2009年2月1日 星期日

Is Technology Producing A Decline In Critical Thinking And Analysis?

Another good article to share.

Is Technology Producing A Decline In Critical Thinking And Analysis?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128092341.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 29, 2009) — As technology has played a bigger role
in our lives, our skills in critical thinking and analysis have
declined, while our visual skills have improved, according to research
by Patricia Greenfield, UCLA distinguished professor of psychology and
director of the Children's Digital Media Center, Los Angeles.

Learners have changed as a result of their exposure to technology,
says Greenfield, who analyzed more than 50 studies on learning and
technology, including research on multi-tasking and the use of
computers, the Internet and video games. Her research was published
this month in the journal Science.

Reading for pleasure, which has declined among young people in recent
decades, enhances thinking and engages the imagination in a way that
visual media such as video games and television do not, Greenfield
said.

How much should schools use new media, versus older techniques such as
reading and classroom discussion?

"No one medium is good for everything," Greenfield said. "If we want
to develop a variety of skills, we need a balanced media diet. Each
medium has costs and benefits in terms of what skills each develops."

Schools should make more effort to test students using visual media,
she said, by asking them to prepare PowerPoint presentations, for
example.

"As students spend more time with visual media and less time with
print, evaluation methods that include visual media will give a better
picture of what they actually know," said Greenfield, who has been
using films in her classes since the 1970s.

"By using more visual media, students will process information
better," she said. "However, most visual media are real-time media
that do not allow time for reflection, analysis or imagination — those
do not get developed by real-time media such as television or video
games. Technology is not a panacea in education, because of the skills
that are being lost.

"Studies show that reading develops imagination, induction, reflection
and critical thinking, as well as vocabulary," Greenfield said.
"Reading for pleasure is the key to developing these skills. Students
today have more visual literacy and less print literacy. Many students
do not read for pleasure and have not for decades."

Parents should encourage their children to read and should read to
their young children, she said.

Among the studies Greenfield analyzed was a classroom study showing
that students who were given access to the Internet during class and
were encouraged to use it during lectures did not process what the
speaker said as well as students who did not have Internet access.
When students were tested after class lectures, those who did not have
Internet access performed better than those who did.

"Wiring classrooms for Internet access does not enhance learning,"
Greenfield said.

Another study Greenfield analyzed found that college students who
watched "CNN Headline News" with just the news anchor on screen and
without the "news crawl" across the bottom of the screen remembered
significantly more facts from the televised broadcast than those who
watched it with the distraction of the crawling text and with
additional stock market and weather information on the screen.

These and other studies show that multi-tasking "prevents people from
getting a deeper understanding of information," Greenfield said.

Yet, for certain tasks, divided attention is important, she added.

"If you're a pilot, you need to be able to monitor multiple
instruments at the same time. If you're a cab driver, you need to pay
attention to multiple events at the same time. If you're in the
military, you need to multi-task too," she said. "On the other hand,
if you're trying to solve a complex problem, you need sustained
concentration. If you are doing a task that requires deep and
sustained thought, multi-tasking is detrimental."

Do video games strengthen skill in multi-tasking?

New Zealand researcher Paul Kearney measured multi-tasking and found
that people who played a realistic video game before engaging in a
military computer simulation showed a significant improvement in their
ability to multi-task, compared with people in a control group who did
not play the video game. In the simulation, the player operates a
weapons console, locates targets and reacts quickly to events.

Greenfield wonders, however, whether the tasks in the simulation could
have been performed better if done alone.

More than 85 percent of video games contain violence, one study found,
and multiple studies of violent media games have shown that they can
produce many negative effects, including aggressive behavior and
desensitization to real-life violence, Greenfield said in summarizing
the findings.

In another study, video game skills were a better predictor of
surgeons' success in performing laparoscopic surgery than actual
laparoscopic surgery experience. In laparoscopic surgery, a surgeon
makes a small incision in a patient and inserts a viewing tube with a
small camera. The surgeon examines internal organs on a video monitor
connected to the tube and can use the viewing tube to guide the
surgery.

"Video game skill predicted laparoscopic surgery skills," Greenfield
said. "The best video game players made 47 percent fewer errors and
performed 39 percent faster in laparoscopic tasks than the worst video
game players."

Visual intelligence has been rising globally for 50 years, Greenfield
said. In 1942, people's visual performance, as measured by a visual
intelligence test known as Raven's Progressive Matrices, went steadily
down with age and declined substantially from age 25 to 65. By 1992,
there was a much less significant age-related disparity in visual
intelligence, Greenfield said.

"In a 1992 study, visual IQ stayed almost flat from age 25 to 65," she said.

Greenfield believes much of this change is related to our increased
use of technology, as well as other factors, including increased
levels of formal education, improved nutrition, smaller families and
increased societal complexity.

The Children's Digital Media Center, Los Angeles, has received federal
funding from the National Science Foundation.
Adapted from materials provided by University of California - Los Angeles.

Physically Fit Kids Do Better In School

Good article to share.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128113246.htm

Physically Fit Kids Do Better In School

ScienceDaily (Jan. 30, 2009) — A new study in the Journal of School
Health found that physically fit kids scored better on standardized
math and English tests than their less fit peers.

Researchers examined the relationship between physical fitness and
academic achievement in a racially and economically diverse urban
public school district of children enrolled in grades 4 – 8 during the
2004 – 2005 academic year.

Results of their study show that there is a significant relationship
between students' academic achievement and physical fitness. The odds
of passing both standardized math and English tests increased as the
number of fitness tests passed increased, even when controlling for
gender, race/ethnicity, and socio-economic status.

School time and resources are often diverted from Physical Education
and opportunities for physical activity such as recess. However, this
study shows that students who do well on fitness tests also do well on
math and English standardized tests.

"For families and schools, these results suggest investments of time
and resources in physical activity and fitness training may not
detract from academic achievement in core subjects, and, may even be
beneficial," the authors conclude.

Journal reference:

1. Chomitz et al. Is There a Relationship Between Physical Fitness
and Academic Achievement? Positive Results From Public School Children
in the Northeastern United States. Journal of School Health, 2009; 79
(1): 30 DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00371.x

Adapted from materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell.

2009年1月16日 星期五

Article to share - 教育=學習?

http://www.hkej.com/template/dnews/jsp/detail.jsp?dnews_id=744&title_id=79117

2009年1月16日

教育評論

教育=學習?

程介明

上周提到,把學生學習放到教育改革的核心地位,是香港教育改革的特點。有些朋友會問:學習不從來就是教育的核心嗎?

在 大多數的社會�面,教育與學習是同義詞。大家會說,學校�面的活動,不都是在學習嗎?時間表上的科目,不都是在學習語文、數學、歷史、地理、物理、化學等 等知識嗎?不止如此,在學校�面佔統治地位的考試,不都是為了保證學生學習的素質嗎?的確,八十年代流行的學校成效的研究,不都是以學生的學業成績作為學 校成效的指標嗎?學校�面最大多數的人員,消耗學校資源最大宗的,不都是教師嗎?而教師的教學,不就是為了學生的學習嗎?

所學非所需

但是要認真剖析一下,難免要問幾個問題:

一、學生所學的,真正是他們未來生活的需要嗎?

在 教育制度�面,學生的學習範圍,是由「課程」來規定的。在實際的學校生活中,特別在東亞社會�面,所謂課程,說穿了是「課程大綱」(Syllabus)。 完成課程大綱,是許多教師的主要責任;教師完成不了課程大綱,「教唔晒書」,心�就很不好過,學生也不會放過。結果,學生的所有學習生活,幾乎就被少數幾 個科目,以及每個科目的大綱的內容所壟斷了。

這些科目、這樣的大綱、這些內容,就是學生應該學習的全部?特別是聽話的、「乖」的學生,他們學習的範圍,就完全被課程大綱所規範了。要是學生比較調皮,不太馴服,反而可能能夠突破少數幾個科目的束縛。

我們看到不少學生,學業成績非常優異,但是到了社會上很不能適應;或者是相反,學業上也許是失敗者,但是在社會上非常成功。學校的學習對他們到底產生了什麼影響?這與他們的科目成績,又有什麼關係?

