There recently has been a lot of debate over the weightage of Chinese language in major examinations. This follows a string of events that began with the revision of Chinese curriculum a few years ago.
To begin, I have to say Chinese language is important. Nevermind the often repeated argument about engaging a rising China and to connect with cultural roots. I feel that the most important reason for learning Chinese is simply to be able to communicate with people who speaks in Chinese. This is, after all, the purpose of learning a language and the purpose of having a language right? To communicate with different group of people. Yes. I sounds intangible and unimportant, given the translators (human or otherwise) available and that more Chinese people are learning English. But there are limitations to one's ability to express and comprehend in a particular language. Therefore, it might be useful to be able to communicate in another language when the speaker is better able to convey his thoughts more accurately. Of course, the economical advantages of learning Chinese is also huge bonus.
There are several points in this debate that I would like to point out. First, there were complaints from parents whose multiple (or all) of their children have difficulties learning Chinese. Why is this so? Shouldn't difficulty in learning Chinese be an individual problem? This suggests that we had our teaching methods wrong, there is something wrong with the family or the language is plain difficult.
How can the language be plain difficult when generations before us have learnt it well? Granted, they are unlikely to have grappled with the intense academic competition nor the multiple subjects like today's students. To those who kept lamenting the falling Chinese standard, this could be one of the reasons. Unless the government changes education policy, this will continue to be the case. There is a limit to the ability of each children (and there is only 24 hours a day and children need properly sleep and physical activities). Do not expect the standard to be like that of 30, 40 or 50 years ago. This is not practical for the general school-goining population, with the exceptions or a small group of individuals. It is more important to impart the basics and the attitude to learn more beyond the classroom. We have to send the signal that learning does not stop outside the classroom. In classroom, I think it is more important we focus on bringing students to basic level of writing, reading and speaking Chinese. Given how little time we actually spent on writing Chinese after school, focus on reading and speaking appears more important. However, in my opinion, the ability to write a word (or write a word once) can aid in recognizing the word.
There is no doubt that we have to constantly improve our method of teaching Chinese to suit the children and the needs of the society. What exactly is the best method is debatable. What we are doing is to try to customize content and teaching as best we can to different groups of pupils with different apttitudes. However, within each group, there will be students who do not do as well. This is not reason enough to dismiss the teaching method as incorrect or unsuitable. Therefore, while parents should not complain so much, teachers should also be more flexible and should cater to the needs of individuals as much as possible. To parents, this is your child, it is part of responsibility to help him, even if there are teachers around. To teachers who refuse to use English to aid students in understanding Chinese, you should change your mind. You are merely alienating students who you should be guiding towards building to better relationship with the langauge. How can you call yourself a teacher when you are alienating them simply for the sake of your prinicple?
Something wrong with family? Not a very good way to put it. However, it could have something to do with parent's expectations, or children being constantly immersed in an English environment, or parents merely paying lip service by "mandating" children learn Chinese, but kept speaking to them in English or denouncing Chinese. Not all families are like that of course. However, if more than 1 or 2 of your children have trouble with learning the language, it suggests that family environment could be part of the problem.
Then comes the problem of defining how much what a student needs to know and hence how much to teach. For students aiming to work in China or work in Chinese media, they obviously need a greater knowledge of the language. Of course, at a tender age of 8, 10 or 12, children do not really know what they want (not even when they reach 16, 18 or 21 for that matter sometimes). I think the idea of teaching students based on their aptittude is a good strategy (as what is currently done in primary schools). But reducing weightage of Chinese in major exams?
Weightage is a measure of the importance of a subject. You can ask anyone who has taken exams. Whether we consciously know or not, we place greater emphasis on the subject or the assignment which has a greater weightage and therefore, more important. Anyone who denies lower weightage does not mean a reduction of importance is in denial. Lower weightage will definitely send the signal that Chinese is less important, whether we admit it or not (especially for parents who are "academically competitive"), which is not true. Parents have complained that giving Chinese the same weightage unfairly disadvantaged students who are strong in other subjects except Chinese. If the argument goes this way, what will the parents with children strong in all subjects except English, or Maths or Science say? To lower the weightage? Let us be clear on this. Weightage is merely a technicality of assessment. Education should not be about assessment. It is about learning. Assessment is just a tool to gauge learning. Moreover, doing well in exams is just one indicator of learning. It does not absolutely mean a student who scored higher is a better/smarter student. Besides, if your child is doing well just because of the lower Chinese weightage, it just shows that your child is weak in Chinese. Different children have different strengths. Lowering Chinese weightage will skew the assessment of their strengths. What is going to happen to those who are strong in Chinese?
What we need is better teaching policies, better help from parents and teachers and realistic expectations. Perhaps, like what a parent suggest, calculating PSLE scores based on best 3 subjects is a better gauge of students ability. However, I do not think we should settle for this system. A mere pass in the fourth subject do not necessarily indicate students have attained basic capability in that subject. Perhaps we should do it this way. Secondary schools should admit students based on the scores calculated based on best 3 subjects, with each school setting their requirements (and publishing them) on the fourth subject. However, for schools with a lower requirement (how this is to be administered remained to be figured out), there need to be a program to ensure students improve on that subject. The purpose of primary schools and lower secondary education is to help students broaden their exposure. Therefore, while we ensure students continue to build on their strong point, we have to make sure they shore up their weaker areas as well. Of course, the definition of basic level remains to be figured out as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment