再論曾榮光的追蹤研究

eviepa

囝囝爸：

不知是不是我有特異功能，沒有被家長規限，而被我長期觀察的人都能用最經濟的時間，去取得別人很努力才能得到的成績。

我的理論，第一部分是功課後一小時溫習已是難能可貴。第二部分是幾小時的溫習是強人所難，會因加得減。

我在讀書時的觀察總結了這個理論，第一次應用是在我弟弟，結果是極大的成功。另外，我囡囡在中一的表現也可以支持我的理論。

講過很多次，我有幾個親朋戚友，他們相信每天幾小時的溫習才是入U的起碼門檻，所以不斷強迫子女讀書。這每一個個案，我都曾盡責任地婉轉相勸，但當然，子女是他們的，要採取甚麼方法教導子女，我只能點到即止。結果，他們的子女全都不如理想，主因都是「有效溫書時間」太少，都是坐在書桌的時間很長，但專心溫習的時間遠低於45分鐘。

總知，到今天為止，我的理論在應用上完全沒有大錯。反而不信的都已付上了沉重代價，對此理論的信心就是這樣來。

你覺得我將事物看得太簡單，我也覺得你將簡單問題複習化。三十年前，功課後45分至一小時的溫習能使我成績大大提升，二十年前弟弟也因此獲益。我看不到為何這公式應用於今天有何問題。除非你認為今天的學生普遍比二三十年前的勤力，「一小時」溫書已經落後形勢了。但香港肯定沒有這個共識。

你有權質疑我的理論，認為太粗糙。這點我承認。但粗糙的理論遠比沒有理論，胡亂去猜測好。我和弟弟都同意，功課後平均每天45分至一小時的溫習，對一個中四、五的學生來說，是要用一個相當強的意志去支撐著的。胡亂地強制子女每天幾個小時的溫習，就是對孩子心理不了解。

你提議囝囝在中三時，將三分一課餘時間用在功課、讀書方面。為何你認為這是合適，而不是過多或過少呢？你有甚麼依據作出這指引呢？願聞其詳。

eviepa

uncleedward

原帖由 eviepa 於 09-8-8 12:09 發表
Uncle Edward,

或者我孤陋寡聞，我從來沒有見過名校比普通學校更能培養好學生的有力證據，。但我卻偶爾聽到這論調：名校是教「好學生」為主要目標，「教好」學生為次要目標。姑勿論這是否過激言論，但懷疑名校的是否就是「增 ...

Dear Eviepa

You have fallen into another fallacy. 增值 is a pure academic performance measurement. 若學生中三基本學習能力測試及中五會考成績與中一分班試成績比較，平均排名前了是為正增值，反之則為負增值。

有三點我們要留意：

首先名校中一收生已是收取較好學生。 Statistically, to become even better is more difficult.

再者我們要區分他區各校與傳統名校。如我所說，一般地區名校耍比傳統名校重視學術表現。如鄧顯，單看14分之上之比例，已逾越神壇上的SPCC。傳統名校成磧滑落已成BK論壇中的熱門話題。If King's and Wah Yan are really continuing their downward trend as rumoured, they will go down the route like St Louis. 强剃學生(特到是男孩)努力 is in general an effective means to raise students' performance, and it is working for many district elite schools. But of course it may not work for certain individuals. 但若要一眾傳統名校向部分地區名校的做法看齊的話，恐怕首先過不了傳統名校家長一關，再就恐怕要over the dead bodies of people like 張灼祥。

Lastly, there are certain things other than academic performance people are after when they send their kids to traditional elite schools. For example, for the videos (which I mentioned earlier) graduating classes at SSGC are required to produce just before the HKCEE study break, can you imagine the time they need to put in? Don't they know it would affect their HKCEE preparation? DBS has been dominating the senior division school orchestra for a number of years. Two years ago, they lost to SSGC. Then, in order to take the title back, they vowed every member would shave a skinhead if they lost again. Their determination and sheer hardwork won back the title for them the next year. This year, a 10 A girl from DGS, when asked, indicated she wouldn't mind running for 特首 given chance. In 鏗鏘集 covering how schools going about their 通識教育, a group of DGS students went interviewing and involving some celebrity lawyers as part of their class projects. If we send our kids to these schools, we probably are looking for not just academic performance, which the 增值 is all about. Besides, if you do send your daughter to a 高增值school, chances are that she may not be then too relaxed in her studies. Pui Ching is a good example.

[ 本帖最後由 uncleedward 於 09-8-9 21:59 編輯 ]

ChiChiPaPa

原帖由 uncleedward 於 09-8-9 21:54 發表



Dear Eviepa

You have fallen into another fallacy. 增值 is a pure academic performance measurement. 若學生中三基本學習能力測試及中五會考成績與中一分班試成績比較，平均排名前了是為正增值，反之則為負增值 ...

我唔同意收生好的學校較難有正增值。例如，聖保祿學校在中英數科和最佳6科的增值數字都是9級（頂級）。女拔在07的星島升中入學家長天書中表示14科全都是正增值。鄧顯在中英數科和最佳6科是8級，還未係頂級。

星之子的中華基督教會譚李麗芬紀念中學的中英數科和最佳6科則是第9級(08年數字)。家長要知的就是這一些傳統名校以外的高增值學校。


[ 本帖最後由 ChiChiPaPa 於 09-8-9 22:50 編輯 ]

eviepa

原帖由 uncleedward 於 09-8-9 21:54 發表



Dear Eviepa

You have fallen into another fallacy. 增值 is a pure academic performance measurement. 若學生中三基本學習能力測試及中五會考成績與中一分班試成績比較，平均排名前了是為正增值，反之則為負增值。

有三點我們要留意：

首先名校中一收生已是收取較好學生。 Statistically, to become even better is more difficult.

Uncle Edward,

當年狄志遠倡議推行的增值計劃也考慮到這一點，名校已是top band，增無可增，所以對此等學校，他提出了一套方法。隔了這麼多年，我記不起內容是怎樣，但記憶中，這是可行的。

eviepa

eviepa

原帖由 uncleedward 於 09-8-9 21:54 發表



Dear Eviepa

If we send our kids to these schools, we probably are looking for not just academic performance, which the 增值 is all about. Besides, if you do send your daughter to a 高增值school, chances are that she may not be then too relaxed in her studies. Pui Ching is a good example.

高增值有較大機會是較為催谷，這點很可能是真。所以我選校時要衡量很多因素，功課少、壓力小的priority比增值更要前。

我相信，香港還是有不催而增值的學校。我讀中一至中五的母校就是一間不見經傳、少功課、低壓力的高增值學校。

eviepa

uncleedward

原帖由 ChiChiPaPa 於 09-8-9 22:47 發表


我唔同意收生好的學校較難有正增值。例如，聖保祿學校在中英數科和最佳6科的增值數字都是9級（頂級）。女拔在07的星島升中入學家長天書中表示14科全都是正增值。鄧顯在中英數科和最佳6科是8級，還未係頂級。

星之子的中華 ...

It is simple maths. If you're already no. 1 in class. No matter how hard you work, the best you can do is still no. 1, i.e. zero 增值。

DGS and SPCS both have a number of band 2 students coming from their primary sections. Tang Hin's intakes are all band 1 students. Mathematically it is therefore more difficult for Tang Hin to be better in terms of percentage improvement. Even then, Tang Hin's ratio is still higher than the super school DGS. I also said it was more difficult, not impossible. And please note they are both girls' schools. SPCS has the 大姊姊 system which seems to work quite well in helping the academically less developed junior form girls to catch up. If I was asked which girls' school I would choose for one's girl, SPCS would be among the top three.

