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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS