23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
A practice of multilingual islands? The enactment of National Languages Policy in Taiwan
Yu-Chih Li
NUTN, Taiwan
Presenting Author: Li, Yu-Chih
The development of multilingual curriculum has usually been regarded as one of marketized strategies for global neoliberal education environment (Huang, 2022) or the intercultural or multicultural practice in the society (Senar, Janés, Huguet & Ubalde, 2023; European Commission, n.d.). However, this may not be the case for the recent multilingual education policy in Taiwan. In 2019, the legislation of “Development of National Language Act” is given the task to realize linguistic and cultural human rights on the islands. Responding to the enactment of Development of National Languages Act, Taiwanese Ministry of Education has amended and implemented a new version of Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education in 2022 in order to implement the policy of national language courses from elementary to senior high school level. According to the new Curriculum Guidelines, from the school year of 2022 (which starts from September, 2022), local languages education, implemented as mandate courses, is extended from elementary school to junior and senior high school with various course hours and/or credits. With such a policy, it becomes a mandate for students not only take national language courses in their 9-year compulsory education but also carrying on national language courses in the optional 3-year post-secondary education. With the conceptualization of half-education by Adorno (1993), the paper scrutinizes the discourse development of national language and its position in the post-secondary education in Taiwan. There are 2 overarching research questions: 1) What is the construct of national language education, and 2) What are the unique tasks and characteristics of post-secondary national languages education in Taiwan.
As a postcolonial society, Taiwanese schooling has organized and operated in different languages. In Japanese colonial regime, Japanese language was taught as the national language, while Mandarin has become the only instructional language used in schooling after the Chinese national government took place in 1945. The top-down language policies have been regarded as one of powerful tools that reconstruct not only the cultures and communication practices but also the identities. This paper critically examines two policies enacted in 2017 and 2019, the 2030 Bilingual Nation policy and the Development of National Languages Act, and investigates their impacts on schooling in Taiwan. The multilingualism and intercultural practices developed in European societies will be utilized as a reference in the investigation of Taiwanese multilingualism under the enactment of recent language policies.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedAn analysis of policy documents, press releases, and the publications from the Gazette of Legislative Yuan and Executive Yuan is conducted as the analysis of official discourse. And documents created for implementing policy in schools are analyzed with interviews with teachers and section/course leaders who realize policies in schools. The paper takes upon Ball, Maguire and Braun’s (2012) view of policy spaces among different levels of enactment and delineates the enacting of such language policy from the perspectives of situated contexts, professional cultures, material contexts, and external factors. An interview outline is produced to collect interview data from schools, including: 1) teachers’/section leaders’ educational and professional background and teaching experiences, 2) teachers’/section leaders’ viewpoints on multilingualism in Taiwan, 3) teachers’/section leaders’ experience and practice in the implementation of language courses in schools, 4) teachers’/section leaders’ experience and practice in the implementation of language courses in classrooms, and 5) reflections or insights on language education in Taiwan. Each interview takes around 45-60 minutes. And the interview data is collected and transcribed into texts and analysed with the documents distributed in schools, such as language course surveys, flyers, and parent consent forms, etc.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper delineates the inclusive and exclusive issues of current Taiwanese language policies. After the long-term monolingual policy, the MOE amended the Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education along with the multilingual policies. The paper discusses the adjustment of curriculum intertwines with the development of multiculturalism of the society (Lee, 2017; Kasai, 2022) and the enactment trajectories of policy-in-school regarding to multilingual education. The paper contributes to the literature of language education and language policy in contemporary Southeast Asian societies.
ReferencesAdorno, T. W. (1993) Theory of Pseudo-Culture. Telos: Critical Theory of the Contemporary 95, 15-38.
European Commission (n.d.) About multilingualism policy. Retrieved from https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/improving-quality/multilingualism/about-multilingualism-policy
Huang, C. F. (2023) Multilingual writing in a marketised university: a critical multimodal study of student service advertisements, International Journal of Multilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2023.2265396
Kasai, H. (2022) Taiwanese multiculturalism and the political appropriation of new immigrants’ languages. Comparative Education, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2022.2099657
Lee, S. (2017) Imagination and formation: Discourse analysis of multicultural education developments in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of Sociology of Education, 17:2, 1-44.
