
Medicine was organized first. They laid the first legitimate claim over medical technology, and subsequently, medicine has gotten first claim to all new medical technologies. The battle between medical professionals and other organizing professions over claims to new discoveries is fascinating. Medicine did not have any historical or scientific reasons to dominate X-ray technology or clinical care. There were occupations dominating child birthing long before Medicine ever had anything useful to say. But Medicine became the king of professions because it organized first and from then afterward, any other occupation that wanted to control medical technology could only do so if Medicine did not first want that control. Pharmacists may make, dispense, and understand drug action, but ONLY a physician can prescribe them.

What’s all this got to do with English teachers? A lot, I’d say. And particularly a lot for those of us who teach EFL. Long before EFL in Asia became a major employer of education professions, there was a hierarchy of educators that included post-secondary and public school literature and grammar teachers, as well as private cram school teachers. The division of educational labour divided the known teaching work world between all the recognized parties in a way that balanced and made sense to those involved.

The lifting of military law and development of the economy made possible the expansion of a traditional form of education formerly reserved almost exclusively for the wealthy: foreign teacher instruction. The privileged position of this market and its relatively smallness had left it largely unregulated. As a result, when it expanded, the only regulatory bodies that were in any position to control them were those monitoring labour and migration.

EFL in Asia has emerged a patchwork collection of ideas. Qualifications have arisen because they make sense to labour officials. Developing systems of education and certification have responded to the labour market needs that this defines, rather than to those defended by professionalized members of this group. Put another way, would certificate training, such as CELTA and TEFL International have continued to expand into Asia without the assistance of local authorities? Would their existence have continued if employment were regulated and recognized by a professional body controlled by licensed EFL professionals?

Foreign EFL teachers themselves have done little in the way professional organization. The groups that do exist, such as JALT and KoTESOL, have publically stated that advocacy is NOT one of their roles. Their only function is to hold conferences, workshops, and release periodicals. They steadfastly refuse to rank programs or employers, lobby governments over policy issues or teacher certification, or become involved in work that promotes their organization as the only legitimate voice for EFL education. Contrast this will AMA opposition to chiropractic and other alternative medicines. This sluggishness of response has created a work world where individual teachers are left at the mercy of the labor force. Those with the ability can claw their way into a place in an already established organization, but there is no security or control. Definitions of what should be done at work are handed down through an institution whose goals may not fit the foreign EFL professional.

One of the side issues involved in this problem is internal fighting among foreign EFL professionals in Asia over what basic training should be, how it should be conducted, and where it should take place. The conflict between CELTA/DELTA and M.TESOL may appear highly theoretical on Dave’s ESL Cafe, but it has a very real history. CELTA/DELTA reflect an older British concept of the professional. Professionals are master craftsmen trained through OJT in much the same way that American people think of an apprenticeship. The M.TESOL and other similar degrees reflect an American, university-bound definition of what a professional should be. There is some attempt to address this issue. University-based certificate training offers limited exposure for practitioners without the extensive time committment of a master’s degree. Some certificate granting organizations, such as TEFL International are trying to offer more ‘hi-tech’ sorts of certificates by exposing students to the kind of concepts and training that a longer, university-based program would teach. But this social experiement has been largely unsuccessful.

Will the internal disputes of TEFL get solved and the authority base of this profession expand? Is it possible that the bushiban/hogwan/juku industry will get sorted out and absorbed into some aspect of a professionalized occupation? Personally, I don’t see how. Education in Asia is very well stratified; subsequently there is little room for increased division of labour. Nor do the foreign teachers themselves seem much up to the difficult task ahead of themselves. In all likelihood, the kind of English teaching that foreign teachers do in Asia will continue to be bits and pieces of work at the margins of legitimate, mainstream educational work.

March 01, 2004 in The EFL Professional Project | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/502008

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Of Medicine and English Teaching:

» professional organization from Blinger: A linguistics and ESL Blog – ESL in Korea
Scott Sommers’ wrote a long and inciteful post comparing the organization of medicine and EFL instruction. when it [EFL] expanded, the only regulatory bodies that were in any position to control them were those monitoring labour and migration. EFL in… [Read More]

Tracked on February 29, 2004 07:31 AM

Comments

Sorry, site seems to not accept HTML links. Here it is as plain text:

http://www.cepr.net/professional_protectionists.htm

Posted by: Kerim Friedman | March 1, 2004 11:22 AM

This article on the role of professional associations in restricting free trade might be of interest.

Posted by: Kerim Friedman | March 1, 2004 10:18 AM

There is not even a basic idea about what teaching in Taiwan is for. This mostly leads to each person doing his own thing, which often means default to the same old thing learned when in Taiwan high school, i.e., go through the motions but actual skill obtainment is optional (while this may look to many as a “Chinese” thing, it is not

the same could be said about Korea.

Posted by: Blinger | February 29, 2004 08:59 AM

The largest difference between being a teacher in a language department and any other college/university department in Taiwan is that language departments have a complete and total lack of any kind of standard. I’ve noted this for years, but most English teachers don’t see it because they are in the center of it. Scott’s observation is so on target.
In organizational behavior, one of the key concepts is to hire people who have the same professionalization as the employees you already have; In Taiwan langauge departments, however, this is hard since it seems almost no one has any background that unites them in thought. Standards and professionalism here do not mean to do a good job, they mean that in the past, mostly during university and and first few years on the job, you get a kind of basic thorught/value system into your brain. Thus, engineers should emphasize safe design no matter what company they work at. Business teachers understand the importance of profit and efficiency, etc. At each language department I’ve worked there is NO idea what they do! There is not even a basic idea about what teaching in Taiwan is for. This mostly leads to each person doing his own thing, which often means default to the same old thing learned when in Taiwan high school, i.e., go through the motions but actual skill obtainment is optional (while this may look to many as a “Chinese” thing, it is not–in trade and business departments I’ve seen the professional concept expressed very clearly).
I could write more, but I just caught Scott’s post and had to say I agree that this is at the core of nearly all problems with English in Taiwan, making organizing, goal setting, hiring, etc., very difficult.

Posted by: Clyde A. Warden | February 29, 2004 08:47 AM

Professions are a social label or category. There is great difficulty defining them in objective terms, and subsequently, useful definitions always depend on how they are defined by those involved in the social creation of the label: a profession is a job that people call a profession.

Professionals control a body of knowledge that they create. This does not distinguish a profession from a highly developed trade, such as plumbing, but it does allow for the distinction between allied professions. For example, physicians are responsible for the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of physical disease or injury in patients; nurses are responsible for the routine care of patients. In principal, it is possible to separate contact with patients based on this criterion and determine what kind of professional should deliver the care. In actual practice, it is not always so easy to distinguish between the concerns of allied professions, but the research and development of technologies to deal with the professional problems of physicians remains quite distinct from that of nursing. The growing number of nurse practitioners has increasingly edged into clinical practices that were once controlled exclusively by physicians, still there is no trouble making the distinction between doctors and nurses.

Are there allied professions involved in English teaching? And if so, what is the technology that distinguishes between them?

The answer to this first question would have to be yes. The wide array of certification systems available for English teachers are not always compatible. Many of these qualifications are aimed specifically at educators who will work in commercial language companies, rather than public education systems. Their content in not always transferable from the private sector into the public sector. As a result of this, leaders in one form of ELT do not necessarily have the skills to move into other venues of instruction. Leading figures in the delivery of commercial education, such as Jeff Mohamed, , Harry Swindells, or Bruce Veldhuisen do not appear qualified to teach in the public schools of their home countries.

Several facts are salient in the further discussion of this topic.
(a) The two forms of certification appear to distinguish between ESL and EFL. While this distinction is not always clear the vast majority of EFL certificates (ex: CELTA and DELTA) are offered in commercial training facilities situated in EFL settings and are aimed at native-speakers of English.
(2) The kind of certification aimed at ESL teachers (ex: MATESOL) is located, not surprisingly, in countries where English is spoken as the first language, and students in these programs are just as likely to be foreign teachers who will ultimately teach TEFL in their home country public schools as they are to be local teachers specializing in TESL.
(3) Many foreign teachers receiving the kind of training aimed at local ESL teachers (ex: MATESOL) are in fact working in institutionalized public teaching situations in their home countries. Increasingly, there are native-speakers teachers receiving this type of training who are not eligible to teach in the public education institutions of their home countries but who teach overseas in schools where there native-speaker status allows access to entry-level positions.

It appears that there are two groups of people involved in ELT. One group is legally qualified to teach in public education institutions, either in a native English speaking country or in their home country which is not a native English speaking country. The other group is not able to teach in the public education institutions of their home country, but is qualified to teach language largely on the basis of their proficiency in institutions where English is taught as a foreign language.

A more difficult question concerns the relationship between these respective occupational groups. Two possibilities could explain. The first is that their relationship is hierarchical. For example, the group that can teach in public institutions is better qualified than the second group because its members can teach every where that the second group can teach and also in public institutions. The problem is that this is not true. There are many commercial teaching positions whose minimum qualification is a DELTA. Candidates with an M.Ed would not qualify unless they also had other qualifications in TESOL/TEFL.

The second possibility is that these occupational groups are allied professions in the same way that medicine and nursing are allied professions. Speculating on the relationship between the two (and keep in mind that I am only speculating), public institutions teachers look after the training of academic English skills whereas those working in the other sector of the market look after more practical language skills.

All of this leaves unanswered the question of what distinguishing technology differentiate the functions of the two groups. While it is clear that public institution teachers are versed in the technologies that colleges of education perpetuate, it is not clear what practices our other group of educators are specialized in delivering. It may be that I am premature in referring to this group as a ‘profession’, and a more correct categorization may be that it is in the process of ‘professionalizing’ itself. Nevertheless, if this is a correct categorization, it may very well be our group does not yet have a properly defined core technology.

I don’t know if you’ve been watching the thread on Dave’s ESL Cafe’s Teacher Training Forum about ‘authentic TEFL courses’. This discussion concerns the certification of English teachers and may seem a little arcane for readers unfamiliar with the field.

English teaching has several forms of certification. The kind that we are most familiar with is graduate training in ESL/EFL. This is similar to what you see in other professional schools, such as those that prepare MBAs; candidates who may or may not have a background in Education or Linguistics, are exposed to advanced research related to language teaching and often expected to do their own original research. Most programs now feature teaching practicum.

A second form of certification is referred to as ‘certificate’ or ‘diploma’ training. Certificates are typically 1-month courses that prepare candidates for the language teaching classroom in a very ‘hands-on’ way. Diplomas are the advanced version of this and usually require that candidates have a certificate and several years of teaching experience. The most well-known versions of these are the CELTA / DELTA and TEFL International. Both of these forms of certification are taught through commercial language schools. In the case of the CELTA/DELTA, training centers are chartered by University of Cambridge English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). TEFL International is an independent organization.

The holders of CELTA/DELTA certification are ferociously loyal to their brand of training. With striking regularity, you can find postings on Dave’s ESL Cafe comparing the DELTA with MATESOL training. While this may seem strange, at this moment, debates about the merits of such certification take up almost the entire Dave’s ESL Cafe’s Teacher Training Forum.

The claim frequently made is that teachers prepared through DELTA are superior classroom teachers because their training is more practical. Typical of the kind of comments I refer to are

“…I called a few schools and asked and they wouldn’t interview me without holding a CELTA or DELTA…More M.A. TESOL programs need to incorporate a CELTA or DELTA practical approach or component to their programs.”

“Regarding hiring – I will not hire teachers with MA but no practical teaching qualification. Face with a teacher with an MA or one with a Trinity or UCLES Diploma – I’ll take the Diploma holder every time. “

“Those with a CELTA or DELTA know “how” to teach. This is not the case with all who finish an M.A. TESOL. “

One post that appears to be from the manager or operator of a commercial school said,

“To choose between a dip candidate and a masters to teach (sweeping generalization coming, I know) its like being asked to choose between someone who can describe the history and theory behind cooking and someone who can prepare a good meal.”

Another claiming to have both a master’s and a DELTA stated,
“As for personal development, I found the DELTA immensely helpful for my classroom teaching.”

All of this raises a number of issues. The first of these is the historical development that this conflict represents. Certificate / diploma training emerged from Britain. While there are plenty of American certificates available, the granddaddy of them all, the CELTA, is British, or to be more exact, English. It appears modelled after a British form of professional training that relies on apprenticeship, rather than university-based study. While British universities have jumped on to the professional ESL bandwagon, the remnants of an earlier form of workplace preparation continue through private channels.

One of the interesting implications of this is that teaching holds a very different place in the lives of candidates. In universities, teaching is viewed as a vocation. Typically, candidates in schools of education have little or no classroom experience and are taking the training out of a ‘love of education’ or some such goal. Certificates and diplomas are aimed at people already working in education at an entry level that does not demand any formalized background. It is similar to the way that tradesmen and women are trained in Canada and the USA, with periods of employment interspersed with highly practical classroom instruction. Many of the British universities involved in TESOL / TEFL graduate training appear to follow a similar model; aiming their programs at working teachers who may not be able to attend class regularly and may lack even a first degree. This difference in interpretation of the role of the teacher is quite important to note, since it implies a need for a very different kind of knowledge.

Another more significant problem concerns the content of certificate / diploma training. Candidates for this form of certification do not appear to be trained in any formal fashion in the evaluation of student progress. It is not clear to me what the above quotes are referring to when they state that DELTAs are “better” teachers than MATESOLs. Certainly they could not mean that student achievement is better for those taught by DELTAs, since no such research exists. One posting on Dave’s Cafe speculated that the DELTA-advantage might not necessarily be related to efficacy (Although I think he had a different intention in mind for his quotation.).

“The Masters Degree will get you short-listed and into an interview. But then it’s like, ‘show us what you know’ The DELTA will help you with your presentation of the teaching demo and any other technical questions or skills that are asked to demonstrate.”

I suspect that the real effect of this form of teacher preparation is unknown. In fact, there are too many variables to even begin suggesting what happens in these programs; the training is performed in an unstandardized way by trainers of differing qualifications, the candidates come from very different, unstandardized backgrounds, etc. Only a well-designed empirical study can really answer this question. Anything short of that is speculation…or worse.

Perhaps my greatest concern is that certificate / diploma training appears to lack any theoretical grounding, so it is not clear to me what could be taught. I have to be cautious here, since I have no first-hand experience with these programs, but this is a claim often made by the proponents of this form of training. While I can’t find the postings, there have been debates on Dave’s where the claim is made that practitioners of any EFL teaching methodology can take and pass a CELTA / DELTA, since there is no prescribed theory of language acquisition inherent in the training. While strong arguments have been made that this is not really correct, it does appear that some involved in this form of training believe there is no theory of language acquisition implicit in the instruction.

I have a lot of comments and postings from CELTA trainers and spoken to holders of qualifications about what happens on their courses. I am not completely satisfied that there is any theoretical basis to what they are learning and teaching. It appears to be a system for presenting language-based information to students. Properly prepared candidates will reproduce the system more accurately. My suggestion is that this is much like the military method of instruction that I learned in the Army, which is highly effective for instruction in that situation, but of limited value outside of it. Since language learning often appears to take place for some students even in the worst learning environments, there will be students who show effect no matter what else happens. Of course CELTA / DELTA does not create the worst, most disordered language learning environment, but…really…how does anyone know? The fact that some students emerge successful is not proof of anything. Nor is the judgment of other practitioners of the same system, since the system lacks any external verification.

What I really think needs to be done is a formal evaluation of this type of training. In fact, right here, I am offering to begin work on this sort of evaluation. If someone is willing to give me access to candidates training for certificates or diplomas, there are some measures I would like to try just to see what kind of changes are going on in candidates. I’m not sure that I could do all the research that needs to be done on my own, but I’d sure like to try this…if someone would give me the chance.

In a previous post, I brought up the issue of certificate and diploma training for ESL/EFL teachers. My point was not to endorse these as methods of educating teachers equivilant to more conventional training, such as MATESOL. Rather, I hoped to raise the issue that TESOL / TEFL is invoved in a certification process quite different from that of public school educators. Certificate and diploma training are just the most dramatic examples of these.

Certificates and diplomas are not just qualifications at a lower level of training; they are a different type of preparation for the classroom. The training received in CELTA / DELTA or TEFL International is apprenticeship training remarkably similar to the methods that are used in Canada and the USA to prepare tradesmen for the workplace; candidates who work for commercial organizations occasionally leave employment to return to more formalized classroom training and up-grading. A comparison between CELTA / DELTA and MATESOL is therefore much like a comparison between electricians and professional engineers; the difference is that I have never seen electricians argue that they are qualified to fill the same jobs as professional engineers. In fact, the critiques of certificate and diploma training from Mark Frear and those posted by Ari Sha Dupp on Dave’s Cafe follow from this comparison.

But engineering is not language teaching, and from an historical perspective, much of the role of universities in the training of professional occupations has more to do with American global dominance than its superiority as an alternative method of preparation. Is it possible to train effective language teachers outside of a university? I have the sense that TEFL International hopes to be involved in an experiment with this goal in mind. The problem is that they are just as elusive with responses to direct questions as any CELTA trainers. So while they may want something different, it may be they want it without the willingness to do anything differently.

One of the major differences between apprentice training in Canada and certificate / diploma training is that the government of Canada rigourously supervises all trades training. As part of their supervision, governmental agencies are constantly evaluating the effectiveness of their training methods and modifying the practices and procedures used. Language teaching certificates and diplomas are private ventures. They are run for the financial profit of everyone involved, and this fact has not escaped criticism.

While CELTA and other diploma trainers may have financial motives, I’m not sure that they’re worse than those of other educators, and certainly not worse than those of other professionalized occupations, like physicians and lawyers. Nevertheless, my question of interest is slightly different than the one of many involved in this discussion; is it possible to develop English teaching outside of the university as a highly professionalized, knowledgeable occupation whose recipients are recognized as such by employers and governments?

May 08, 2004 in The EFL Professional Project | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/711009

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clarifying Diplomas, Certificates, and Expertise in TEFL:

Comments

Scott, thanks for the note. My own point of view about the EFL/ESL split is that in EFL, you generally have to function in an alien school system, so there is no escaping that the educational goals are really quite different. These goals, because they apply over the entire system, influence all of the aspects of the teaching in such a way that it is really putting on blinders to suggest that because they both deal with teaching English, they should rely on the same training. While I’m sure that some skills are transferrable, I’m thinking that it might be 25% at best.

This is not to say that an apprenticeship system that would focus on the 25% would not work.

One of the prestigious distance programs in the UK (the name escapes me now) has as its final a demonstration lesson that you perform where you are teaching, and the grader comes out to watch you (though it may now be videotaped) though IIRC, the washout rate was quite high for the program.

In this model, an program with an apprenticeship based component would be a strong incentive, and therefore, this works quite well in Europe (note that the general educational philosophy is much more uniform, so an apprenticeship deals with perhaps 60% shared skills), though my experience was before the open borders that now exist. But with the constrained geography, the large startup group that can then be weeded out through these kinds of programs, the need for continental Europeans to learn from native speakers (this is not to claim that someone can’t learn to a very high standard from a non-native teacher, as this is the blurring of perceptions and efficacy, but I don’t want to get into an either/or fight) makes it much easier to set up in Europe, and much harder to set up in Asia.

As for apprenticeship programs in the context of US programs, in principle, there is no problem, but the market and academic pressures that drive TEFL/TESOL departments are not going to permit it. Its advantages would be in identifying what components are necessary for good teachers, but as it stands now, most programs reflect the general academic hierarchy of valuing research over practice.

Posted by: joe tomei | July 26, 2004 02:32 AM

My interpretation of the American/British difference is more historical. Britain is one of the last places in the modern world to adopt university-based training for professional. In fact, I have some interesting stats on this, if you’d like to know them.

I am interested in you comments about why an apprenticeship system is not possible in the American system. I hadn’t thought of it that way. I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on the ESL/EFL gap and what this means for teacher training.

I also like your comments about the possibility of an apprentice-based system. I agree that it’s possible and that some schools are even trying to develop such a system. I am NOT a believer in the necessary superiority of a university-based system, but I have trouble imagining an apprenticeship system for professionals that could be better than the way we do it now. I hadn’t thought about SIT in those terms, but then I don’t know that much about them. TEFL International seems to be trying to move in that direction, but with much less success.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | July 26, 2004 12:41 AM

It is important to remember that certification still plays a role in public school teaching. I am (or at least was) certified to teach high school in Mississippi. This was based on me taking a specific number of courses that may or may not have been required by my degree.

On the other hand, you are right that teaching English as a foreign language is a strange hybrid. I think that there are a number of reasons for this. The first is that for a long time (and this is a view still held by a surprising number of people) the main qualification for teaching English to foreigners is native speaker fluency. Thus, a logical step is the rise of short term courses which legitimize practitioners, which would arise in the UK because of the geography of the country. On the other hand, in the US, where geography constrains the rise of a apprenticeship system if there is not an overriding concern on the part of either the consumer, government or the guild itself. The BA/BS has become a defacto ‘minimum’ standard (at least for Japan, to get a teaching visa, you must hold a 4 year degree), yet a BA/BS in EFL would pigeonhole the graduate too much, so the masters level is the logical niche for such a program. However, because it exists in the context of the research driven university system, there is an absence of practical oriented education and a concentration on theory. Many of the MATesol etc programs are terminal, so people who are going into them are second rate citizens in terms of the US university, and the only way to get a PhD in TESOL, EFL/ESL is to make a ‘contribution to human knowledge’. Sorry, a new kind of information gap exercise doesn’t count.

What is interesting in regards to this is the market trend for upgrading credentials. Shorter term courses are obviously more suited for this, but many universities are competing by developing distance programs. For those of us in Asia, the rise of Australian institutions, which have always had a need for more flexible schemes (because the working population is smaller and the option of leaving one’s job to get a graduate degree and then reentering the job market was not as possible) are now attempting to market distance learning to provide the academic weight/gloss of a graduate degree with the practical orientation of the shorter term courses as well as the flexibility of committment. British universities are also doing this, and both are being driven by market oriented reform that dictate they develop pay as you go schemes.

This focus on the bottom line is what drives people to hold up their degree as the sine qua non and disparage others. Are they going to say ‘I took this certification and it was really a waste of time’? To do so is to devalue one’s own qualifications.

There is also another split to think about and that is the EFL/ESL split. The needs and requirements of the two sets of students are diverging rapidly and I believe that the market is not big enough to support two separate certification standards, and the boundaries of the two fields are fuzzy enough to defy separation, so programs will continue to try and straddle the gap, even though it results in a loss of focus. Also, ESL teachers are generally subject to public school certification standards (taking ed psych, handicapped education, various other courses) so a ‘teaching English to non-native speakers’ certification is either going to have to be run in parallel to the standard public school certification or it will have to incorporate large chunks of things that don’t really mean anything to the foreigner working overseas.

I think all of these trends prevent the possibility that there could be an apprenticeship/practitioner certification that would be accepted as a standard. The stakes are too high for unis, for those who have gotten their certification from unis, and for those people who have gotten apprenticeship like certification that may not be recognized as the ‘correct’ one.

However, in principle, I don’t think there is any reason to believe that a certification program like the one you suggest couldn’t work. I believe that there are a number of teachers here in Japan who have become quite successful through acquiring skills through practice. However, these people have had to start their own private language schools and develop their own customer base. SIT begins to approach the kind of certification that you are talking about. But again, they have had to establish their own ‘brand’, and would not want to ‘dilute’ it by casting their standards in with a more general standard.