I was not saying to look for 正增 schools was wrong. It is just because it seemingly contradicts Eviepa's requirement of 輕鬆。

[ 本帖最後由 uncleedward 於 09-8-9 23:49 編輯 ]

uncleedward

原帖由 eviepa 於 09-8-9 23:17 發表


高增值有較大機會是較為催谷，這點很可能是真。所以我選校時要衡量很多因素，功課少、壓力小的priority比增值更要前。

我相信，香港還是有不催而增值的學校。我讀中一至中五的母校就是一間不見經傳、少功課、低壓力的高 ...

Do you know of any such schools in Shatin area? Someone in my family does need such a school.

uncleedward

原帖由 eviepa 於 09-8-9 21:45 發表
囝囝爸：

不知是不是我有特異功能，沒有被家長規限，而被我長期觀察的人都能用最經濟的時間，去取得別人很努力才能得到的成績。

我的理論，第一部分是功課後一小時溫習已是難能可貴。第二部分是幾小時的溫習是強人所難，會因加 ...

Dear Eviepa

Don't forget your brother, who is apparently above average, did have to repeat F7 to get into university. And don't forget the diminishing marginal return: after a certain level, it takes significant more efforts to gain the same percentage of improvement. It is relatively easy for bright kids. without much efforts, maybe even less than an hour a day, to get one or two As in HKCEE, but it takes significantly more efforts to get 6A's or more. The benchmark was set after in-dept studies by the academics. We are talking about 500 hundred people each year. I know quite a number of these students myself. Not a single one followed your advice. Maybe some of them could have done that but they all think like me. When there was too much at stake, it is better to overkill.  We are not just talking about vanity and glory. We are talking about going without the stupid A level exams and we are talking about having a really relaxed F6 year in which you can basically do whatever you want, locally and overseas.

As to the parents you mentioned, they probably really had some academically mediocre kids. Children's performance at primary school can be a result of parents' hard work instead of the kid's own ability. I agree they should have listened to you to build up the kid's confidence first.

[ 本帖最後由 uncleedward 於 09-8-10 00:26 編輯 ]

ChiChiPaPa

原帖由 uncleedward 於 09-8-9 23:19 發表


It is simple maths. If you're already no. 1 in class. No matter how hard you work, the best you can do is still no. 1, i.e. zero 增值。

DGS and SPCS both have a number of band 2 students coming fro ...

全 Band One 不代表中一平均水平高於DGS和SPCS。香港有很多中學都是收全 Band One 的。

增值指標計算不是simple maths。否則以同樣的道理，最差的學校就不會有負增值，因為不可能再差的了。

正增值和輕鬆是否有相反的關係，有待研究。但如果政府願意讓學校把其它指標，如情意和社交表現指標，也公開，這可能有助家長客觀地找出它們之間的關係。

uncleedward

原帖由 ChiChiPaPa 於 09-8-10 00:20 發表


全 Band One 不代表中一平均水平高於DGS和SPCS。香港有很多中學都是收全 Band One 的。

增值指標計算不是simple maths。否則以同樣的道理，最差的學校就不會有負增值，因為不可能再差的了。

正增值和輕鬆是否有相反 ...

Dear ChiChiPaPa

You have somewhat misunderstood the calculation of the ratio. It is purely an academic performance measurement. It is not an absolute comparison of Tang Hin's students against students of DGS or SPCS or any other schools.  It is a relative ratio comparing for example Tang Hin's students' positions in HKCEE against Tang Hin's Students' positions in 中一分班試. For example if a school has only 1 student, if he ranks No. 10,000 in the 中一分班試 in the whole of Hong Hong and 10,001 in HKCEE, (don't worry, they have computers at Education Bureau churning out these numbers), the school then is 負增值。Therefore it is more difficult for school which has already more band 1 students to improve the same percentage than otherwise.

而確實有許多以band 3學生為主的學校是正增值的。

Please refer to the following link to see the official presentation about how the ratios are calculated:

http://www.ied.edu.hk/cric/new/principalconference/papers/e01-pwwai-hk%20principal%20conference%20(19.3.04).ppt

If you take this into account, Tang Hin is doing already more than ok. Think of this: a school with a majority of students coming from families living in public housing and a majority of students allotted to it by computer beating in HKCEE SPCC for which every single student was handpicked and most come from families for which financial means to support the student are not a concern at all.

[ 本帖最後由 uncleedward 於 09-8-10 01:23 編輯 ]

囝囝爸

Eveipa:

先說增值, 也在曾榮光的報告和你討論過.  一分升上三分的學生總比不上五分的學生.  但是一分的學生能找到提升到三分的學校總好過原地不進的學校.  但找學校要門當戶對從來不易.  要計算埋增值因素, 家長要有更大的能耐.  你吹谷增值的說法可成立, 地區名校或會如是.  但財力支援往往是另一因素, 轉直資的名校多財源廣進, 可人強馬壯, 萬事俱全下加自由收生, 更好師資設備, 學生互動力更強, 當更易增值, 近年正是正資名校收成時期.  鮮魚行校的增值才難能可貴.

轉回正題.  學習成功, 你不是有特異功能.  全因你的長期用心用力, 你也有一位愛課外學習, 可投入大量課外時間寓樂於學的女兒.  如不成功, 才不正常.  但我坦白說出, 小兒小學不少家長, 課外對子女學習投入比你少, 或子女閱讀量比你少, 用不同於你的有效方法, 以升上中學等級而言, 成績成效比你更好.  我有兩位好友, 家境中上, 子女讀書現時都有出色成就.  一為單親, 另一父母皆忙於工作, 但除在不多空的餘時間教導外, 總為子女盡力找間好學校, 課外找好學習幫助.  在多方面下, 學習當然比你單一家庭訓練為出色.  我想孤掌難鳴, 合掌則成.  所以以你和女兒大量付出, 實收支不相稱, 如你不是太看重個人能力和方法, 看輕其他環境因素, 以你用心盡力,  你女兒或已可盡顯潛能, 在名校頂尖.  不過, 你總相信自己, 認為女兒己達你制定下的水準目標, 不宜太進.

你弟弟的成功個案, 想是你的特異想法.  能定時溫習的學生, 在功課上已屬尖子, 溫習只屬溫故知新.  對一個要追上學業的人, 當有不少不明之處, 要用心理解, 或要旁人教助.  一條數理化題, 或艱深字句, 可能花不少時間解讀, 時有發生, 如何定量.  我所見要追學業成績的人, 溫習時間當多多益善, 也未必能達致目標.  專注, 理解, 資質人人不同, 怎可定時定量有相同效應.

我對囝囝將1/3 餘閒用用溫習或閱讀  (不是功課, 他功課我總覺不多).  是以小兒學習情況改善作出建議, 不是爭取某目標成績的制定方法.  適量的誘導希望可帶來更大課外溫習動力, 改變態度.  他成績在級別五十名外, 成績可以, 但課外連測考也懶懶閒的作法絕不可取, 中三時餘閒活動更多. 溫習閱讀絕無僅有, 令人擔心.   尚幸期終各科合格, 高中選到心中所選, 英語史地化學得到好成績, 但其他科則平平而已.  可進而不為, 全不努力所致, 他知我知.

[ 本帖最後由 囝囝爸 於 09-8-10 02:31 編輯 ]

ChiChiPaPa

原帖由 uncleedward 於 09-8-10 00:52 發表



...If you take this into account, Tang Hin is doing already more than ok.Think of this: a school with a majority of students coming fromfamilies living in public housing and a majority of students allottedto it by computer beating in HKCEE SPCC for which every single studentwas handpicked and most come from families for which financial means tosupport the student are not a concern at all. ...

我澄清我沒有說鄧顯不OK。我只想表達（1）任何學校都可以有第9級增值的空間。以收生較佳為理由，說難以做到增值。這種說法，我有強烈的保留。（2）就算是收全Band One生的學校，它的中一入學時的學生平均水平也不一定比傳統名校高，也不代表它可有的進步空間較傳統名校小。

至於你說的財力影響，我相信很多人都有這個想法，所以提出要把社會經濟地位作為一個控制因素。不過，在政府給的FAQ裡，對這種估計有這樣的回覆：

            「學校增值資料系統利用模型來制定學生的成績增值指標，在發展這個模型的初步工作階段，我們發現社會經濟地位 (SES) 量數能解釋的部分佔變數總數不足1%。此結果其實屬意料之內，因為社會經濟地位的影響已在前期測驗成績中反映出來。        」

uncleedward

原帖由 ChiChiPaPa 於 09-8-10 06:49 發表


我澄清我沒有說鄧顯不OK。我只想表達（1）任何學校都可以有第9級增值的空間。以收生較佳為理由，說難以做到增值。這種說法，我有強烈的保留。（2）就算是收全Band One生的學校，它的中一入學時的學生平均水平也不一定比傳統名校 ...

Dear ChiChiPaPa

Maybe you're not a maths student after all. Please refer to Page 13 of EMB's powerpoint presentation and the following:

"個別學校的增值表現是校內學生增值表現的平均值。"the  EMB stated.

For argument sake, based on the performance of Tang Hin's students in 中一分班試, they are all expected to improve from B to A, but we have another school which has all but one student improve from B to A and this last student improves from C to A. Then the latter school will beat Tang Hin in 增值指標 which is a relative measurement

And I am not talking about district elite schools against tradition elite schools here. If both schools are equally good, I would imagine a school with all band 1 intakes will have a more difficult task to beat a school with some band 2 intakes. YWGS is an example.

I also agree that financial background is insignificant in determining the academic performance for bright kids. I was just juxtaposing the profile differences of the two schools. Isn't it just awesome for a school in a remote area like Tang Hin to have pulled out a feat like this? Of course, one could argue we are talking only about academic performance here. Tang Hin can be prouder of itself than now if years later their graduates will prefer their alma mater to SPCC (assuming both enjoying the current status) when they choose a school for their kids.

[ 本帖最後由 uncleedward 於 09-8-10 10:37 編輯 ]

judy

[quote]原帖由 uncleedward 於 09-8-10 00:15 發表

uncleedward,

大約七、八年前，我曾花了精神，找了些關於增值之資料，不知是否仍適用。

當時教署將學生分十級。先將學生小六分數輸入一regression model中，預測出將來的会考成績。學生会考成績比預測好的，視為增值。

而最高一級的增值計法除用regression看看是否減值外，增值的計法是將同級最top的到為增值。

我曾聽SPCC和DGS都是正增值學校。

uncleedward

原帖由 judy 於 09-8-10 11:10 發表
[quote]原帖由 uncleedward 於 09-8-10 00:15 發表

uncleedward,

大約七、八年前，我曾花了精神，找了些關於增值之資料，不知是否仍適用。

當時教署將學生分十級 ...

It is similar although I think it is now 9 grades instead of 10.

It is a zero sum game. Some lose, some gain. I won't be surprised at all that both SPCC and DGS come out as 正增值。

[ 本帖最後由 uncleedward 於 09-8-10 13:34 編輯 ]

samuel89

原帖由 eviepa 於 09-8-9 21:45 發表
你有權質疑我的理論，認為太粗糙。這點我承認。但粗糙的理論遠比沒有理論，胡亂去猜測好。我和弟弟都同意，功課後平均每天45分至一小時的溫習，對一個中四、五的學生來說，是要用一個相當強的意志去支撐著的。胡亂地強制子女每天幾個小時的溫習，就是對孩子心理不了解

想請教eviepa 師兄如何定"每天45分至一小時的溫習"...萬事起頭難...小朋友每天作息都存在很多變數,..如:功課多了or少了....要他們做每一件事都有規律, 才是師兄限時溫習難以成功既主因....

eviepa

囝囝爸：

讀中學時，和幾個老友經常聚在一起。他們讀書有多努力，完全知道。

一個智力低，懶到出汁，結果會考成績很差，求仁得仁。

一個智力不俗，文科，和我同校。功課後約讀十五分鐘書吧，結果會考成績用今日的計分法是十四分。

一個智力偏低，讀私校，根底差，文科。每天功課後約讀二十多分鐘書吧，結果會考是十二分。

真正朝見口晚見面的親友不多，但他們所用的功夫，所收的成果，可算是相當經濟。連同我自己、我弟弟、我囡囡都是這樣。似乎和我接近的人都可以少勞而獲。我囡囡的地理、歷史、中史、科學也是少勞多得。（似乎你囝囝也是少勞多得一族，恭喜恭喜。）

eviepa

eviepa

原帖由 samuel89 於 09-8-10 15:08 發表


想請教eviepa 師兄如何定"每天45分至一小時的溫習"...萬事起頭難...小朋友每天作息都存在很多變數,..如:功課多了or少了....要他們做每一件事都有規律, 才是師兄限時溫習難以成功既主因.... ...

samuel89,

每天45分鐘的溫習是我和弟弟的約章，他同意遵守，我不會管他怎樣讀書，只會在旁觀察，做他的讀書顧問。實際上他是做到了，我便時常稱讚他，使他更有動力去讀書。

eviepa

eviepa

Dear all,

我弟弟在中三時，在學校是中下游，讀remedial class，成績表紅當當，平日根本不溫習，到考試前才應酬一下吧。以這情況預測，到會考時，不要說要入U，連一個full cert也有一定困難。

當時，香港仍只有兩間大學，要入U簡直就是Mission Impossible。45分鐘溫習的下限（記著，是下限。他有權超過這個數）並非望著入U而制定，而是根據實際情況，是我覺得能向弟弟榨取成績的最大限度。

他有他的優點，智力較高，記性好。但在升中四，我接手時，他的英文水準和同學相比是相當差。而且懶慣、衰慣的他，要一個平日根本不讀書的學生有系統地長時間溫習是不切實際的，但要定多少才能榨取最大的成績，就是我當年面對的問題。

我回相自己讀書時，平均每天只能強迫自己功課後溫習45分至一小時，自己已經覺得很辛苦，而且實際上亦能大進，相信這讀書時間已跑贏大部分學生。這公式可以套用。

這計劃很容易取得弟弟的認同，當時他問我：「阿哥，這麼少時間讀書都可了以拿到好成績？」

兩年後拿著滿意的會考成績單時，他對我說：「給你騙了，原來這樣的讀書時間，是要用很大的意志力去維持的，並非從前想像的那麼容易」。

當然，他雖然突飛猛進，進入了頭10%的行列，但要在只有兩間大學的時代first attempt入U，仍是力有不逮。畢竟，他像我，只是二流學生。

總之，45分鐘的指標令他燃起了鬥志。從前，他以為每天讀幾小時書，讀書—睡覺—讀書才是好學生。但從那刻開始，他知道原來做一個好學生是這麼容易，這麼愉快。為何不做好學生，為何要像初中時那樣沉淪呢？

如果根底不好的我和弟弟都可以憑這45分至一小時的溫習時間打入人口的前10%，那麼根底不錯的用這時間去溫習，要打入頭18%是否困難呢？

eviepa

samuel89

原帖由 eviepa 於 09-8-10 23:30 發表


samuel89,

每天45分鐘的溫習是我和弟弟的約章，他同意遵守，我不會管他怎樣讀書，只會在旁觀察，做他的讀書顧問。實際上他是做到了，我便時常稱讚他，使他更有動力去讀書。

eviepa ...

想再請問你弟弟真的每天45分鐘.....不多不少....還是他自己明白了要怎樣讀書....