2015年3月29日 星期日

李家同:不要再折磨年輕人 改回聯招吧





李家同:不要再折磨年輕人 改回聯招吧

2015-03-29 09:32:13 中央社 台北29日

大學個人申請入學正進行二階段甄選,繁複的流程苦惱考生和家長,雖然提供不同入學管道和機會,但在選擇過程,有人批評如同賭博。李家同教授在臉書貼文「不要再折磨年輕人,改回聯招吧!」

長年關注教育問題的博幼基金會董事長李家同指出,他所認識的教授中都有一個共同的想法,那就是全國最多只有5%的人是要經過特別的方式入學的,其他人都是普通人,沒有什麼特別之處,對這些人而言,聯招是最好的方法,簡單而又公平,完全沒有賭博的成份在內。

李家同近日在臉書貼文指出:最近有一位朋友告訴我,花了很多時間和兒子研究如何填學測之後的六個志願。但朋友的兒子最後說「我不會再生孩子,因為我不要看到他在我們的國家遭受如此大的折磨」。

現在要進大學,一定先要參加學力測驗。學力測驗結束之後就要填志願申請入學,可是只能填六個志願。你也可以不申請入學,就要參加一個考試,這個考試叫做「指定考試」。

為什麼叫做指定考試?恐怕誰也說不出所以然來。指定考試就像過去的聯招,考完之後也像過去的聯招一樣填志願和分發。但是指定考試的名額有越來越少的趨勢,有些明星大學甚至只有20%的學生是經由指定考試入學的。所以,很少人敢不申請入學的。

如果你申請入學的結果不理想,你仍然可以放棄,然後再參加指定考試。所以,我們第一個問題就是一個「賭博」的問題,要不要放棄學力測驗的結果以及要不要放棄申請入學的結果。這已經就是折磨我們的年輕人了。

更要注意的是,指定考試的內容比學力測驗要難,如果你程度不好,學力測驗的結果不理想,你就只有參加指定考試,所以我們國家有一個奇怪的現象,功課好的人考比較容易的考試,功課不好的人要考比較難的考試。

現在我們來看填六個志願的問題,假設要填某一個學校的一個科系,你就要查這個科系所訂定的申請入學標準。它也許要求英文要均標,數學要高標等等,如果你不具備這些資格,那就白填了。如果是考得非常好的同學,任何科系都能上,事情簡單許多。可是成績中等的同學,就要查看許多科系的資訊才能找到他通過最低門檻的科系。

這還沒完,有些科系會要求對英文科加權,雖然英文的成績有通過門檻,但因為加權之後的分數又不夠了,所以又要注意加權的問題。

如果你發現你到達了最低門檻,加權之後的分數也還可以,你還要注意另外一件事,那就是去年這個科系在申請入學的最低分數。比方說,某某系去年申請入學的最低級分是70,而你只有65級分,你也要知道自己大概又上不去了。

為什麼你要如此地小心呢?因為申請入學並不是你可以直接申請的,要將自己的志願告訴一個單位。假設要申請甲系,那個單位會將所有申請甲系的同學,根據甲系訂出的標準予以排序,假如甲系釋出30個名額,那個單位會通知前90名的同學有被甲系考慮的機會。

所以填志願的問題就在於如果你的分數都非常高,要到哪一個科系,大概都沒問題。如果你的分數非常低,大概只能選一些冷門的學校和冷門的科系。如果你的分數是中等的,就要賭博了。

假設有一個大學的某一科系所訂出的標準不高,可想而知的是,這個科系被大家發現了,很多人會填這個科系為志願,一夜之間,這個科系的入學門檻就變得非常高了。也許去年61級分就可以被考慮,今年忽然之間要64級分才能被考慮。我們可憐的學生填志願的時候是不知道其他人是如何想的,如果他知道其他同學都不會填這個科系,而他填了,他就上了。可是他如何能知道呢?

有些同學會利用很多網站上的落點分析,可是你一定要知道,落點分析如果建議你填某志願,很多人也會據此建議去填,你又倒楣了。我知道就有一些學生填志願的時候,目標高了一點,結果一個學校都沒有能夠進。對這些學生來說,這是不是非常大的打擊?這些學生又不甘心填那些不夠厲害的校系,可是他們的賭博是賭輸了。

填志願還要注意另外一件事,萬一兩所不同大學的科系都可以有面試的機會,你還要注意時間是否有所衝突。比方說,在台北的一所大學是早上十點面試,另一所大學在高雄是下午一點面試,兩所大學其實只有一個機會可以選擇。

假如你有面試的機會,你還要準備備審資料,包含自傳、讀書計畫。自傳對於強勢孩子其實是極為有利的。最令我感到奇怪的是讀書計畫,第一,我根本還沒唸這個科系,如何知道所開的課程有哪些,如何能夠擬定讀書計畫?第二,大學部的課很多都是必修的,只有到高年級才有選修課。一個高中生在高中畢業的時候就能知道在他大四的時候要選什麼課嗎?我真的不知道讀書計畫的功能是什麼。

去面試要出車費,為了怕交通擁擠,有時學生由家長陪同到一個都市住旅館,凡此種種,對於弱勢孩子而言,實在是痛苦之至。

即使你有面試的機會,也極有可能最後全軍覆沒。有些大學有一種特別的辦法,讓你能夠以技藝加分,比方說,會拉小提琴,或者籃球打得特別好,學測也考得不錯,原來只能進某一大學的某一科系,因為有這些才藝,就可以經由這個才藝加分。

可是這談何容易,如果你是籃球高手,就要到很多大學去參加考試。我也要講,有很多在高中職的校隊選手,結果是完全垮掉。其實我們很難講這個同學的籃球技術一定比另外一個同學的籃球技術差一點。要評定同學的籃球技術或是小提琴技藝,往往有主觀判斷標準在內。要靠這種技藝入學,也會使同學感到沮喪。

我們可以問兩個問題,第一,對我們所有的年輕學子而言,這種制度有什麼好處?第二,對於大學而言,這個制度有什麼好處?

我所認識的教授中,都有一個共同的想法,那就是全國最多只有5%的人是要經過特別的方式入學的,其他人都是普通人,沒有什麼特別之處,對這些人而言,聯招是最好的方法,簡單而又公平,完全沒有賭博的成份在內。

我們的政府一再地說施政要便民,所以我們有各種便民措施。現在我們繳稅都可以用自然人憑證來繳稅,要繳水電費都非常容易,沒有想到的是,進大學要受到如此的折磨。

我有不少的朋友,近幾年來都有孩子要進大學,每一個人在他的小孩要進大學的時候,個個唉聲嘆氣。奇怪的是,我們的政府完全無動於衷,制定出如此複雜的入學制度,究竟是根據什麼原理,我真希望政府能夠給我們一個明確的答案。如果實在沒有辦法說明白這個制度的優點,那我就建議政府一了百了,不要再折磨年輕人了。恢復聯招,留下少數的名額,讓特殊的學生可以經由特殊的管道入學。

2015年3月28日 星期六

台灣教育部的問題:縮減50校白日夢;違法課綱微調23%;沒資格就教育界的領導

"What! can the devil speak true?"
--Banquo from "Macbeth" (1.3.107)
課綱微調會議紀錄曝光 綠委:教育部違法
 2015年03月09日
鄭麗君指出,過去教育部始終否認,也抗拒公布會議記錄,但會議紀錄曝光後,證實了課綱微調小組的成立,是未經授權且逾越檢核小組職權的違法作為。(宋小海攝)


教育部去年推行的高中歷史及公民等課綱微調案,日前遭台北高等行政法院一審判決違法,綠委鄭麗君(8)日深夜公布一份會議紀錄,指出課綱微調小組成立是未經授權的違法作為。
鄭麗君公布的會議紀錄,是教育部的「高中及國中小社會、語文領域檢核工作小組」於2013年11月23日在國家教育研究院舉行第1次會議。鄭指出,過去教育部始終否認,也抗拒公布會議記錄,但會議紀錄曝光後,證實了課綱微調小組的成立,是未經授權且逾越檢核小組職權的違法作為。
鄭麗君表示,該次檢核小組的成立,是為了檢核教科書用詞,正式討論的提案也是處理教科書檢核,但會議中突然以臨時動議發動課綱微調,已證實是違法。
鄭麗君也說,議決程序有重大瑕疵已在法院判決下逐漸顯露,整體課綱微調的違法性已經非常明顯,奉勸部長吳思華不要代人受過,要及時暫緩微調課綱的實施並予以撤銷,否則該負法律責任的不會只有前部長蔣偉寧及其他官員。9日吳思華也赴立法院教育文化委員會,對課綱微調爭議進行專案報告。

【課綱微調會議紀錄曝光 綠委:教育部違法】http://bit.ly/1E0EBYt

教育部調整12年國教課綱拒絕提供審議委員記名投票單一事,遭人權團體控告,台北高等行政法院日前判決教育部敗訴。今(9)...
STORM.MG


台灣教育部的問題

馬政府剛上任時,約2009年教育部承馬總統意旨,編預算搞"品格教育".....
之後,有蔣偉寧部長論文被証實合撰者是騙子、造假。
2015年1月,教育部長吳思華更坦承內部訓練員工當"網軍",負責捧場自己的施政,可以說是無恥。





--------2011.2.21
這故事告訴我們教育部少設什麼孔子獎之類的獎: "親乳頭、摸私處...師鐸獎狼師送辦"


這是聯合晚報!
竟然是這種新聞標題: "親乳頭、摸私處...師鐸獎狼師送辦"

這故事告訴我們教育部少設什麼孔子獎之類的獎
上有獎名 下有巧奪

-----



一名曾獲北縣師鐸獎的新北市某國中50歲男教師,多次藉故撫摸、親吻未滿15歲的女學生,新北市教育局長林騰蛟上午表示,本周將對該教師完成解聘程序,並將教師依妨害性自主罪移送法辦。
市長朱立倫上午也說,他對這件校園性侵案很遺憾,除要求各校對學生保護及教育做得更好,尤其校長有監督、行政責任,若發生事情絕不能隱瞞,要從嚴從速處理。此案案發時校方有無隱瞞,已由教育局撤查。
本案被害女學生約5、6人,其中一名女學生曾向好友哭訴老師「很變態」,下課後將她叫到無人的辦公室,解開她的內衣、親吻乳頭,隔著內褲摸她私處。市議員 金介壽說,校方去年獲知此事,卻讓該教師休長假,還為他辦退休,企圖粉飭太平。而且在請假接受調查期間,該名教師還一再返校打球,讓受創學生心理再度受打 擊,而且該教師在外開設家教班,連補習班學生都知道他會吃女學生豆腐,受害者不知有多少人。
教育局長林騰蛟上午說,校方通報、處理都依規定程序,並無隱匿,不過老師涉及違法遭調查時辦理退休,調查與退休走不同管道,以致出現「調查完成前先准許退休,等調查確認性騷擾成立才撤銷退休」,這部份如何勾稽,避免調查完成前就獲准退休,將作檢討。
教育局特教科長歐人豪說,教育局上月31日就撤銷教師退休、98年師鐸獎資格,本周會完成解聘程序,並依刑法第227條妨害性自主罪移送法辦,將面臨三年以下刑責。
【2011/02/22 聯合晚報】@ http://udn.com/



******這是教育部的白日夢

私立逼退+公立逼婚 教部:目標縮減50校

2015-03-28

12所公校整併 40所私校退場

〔記者林曉雲、陳祐誠、洪定宏、蔡清華/綜合報導〕台灣大專院校多達一五九所,教育部首度公布縮減目標,預估八年後最多可減少五十校,包括八到十二所公校整併,廿到四十所私校退場或轉型;為平衡各區域人口及保障學生受教權,各縣市至少會保留一所公立大學。

首個三合一案 6月提報中央

目前第一個「逼婚對象」是國立高雄第一科技大學、國立高雄海洋科技大學、國立高雄應用科技大學「三合一」,教育部政次陳德華昨在記者會上宣布,三合一案將在今年六月提報中央,明年即會由「三校變一校」招生。
至於台灣大學與國立台北教育大學合併案,兩校已重新啟動協商作業,不排除合併可能;私校康寧大學與康寧醫護暨管理專科學校合併案,目前進行中,順利的話,今年八月即可合併為康寧大學招生。
三校對於合併案、新校名為「高雄科技大學」已具共識,第一科大主任秘書陳其芬表示,案子通過後,學生人數預估達兩萬七千人,將是全國第二大、僅次於台大的大學。不過,據了解,因高應大學生數超過一萬人,不急著合併;高海科大被去掉「海洋」兩字,失去高雄「海洋首都」的象徵意義,兩校都有怨氣,地方希望拖過總統大選,政黨輪替後再說。
陳德華表示,依目前各校招生情況,北部學校招生情況較佳,南部學校招生情況較差,減校後,北部學校所占比例微幅上升、南部學校比例微幅下降;技職司長李彥儀表示,目前有五所技職校院、兩所一般大學列入輔導退場或轉型名單。
據教育部資料,一一二學年大專學生人數比一○二學年減少卅一萬五千人,以每名學生學費公立五萬元、私立十萬元估算,高教學費收入將減少三百億元,大專教師人數會比目前減少一萬人。因此,高教創新轉型方案策略之一是「高階人才躍升」,教育部擬建置全國大專教師人才網,做為老師轉業到企業的平台。
李彥儀表示,教育部和經濟部盤點十七個需要創新研發人才的產業,包括半導體、顯示器、自行車等,有意轉換跑道的大專教師,將提供半年或一年留職留薪的產業試探期,也會協助公保轉勞保。