Posted by: Joe Tomei | May 8, 2004 09:29 PM

Lu Ying-ying (呂瀅瀅)is the youngest member of the Taipei City Council. While running for this office in December last year, Ms. Lu gave an interview to the Taipei Times in which she advocated the licensing and special training of foreign English teachers. The article about the interview produced quite a bit of discussion on the Segue Website. Since then, she has gone on to appoint herself the guardian of English standards in Taipei see (Mayor Ma is Blasted for Poor English Web Sites China Post April 3, 2003. Sorry, this article didn’t make their website).

I am not entirely clear what qualifies Ms. Lu for such a role. The Taipei Times interview described her as follows, “Lu was an English teacher before participating in the councilor election. She owned a Sesame Street English school in Shihpai.” However, her information page on the Taipei City Council Website states that she has no education to speak of. After graduating from high school, she attended a school whose name directly translates into the “American Pacific University Bushiban”. The school does not have a Web page, but I was able to locate a similar message on a Chinese language Website. It would appear that the “American Pacific University Bushiban” is a cram school.

Why Ms. Lu advocates special education and licensing for foreign teachers, but not their employers, is quite mysterious. I have tried to clear up this confusion by contacting her. I have e-mailed her twice, but received no reply. If you’re wondering what qualifies her to be the defender and guardian of Taipei’s English standards, Taiwan being a democracy, you too can write her at her City Council address tcc9103@mail.tcc.gov.tw and ask.

In this post, I want to write about some of the ground-breaking work going on at Ming Chuan that will transform the kind of education we offer. I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that if all goes as planned, what is happening now will have a significant and lasting affect on all post-secondary education in Taiwan. Over the next few years, Ming Chuan will be seeking accreditation through the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), a USA-based accreditation body. While there are individual departments at Taiwan and Asian universities that have accreditation from professional bodies in particular academic fields, no university has accreditation from an America-based accreditation body. When this process is completed, it will make MCU the first school in Taiwan and East Asia to have accreditation of this type. In fact, it is much stronger statement than even that. Outside of a handful of Spanish-medium universities in the American territory Puerto Rico, there is no other non-English medium institution in the world that has such accreditation.

Introduction to Accreditation

Historically, the title of ‘university’ has been awarded after examination by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China. To meet this standard, the Ministry has historically audited schools to assure they meet the guidelines described in the ROC University Act and other related legislation. Ming Chuan has, of course, been granted the right to use the title ‘university’ by the MOE, but, in fact, this examination is more like licensing than accreditation. So, in addition to this licensing from the MOE, MCU hopes to attain recognition from an external body based in the United States, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education or MSCHE is one of the ‘Big Six’ regional accreditation organizations. Founded in 1919, the MSCHE is a voluntary organization composed of colleges and universities of the middle states region. Its members include what are basically the major public and private post-secondary institutions within this region. In addition to this, the MSCHE has chosen to take on the accreditation of institutions outside the political borders of the United States, including institutions in Europe and the Middle East.

Accreditation from the MSCHE is in many ways a matter of common sense. You can read all about the process in documents contained on their website, but in particular, I recommend Candidacy Handbook for Applicants and Candidates for Accreditation and The Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education. Central to this process is the mission statement of an institution and the institutions accountability to this. For example, is it possible for the school, given the resources and structure at their disposal, to realistically achieve that mission. Seattle University is accredited by the Big Six, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. The website of the school identifies the school’s mission in a rather long statement that you can view here. The fact that Seattle University has received Northwest Commission accreditation points to their assessment that the school is realistically capable of achieving this mission.

Keep in mind that accreditation is not a guarantee of quality. It is more like a statement of accountability; that the school can be and is accountable to its mission statement.

MSCHE Accreditation at Ming Chuan University

Currently, Ming Chuan is in the process of preparing its application for candidacy for membership in the MSCHE. This is the first step in attaining full membership. The key person in MCU’s application is Executive Vice-President Robert Yien. On January 24, I spoke with Dr. Yien about the accreditation process and what it will do for the school. Dr. Yien is the former Vice-President of Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) in Michigan. He was born and raised in Taiwan, but after completing a PhD at Michigan State University, he was offered an appointment at SVSU. Through Dr. Yien’s presence, SVSU has developed strong connections with Taiwan and over the years has educated hundreds of Taiwanese alumni. MCU currently maintains its own formal connections with SVSU that are reflected in among other things the exchange program between Saginaw Valley State University and Ming Chuan University.

While working as a professor at SVSU, Dr. Yien was invited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Universities (HLC), one of the ‘Big Six’ accreditation agencies, to take part in their special training course for examiners and subsequently to be an examiner for them. On behalf of the HLC, Dr. Yien has taken part in the examination of over 40 universities in the United States. It would be safe to say there is no ROC citizen or Mandarin-speaking person in the world with more knowledge of the American accreditation system than Dr. Yien.

Following a chance meeting at an academic conference in Taiwan, Dr. Yien was invited by Ming Chuan University president Dr. Chuan Lee to assist us in our application for accreditation through the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

What Will MSCHE Accreditation Do For MCU?

The process of application for membership in a US-based accreditation body is long, complex, and costly. The benefits would have to be substantial to make it worthwhile. Dr. Yien explained to me the significant and lasting affects accreditation holds for students at Ming Chuan.

Perhaps the most important advantage attained from accreditation is course equivalency. Currently, students who have studied at a Taiwanese university have great difficulty getting their courses recognized in American and Canadian universities. For example, if a Taiwanese student wants to study at a university in British Columbia, Canada, graduates of some universities can apply for programs on the basis of their degree completion. While BC schools recognize some degrees as equivalent, the degrees of other schools are not accepted.

But this does still not completely solve the problems of many students. Many professional programs have course requirements. Taiwanese students can either retake these courses or petition individual schools to recognize what they think may be equivalent courses they’ve taken. Of course, the students themselves would be responsible for the cost and trouble of translating documents.

Accreditation from the MSCHE would solve all this. A course in macroeconomics at MCU would be recognized as equivalent to macroeconomics at other member schools of the MSCHE. This does not mean students could automatically transfer from one institution to another, but it does mean that MCU students who have permission to transfer or take courses at another MSCHE school would have a much easier time having their status accessed completely and quickly by the new institution.

In a sense, the effect of MSCHE accreditation is to provide MCU with a much stronger tie to the US school system. It appears to me that after the completion of accreditation, it will be a simpler task for a qualified MCU student to take courses or finish their degree at a university in America than at another university in Taiwan.

The Time Schedule

Obtaining MSCHE accreditation is not a simple task. Even under the best conditions, the accreditation process is complex and detailed. At MCU, the language barrier adds another dimension of difficulty. All the accreditation documents are in English and all documents submitted to the MSCHE must also be written or translated into English.

The target date for MCU to receive status as a full candidate for MSCHE membership is 2008 June. Full membership is targeted for within a year of that. Ming Chuan began the journey for MSCHE accreditation back in 2006 June. In September of last year, MSCHE sent an examiner to MCU for 4 days. He indicated that MCU should move ahead with preparation for application for accreditation. Over the next few years, MCU aims to complete MSCHE self-assessment and self-study that determine how well the school meets their standards. The target date for the comprehensive evaluation from the MSCHE is scheduled for 2008 September or October and a final judgment on our suitability for candidacy will come within 60 days. If all goes well, by 2009, MCU will be eligible for a 5-year full accreditation.

If you take a look at the self-assessment and self-study documents I have linked to, one of the obvious aspects is the huge amount of time it will take to assure the standard is met. In addition to the time involved in preparing the documentation, etc, Dr. Yien estimates the process will cost Ming Chuan $US1.5 million

Reflections

I know your first thoughts; this is another one of those exercises in futility that Taiwan universities and bureaucracy are so well known for. Work, work, work and then nothing changes. Don’t think this hadn’t crossed my mind. And in fact, we will all have to wait and see what the final result is.

But I have admit, sitting there talking with Dr. Yien, it all sounded extremely exciting. The thought of working at an institution doing work that seems ground-breaking, not just for Taiwan but for the entire non-English-speaking world, is fantastic.

I have read through most of the pertinent documents on the MSCHE website and I see no reason why MCU won’t be granted accreditation. I also believe that in the hands of Dr. Yien, we have the best guidance possible. I am as skeptical as anyone about whether this really will transform our school into something different from other Taiwan universities. But I think it is entirely possible this is the first step in to a more competitive, more exciting future.

March 11, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfa2953ef00d834ed269653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Middle States Commission on Higher Education and the Accreditation of Ming Chuan University:
Comments

I read this entry with particular interest because I’m actually writing my thesis on international ed & internationalization now (I’m with the UBC Faculty of Education). This accreditation initiative does sound interesting but I can’t help but ask if you or anyone at MCU have EVER critically reflect on the hegemony behind all this?? Sure it would be great for an American institution to recognize MCU credits, but that is a superficial, bureaucratic procedure. There are deeper sociological / political issues at stake here. Why is a stronger link to an American university or accreditation body beneficial? It sounds to me like handing over the reins of academic freedom to some imperial / colonial gatekeeper.

It’s almost a desperate plea, “We are nothing unless we are certified by USA or some other English-speaking agency. Please please accredit us!” Heck, is this not like the Michellin guide rating restaurants around the world except now we’re certifying higher education. I’m so tired of watching universities in non-English-speaking nations measure & validate themselves thru such neocolonialist procedures. It’s a mass hysteria that few scholars ever question and critically reflect.

You wrote:
“The thought of working at an institution doing work that seems ground-breaking, not just for Taiwan but for the entire non-English-speaking world, is fantastic.”

What is ground-breaking about this? I also would be very hesitant to make sweeping generalizations about higher education in non-English-speaking world. There are countless initiatives that are far more ground-breaking than kow towing to a foreign agency for accreditation.

Sorry to be so negative, but I do find your blog fascinating but expected more of a critical viewpoint on an issue like this.

Posted by: zocalo | March 12, 2007 at 00:36

zocalo, there’s no need to worry about your tone. I appreciate your honesty and emotion. On the other hand, you have to be prepared for a hard response.

In many ways your comment seems naive. Accreditation is a process that emerged in the USA because of the lack of centralized government control. It is a system of quality assurance similar to other processes like licensing, auditing, or ISO. As far as I know, universities in no other country practice accreditation. For example, universities in Taiwan are licensed in a process not at all like accreditation. This is true in Canada, as well.

From the point of view of international education, accreditation is a superior process of quality assurance. As such, MCU is trying to follow a superior process of quality assurance developed in the USA. THE SAME IS TRUE IN CANADA! Please note this last point. At least one school I know of, Capilano College in North Vancouver is seeking accreditation from the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. Officials at the school told me the reason was that international students can recognize this as mark of quality.

The sad but true reality of international education is that quality has not been able to keep up with demand. In a sense, there is as desperate plea here, but it’s not the one that you think. Rather, the problem is that Taiwan’s MOE can not meet the demand from ROC citizens and maintain any sense of quality. Many of the new schools opened recently have the same standards as what I have termed ‘Third World’ schools; they will accept anybody and pass everybody, all the time. You can pretend what you want, but I wouldn’t attend most of these schools and I doubt you would. All the talk about “neocolonialism” and “hegemony” is graduate school rhetoric that you need to get through a program, but the reality of students making choices is that they need outside assurances of quality.

MCU will be the first school accredited outside the USA and its territories that uses a non-English language as its medium of business. I think that’s pretty need. It will certainly provide foreign students in the vastly crowded market with a better sense of quality guarantee than what we or any school in Taiwan now have.

Please let me know more about the “ground-breaking initiatives” you refer to. Readers have written me about a number of what they thought were such. I have not been impressed with anything I’ve seen, but admittedly my knowledge in this area is weak. I’d like to hear more.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | March 12, 2007 at 12:02

Hi Scott,

Glad to hear your response on this. Quality assurance is without a doubt important, but I question about the politics behind all this. What constitutes good quality? Who decides?

Certainly there are lots of low quality schools in Taiwan, but isn’t this problem prevalent in higher education everywhere else? Philip Altbach writes a lot about globalization and education. He points out that the vast majority of higher ed institutions in USA are in fact 2nd rate. Only a few universities in US are really top notch. Yesterday I just read a research article slamming the University of Phoenix which has a shocking enrollment of about 200,000 students in 40+ campuses spread over 29 states plus Puerto Rico and Vancouver, BC. Univ Phoenix was also recently in the news with federal govt threatening to withdrawl funding due to low quality and student complaints. Are you aware that Univ Phoenix accepts about 90% of all applicants? So I think it is important to recognize that low quality is not a problem exclusive to developing countries (or the South, or “Third World”).

You mentioned Capilano College in Vancouver. I’m from Vancouver , so I know this school quite well and also personally have friends who attend this school. I’m afraid to say that this is really a 2nd rate if not 3rd rate school. It’s not even the leading small college in Vancouver. I would not let my kids attend this school regardless how many accreditations they have. I wasn’t even aware they were going for US accreditation, and I work with international students at UBC. Are international students really knowledgeable about such obscured accreditations? If anything, I would think word of mouth has a greater impact. Vancouver is a mecca for international students and so many of them choose schools based on word of mouth advice from family/friends (lots of research surveys also confirm this).

The talk about hegemony is not just an exercise in academic speak. Yes, it is very hard to resist American/European influences in higher education, but if we don’t reflect critically and ask hard questions as academics who would? … certainly not the students, parents, or even teachers.

Ground breaking initiatives… Where do I begin? I’m not sure if you are familiar with the Bologna Declaration in Europe which is creating drastic reforms in higher ed. There are countless student mobility programs, scholarships, credit transfer schemes, twinning programs, multilateral grad programs involving multiple countries, research partnerships, etc. It’s not all rosy of course, but it is definitely very ambitious because European higher education has probably never undergone such drastic changes…and involving so many countries. I just don’t see how applying for accreditation from a foreign body indicates ground-breaking at all. Personally, I am more impressed by creative initiatives that are internally driven rather than subscribing to values/frameworks from an outside body.

Thanks for the exchange of thoughts here.

Posted by: zocalo | March 12, 2007 at 18:11

Interesting post, Scott, but I wanted to point out that, as far as recruitment of “foreign” (i.e., non-Taiwanese) students goes, to my knowledge the brunt of most universities’ efforts is at attracted Hua-qiao, ABC, and overseas Chinese students. This was true when I was a student at a certain national university here, and it is true at the current institution where I work.

Our school has nearly 8000 regular students and approximately 20 “foreign students.” Of these only 2 are from so-called ‘third world’ countries. One from Africa and one from Russia. As for accomodating them with English instruction our school has done a terrible job (mainly because my colleagues, and I’m sure yours too, are too busy, unable, or unwilling to teach in English).

And so, the next point. The reason why schools in American/Canada don’t recognize degrees from Taiwanese schools is simply because the education students receive here is not very good and thoroughly useless for the most part. This is proven by the fact that, upon graduation, students who wish to pursue a graduate degree at 研究所X must go back to a buxiban to “bu” (enhance) their knowledge of basic subjects like Math, English, Science, etc. so that they can pass the national exams.

Which brings up the question of Taiwanese schools enhancing their “ties to the US school system”. Given what I’ve seen of this system, I’m not at all convinced that the US should “lower the bar” a bit and offer recognition to Taiwan universities.

Education is a serious business, after all, and if Taiwan’s schools don’t make muster I see no reason why the overall quality of the US system should suffer (by spreading the gospel of easy accreditation it would suffer, I maintain). Point is–the sanctity of the liberal education comes before the importance of the recognition racket.

I know this sounds probably sounds harsh, but I honestly think that Taiwanese education has a very long way to go before it can begin to even dare think of measuring up to US standards. (We can compare curriculae, faculty, resources, etc. any time, after all. In every case and in every aspect the Taiwanese schools will come up way short).

Best,

N057

Posted by: nostalgiphile | March 12, 2007 at 19:08

zocalo,

I suggest that you read more widely on my blog. I have written extensively about problems with both the UOP and for-profit education. I am not a big supporter of the industry, as my regular readers all know. And it is certainly not what I am referring to when I talk about quality education.

I’m a little flabbergasted by your comment about Capilano College. You can say what you want, but you are doing so with the privillage of holding a passport from one of those imperialist nations you talk about. The reality of the world is that your words demonstrate the elite status from which you are writing. Not even most BC residents are able to attend institutions better than Capilano, so I’m not sure how relevant anything you’re writing about is for those who hold passports only from countries with power and financial problems.

I don’t really understand what the relevance of the Bologna Declaration could be for Ming Chuan University. We have a problem. We operate within the sphere of influence of the ROC Ministry of Education. As such, we can not guaruntee anything to students from either Taiwan or those other countries whose citizens lack financial or political access to the best brand name universities. MOE licensing has so clearly failed as a guaruntee of anything to students that schools with higher goals must look elsewhere.

In fact, I am surprised that with the radical message you appear to support, you have bought so completely into the concept of name brand education. But then Capilano College is so far beneath you and your family. Clearly your message is not intended for the vast majority of people in the world.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | March 12, 2007 at 19:22

nostrophile,

Your infoformation on foreign students is slightly out-dated. I don’t know what school you teach at, but almost all the foreign students in Taiwan are enrolled at NTU, NCKU, NCCU, and MCU. I suggest you check my post from Oct 2006 about international education at Ming Chuan and also my interview with Dean Henry Wu at National Cheng Kung University.

It has been true in the past the KMT used access to university as a way of demonstrating that Taipei was the real capital of China. This is no longer true. Almost none of the students enrolled in any of the English-taught programs at NCKU, NCCU, or MCU are overseas Chinese. It is not true at NCJU, NCCU, or MCU. I do not have information about NTU, but I doubt it’s true there.

