2004 年 2 月 24 日 星期二 【晴】

３月１９日
５月４日

衝刺了一段日子，還剩生物化學的長題目，中文宗教仍未開始，
但實在須讓腦袋好好休息一天。

和黃廷談起起考試的問題，拉上了以往精讀的問題，謹引黃廷一文
（網址：http://wtk.diary-x.com/journal.cgi?entry=20040204）：

論會考中文精讀


對應屆會考生來說，一冊會考中文精讀，可以說是必備的參考書。它的語譯、注解、內容及技巧分析、課後總結和模擬會考試題，將課文濃縮成「即背即考」的一列重點，無疑給考生節省了許多寶貴的溫習時間。然而，就算列得再好，就好像近年業務蒸蒸日上的所謂名師補習班，這只是香港填鴨式教育和考試制度的產物。而許多學生，被這些制度荼毒，沖昏了頭腦，只懂盲目的背誦精讀應考，卻忽略了學校中文科教育的意義。

你可曾想過，為什麼我們要記住那二十六篇課文的內容重點？那和中文究竟有啥關係？這些資料，記來拋書包不足，浪費時間則有餘。況且幾年之後，就會通通忘記得一乾二淨。如果說沒有任何實際價值，我相信大部分人都不會反對。翻查了考試局出版的《HKCEE Regulations & Syllabuses 2004》，原來考試局當初的動機是很好的：那些讀本問題，是用來「測驗考生之語文能力」。可是實行起來，在分數主義的催化之下，卻成了一場災難。

我認為，上段提到的「語文能力」，用一句話來表達，就是「自行把精讀寫出來」，也就是透徹地理解一篇文章的能力。就算寫不出長篇大論的分析，也需能得出類似內容總結的圖表，將作者的思緒清晰地和簡潔地表達出來，令人一目了然。艾德勒和范多倫在《How to Read a Book》裡就提到這個觀點。熟練的讀者，甚至不需紙筆，也能一面讀，一面在腦海裡建立有系統的資料庫。只是把字看進眼裡而不思索，並不是真正的閱讀，而是浪費時間。

要知道我們正處於中學階段，才有老師講解課文，有精讀遂句分析，我們幾乎不動腦筋，也能「理解」。可是，課程外的書本和文章就不能靠別人講解了，我們必須自己琢磨。更何況，那只是別人的見解，卻不是屬於自己的創見。我們上中文課學的是什麼？就是去學如何自學，同時培養對中國文學的理解和欣賞。艾德勒和范多倫強調閱讀是一門精深的藝術，說得一點也不錯。

但在香港，當中學生手中都握著一本中文精讀，我們也沒有理由潔身自愛，以「真功夫」應考。考試是必要之惡，為了取得好成績而走旁門，實在無可厚非，也許更是人之常情。然而，即食面即使如何好吃，畢竟只是一碗味精。吃得多了，還有患癌的危險。

最後，我想引用物理學家費曼（Feynman）的一句話：

「大家都努力在考試，也教下一代如何考試，然後大家什麼都不懂。」
（I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, and teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything.）

註
有興趣的話，可看看費曼批評巴西教育制度的文章，將之代入香港的情況，似乎也頗適合：
http://204.154.117.39/Jezercak/Feynman.pdf

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

現於此摘錄一下費曼（當代著名物理學家）在巴西任教時所遇到的問題：

１.
At the end of the academic year, the students asked me to give a talk about my experiences of teaching in Brazil. An the talk there would be not only students, but professors and government officials, so I made them promise that I could say whatever I wanted. They said, "Sure. Of course. It's a free country."

So I came in, carrying the elementary physics textbook that they used in the first year of college. They though this book was especially good because it had different kinds of typeface - bold black for the most important things to remember, lighter for less important things, and so on.

Right away somebody said, "You're not going to say anything bad about the textbook, are you? The man who wrote it is here, and everybody thinks it's a good textbook."

"You promised I could say whatever I wanted."

The lecture hall was full. I started out by defining science as an understanding of the behavior of nature. Then I asked, "What is a good reason for teaching science? Of course, no country can consider itself civilized unless . . . yak, yak, yak." They were all sitting there nodding, because I know that's the way the think.

Then I say, "That, of course, is absurd, because why should we feel we have to keep up with another country? We have to do it for a good reason, a sensible reason; not just because other countries do." Then I talked about the utility of science, and its contribution to the improvement of the human condition, and all that - I really teased them a little bit.

Then I say, "The main purpose of my talk is to demonstrate to you that no science is being taught in Brazil!"

I can see them stir, thinking, "What? No science? This is absolutely crazy! We have all these classes."


２.

So I tell them that one of the first things to strike men when I came to Brazil was to see elementary school kids in bookstores, buying physics books. There are so many kids learning physics in Brazil, beginning much earlier than kids do in the United States, that it's amazing you don't find many physicists in Brazil - why it that? So many kids are working so hard, and nothing comes of it.

Then I gave the analogy of a Greek scholar who loves the Greek language, who knows that in his own country there aren't many children studying Greek. But he comes to another country, where he is delighted to find everybody studying Greek - even the smaller kids in the elementary schools. He goes to the examination of a student who is coming to get his degree in Greek, and asks him, "What were Socrates' ideas on the relationship between Truth and Beauty?" - and the student can't answer. Then he asks the student, "What did Socrates say to Plato in the Third Symposium?" the student lights up and goes, "Brrrrrrrrr-up" - he tells you everything, word for word, that Socrates said, in beautiful Greek.

But what Socrates was talking about in the Third Symposium was the relationship between Truth and Beauty!

What this Greek scholar discovers is, the student in another country learn Greek by first learning to pronounce the letter, then the words, and then the sentences and paragraphs. They can recite, word for word, what Socrates said, without realizing that those Greek words actually mean something. To the student they are all artificial sounds. Nobody has ever translated them into words the students can understand.

I said, "That's how it looks to me, when I see you teaching the kids 'science' here in Brazil." (Big blast, right?)

Then I held up the elementary physics textbook they were using. "There are no experimental results mentioned anywhere in this book, except in one place, where there is a ball, rolling down an inclined plane, in which it says how far the ball got after one second, two seconds, three seconds, and so on. The numbers have 'errors' in them - that is, if you look at them, you think you're looking at experimental results, because the numbers are a little above, or a little below, the theoretical values. The book even talks about having to correct the experimental errors - very fine. The trouble is, when you calculate the value of the acceleration constant from these values, you get the right answer. But a ball rolling down an inclined plane, if it is actually done, has an inertia to get it to turn, and will, if you do the experiment, produce five-sevenths of the right answer, because of the extra energy needed to go into the rotation of the ball. Therefore this single example of experimental 'results' is obtained from a fake experiment. Nobody had rolled such a ball, or they would never have gotten those results!

３.
"I have discovered something else," I continued. "By flipping the pages at random, and putting my finger in and reading the sentences on that page, I can show you what's the matter - how it's not science, but memorizing, in every circumstance. Therefore I am brave enough to flip through the pages now, in front of this audience, to put my finger in, to read, and to show you."

So I did it. Brrrrrrrup - I stuck my finger in, and I started to read: "Triboluminescence. Triboluminescence is the light emitted when crystals are crushed . . ."

I said, "And are there, have you go science? No! You have only told what a word means in terms of other words. You haven't told anything about nature - what crystals produce light when you crush them, why they produce light. Did you see any student go home and try it? He can't.

"But if, instead, you were to write, 'When you take a lump of sugar and crush it with a pair of pliers in the dark, you can see a bluish flash. Some other crystals do that too. Nobody knows why. The phenomenon is called "triboluminescence."' Then someone will go home and try it. Then there's an experience of nature." I used that example to show them, but it didn't make any difference where I would have put my finger in the book; it was like that everywhere.

Finally, I said that I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, and teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything. "However," I said, "I must be wrong. There were two students in my class who did very well, and one of the physicists I know was educated entirely in Brazil. Thus, it must be possible for some people to work their way through the system, bad as it is."

Extract from "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" Page 211-219

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

有感，自度一文（以英語寫成，實屬野芹獻曝，如有紕漏，請高人指點）：

The educational system is always blamed for the mistakes, however, how much can a system affect one indeed? I would consider its rigidity (or flexibility , phrased in a nicer term), orientation (i.e. objective) and implementation.

Comparing the educational system of Brazil and HK, one significant similarity could be observed - -students are trying very hard to memorize materials, a word by a word, and pack all thee stuff into their tiny little grey cells, undigested. For tackling examination, this would be farmost efficient and effective way, however, this would lead to another question : what is the educational system's orientation/ objective? Are there a line saying "To educate our student, we are letting them to memorize every single bit of undigested materials, in order to maintain a high pass percentage?"

For a wealthy city like HK, most people are studying as a jumpboard for their career, and ultimately, a self-sufficient life. What they care about is a nicely printed certificate and a well secured degree. I believe that 9 out of 10 of them do not know what is the underlying reason for them being educated. This is also the way which government thinks, underlying the glamourous well-phrased terms between the lines of the educational papers, they are all directed to pragmatism.

For instance, the Chinese Language & Culture AS (Advanced supplementary) Level course's pass percentage has remained low for the past few years, due to its exact demand for thinking and presentation, which is a major weakness of HK students nowadays. As a solution, the government, jointly with the universities, imposed the rule that students must get an E in Chinese for the eligibility for an admission. The subsequent reaction of the student is closely correlated to this topic we are discussing - they try very hard to strive for a pass, leading to a rise in a variety of tuition classes, studying materials and books that help one to enhance one's examination skills, which are sarcastically, for a course of culture.

If you flip over the pages of those books, you will presumably find what Feynman had found in the Physics textbook in Brazil - highlighted "important" passage, different types of mock exam questions, all leading to one thought : What are the students being educated? Examination skills? Why are we not teaching them to understand the beauty of Chinese which should have been taught instead? This would again lead us back to square one - what is our educational system's orientation? Obviously, the original goodwill of the system has been deviated by the factors aforementioned : pragmatism of people, devaluation of education (being treated as a tool, instead of a well respected subject), and the mislead brought by the rules setting up by the administration.

This is an inveterate problem, which is worsened by the vicious cycle brought by the over-valued exams and the slack of students nowadays, who are always looking for the easiest way out. We cannot change the educational system, but we could bestir ourselves, not only aiming for a pass for the examination, but to understand and appreciate the beauty of the harmony of Arts and Science.

擱筆，是為了做更多的ｐｐ ｃｃｃ

>>February 24, 2004 at 11:12:54 PM GMT+8