2015年3月27日 星期五

Fareed Zakaria : Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous

"No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write."

Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous
 March 26 
Fareed Zakaria, a columnist for The Washington Post, is the host of “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN and the author of “In Defense of a Liberal Education.”
If Americans are united in any conviction these days, it is that we urgently need to shift the country’s education toward the teaching of specific, technical skills. Every month, it seems, we hear about our children’s bad test scores in math and science — and about new initiatives from companies, universities or foundations to expand STEM courses (science, technology, engineering and math) and deemphasize the humanities. From President Obama on down, public officials have cautioned against pursuing degrees like art history, which are seen as expensive luxuries in today’s world. Republicans want to go several steps further and defund these kinds of majors. “Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists?” asked Florida’s Gov. Rick Scott. “I don’t think so.” America’s last bipartisan cause is this: A liberal education is irrelevant, and technical training is the new path forward. It is the only way, we are told, to ensure that Americans survive in an age defined by technology and shaped by global competition. The stakes could not be higher.
This dismissal of broad-based learning, however, comes from a fundamental misreading of the facts — and puts America on a dangerously narrow path for the future. The United States has led the world in economic dynamism, innovation and entrepreneurship thanks to exactly the kind of teaching we are now told to defenestrate. A broad general education helps foster critical thinking and creativity. Exposure to a variety of fields produces synergy and cross fertilization. Yes, science and technology are crucial components of this education, but so are English and philosophy. When unveiling a new edition of the iPad, Steve Jobs explained that “it’s in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough — that it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the result that makes our hearts sing.”
Innovation is not simply a technical matter but rather one of understanding how people and societies work, what they need and want. America will not dominate the 21st century by making cheaper computer chips but instead by constantly reimagining how computers and other new technologies interact with human beings.
For most of its history, the United States was unique in offering a well-rounded education. In their comprehensive study, “The Race Between Education and Technology,” Harvard’s Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz point out that in the 19th century, countries like Britain, France and Germany educated only a few and put them through narrow programs designed to impart only the skills crucial to their professions. America, by contrast, provided mass general education because people were not rooted in specific locations with long-established trades that offered the only paths forward for young men. And the American economy historically changed so quickly that the nature of work and the requirements for success tended to shift from one generation to the next. People didn’t want to lock themselves into one professional guild or learn one specific skill for life.
That was appropriate in another era, the technologists argue, but it is dangerous in today’s world. Look at where American kids stand compared with their peers abroad. The most recent international test, conducted in 2012, found that among the 34 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States ranked 27th in math, 20th in science and 17th in reading. If rankings across the three subjects are averaged, the United States comes in 21st, trailing nations such as the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and Estonia.
In truth, though, the United States has never done well on international tests, and they are not good predictors of our national success. Since 1964, when the first such exam was administered to 13-year-olds in 12 countries, America has lagged behind its peers, rarely rising above the middle of the pack and doing particularly poorly in science and math. And yet over these past five decades, that same laggard country has dominated the world of science, technology, research and innovation.
Consider the same pattern in two other highly innovative countries, Sweden and Israel. Israel ranks first in the world in venture-capital investments as a percentage of GDP; the United States ranks second, and Sweden is sixth, ahead of Great Britain and Germany. These nations do well by most measures of innovation, such as research and development spending and the number of high-tech companies as a share of all public companies. Yet all three countries fare surprisingly poorly in the OECD test rankings. Sweden and Israel performed even worse than the United States on the 2012 assessment, landing overall at 28th and 29th, respectively, among the 34 most-developed economies.
But other than bad test-takers, their economies have a few important traits in common: They are flexible. Their work cultures are non-hierarchical and merit-based. All operate like young countries, with energy and dynamism. All three are open societies, happy to let in the world’s ideas, goods and services. And people in all three nations are confident — a characteristic that can be measured. Despite ranking 27th and 30th in math, respectively, American and Israeli students came out at the top in their belief in their math abilities, if one tallies up their responses to survey questions about their skills. Sweden came in seventh, even though its math ranking was 28th.
Thirty years ago, William Bennett, the Reagan-era secretary of education, noticed this disparity between achievement and confidence and quipped, “This country is a lot better at teaching self-esteem than it is at teaching math.” It’s a funny line, but there is actually something powerful in the plucky confidence of American, Swedish and Israeli students. It allows them to challenge their elders, start companies, persist when others think they are wrong and pick themselves up when they fail. Too much confidence runs the risk of self-delusion, but the trait is an essential ingredient for entrepreneurship.
My point is not that it’s good that American students fare poorly on these tests. It isn’t. Asian countries like Japan and South Korea have benefitted enormously from having skilled workforces. But technical chops are just one ingredient needed for innovation and economic success. America overcomes its disadvantage — a less-technically-trained workforce — with other advantages such as creativity, critical thinking and an optimistic outlook. A country like Japan, by contrast, can’t do as much with its well-trained workers because it lacks many of the factors that produce continuous innovation.
Americans should be careful before they try to mimic Asian educational systems, which are oriented around memorization and test-taking. I went through that kind of system. It has its strengths, but it’s not conducive to thinking, problem solving or creativity. That’s why most Asian countries, from Singapore to South Korea to India, are trying to add features of a liberal education to their systems. Jack Ma, the founder of China’s Internet behemoth Alibaba, recently hypothesized in a speech that the Chinese are not as innovative as Westerners because China’s educational system, which teaches the basics very well, does not nourish a student’s complete intelligence, allowing her to range freely, experiment and enjoy herself while learning: “Many painters learn by having fun, many works [of art and literature] are the products of having fun. So, our entrepreneurs need to learn how to have fun, too.”
No matter how strong your math and science skills are, you still need to know how to learn, think and even write. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon (and the owner of this newspaper), insists that his senior executives write memos, often as long as six printed pages, and begins senior-management meetings with a period of quiet time, sometimes as long as 30 minutes, while everyone reads the “narratives” to themselves and makes notes on them. In an interview with Fortune’s Adam Lashinsky, Bezos said: “Full sentences are harder to write. They have verbs. The paragraphs have topic sentences. There is no way to write a six-page, narratively structured memo and not have clear thinking.”
Companies often prefer strong basics to narrow expertise. Andrew Benett, a management consultant, surveyed 100 business leaders and found that 84 of them said they would rather hire smart, passionate people, even if they didn’t have the exact skills their companies needed.
Innovation in business has always involved insights beyond technology. Consider the case of Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg was a classic liberal arts student who also happened to be passionately interested in computers. He studied ancient Greek intensively in high school and majored in psychology while he attended college. And Facebook’s innovations have a lot to do with psychology. Zuckerberg has often pointed out that before Facebook was created, most people shielded their identities on the Internet. It was a land of anonymity. Facebook’s insight was that it could create a culture of real identities, where people would voluntarily expose themselves to their friends, and this would become a transformative platform. Of course, Zuckerberg understands computers deeply and uses great coders to put his ideas into practice, but as he has put it, Facebook is “as much psychology and sociology as it is technology.”
Twenty years ago, tech companies might have survived simply as product manufacturers. Now they have to be on the cutting edge of design, marketing and social networking. You can make a sneaker equally well in many parts of the world, but you can’t sell it for $300 unless you’ve built a story around it. The same is true for cars, clothes and coffee. The value added is in the brand — how it is imagined, presented, sold and sustained. Or consider America’s vast entertainment industry, built around stories, songs, design and creativity. All of this requires skills far beyond the offerings of a narrow STEM curriculum.
Critical thinking is, in the end, the only way to protect American jobs. David Autor, the MIT economist who has most carefully studied the impact of technology and globalization on labor, writes that “human tasks that have proved most amenable to computerization are those that follow explicit, codifiable procedures — such as multiplication — where computers now vastly exceed human labor in speed, quality, accuracy, and cost efficiency. Tasks that have proved most vexing to automate are those that demand flexibility, judgment, and common sense — skills that we understand only tacitly — for example, developing a hypothesis or organizing a closet.” In 2013, two Oxford scholars conducted a comprehensive study on employment and found that, for workers to avoid the computerization of their jobs, “they will have to acquire creative and social skills.”
This doesn’t in any way detract from the need for training in technology, but it does suggest that as we work with computers (which is really the future of all work), the most valuable skills will be the ones that are uniquely human, that computers cannot quite figure out — yet. And for those jobs, and that life, you could not do better than to follow your passion, engage with a breadth of material in both science and the humanities, and perhaps above all, study the human condition.
One final reason to value a liberal education lies in its roots. For most of human history, all education was skills-based. Hunters, farmers and warriors taught their young to hunt, farm and fight. But about 2,500 years ago, that changed in Greece, which began to experiment with a new form of government: democracy. This innovation in government required an innovation in education. Basic skills for sustenance were no longer sufficient. Citizens also had to learn how to manage their own societies and practice self-government. They still do.

Fareed Zakaria writes a foreign affairs column for The Post. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS and a contributing editor for The 

2015年3月26日 星期四

The whole world is going to university《經濟學人》專題報導

企業主要用名校的學生,不是因為學生有沒有學到什麼,而是因為這些學生是經過名校篩選出來的!這還真是現代教育啓示錄!

A recent study of recruitment by professional-services firms found that they took graduates from the most prestigious universities not because of what the candidates might have learned but because of those institutions’ tough selection procedures. In short, students could be paying vast sums merely to go through a very elaborate sorting mechanism.



《經濟學人》封面故事就是全球目前關切的大學教育爭議
More and more money is being spent on higher education.         
Too little is known about whether it is worth it
花在高等教育的錢愈來愈多,倒底值不值得卻所知甚少
This week’s cover preview:
The whole world is going to university
March 28th – April 3rd 2015
Read for free via: http://econ.st/1xBqhsx

2015年3月23日 星期一

金言;FIVE MINDS FOR THE FUTURE


FIVE MINDS FOR THE FUTURE

Five Minds for the Future outlines the specific cognitive abilities that will be sought and cultivated by leaders in the years ahead.
These include:
  • The Disciplinary Mind: the mastery of major schools of thought, including science, mathematics, and history, and of at least one professional craft.
  • The Synthesizing Mind: the ability to integrate ideas from different disciplines or spheres into a coherent whole and to communicate that integration to others.
  • The Creating Mind: the capacity to uncover and clarify new problems, questions, and phenomena.
  • The Respectful Mind: awareness of and appreciation for differences among human beings and human groups.
  • The Ethical Mind: fulfillment of one’s responsibilities as a worker and as a citizen.
Gardner draws from a wealth of diverse examples to illuminate these ideas, designed to inspire lifelong learning and also to provide valuable insights for those charged with training and developing organizational leaders.
Drawing on decades of cognitive research and rich examples from history, politics, business, science, and the arts, Gardner writes for professionals, teachers, parents, political and business leaders, trainers, and all who prize the cognitive skills at a premium for tomorrow.

新加坡國立大學這句李光耀金句,一直是我的座右銘

【讀者投書】王偉儒:當志工跟服務學習是不一樣的事!

【讀者投書】王偉儒:當志工跟服務學習是不一樣的事!