I don’t find your comments harsh so much as I find them inaccurate. It is NOT correct that Western universities do not recognize degrees from Taiwanese universities. In fact, this happens all the time. Taipei City mayor Ma Ying Jeou attended NTU then Harvard. The recognition of Taiwan degrees at Western universities is routine. My point was that there there is no direct transfer system for credits between the two systems. Accreditation will change all that.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | March 12, 2007 at 19:32

Scott,

I think there’s a number of points that must be raised:

1. The other three universities you mention having large numbers of foreign students are top national universities. The norm for private universities is, has been raised by contributors to this thread, about 0.1% of the student population coming from overseas.
2. Yes, Ma did go to Harvard. Lots of Taiwanese have gone to good US universites, and they prior to going to the US graduated from the top national universities, i.e places recognised by name at least in the elitist world of higher education. So, to turn the argument around how many MCU students are at Harvard, or have been to Harvard? How many graduates from private universities in Taiwan? Easy, zero.
3. An interesting point to the thread is why is a private university in Taiwan pushing for US accredition? Why not the national ones (if its so ground breaking) and so easy to obtain?
4. You mention describing the process as ‘ground breaking’. It will only be ground breaking if the process comes off. From what I gather it has a snow balls chance in hell. At present private universities do not have the standards required to meet international expectations. Private universities more often than not, from both the perspective of students and teachers, provide mediocrity as opposed to opportunities to excel oneself. This is in part however a consequence of skewed financial resources with national unis collecting most MOE coffers.
5. Another point not examined in the thread – will the accredition process genuinely benefit all MCU graduates should it come off? I can guarantee that the process has been undertaken as it is seen as a means of attracting US students to Taiwan – hence it has been done by a private university who has found a niche via its International College but moreover a saturation point under the system of attracting overseas (re Asian) Chinese and Africans. Accreditation is a way to get Chinese as a Second Language more widely taught, and ideally to US students outside the confines of handshakes with extremely provincial US colleges of little name….oops, we’re back again to the elitist issue.
6. MCU as I have already said has a niche thanks to its International College. By reinforcing this niche, in theory through accredition, it sustains their existence in light of MOE money being carved amongst a growing number of hands and declining birth rate.

Posted by: Ian | March 13, 2007 at 17:57

Ian, while I always appreciate your comments, it’s not clear where this one is going other than the same place that nostalgiphile went: Taiwan education is bad, especially at MCU. That’s clearly your opinion, as you left Taiwan last year, but admittedly it does put you at a distance from where all the information is.

I could systematically go through your points and answer them, but I’m not sure how much good that would do. There seems to be a more fundamental problem with your reading of my post. For example, point 3 implies that I said accreditation is easy to obtain.. In fact, I said the exact opposite. ”Obtaining MSCHE accreditation is not a simple task. Even under the best conditions, the accreditation process is complex and detailed.” were my exact words. This was a main point and obviously stated. Your failure to note this and conclusion that I said the exact opposite makes me wonder if you gave the post more than a glance and are instead relying on a gut feeling that Taiwan university all bad.

One point I am willing to address is your disbelief that accreditation could be granted to a Taiwan private university like MCU. A fact that I mentioned in my post that also seems to have been missed is that a number of individual departments in both national and private universities have already received accreditation from international professional accreditation organizations. Your doubt in our ability to finish the process implies a certain knowledge of what accreditation is and what is and is not possible. I have read almost all the documents on the website of the MSCHE that pertain to the process. Dr. Yien would be a leading authority on the procedure. I wonder if you could elaborate on your knowledge of the accreditation process and let me know exactly where the problem is, I can make sure that Dr. Yien hears about this.

But in all honestly Ian, I don’t think you have a clear picture of either what I said or what accreditation really is. While I don’t mind spending more time answering your questions directly because some of them raise interesting points, it might be better if you had another look at the post.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | March 13, 2007 at 22:27

I’m very pleased to read that you hold Taiwanese education so highly. However two points of note. Firstly, just because someone has stopped teaching in Taiwan doesn’t automatically make the education system bad there in their mind! I maybe left Taiwan for different reasons. Secondly, just because someone is not in Taiwan doesn’t mean they can’t be privy to detailed information. Indeed my comments on the accreditation process and its anticipated failure was based on comments directly made by one of your superiors in an email. However I’ll refrain from elaborating in light of your response to my earlier posting with its retort that I quite clearly know nothing. I therefore look forward to enlightening myself given your critical analysis of the subject, your knowledge of the accreditation process, closeness to Dr Yien and my obvious failings. I won’t be posting again though.

Posted by: Ian | March 13, 2007 at 23:44

I’m so tired of watching universities in non-English-speaking nations measure & validate themselves thru such neocolonialist procedures.

What’s interesting is how this idea of “neocolonialism” is constructed. Let’s imagine that we were not looking at education but, say, electronics manufacture. Would you argue that it is neocolonialist for Taiwanese or Vietnamese producers to go to Europe, Japan, and the US to copy manufacturing techniques and designs? Probably not, since that is where the best work is done, and where the markets are.

It’s not “neocolonialist” to go where the perceived best is. It’s what countries do when they want to improve their production processes, including knowledge production. It only becomes “neocolonialist” when someone attempts to fit it into a a priori framework of the way reality works. Heck, it’s a lot easier to argue the other way ’round, that Taiwan is exploiting the US and accreditation procedures to gain itself merit it does not deserve — in other words, that the exploitation runs in the other direction.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Turton | March 16, 2007 at 11:43

I’m very interested in seeing how this works out, how the process is carried out, and what the results and evaluations are. Keep us posted, man.

Michael

Posted by: Michael Turton | March 16, 2007 at 11:44

Michael, thank you very much for raising this point. It is an excellent point and key to understanding what’s going on in the larger picture of scholarship on exported technology. If you copy semiconductor manufacturing, it’s clever being Asians. If you copy an educational system, it’s American colonialism.

I too am getting tired of the double standard I am often confronted on issues like this. In a comment from this writer that I unposted, he went on to refer to me as one of those foreigners who come here and tell Asians how to fix their schools. I found this ironic, since this project was suggested by MCU president Dr. Lee Chuan and the source of my information is Dr. Robert Yien, both of whom are Taiwanese.

I can’t say this will work, or even that if it works. it will work the way Dr. Lee wants. But I’ll be sure to everyone posted.

Posted by: Scott Sommers | March 16, 2007 at 15:43