When I mentioned “civic competence” and “democratic competence” during a lecture on social awareness not long ago, I asked my students jokingly whether I should test their “competence” on the final exam. My question caused a commotion in the classroom as they all shouted: “No.”
Some students wondered how such competence could be tested, and I answered, with a smile, that it was something I also wanted to know, and I would therefore like to give it a try.
I asked if they could explain what literacy was. After a lively discussion, some said “competence” refers to a person’s temperament, sophistication or culture, while others said that it refers to self-respect, self-discipline or being a law-abiding citizen. All the answers were right, but they seemed to be quite different from the Ministry of Education’s emphasis on “competency education” in the new curriculum guidelines implemented last year.
One student said that competency education in the new curriculum guidelines existed in name only. I was surprised by the remark, but had to admit that they had a point.
The competency education pushed by the ministry is not intended to teach students how to develop such competence, but rather what they should do to pass competency tests. When the National Academy for Educational Research (國家教育研究院) invited teachers to its workshops on competency education, it did not instruct them on how to integrate it into their teaching. Rather, it instructed them how to devise test questions about students’ competency skills.
Teachers who did not know how to create test questions, or those who tend to give questions regarding applied use, were frustrated at the workshops, and wondered why they did not get it.
Competency education is a headache for teachers, and it is making students and parents nervous. Is the ministry cultivating future talent, or is it giving the nation’s children a hard time?
Learning from Finland and Japan, Taiwanese academics have proposed a total of nine “core competencies” in three sections, and the goal is to cultivate students’ knowledge, attitude and ability to face an uncertain future.
In Finland, for example, the seven key competencies taught are: thinking and learning to learn; cultural competence, interaction and self-expression; self-care and managing daily life; multimedia literacy; information and communications technology; working life skills and entrepreneurship; and participating in, influencing and building a sustainable future.
If Taiwan followed the Finnish criteria, its next generation would be outstanding, and would become cross-disciplinary talent, statespeople, entrepreneurs or scientists. Is this really possible?
Competency is an abstract concept. If it is not put into practice and internalized into awareness and attitude, it will be difficult to cultivate a well-educated citizenry.
As Lee Chia-tung (李家同), an honorary professor at National Tsing Hua University, has said: “We should talk about students’ knowledge before we talk about their competencies.”
Without first laying a foundation of knowledge, competency education would be nothing but a slogan.
A Chinese saying goes: “The greatest truths are the simplest.”
The push for competency education is well-intended, but it seems unnecessary to complicate simple competency education to the point that it becomes so complicated that even teachers do not know how to assess their students properly.
It is important to follow the conventions of everyday life and learn how to conduct oneself. Surely this is the real goal of competency education.
Shiao Fu-song is a lecturer at National Taitung University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS