Tests as a necessary evil
While I sympathize with Liang-yi OuYang (Letters, Dec. 29, page 8), I feel compelled to respond to a number of the issues raised.
First, the disparaging remarks about tests are understandable, but perhaps wide of the mark, which to my mind is not so much the existence of tests, but their content. I never had to endure the Taiwanese examination system, but I have known many who did and observed their frantic attempts to amass reams of disjointed facts and figures in preparation for an ordeal that appears to be little more than a test of memory.
However, the answer, in my view, is not to abandon tests but to change what they measure and how they measure it. I don’t think one would find much dissension with the claim that Taiwanese education is pretty test-driven and students are very motivated to pass. That being the case, we should change the test format from atomistic, “discrete point” tests with their long procession of multiple choice questions and look instead at a more holistic approach that measures not individuals’ knowledge, but their ability to use that knowledge to achieve certain goals.
In language testing, (which I admit is the limit of my own experience), we talk about a “communicative paradigm” that provides a foundation for “direct testing,” a way to measure how well people can put together their knowledge (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation): read a train schedule to plan a trip, take part in a discussion or hundreds of other “language-oriented tasks” we face on a daily basis. I may be a little naive in assuming that what can be done with language testing can be similarly applied to other school subjects, but one thing I am sure of is that tests do far more than just measure. Given that it is in the nature of education to “teach to the test,” such tests can also be utilized as instruments of change, leading to innovations in methodology and syllabus design, which can only be for the good.
My second point considers the writer’s proposal that scholarships be made more widely available. Excellent as this suggestion may be, it begs the question: How do we decide who gets these scholarships? It looks like we are back to some kind of testing again. Even if we make scholarships available only to those with very special talents, there is bound to be competition among each particular group, so we need to systematically and fairly apportion the goodies to the most deserving.
I am not saying that current practices are particularly fair, but we cannot escape the fact that scholarships are — just like higher education — a limited resource which needs to be rationed. The question is how do we do that? One way would be purely through pricing. In other words, jack up the cost of education until there is no need to ration it and dispense with the idea of scholarships. However, I am sure many would find such an inherently unfair system unacceptable, so what is left? The fact remains that we still need a way to discriminate between individuals (notice “between” not “against”) in order to make decisions.
Finally, mock exams. I hated them too, so I can identify with the writer on this point. They may seem exhaustingly unnecessary, especially when students work through countless old exam questions in class, but I think it is useful if such an activity faithfully replicates the environment of the exam room.
This is an important point, because there is an ethical imperative at work here. Is it really fair to subject people to conditions (including the actual test) with which they are unfamiliar? Especially when that test may be a “high-stakes” one with a lot riding on the result? I personally think not and conclude if somewhat reluctantly that mock exams therefore have their value. Perhaps they could be made optional, but how many students would forego the experience, unpalatable as it is?
Ultimately very few, because most want to get ahead, succeed and reach their goals. I would really like to see this motivational momentum harnessed so that it contributes to educational change, fostering a desire to apply knowledge rather than just stockpile it. As daft as it may sound, tests can help achieve that.
Richmond, BC, Canada
Grist for the mill
By choosing “Shining Baby.ROC” as the mascot that will be featured in a series of activities celebrating the nation’s 100th anniversary this year, the judges of the public contest made a small mistake that might become a bigger one as the year rolls on. Lee Kai-an, who designed the cute mascot, said that the shining sun in Taiwan’s national flag inspired him to design the mascot in a way that tells the story of the Republic of China (ROC) fighting for freedom and democracy and achieving so much over the past century. While Lee’s intentions were good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Lee is a talented artist and designer. However, using the logo of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on a mascot that is supposed to appeal to all citizens of Taiwan was a huge mistake. Lee told reporters the other day that he hopes Taiwan will “continue to develop in an open and multicultural spirit in the next century, symbolized by the shafts of light projecting above the head of the mascot.”
However, how can “an open and multicultural spirit” be spotlighted when the logo on a national mascot is the logo of just one political party, which does not represent all the people of Taiwan. Cute mascot, wrong choice of logo. Some members of the pan-green camp are going to be very mad when they see it. I just smiled and said to myself: “Here we go again!”
Since COVID-19 broke out in Taiwan, there has been a fair amount of news regarding discrimination and “witch hunts” against medical personnel, people under self-quarantine and other targets, such as the students of a school where an infection was discovered. Quarantine breakers are almost certainly on the loose and it is only natural for people to be vigilant. One in Chiayi was found by accident at a traffic stop because his helmet was not fastened. However, those who follow the rules by quarantining themselves should be encouraged to keep up the good work in a difficult situation, instead of being
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator-at-large Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷) has said that there is a huge difference between Chinese military aircraft circling Taiwan along the edges of its airspace and invading Taiwan’s airspace. He also said that whether it is US or Chinese aircraft flying along or encircling Taiwan’s airspace, there is no legal basis to say that such actions imply a clear provocation of Taiwan, and asked the Ministry of National Defense not to mislead the public. People who hear this might think that it is not a very Taiwanese thing to say. US military activity in the vicinity of Taiwan
As the nation welcomes home Taiwanese who had been stranded in China’s Hubei Province — arguably one of the most dangerous places on Earth since the novel coronavirus outbreak began in its capital, Wuhan, late last year — problems surrounding the “quasi-charter flights” that brought them back have been largely overlooked. The media used the term to describe the two flights dispatched by Taiwan’s state-run China Airlines because they do not count as charter flights. Taiwanese wanting to board those flights had to travel — most likely by train — more than 1,000km from Hubei to Shanghai Pudong International Airport
As the COVID-19 pandemic spins out of control, many parts of the world are experiencing shortages of medical masks and other protective equipment. I am studying in Washington state, which at the time of writing is the US state that has suffered the largest number of deaths from the novel coronavirus. The week before last, UW Medicine — an organization that includes the University of Washington School of Medicine and associated medical centers and clinics — sent its volunteers an e-mail asking the public to make masks and donate them to hospitals. Attached to the message was a mask donation