問題是,到底學生應該在所謂「在學階段」學習些什麼呢?這個問題,其實在教育範疇�面是找不到答案的。

二、即使是必須的學習內容,我們研究過學生其實是怎樣學習的嗎?學校這些「學習」活動的存在,就真正表示學生在學習嗎?

比如說:語文。大家都會同意,語文是學生必須學習的。我有幾個例子:

懂考試非真明白

第 一個例子:我們在幼稚園學寫字,比如說寫一個「上」字。原來的意思,是學生一個一個字完整的寫。但是由於要「練」,因此一般要求要橫直十行寫一百次。大概 是「熟能生巧」意思吧!但是我們要是認真調查一些,現在很多孩子很「聰明」,他們是先「—」(一橫)寫一百次,再「—」(一豎)寫一百次,然後再 「—」(一橫)寫一百次。效率很高,很快完成一頁,但是其實並沒有一個字。

第二個例子(以前在本欄也介紹過):一個中一的學生,英文默書 unseen(事先不知道的)一定零分;但是 seen(預先念好的)的默書可以拿到八、九十分。詳細追蹤之下,原來這位學生在過去的六年小學�面,英文從來念不來,只會死記字母;大概是記憶力特強, 因此只要前一夜背好,可以拿到八、九十分。要是即時由教師念出來的,一定寫不出來,因此零分。這個故事對我印象很深:老師看到答卷,也以為這位學生不錯; 學生拿到八、九十分,以為自己很不錯;家長拿到成績表,也覺得自己的孩子不錯。大家都會滿意,但是其實學生根本就什麼都沒有學到。

第三個例 子,大概是十年前的事了。一位教師發覺中七經濟學的班上有一位學生,寫的東西不成文章,一塌糊塗根本不知所云。一查之下,這位學生原來中五會考經濟學拿的 是C,屬於不錯的「良」等。研究下去,這位學生說:「我很感謝中三的時候的經濟學老師。她對我們說,經濟這一科,要成績好,答案�面『點 子』(points)就要多;因此,不管如何,要把可以放進去的東西都放進去;因為不對的「點子」是不會扣分的。」當年改卷子,往往只看「關鍵 詞」(keywords)給分。這位學生採取的「泥沙俱下」的大包圍策略,果然奏效,於是拿了個C,其實沒有學到多少經濟學,到了中七就原形畢露。

第 四個例子,香港的學生在國際比較和國際競賽之中,成績非常突出,往往還獨占鰲頭。但是我們從事數學教學的同事說:香港的學生懂得「算數」,但是不懂得「講 數」。就是說,學生能夠計算出一個正確的答案,但是講不出這個過程其實是在做些什麼,也講不出為什麼要這樣計算。「知其然不知其所以然」。嚴格來說,學會 了計算,但是其實沒有學會多少數學。

似學習非真學習

第 五個例子,最近教育局提出教學語言的「微調方案」。議論紛紜。有些議論也許是經不起推敲的。一說是用粵語教學學生容易掌握知識,這是理所當然的;難道用英 文學習物理比用中文學習物理更容易?但是現在的世界,需要學生在學習物理之外,也能(比如說)看得懂英文的物理文字,因此可以在網上拿到許多隨手拈來的知 識。我的理解,現在的「微調」,就是為這種學習開一個窗口,並不是要把物理的教學語言專為英文。另一說是接觸各科的英文材料,並不會改善學生的英語。那就 是說,學好英語就是學好英文科;那是一種相當奇怪的說法。

以上僅是寥舉數例。旨在說明,雖然在理論上,誰都知道教育的基本業務是學習;但是實際上,許多貌似學習的活動,其實學生並沒有真正地在學習。上面第一個問題,是關於社會的需求,是宏觀的;第二個問題,是關於學生學習的過程,是微觀的。


2009年1月14日 星期三

論政府微調中學教學語言政策(王永平)

Hot education issue, you may want to know more.

