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!”
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
There are few areas where Beijing, Taipei, and Washington find themselves in agreement these days, but one of them is that the situation in the Taiwan Strait is growing more dangerous. Such a shared assessment quickly breaks down, though, when the question turns to identifying sources of rising tensions. Several Chinese experts and officials I have consulted with recently have argued that Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior in the Taiwan Strait is driven mostly by fear. According to this narrative, Beijing is worried that unless it puts a brake on Taiwan’s move away from the mainland, Taiwan could be “lost” forever. They
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who died on Thursday last week, coined the phrase “new Taiwanese” and used it in some of his public speeches. The concept of “new Taiwanese” was an important link in the chain of his political thought. Lee proposed the term in August 1998 on the eve of the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. His intention was to consolidate a common understanding around the idea of “new Taiwanese,” and to embody the Taiwanese spirit of never giving up and not fearing hardship, and to create bright prospects for generations to come. However, after