Senar, F., Janés, J. , Huguet, À., & Ubalde, J. (2023) The mosaic of language and identity: territorial identification, linguistic attitudes, and proficiency in young immigrants of Catalonia, International Journal of Multilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2023.2280682
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
The Linguistic Hegemony of 'Education': A Comparative Study on the Pitfalls of English Language Dominance in Educational Policy Discourse
Stefan Emmenegger
University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland
Presenting Author: Emmenegger, Stefan
In an era when English dominates international and transnational dialogues, the concept of 'education' is framed predominantly through an Anglophone lens. Global education policy and research frameworks thus dominated by the English language may cause potential misinterpretations when the term 'education' is translated across languages, which harbours the risk of conceptual dissonance. Such concerns are amplified in discourses led by major international bodies such as the OECD, UNESCO and the EU. This raises questions about the inclusiveness and applicability of education policy and research, particularly in the light of the EU's commitment to multilingualism as enshrined in its Charter of Fundamental Rights.
This paper critiques the prevailing "linguistic hegemony" (Reagan 2018) in educational discourse and argues that an English-centric approach in policy and research publications may dilute diverse educational philosophies, especially amidst Europe's rich linguistic tapestry. Sensitivity to multiple meanings and local epistemologies is important, especially when dealing with social issues that are often local and contextual. Drawing on critiques of global governance (Tikly 2017; Parreiro de Amaral 2011) and comparative education theory (Keiner & Schriewer 2000; Ermenc 2015; Cowen & Kim 2023; Tröhler 2023), this study aims to analyse the impact of English language dominance in shaping international education narratives and argues for multilingual sensitivity.
The research examines the treatment of the contextual nuances of education and English-centric narratives in international reports from the OECD, UNESCO and the EU. It furthermore evaluates the use of language and the extent of sensitivity to contextual specificity of these documents, as they not only describe but also propose future educational visions and policies. Three key questions guide this examination:
- How do these policy reports conceptualise 'education', especially with regards to future goals and educational content?
- To what extent do they address issues of translation and contextual specificity?
- How do they accommodate multilingual and multiplex interpretations of 'education'?
Using the methodologies of Bray et al. (2014) and Phillips (2006), this study explores the conceptualisation of 'education' and its recognition of local epistemologies. It examines the usage of the English term 'education' within these documents for implicit or explicit assumptions, with the goal of revealing cases of undue uniformity in the understanding of conceptualizations of ‘education’.
The present study aims to demonstrate that a productive way to advance discourse within the dominant English-centric model is the 'import' of ideas and conceptual frameworks from non-English educational-theories, such as e.g. the German "Erziehungstheorie" (theory of education). Contrasting English publications with their German translations will showcase that exploring non-Anglophone theoretical perspectives, such as the German concepts of 'Erziehung' and 'Bildung', provide a more nuanced understanding of 'education' beyond the confines of the Anglophone discourse. This approach could uncover underlying normative, ethical, and intergenerational aspects of education that are often overlooked in Anglophone discussions, thus broadening the theoretical landscape of educational research and policy.
Following existing studies of hidden assumptions within policy documents (Forster 2014; Vaccari & Gardinier 2019), the analysis seeks to highlight the drawbacks of overlooking linguistic diversity in educational discourses and argues for the inclusion of local epistemologies to enrich policy and research. Finally, drawing on Geertz's (1983) concept of 'local knowledge' and Merton's (1949) 'middle range theories', I argue that a multilingual and culturally sensitive approach to educational policy and research could make a significant contribution to the field by embracing the theoretical richness offered by Europe's linguistic and cultural diversity.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis analysis follows a tradition in comparative education that critically examines the use of language in influential global education reports (Bray et al. 2014; Phillips 2006; Brehm 2023). As a first step, the study analyses English-language publications: PISA 2022 Report (OECD), UNESCO's Global Education Monitoring Report (2023), and the European Union's Education and Training Monitor (2023). As a second source of material, the corresponding websites on which these publications are hosted will be considered in order to assess how issues of translation are handled online.
The documents were selected on the basis of the following criteria: (a) the documents are relatively new, (b) they are published by authoritative bodies (OECD, UNESCO, EU) that tend to have a major impact on shaping educational discourse and policy-making, and (c) the publishing institutions make explicit efforts to deal with multiple languages and translations, as can be seen from their website landscape.
The analytical framework (coding scheme) for the comparative study incorporates concepts from critical discourse analysis, theories of linguistic hegemony and comparative educational methodologies. The comparison of the documents follows an exploratory (e.g. inductive) interest and describes two main dimensions: Firstly, the documents’ (1) use of language with a particular focus on the conceptualisation of education, and secondly (2) the documents’ sensitivity to multilingualism, i.e. how they deal with local or national contexts and translation issues.
The interpretation and discussion of the findings will focus on several points of criticism, such as their implicit assumptions and potential exclusion of non-English perspectives. One aim will be to integrate the findings with theoretical insights, particularly from comparative studies of Anglophone and German conceptions of education, to discuss the possible implications for educational policy and collaborative international research.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn examining international education policy documents, this study presents findings in three key areas, shedding light on the nuances and implications of education as a concept in policy-making.
Firstly, the research confirms previous studies, highlighting that these documents primarily view 'education' as an economic element, often institutionalized. However, an issue arises in translations. Notable documents like the PISA and UNESCO reports are translated into various languages, but critical terms, such as 'education', are inadequately rendered (e.g., 'Bildung' in German). This literal translation approach overlooks the local and national-specific epistemologies, failing to encompass “local knowledge” as described by Geertz.
Secondly, contrasting Anglophone and German education theories reveals a frequent conflation of 'education' with 'schooling'. This narrow focus misses out on broader social aspects such as intergenerational transmission and non-formal education. Additionally, the German tradition makes a clear distinction between 'Erziehung' (education) and 'Bildung' (formation). This study underlines the importance of these distinctions, often lost in translation.
The final area advocates for a paradigm shift towards localized, collaborative epistemologies and research methodologies. This approach aims to respect and integrate diverse perspectives, challenging the prevailing global narrative of education as depicted in the analysed reports and policies.
As an outlook, the paper proposes exploring collaborative areas among prevalent European languages (German, French, Italian, English, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Ukrainian) and extends this consideration to a global context with languages like Mandarin Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, and Arabic. This approach underscores the need for a multilingual perspective in education policy, especially when dealing with local and contextual social issues.
ReferencesBray, Mark, Adamson, Bob, & Mason, Mark (Ed.) (2014). Comparative education research: approaches and methods (2nd ed ). New York: Springer.
Brehm, Will (2023). Comparative education as a political project. Comparative Education, 59(3), 362–378.
Cowen, Robert, & Kim, Terri (2023). Comparative education and intercultural education: relations and revisions. Comparative Education, 59(3), 379–397.
Ermenc, Klara Skubic (2015). The Role of Comparative Pedagogy in Comparative Educational Research. In Alexander W. Wiseman & Nikolay Popov (Ed.), International Perspectives on Education and Society (Vol. 26, S. 37–56). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Forster, Edgar (2014). Kritik der Evidenz. Das Beispiel evidence-informed policy research der OECD. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(6), 890–907.
Geertz, Clifford (1983). Local knowledge: further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Horlacher, Rebekka (2016). The educated subject and the German concept of Bildung: A comparative cultural history (Routledge cultural studies in knowledge, curriculum, and education) (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Keiner, Edwin/Schriewer, Jürgen (2000). Erneuerung aus dem Geist der eigenen Tradition? Über Kontinuität und Wandel nationaler Denkstile in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Bildungswissenschaften, 22(1), 27–50.
Merton, Robert King (1949). On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range. In Robert King Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure (S. 448–459). New York, NY: Free Press.
Parreira do Amaral, Marcelo (2011). Educational Governance und Regimetheorie: Die Emergenz eines Internationalen Bildungsregimes. In Sigrid Karin Amos, Wolfgang Meseth & Matthias Proske (Ed.), Öffentliche Erziehung revisited: Erziehung, Politik und Gesellschaft im Diskurs (1. ed, S. 195–222). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Phillips, David (2006). Comparative Education: Method. Research in Comparative and International Education, 1(4), 304–319.
Singh, Michael, & Huang, Xiaowen (2013). Bourdieu’s lessons for internationalising Anglophone education: declassifying Sino-Anglo divisions over critical theorising. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 43(2), 203–223.
Tikly, Leon (2017). The Future of Education for All as a Global Regime of Educational Governance. Comparative Education Review, 61(1), 22–57.
Tröhler, Daniel (2023). Education, Curriculum and Nation-Building: Contributions of Comparative Education to the Understanding of Nations and Nationalism (1. Auflage). London: Routledge.
Vaccari, Victoria, & Gardinier, Meg P. (2019). Toward one world or many? A comparative analysis of OECD and UNESCO global education policy documents. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 11(1).
|