http://www.hkej.com/template/dnews/jsp/detail.jsp?dnews_id=742&title_id=78661

2009年1月14日

論政府微調中學教學語言政策——彈性原則可接受、教師能力須達標

王永平

上星期四(一月八日)教育局局長孫明揚宣布政府在二○一○/一一學年實施微調中學教學語言政策,主要是取消以英語授課的中學(下稱英中)及以母語(香港方言)授課的中學(下稱中中)的分類,改為以分班形式釐定教學語言,並容許學校可以用不多於百分之二十五的課時轉化為以英語教授個別科目。

政府稱這項改動為「微調」,但對不少學校、教師、家長及學生,卻是茲事體大。身為一九九七年時負責母語教學政策的教育統籌局局長,我想提出一些個人意見,供政府及讀者參考。

先說歷史。一九七四年,當時香港殖民地政府(下稱港英政府)在《未來十年香港的中學教育白皮書》中,申明容許學校自行決定在初中階段採用中文(即香港方言)或英文作為某一科目的教學語言。

母語是教與學最佳語言

一九八一年,港英政府邀請海外專家,組織國際顧問團,全面檢討香港的教育制度。國際顧問團在一九八二年發表報告書,其建議影響深遠,成為後來香港教育政策的依據。在教學語言方面,報告書肯定了「在其他因素沒有分別的情況下,母語是教與學的最佳語言」,同時客氣地指出:「大部分教師的英文亦不流利,以致即使他們奮力學好英文,他們的教學效率仍然受到影響。」

一九九○年,負責向政府建議重大教育政策的教育統籌會(下稱教統會)建議設立一套機制,評估小六學生的語文程度,把他們分成三個組別,即最適合接受中文授課、適合接受中文或英文授課、及比較適合接受中文授課,但亦可以用英文學習。評估由一九九四/九五學年開始推行。

一九九六年,教統會在《第六號報告書》中指出,社會普遍接納教育署應在翌年公布個別學校在一九九八/九九年使用何種語言授課。一九九七年,教育署發出「中學教學語言指引」,規定有意在下學年採用或繼續使用英語教學的學校,須符合三個條件。一是學生能力,即在過去二年,學校初中一新生有平均不少於百分之八十五屬適合接受英語授課的兩個組別;二是教師有能力以英語授課,由校長評估;三是學校有足夠支援英語授課的措施。最初政府評定有一百所中學達到要求;後來政府成立上訴委員會,決定十四所學校上訴成功。

事件引起被終止以英語授課的學校及家長強烈的反應,是香港回歸後第一宗政治事件,亦是我加入政府工作二十多年一次重大的挫折(詳情見《平心直說》一書內的教育篇)。我在退休後深切地反思母語教學這項政策,及政府當年處理的方法,得出下列結論:

第一、母語教學是絕大部分教育專家認同的政策,在教育界及社會上經過二十多年的廣泛討論,在實施前是得到(原則性的)支持。


第二、政府(包括我本人)低估了把學校劃分為英文中學(英中)和中文中學(中中)的標籤效應。效應源自幾乎所有英中(包括一些政府學校)都是家長夢寐以求的名校。

第三、評定學校可否以英語授課的三個條件大致合理,亦是基於專家意見。但其實以小六語文成績的某個百分比變成一個絕對標準,很難令家長接受,亦沒有考慮成績較差的青少年在學習階段可能因其他因素,例如自己的興趣、教師的諄諄善誘而克服語言的障礙,適應英語學習。

第四、當年大多數以英語授課的教師,都是能力不足。這是我就任教育統籌局局長時每周探訪一所學校的親身體會,與上世紀八十年代國際顧問團的觀察一樣(我對有學校掛羊頭、賣狗肉式的標榜英語教學,令學生聽不懂英語,亦不明課本內容的情況深惡痛絕)。

第五、母語教學當然不可能提升學生的英語水平,因為這根本是兩碼子事(讓學生接觸不合格的英語,亦不會改善學生的英語能力)。母語教學能令學生因聽得懂教師講什麼、看得明課本寫什麼而學到知識,是我堅定不移的信念,亦是不少追蹤研究得出的結論。但不少家長始終希望子女有多些機會接觸英語,而對母語教學抗拒。這是政府最難克服的成見。

我花了不少篇幅交代母語教學政策的由來及我從十年前處理有關措施的深刻教訓得出的結論,是讓讀者明白教學語言這議題,包含許多政治和情緒,亦涉及不少教育界人士的既得利益。我以前在政府工作,要考慮許多政治因素,現在恢復自由身,我的立場非常單純、簡單:一切以學生的利益為根本。用這個立場評論政府的微調政策,可能令政府難做,亦可能得罪部分政界或教育界的既得利益者,希望各方人士見諒。

提高師資容許家長觀課

香港學生的根本利益,是學好中、英文,包括能用英語(最通行的國際性語言)與外籍人士溝通。在這大前提下,容許可能(不是絕對)語言能力較差的學生有多些機會以英語學習是值得支持的改動。但同樣重要的是以英語授課的教師必須有能力講發音正確(帶有港式或其他地方口音沒有問題)和符合文法的英語。這項要求絕對不能因政治或其他理由而降低標準、或彈性處理而讓學校含糊過關。

因此,我歡迎政府聲明會規定以英語授課的學科教師須達到教統會二○○五年發表的《檢討中學教學語言及中一派位機制報告》中所訂定的英語資歷要求。但我想指出有關資歷例如在香港中學會考英國語文科(課程乙)取得C級或以上,並不能保證取得規定級數者可以有效地用英語授課。這是因為會考英文科不是一個專業試,而其中口語測試只佔整體評分的一部分。因此,我認為政府應該向教師提供或增加針對英語授課的專業培訓,鼓勵教師通過更高要求的評核或測試。政府亦應該加強視學,確保教師有能力以英語授課。

在這裏,容我提出一個相關建議:鼓勵或要求學校容許家長觀課,特別是用英語授課的彈性班,親身了解子女在堂上的學習情況。我明白在尊師重道的文化傳統下,香港絕大部分的學校不歡迎家長觀課,而家長因本身事忙或怕為難教師亦很少有這樣的要求。其實家長許多誤會或成見是來自不了解學校日常教學的情況。

觀課對有能力的教師有鼓勵的作用,亦會令能力不足的教師有更大動力去提升自己的質素。另外,透過觀課,家長可以進一步參與學校教學,例如英語好的家長可以在堂上或課餘時間協助教師授課。現代學校教育重視家長參與,香港的國際學校及一部分名校或私校都安排家長觀課。我希望教育界不要從負面角度去看這個建議。

要求學校公開教學安排

在政府的微調政策下,分班、分組、分科、分時段及如何運用百分之二十五的課時作英語延展教學,可以有不同組合及變化,對同班的學生亦有不同的影響。政府文件說:「我們的構思是,學校需要向教育局滙報其教學語言的安排,讓家長及公眾人士清楚知悉個別學科的教學語言,及英語教學延展活動會否在個別學科進行。」

我希望政府把構思變成一個清楚的指引,要求學校以簡單、劃一的形式公開宣布具體的安排,例如有哪些不同的班、組、科是以英語授課,讓家長事前知悉,最好有機會讓他們提意見。根據我以往的經驗,不少學校非常抗拒把教學安排向外公開,以避免家長質疑或與其他學校比較。我期望政府堅持資料須完全公開透明。

這個立場,我亦希望家長仔細了解關乎他們子女的教學安排,並向學校提出意見。有需要時,家長團體應該據理力爭、維護家長的權利。

「微調」是政治語言,這次改動其實是大手術,用微創方式開刀,表面看不出什麼分別,但手術成敗卻影響深遠。我始終認為實踐十年的母語教學政策已經取得成效,但讓更多學生以英語學習的彈性原則可以接受。微調政策的成敗視乎實施細節,是嚴謹、公平、公開,絕對不能掉以輕心,亦不應作任何損害學生利益的妥協。讓我以四句話作總結:


彈性原則可接受,
教師能力須達標,
安排細節講清楚,
家長參與好處多。

前特區政府問責局長、現任中文大學兼任教授
josephwong@hkej.com

我為什麼贊成英書中教、三語混說(練乙錚)

Hot educational issue, you may want to know more.

2009年1月14日

我為什麼贊成英書中教、三語混說

練乙錚

中學教育的器用功能,最主要不外兩個:學好語文、學好其他科目。二者當中,語文是基礎,不容有失;其他科目,學生可按興趣和能力,或專攻幾科,其他馬馬虎虎,或一視同仁,務求取得比較完整知識面。但這些分野,只是就學生(或家長)而言,才有意思。就教師而言,努力目的只有一個,別無選擇,即把每科教得最好,意指培養學生對該科的終身興趣和尊重,同時讓他們掌握科目中的必要知識和應用能力;這無論對任何科目而言,都是一樣,教語文的老師要做到這兩點,教物理、教體育的老師亦然!這是筆者對中學教育的一個基本看法。(教育的非器用功能,如價值觀、思考能力、懷疑和批判精神等的培養,也是基本,但非本文討論範圍。)據此看法,筆者評論教學語文及最近出台的「微調」政策。

學好中文,天經地義;學好英文,因為對大多數學生而言有較大經濟價值,因此同樣重要,但學校不應為強化學生的中、英語文能力,不惜削弱其他科目本身教學效益。英語教學和母語教學,如果不是以各科本身教學效益立論,都是錯誤的。筆者認為,不論是「英書中教」、「中書英教」,不論學生用什麼語言或混合語言發問、討論、作答、做習題、考試,只要對教學效益有利,便是好的,可以採用。試想,老師若找到一本高質量中文課本,為什麼不可以在「英文班」或「彈性班」中選用、以英文講解?反之,即所謂的「培正模式」,我們又有什麼理由反對?筆者有多年的中中、大學教學經驗,或可與大家分享。

七十年代初,筆者大學畢業,回港在本地某五等(Band
5)中文中學教授預科數學,解析幾何選中文課本,微積分選英文課本,都是質量最好的,授課語言則中英並用,學生上課發問討論如八仙過海,非常活潑,任教頭一年,該班同學的大學入學試成績便破了該校歷年紀錄。又筆者九十年代在本地某大學商學院教經濟,每年都開一科經濟理論高材生課(honours
course),只讓高考已修AL經濟並得B或以上成績的一年級生選讀,沒有教科書,英文教材完全自選自撰,內容相當高檔,包括一般均衡理論三大定律、博弈論、社會選擇理論如亞羅的「不可能定理」等;頭幾年都是英「書」中教,也夾雜英語,學生很投入,上課經常發問、討論,思想很活躍,期終成績十分好;可是,某年開始,大學出了新規定,不准「英書中教」,是年,筆者以全英語對白授同一課,學生上課鴉雀無聲,興趣明顯低落,期終試成績大跌。筆者是該大學首屆教學優異獎得主,該科學生悉數來自入學分數最高的商學院,而且是AL經濟科高材生,但「英書英教」依然失敗,整學期的教學慘淡收場,那是誰之過?然而,同樣的結果,特區教育官僚還要在中學加倍重複。筆者認為,中學教材是中是英,可由教師及學校按學生質素、教材質量等因素協商決定,但用什麼作課堂語言,則應由教師及學生按本身情況決定,或是純中、純英,或是半中英,都可以,一切以本科教學效果為依歸。在此問題上,不宜有各種各樣意識形態之見或門戶之爭。一個個未來愛恩斯坦、未來邱成桐,豈容教育官僚學閥扼殺?不管中貓英貓,教曉學生便是好貓!

選擇教學語言,不只要從技術觀點考慮師生之間的溝通能力,還要了解不同語言如何影響師生之間的親和力。這點很重要,因為老師沒有親和力,學生學習便沒勁,提不起興趣,結果拉牛上樹。面對英語很好的學生,老師用英語授課有親和力(前提當然是老師的英語不賴!),反之亦然;但很多時,不少各科術語、專有名詞、成語或慣用語等,若從原文翻成中或英語,十分拗口、生硬,學生聽了生厭,這時,中英混說(mixed
mode)是最佳選擇。因此,筆者不僅贊成一些學校「英書中教」、「中書英教」,還因為考慮到香港社會特有的語言環境,也贊成教師在課堂�外中英混說。這�說的「中」,目前主要指廣東話;當師生都掌握好普通話之後,以普通話輔助課堂教學也可能有利師生親和。筆者在大學的一些來自內地同事,課後較少學生問津求教,原因是他們不會說廣東話,而學生不會說普通話,那是很不幸的事。

一些人很反對課堂�外的中英混合對白,殊不知這是很正常的現象。在世界上所有雙語家庭、雙語國家、雙語群體�,雙語對白都自然存在,一點問題也沒有。在香港,傳統上流社會說英語,英語中滲進中文字句,有些人視之為語言污染;另一方面,也有人討厭中文夾雜一些英語,認為是假洋鬼子陋習,這些其實都是殖民地偏見。歸根究底,語言是溝通工具、學習工具、思想工具,不應是身份地位或文化政治效忠象徵。

教學語言高度自由化,語文科目之外的一切科目,容許「英書中教」、「中書英教」、兩文互補、三語混說,不僅最能優化各科本身教學效率,還能完全取消中中、英中、純正英中、彈性英中等十分無謂的標籤效應。這�筆者強調「無謂的」三個字。有關標籤等問題,篇幅所限,另文論述。

2008年12月28日 星期日

Storybooks On Paper Better For Children Than Reading Fiction On Computer Screen

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081219073049.htm

Storybooks On Paper Better For Children Than Reading Fiction On
Computer Screen, According to Expert

ScienceDaily (Dec. 22, 2008) — Clicking and scrolling interrupt our
attentional focus. Turning and touching the pages instead of clicking
on the screen influence our ability for experience and attention. The
physical manipulations we have to do with a computer, not related to
the reading itself, disturb our mental appreciation, says associate
professor Anne Mangen at the Center for Reading Research at the
University of Stavanger in Norway. She has investigated the pros and
cons of new reading devices.

Mangen maintains that reading on a screen generates a new form of
mental orientation. The reader loses both the completeness and
constituent parts of the physical appearance of the reading material.
The physical substance of a book offers tranquility. The text does not
move on the page like it does on a screen.

"Several experiments in cognitive psychology have shown how a change
of physical surroundings has a potentially negative affect on memory.
We should include this in our evaluation of digital teaching aids. The
technology provides for a number of dynamic, mobile and ephemeral
forms of learning, but we know little about how such mobility and
transience influence the effect of teaching. Learning requires time
and mental exertion and the new media do not provide for that," Mangen
believes.

"We experience to day a one-sided admiration for the potentials in the
technology. ICT is now introduced in kindergarten without much
empirical research on how it influences children's learning and
development. The whole field is characterized by an easy acceptance
and a less subtle view of the technology," the researcher says.

Would you warn against the use of digital teaching material?

"Critical perspectives on new technologies are often brushed aside as
a result of moral panic and doomsday prophecies. I will not warn
against it, but I think there is generally little reflection around
digital teaching material. What we need, is a more nuanced view on the
potentials and limitations of all technologies – even of the book.
Very often important discussions about technology and learning have a
tendency to reduce a complex field to a question about being for or
against," Mangen explains.

The development of digital media leads to a need for more
sophisticated concepts of reading and writing and a new understanding
of these activities.

"Many people say that children read less and not so well as earlier.
With which technology do they read less? What types of text do they
read less well? What conceptions of reading are we talking about,"
Anne Mangen asks.

Even if children and young people do not read as many novels in book
form any more, one may still argue that they actually read more than
before. Most of what they do on a computer or on their cell phones, is
exactly reading and writing.

"Swedish researchers believe we understand more and better when
reading on paper than when we read the same text on a screen. We avoid
navigating and the small things we don't think about, but which
subconsciously takes attention away from the reading. Also texts on a
screen are often not adapted to the screen format. The most important
difference is when the text becomes digital. Then it loses its
physical dimension, which is special to the book, and the reader loses
his feeling of totality."

Mangen has mainly been looking at hypertext stories. These stories
exploit the multimedia possibilities of a computer and use both
hypertext, video, sound, pictures and text. They are constructed in
such a way that clicking one's way around them comes close to a
literary computer game.

As a researcher, Mangen is interested in the physical aspect of
reading and applies theories from psychology and phenomenology linked
to the relationships between motor functions and attention in order to
highlight the difference between reading a novel and a hypertext
story.

"The digital hypertext technology and its use of multimedia are not
open to the experience of a fictional universe where the experience
consists of creating your own mental images. The reader gets
distracted by the opportunities for doing something else," Mangen
says.

2008年10月8日 星期三

Good article to share - Learning From Mistakes Only Works After Age 12, Study Suggests

Hi parents,

Be positive to your kids under 12, because they cannot learn from mistakes.

Benny Lam
===================================================================
Learning From Mistakes Only Works After Age 12, Study Suggests

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925104309.htm

ScienceDaily (Sep. 27, 2008) — Eight-year-old children have a
radically different learning strategy from twelve-year-olds and
adults. Eight-year-olds learn primarily from positive feedback ('Well
done!'), whereas negative feedback ('Got it wrong this time') scarcely
causes any alarm bells to ring. Twelve-year-olds are better able to
process negative feedback, and use it to learn from their mistakes.
Adults do the same, but more efficiently.

Brain areas for cognitive control

The switch in learning strategy has been demonstrated in behavioural
research, which shows that eight-year-olds respond disproportionately
inaccurately to negative feedback. But the switch can also be seen in
the brain, as developmental psychologist Dr Eveline Crone and her
colleagues from the Leiden Brain and Cognition Lab discovered using
fMRI research. The difference can be observed particularly in the
areas of the brain responsible for cognitive control. These areas are
located in the cerebral cortex.

Opposite case

In children of eight and nine, these areas of the brain react strongly
to positive feedback and scarcely respond at all to negative feedback.
But in children of 12 and 13, and also in adults, the opposite is the
case. Their 'control centres' in the brain are more strongly
activated by negative feedback and much less by positive feedback.

Three-way division

Crone and her colleagues used fMRI research to compare the brains of
three different age groups: children of eight to nine years, children
of eleven to twelve years, and adults aged between 18 and 25 years.
This three-way division had never been made before; the comparison is
generally made between children and adults.

Unexpected

Crone herself was surprised at the outcome: 'We had expected that the
brains of eight-year-olds would function in exactly the same way as
the brains of twelve-year-olds, but maybe not quite so well. Children
learn the whole time, so this new knowledge can have major
consequences for people wanting to teach children: how can you best
relay instructions to eight- and twelve-year-olds?' '

Ticks and crosses

The researchers gave children of both age groups and adults aged 18 to
25 a computer task while they lay in the MRI scanner. The task
required them to discover rules. If they did this correctly, a tick
appeared on the screen, otherwise a cross appeared. MRI scans showed
which parts of the brain were activated.

Learning in a different way

These surprising results set Crone thinking. 'You start to think less
in terms of 'good' and 'not so good'. Children of eight may well be
able to learn extremely efficiently, only they do it in a different
way.'

Learning from mistakes is complicated

She is able to place her fMRI results within the existing knowledge
about child development. 'From the literature, it appears that young
children respond better to reward than to punishment.' She can also
imagine how this comes about: 'The information that you have not done
something well is more complicated than the information that you have
done something well. Learning from mistakes is more complex than
carrying on in the same way as before. You have to ask yourself what
precisely went wrong and how it was possible.'

Is it experience?

Is that difference between eight- and twelve-year-olds the result of
experience, or does it have to do with the way the brain develops? As
yet, nobody has the answer. 'This kind of brain research has only
been possible for the last ten years or so,' says Crone, 'and there
are a lot more questions which have to be answered. But it is probably
a combination of the brain maturing and experience.'

Brain area for positive feedback

There is also an area of the brain that responds strongly to positive
feedback: the basal ganglia, just outside the cerebral cortex. The
activity of this area of the brain does not change. It remains active
in all age groups: in adults, but also in children, both
eight-year-olds and twelve-year-olds.

Journal reference:

Anna C. K. van Duijvenvoorde, Kiki Zanolie, Serge A. R. B. Rombouts,
Maartje E. J. Raijmakers, and Eveline A. Crone. Evaluating the
Negative or Valuing the Positive? Neural Mechanisms Supporting
Feedback-Based Learning across Development. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 17 September 2008 [link]


Adapted from materials provided by Leiden University.