台灣首度參加由「經濟合作及發展組織」(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,OECD)主辦的「學生基礎素養國際研究計劃」(Programme for International Student Assessment,PISA)國際評量,在57個參加國中,獲得了數學第1、科學第4、閱讀第16的佳績,超越許多先進國家,顯示台灣教育水準在國際之上,相信所有國人都十分快慰!
然而,台灣的計劃主持人,花蓮教育大學校長即據此指出,由於參加評比的是完整接受九年一貫課程教學的學生,「顯示教育改革有成效,可以做為教育部制訂政策的參考。」教育部杜部長也呼應這種結論,認為它「證明教改有成效,且績效越來越顯著。」我們當然希望「教改」真有成效,但如果認為這項評比的績效不錯,就「證明」教改成功或績效卓著,就顯露了主持教育大計者的邏輯推理能力有待加強;由他們來帶領教育改革,實在令人捏把冷汗!
缺乏教改前對照組
任何稍有邏輯觀念的人,都知道要檢驗一項實驗或政策的績效,必須要有「實驗組」和「對照組」相互比較,且兩者除了具有實驗或政策的變因差異,須沒有任何其他差異,以免其他變因干擾真正的因果關係。因此,如果要以該評比的結果來獲得台灣教改「著有績效」的結論,必須有「教改前」的評比結果做為「對照組」,再觀察教改之後,在其他條件都不變下,所產生的評比結果做為「實驗組」,看看是否有統計上顯著的進步。台灣才第一次參加該項評比,不管結果是好是壞,根本沒有任何可以對照比較的基礎,如何可以獲得教改「有成效」的結論,實在令人不解。如果驟然以其結果要「做為教育部制訂政策的參考」,可能會「差以毫釐,謬以千里」,不可不慎!
事實上,參加該項評比的香港、台灣、韓國,成績都極為優異,這是否代表三個地區的教育或教改都極為成功呢?我的直覺並非如此。事實上,這些受儒家文化影響最深的地區,為了升學競爭,學生「補習」的風氣非常盛行。十年教改的結果,到去年春已經讓補習班由2千600多家成長到1萬4000多家,補習最普遍的科目就是數學,其次是英文、理化。這種順序和台灣的排名相當一致:數學最好、科學次之、閱讀最差。因此,評量結果很有可能是「補習」的績效,而不是「教改」的績效!如果這種臆測正確的話,由於目前「作文」成為考試內容,學生開始補習「國文」,那麼三年後的評比將會看到台灣「閱讀」成績大幅躍進。果真如此,這是多麼諷刺的因果關係,又和教改何干?
事實上,很多家長和專家都在質疑「建構式數學」讓學生數學能力變弱了,許多研究紛紛出籠,但多半沒有考慮到「補習」這個變因,乃至於結果迄今難有定論。試想,當學生家長發現子弟的數學能力弱化之後,立刻以補習班或家庭教育的方式強化之下,如何檢測教改的績效?
評比不等於競爭力
更值得思考的是,為何像美國(科學29、數學35)、以色列(科學39、數學40、閱讀40)等國的表現都相當落後,但競爭力之強和科學家之多卻又令人敬畏。台灣如果評比樣樣第一,但卻沒有能力分辨因果,天天被政客牽著鼻子,忙著內鬥虛耗的話,又有什麼意義和未來?
作者為台灣大學國發所副教授、美國約翰霍浦金斯大學經濟學博士
How to assess educational reform
By Tu Jenn-Hwa 杜震華 Friday, Dec 14, 2007, Page 8
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/12/14/2003392506
PARTICIPATING FOR THE first time in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) -- held last year by the Organization for Economic Cooperation in competition with 56 other countries -- Taiwan took first place in mathematics, fourth place in science and 16th place in reading performance. This excellent performance demonstrates that the nation's educational standard is above the international average, which I believe the public was rather gratified to see.
However, the project host in Taiwan, who is also president of National Hualien University of Education, indicated that as the participants have all completed their nine-year compulsory education, it "demonstrates that the educational reform works and that the results can be a useful reference for the Ministry of Education in policymaking."
Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝) chimed in and said that it "proved the effectiveness of educational reform and the effects are becoming clearer and clearer." Of course we hope that educational reform really works, but if the educational authorities think good performance in the PISA assessment means that reform is a success, then their reasoning ability needs improving. The fact that such people are leading educational reform is enough to make one break out in a cold sweat.
Anyone with a basic understanding of logic knows that to examine the effects of an experiment or a policy there must be an experimental group and a control group operating in identical conditions except for controlled variables. Therefore, if we wish to use the results of the assessment to conclude that Taiwan's educational reform has made "significant achievements," there should be assessment results from a control group before the educational reform that can be compared with the experimental group to see if there is any significant statistical progress.
After all, it was the first time Taiwan participated in the PISA assessment, so there is no benchmark to tell us whether the results are good or bad. It is unclear as to how they could jump to the conclusion that educational reform has been "effective." Using these results as a reference for ministry policy could lead to disastrous results.
In fact, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea all achieved outstanding performances on the assessment. Does this mean that education or educational reform in all these three regions has been successful? My instincts say no. In reality, these regions are deeply influenced by Confucianism and the resultant educational competition. It is also very common for students to go to "cram schools." Ten years of educational reform has made cram schools in Taiwan increase in number from about 2,600 to more than 14,000.
The most common subjects in cram schools are mathematics, followed by English, physics and chemistry. This sequence accords with Taiwan's ranking on the PISA assessment, where Taiwan ranked highest in mathematics, followed by science and reading. Therefore, the achievements could be the result of cram schools rather than educational reform. If this reasoning is correct, then we might see Taiwan make huge progress in reading comprehension three years from now since composition now is part of examinations and students have started to go to cram schools for Chinese classes. If so, the consequences would be highly ironic, and have little to do with educational reform.
Many parents and experts question whether constructive mathematics decreases students' proficiency in math. Though many studies have been conducted, most failed to consider the cram school variable and as a result there are no conclusive findings. If parents send their kids to cram schools or home tutor them if their math proficiency declines, how could that be used to examine the effects of educational reform?
Why such competitive countries as the US and Israel, with a wealth of scientists, did rather poorly on the assessment -- the US ranked 29 in science and 35 in mathematics, with Israel taking the 39th and 40th spots, respectively -- is worth pondering. What significance for the future would these results have even if Taiwan continues to rank at the top but we lack the ability to tell cause from effect, believe whatever politicians tell us, and spend our days fighting amongst ourselves?
Tu Jenn-hwa is an associate professor at National Taiwan University's Graduate Institute of National Development.
留言列表