關鍵字: 
photo credit: flickr@Javcon117*, CC BY-SA 2.0
本人在中正大學曾任職社會服務學習的教學助理,對於近期古都馬拉松志工死亡一事所引起的「廢除」服務學習的風波提供一些見解。但,在此必須先對「志工」與「服務學習」做出明確定義。
志工可謂志願工作者,本著志願精神(volunteerism),不計有形報酬而付出心力、時間、勞務與財力協助他人者;服務學習(Service Learning),則是一種有別於傳統的教學模式,強調做中學,授課教師並沒有一套剛性的教材,而是讓學生運用本身之能與課堂所學來貢獻社區,同時學生亦可從服務與教師在課堂帶領反思的過程中找到啟發與學而有用的機會。
一般來說,我們在大學常聽到的「服務學習」,便是從美國引進的「教學模式」。我從教育部青年發展署網頁引述一段隊服務學習制度背景的介紹:「服務學習於1960年代,當時美國高等教育以及學生參與社會正義的需求和呼聲日漸殷切,同時配合杜威(Dewey)經驗教育的論述,服務學習因此在70年代於許多校園中蓬勃發展。到1980年代末期,在深信服務學習具有極大教育潛力的有識之士努力下,美國教育委員會結合了校園盟約(campus compact)的力量,結合1000所大學及學院,正式奠定服務學習的理念與做法。」以上資訊從教育部青年發展署網站便能檢視。
因此,正確來說,當「志工(volunteer)」與「服務學習(Service Learning)」是不一樣的事情,一個是成為「角色」,另一個則是一種「教學模式」。不過可惜的是,台灣在引進這套教學模式時,並未考量到美國是在1960年代民權運動高漲的年代的發展需求脈絡,我們去脈絡化的就直接硬生生拿來用,配套措施建置不良,甚至詢問許多同學或老師,也不知道「服務學習」是哪樁?
在高等教育機構──大學裡頭,就連當初制定畢業門檻的校方與會議「代表」,也容易將「服務學習」與「志工」混為一談,並且無意識地以一種家父長式主義(paternalism)的權威心態,認定「把當志工(Being a volunteer)當作是一個公民道德的參與和練習機會」。最後,硬生生地變成了一個制度性的畢業門檻,不少大學都群起效尤。致使才引起諸多人產生對「服務學習」的反彈與汙名化(stigmatization)。服務學習被諷刺為「被濫用的無酬勞動推手」。
雖然在我任職的中正大學,的確有把服務時數(有許多管道自由選擇)納為畢業門檻,但針對「服務學習(Service Learning)」的課程,的確是建立一套老師──助教──同學三方的學習網絡,強化服務學習「做中學」的精神,也因此,不少同學也在做中學的過程中得到老師、助教與同學間的砥礪與反思,改變以往的思維。
最後,該不該廢除「以服務時數當作畢業門檻之一」的命題,我認為是值得由同學與校方來商榷的。畢竟用校規來訂定「(志工)服務時數為畢業門檻之一」這件事情本身,可能早已違背志願精神(volunteerism)。而如果你說要廢除「服務學習」?我會請他先去了解什麼是「服務學習(Service Learning)」。
弄清楚誰是你的對手,再出拳反擊也不遲!
【參考資料】教育部青年發展署
(作者為中正大學政治學系學生、中正大學通識中心社會服務學習教學助理)

2015年3月20日 星期五

Guardian university awards 2015


The Guardian, with its daily readership of over six million, is in the top three English language news media in the world.
The Guardian university awards give UK universities the opportunity to highlight their achievements to that vast and growing global community. One in five Guardian readers describe themselves as students.
The Guardian university awards showcase best practice, achievement and innovation across a range of categories. Honouring excellence in everything from teaching practice to inspiring facilities, the awards act as a sector benchmark and offer universities a seal of approval for their most outstanding work.
The awards recognise the value of specific projects and reward institutions that have delivered projects which exceed the expectations of their students and staff. This year, to recognise the range of work being undertaken in higher education, we’ve introduced four new categories.
All shortlisted entries will be invited to attend the awards ceremony in central London in March 2015, where the winners will be announced. In addition there will be a dedicated site which will host a university awards “ideas bank”, containing all the written submissions that made the shortlist.
Entries, accompanied by the requisite fee, will be accepted from all recognised higher educations institutions in the UK.
Shortlisted entrants will receive:
 Two tickets to attend the awards ceremony
 Exposure on the Guardian web site
 Inclusion in the Guardian university award ideas bank (winners and runners-up)

Guardian university awards 2015: winners and runners up

Find out which universities were awarded for their inspiring projects around employability, student experience and more
University awards 2015
 All the winners at the Guardian University Awards 2015. Photograph: Anna Gordon for the Guardian

Inspiring leader award

Sponsored by Leadership Foundation for Higher Education
Paul Blomfield MP

Advancing staff equality

Sponsored by Equality Challenge Unit
Winner: University of Essex
Runner up: University of Birmingham

Buildings that inspire

Winner: University of Worcester
Runner up: Bath Spa University
Runner up: University of Essex

Business partnership

Winner: Nottingham Trent University
Runner up: Staffordshire University
Runner up: Coventry University

Employability

Winner: Coventry University
Runner up: De Montfort University
Runner up: University of Manchester

Entrepreneurship

Winner: Cardiff Metropolitan University
Runner up: Ravensbourne University
Runner up: University of Southampton

International projects

Winner: King’s College London
Runner up: University of Manchester
Runner up: University of the West of England

Marketing and comms campaign

Winner: Loughborough University
Runner up: University of Reading 
Runner up: Bath Spa University

Online and distance learning

Winner: University of Manchester
Runner up: Coventry University
Runner up: University of London International Academy/SOAS

Research impact

Winner: University of Greenwich
Runner up: Cardiff University
Runner up: University of Bath

Social and community impact

Winner: Plymouth University
Runner up: University of Manchester
Runner up: University of Nottingham

Student diversity and widening participation

Winner: Royal Central School of Speech and Drama
Runner up: Kingston University
Runner up: London Metropolitan University

Student experience

Winner: University of Hertfordshire
Runner up: University of Winchester
Runner up: De Montfort University

Sustainability project

Winner: University of Nottingham
Runner up: University of Manchester
Runner up: Kingston University

Teaching excellence

Winner: Nottingham Trent University – Dawn of the Unread
Runner up: Nottingham Trent University – SCALE UP
Runner up: University of Sheffield
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.

2015年3月19日 星期四

中小學課外自然科補習怪現象,Cheating in India reaches new heights ;蕭志強:台灣年輕人學科學的變懶惰了(楊振寧)


楊振寧台大演講,主題:物理與詩
二十幾年前,記得他獲頒諾貝爾獎後第一次來台
清大演講更是全部講詩
(雖念文科,我對物理學科普書籍滿愛的,也翻譯理科書約三十本:加醫學則近百本)
另外,今天聯合晚報專訪他,楊說台灣年輕人學科學的變懶惰了(困惑不知為什麼)
這個問題清大彭明輝教授已經罵很多年,
主要就是揠苗助長
(聯發科蔡明介去年股東會也提到類似的問題)
年紀小小的孩子,大人拼命讓他們做科學實驗,功利地拚科展(升學加分),拚數理資優,數理國際競賽,幾乎都是超齡演出拼命做題目,而不是讓孩子優游其中,自然啟發產生興趣發現問題,自己慢慢找答案。
(簡單講就是只知解題而無思考,也失去“胡思亂想“的習慣与能力)
結果,
過早勤勞,真正念大學了卻變成有氣無力,而且產生"我已經很懂了"的錯覺。
聰明的民族,
真的是超聰明的台灣人
就這樣被熱心的父母
給不小心
誤了。
*****
為何近年來孩子的教育反而工具化,被各種資優班,科展與兒童實驗補習綁架,主因其實就是教育媽媽發揮主導力,高學歷的她們自信可以規畫孩子教育,一味的追求資優,孩子萬一不是天生資優,就偷跑或者拼命補習,甚至砸錢"開發潛能",麥得事件就是最明顯例子。
還有印象嗎?
2000年底,台南東區爆發"開發潛能補習班孩童吞火爭議",一群媽媽報名藝人徐明開的麥得補習班(半年學費30萬),主要課程催眠,說是可以開發孩子潛能與勇氣,其中包括吞火。
事情鬧到上電視,結果據說那些媽媽後來反而被告誹謗(報名時就知道有吞火課程的)
說她們愚蠢嗎?據說多半是醫師和高階公務員太太,應該不笨,只是腦袋殘留戒嚴思維而不自知。
努力讓孩子拚數理資優,卻不知先進國家(好幾位諾貝爾得主)主張孩子教育最重要的是多親近大自然,親近農田等,浸泡其中享受美感啟發觀察力。(楊振寧和白川英樹等都極力推薦)
至於培養勇氣,最好就是關心社會,關懷別人,勇氣自然產生,而且長智慧,開創意。
日本東洋大學(地位類似東海或淡江)2013年起推動學生輪流休學一年進入農山漁村常住,學習農漁業,協助當地社區發展。
台灣呢?
我們的家長能接受這樣的觀念嗎?

關於台灣中小學課外自然科補習怪現象,
再補充一個例子,
圍繞著台南市超明星國中後甲國中(成大是其學區)有幾種補習班
有的專門幫學生弄科展(國小就可報名),包到好,通常能得獎,甄試加分,
也有的二十萬幫你拿到國際發明獎獎狀,
也是加分
父母有錢,
真好。




*****


Cheating in India reaches new heights.


Family values, some called it on Twitter. It does take a village, another said.
WASHINGTONPOST.COM