Recently, the media reported on the results of the 12-year compulsory curriculum based on information provided by Chang Yao-wen (張耀文), dean of National Taiwan University’s (NTU) College of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. The first group of 12-year curriculum students are about to complete their first year in university.
Chang said that first-year university students at NTU, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University and National Sun Yat-sen University are underperforming compared with students in previous years.
Universities have started offering summer courses and online bridging courses to help students with certain subjects, especially calculus and general chemistry. Some professors believe that the new curriculum must be reviewed, and have suggested that the credits required for natural sciences be increased from eight to 18.
Chang has said that high-school teachers cannot cover everything in an eight-credit framework, so students are learning less mathematics and science, while the cram school business has been booming.
High-school courses lay the foundation for calculus and chemistry at university level, but average scores of first-year NTU students have shown a general decline, Chang said.
The average score in calculus of those majoring in science, engineering and social science was lower. For students at NTU’s College of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, the score decreased by 8 percent.
However, other universities and academics believe it is too early to judge whether the new curriculum should be held accountable for such declines.
In contemporary education, it is believed that the time invested in studying is not necessarily proportional to the grades received, and that students’ achievements are not a direct result of teaching.
Under the new curriculum, Taiwan’s primary college entrance exam, the General Scholastic Ability Test, is better designed. In the past two years, quality questions were included in mathematics and science. To excel at Chinese, students must acquire a basic knowledge of mathematics and natural sciences, as the questions in the Chinese tests require a fundamental understanding of those disciplines to answer.
That is, the curriculum is designed to break down the boundaries between disciplines, raising the level of students’ competency in not only science and technology, but also languages and arts. Obviously, school teachers at all levels have paid attention to this and endeavored to put it into practice.
Universities and academics should be applauded for placing an emphasis on improving students’ capabilities, but students’ performance should be evaluated long-term, rather than being judged by average scores after only a few semesters. Besides, students’ competence should not be assessed by quantitative data: examination questions for the same course differ from year to year, and so average scores will vary.
The current batch of first-year university students studied under the 12-year curriculum for three years. It is hoped that they will continue to deepen what they have learned in high school and demonstrate their distinct knowledge, temperament and competence as part of the generation participating in the new curriculum.
These students are not only studying for good grades, but to develop their independent thinking. Their language capacity, as well as their ability to innovate and socialize with others, should not be downplayed.
Taiwan should look forward to their achievements in the near future.
Chang Huey-por is former president of National Changhua University of Education.
Translated by Emma Liu
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS