Starting this academic year, the Ministry of Education has implemented the 12-year compulsory curriculum — also called the “108 curriculum” — for first-year elementary, junior-high and senior-high school students. The new curriculum has been in the pipeline for five years and has a budget of NT$45 billion (US$1.49 billion).
Unlike the previous nine-year curriculum, which focuses on mastering different subject areas, the new curriculum aims to foster students’ overall core competency, so that they can each learn based on their unique proclivity and talents, and develop a passion for life-long learning.
It is hoped that such a reform can better realize the talents of every student in a nation that has one of the lowest birthrates in the world, thus boosting its global competitiveness.
While the 108 curriculum recognizes the pitfalls associated with past educational reforms, its implementation faces serious challenges.
First and foremost is the readiness of teachers. Despite the ministry’s claim that about 80 percent of teachers have been trained in preparation for the new curriculum, it is far from certain that such training is sufficient to ensure a fundamental change in the day-to-day practices of teachers.
A recent survey conducted by the King Car Cultural and Educational Foundation found that only 10 percent of the teachers surveyed think they are ready to carry out their new mission. Part of this is perhaps due to the vagueness surrounding the concept of core competency.
Core competency involves a person’s knowledge, ability and attitude. It is not as easy to measure as quantifiable outcomes, such as standardized test scores.
Naturally, teachers might stick to doing what they are familiar with. As a consequence, any changes in pedagogical practices are likely to be incremental, rather than transformative.
Being a parent of a first-year junior-high school student, I have witnessed firsthand the amount of homework they need to complete to cope with the demands of the school the next day. The heavy study load and intense pace of learning is vastly different from the vision set out by the ministry.
Another big challenge is overcoming the deep-rooted, often unquestioned, practice of exam-based learning and teaching. At a recent parent-teacher meeting, the main concern for parents and school administrators with regard to the new curriculum was not about how students could learn better, but how the new curriculum would affect their chance of getting into a good senior-high school.
Despite the ministry’s goal of gradually reducing the importance of exams, most people still consider doing well on the standardized tests as the best guarantee of getting into a good high school and a reputable university.
With this fixation on the outcome of competitive national exams, how can teachers, students and parents be expected to devote time to the seemingly “useless” pursuit of proclivity and passion?
The imposition of testing as a common pedagogical practice instills passivity among students (Why study when there are no exams to study for?) and encourages selective learning (Is the material going to be in the test?).
Thinking in the language of numbers, or test scores and rankings, dangerously narrows the purpose of education and is detrimental to the exploration of a student’s interests and the cultivation of their competency.
Steve Jobs, the cofounder of Apple Inc, dropped out of college after six months and never graduated.
He often credited it as one of the best decisions he ever made, as it allowed him to “drop in” on courses that really interested him.
Giving advice to college graduates in a commencement speech in 1995, Jobs said: “You’ve got to find what you love, and that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.”
If we are genuinely serious about educational reform, we need to shake off the shackles of the exam-based system that has been so deeply ingrained, not only in our schools, but also in our minds. Business as usual in the classroom might give us a sense of security, but such security actually involves a greater risk is today’s increasingly uncertain world.
Cheng Shiuh-tarng is an English teacher in Kaohsiung.
Taiwan has never had a president who is not from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Could next year’s presidential election put a third-party candidate in office? The contenders who have thrown their hats into the ring are Vice President William Lai (賴清德) of the DPP, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) of the KMT and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). A monthly poll released by my-formosa.com on Monday showed support for Hou nosediving from 26 percent to 18.3 percent, the lowest among the three presidential hopefuls. It was a surprising
On April 26, British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs James Cleverly gave a speech on diplomatic strategy at Mansion House in London. He said that if a war broke out in the Taiwan Strait, it would not only become a human tragedy, but destroy global trade and the economy, which is worth US$2.6 trillion. He said that every year, half of the world’s container ships pass through the Taiwan Strait, emphasizing that Taiwan is a crucial point in the global supply chain, particularly its role in providing advanced semiconductors. If China invades Taiwan, it would be
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has nominated New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its candidate for next year’s presidential election. The selection process was replete with controversy, mainly because the KMT has never stipulated a set of protocols for its presidential nominations. Yet, viewed from a historical perspective, the KMT has improved to some extent. There are two fundamental differences between the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP): First, the DPP believes that the Republic of China on Taiwan is a sovereign country with independent autonomy, meaning that Taiwan and China are two different entities. The KMT, on the
A Beijing-based think tank last week published a poll showing that the majority of Chinese consider “international military intervention in Taiwan” one of the top threats facing China. Arguably, the sole purpose of the poll, which was conducted by the Tsinghua University Center for International Security and Strategy, is to serve as propaganda. A poll conducted in China, where freedom of speech is curtailed, cannot accurately reflect public opinion. Chinese would be reluctant to publicly express their true opinion, especially when it contradicts the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) narrative, as doing so would likely be construed as subversive behavior. RAND
RSS