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!”
Having returned to the UK late last year and with a Taiwanese spouse remaining in Taiwan, I have been afforded the chance to compare and contrast the UK and Taiwanese governments’ responses to the COVID-19 crisis. My early conclusions are that Taiwan benefits from a rational, competent government, which quickly recognizes, adapts to and confronts large-scale disasters. It is led by a government that does more than just talk of respecting democracy and human rights, one that is scrutinized and responds to criticism, one that is concerned about public opinion, and one that is used to dealing with emergencies on
The “Wuhan pneumonia” outbreak has become a pandemic, but many countries have yet to come to grips with the worsening severity of this medical crisis. Historian Robert Peckham has studied how the ecology of deadly diseases has changed from the late 19th century until today and, in his 2016 book titled Epidemics in Modern Asia highlights the intrinsic link between global connectivity and emerging infections. The frequency of outbreaks — from SARS in 2003 to swine flu in 2009 and today’s COVID-19 — and their rapid rate of transmission owe much to globalization. Better and cheaper transportation and communications technology have empowered
Early last month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) was elected party chairman, winning with a seven-to-three majority over pro-Beijing former Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), a two-time KMT vice chairman. Chiang’s victory has been interpreted as a generational change and the beginning of major party reform. In his inauguration speech on March 9, Chiang did not mention the so-called “1992 consensus.” Analysts believe that his most urgent task is to attract more young people to the party and win voter trust, and that he does not care about Beijing’s reaction. After joining the party chairmanship by-election, Chiang made his