培養孩子創意思維

cstchan

shadeslayer 發表於 13-4-16 19:46
少見的高水平分析文章。

除了幾間直資開雙軌班，和 ESF 有 IB/BTEC 外，有冇其他香港學校，包括私校，國際 ...

加拿大國際學校也是同時行兩個課程︰IB 和 OSSD (Ontario Secondary School Diploma Programme)，而且是每一個學生同時修讀兩個課程。(http://sites.cdnis.edu.hk/school/us/programmes/ib-programmes-and-ossd/)

不過修讀 OSSD，除了要考 Ontario Secondary School LIteracy Test 外，其他科目都不是考公開試的。(http://www.turnerfenton.com/departme/GDCE/OSSDReqs.htm)

cstchan

oblivion2077 發表於 13-4-16 16:57
IB 整體上是個幾好的課程制度，可是郤有其局限性，而並不適合作為一個國家或地區的主流中學教育制度，伹 ...

- IBD 課程內容及考核模式較則重語文能力，不利那些數理能力極高但語文能力較弱的學生。

認同。不過，因為IBDP是為了預備學生進入大學。理科大學生也應能以該科的語言表達自己的想法，所以能過關的學生，應較容易適應大學的課程。


- IBD之評核方式中，有一定比例是靠校內老師作校內持續評核，這樣可能會產生一些問題，例如，學校老師的公平公正性。雖然IBO設有機制去訓練老師及抽驗學校老師的評核水平，但若個別學校或老師心術不正，把學校短暫利益放在首位，要偏幫自己的學生，甚至存心欺騙IBO之審核制度也絕對不難。


這正是NSS中大家擔心的SBA。因為香港是彈丸之地，所以大家會提意見。IBDP是世界性的，有異議也沒用。而且DP不屬於任何一個國家，它只需要世界各大學的認同。


- IBD的課程組合模式不夠靈活及彈性，標榜學生要文理兼備。原意本來是好的，但同時引起了一些問題值得反思。例如，是否需要學生到了要入大學前還要文理兼備？有些學生到那年紀已好清楚自己對文或理科的傾向，但硬要他們在那階段必須修讀一科非自己能力或興趣有傾向之科目，是浪費他們的時間，也可能影響了他們學習自己專注或喜愛科目之投入時間，以至影響整體成績。所以有些大學學系覺得IBD的學術科目課程不夠深入及學生學習相關的科目數量不足，例如德國一些工科學系，除了基本數學外，要求報讀的IB學生必須修讀最少三科其他數理科目，而可不用修讀人文學科。


這是英式教育和美式教育的分別。美國本科也不算很「專」，要唸醫，大家都不會選到美國，因為所花時間太久！﹝這是我一直認知，未有深入探討，如有錯誤，請指教。﹞




任何課程都有利弊，也不適用於所有學生。IB也一樣。它的起源在於為隨家庭到處「漂流」的學生提供一個可於任何地方上大學的課程，所以它有這樣的取態，以平衡各方的利益。也因為它不屬於任何一個國家，加上當中的要求，不可能是一個便宜的課程，不可能是一個地區的大多數。而課程辦得好與否，不在於課程本身，而是在學校！


只因香港社會對本地的教育制度有很多意見，才令IB成為一個熱門話題。香港學生的流動性很高，即使是在xx國國際學校唸書，不一定將來會在xx國唸大學，所以不少香港國際都轉向IB。而DSS因為其靈活性，故嘗試為本地學生多提供一個選擇，但因條例所限，只能行雙軌課制，不能只提供IB。


學生別以為NSS辛苦，想逃避，所以修IB。IBDP不是一個輕鬆課程，不是一個入大學的捷徑。

shadeslayer

oblivion2077 發表於 13-4-16 22:44
我之前分析IBD局限性之文章沒有提及NSS，主要原因是我對NSS毫無認識，後來看了你們的回應後，唯有急急上網 ...

Thanks.
I agree with you that the structural restrictions of IB does not lend itself to being a national curriculum.  Given the similarity between IB and NSS in terms of concepts, HK needs alternatives for those who cannot follow the strict academic oriented NSS.  

slamai

jeff76916 發表於 13-4-16 19:59
Arising from one point raised in oblivion's intelligent article, my nerve is touched again. Because, ...

Yes, some students from local families may choose Chinese B in some IB schools for various reasons.  However, IBO has increased the difficulties of Chinese B (e.g. addition of literature content) starting this year as a counter-measure against the inflation of levels 7 and 6 in Chinese B especially among Hong Kong candidates in the last couple of years.

slamai

回復 oblivion2077 的帖子

IB 整體上是個幾好的課程制度，可是郤有其局限性，而並不適合作為一個國家或地區的主流中學教育制度，伹卻不失為一個補充性制度，給合適的學生選擇，而其實IBD創立的原意也大致如此。
Agreed.  Even if a country values IB education, local adaptation is required as IB does not provide the curricula.
IBD之優點已有很多人及文章提及過，我不再重複，現只集中簡單地說說其局限性及爭議處：
- IBD 課程內容及考核模式較則重語文能力，不利那些數理能力極高但語文能力較弱的學生。
Agreed.
- IBD是一個整體兩年制綜合課程，  缺乏靈活性，例如學生不能像考英制的A level 或美制的AP般，個別科目提早一年甚至兩三年考，或補考一些考得不好的科目，這樣不利自修生或只想重讀部分科目的學生。
Agreed.  It is because IB DP is an educational programme though it is the final pre-U programme among the IB trilogy (i.e. PYP, MYP & DP) which has to be concluded by a public examination for U application.
- IBD之評核方式中，有一定比例是靠校內老師作校內持續評核，這樣可能會產生一些問題，例如，學校老師的公平公正性。雖然IBO設有機制去訓練老師及抽驗學校老師的評核水平，但若個別學校或老師心術不正，把學校短暫利益放在首位，要偏幫自己的學生，甚至存心欺騙IBO之審核制度也絕對不難。
As you have pointed out, there is moderation from IBO for internal assessment.  If the outcome of the moderation shows that the internal assessment has overgraded the sample by 20%, the whole batch from that school will be downgraded by the same %!
- IBD的課程組合模式不夠靈活及彈性，標榜學生要文理兼備。原意本來是好的，但同時引起了一些問題值得反思。例如，是否需要學生到了要入大學前還要文理兼備？有些學生到那年紀已好清楚自己對文或理科的傾向，但硬要他們在那階段必須修讀一科非自己能力或興趣有傾向之科目，是浪費他們的時間，也可能影響了他們學習自己專注或喜愛科目之投入時間，以至影響整體成績。所以有些大學學系覺得IBD的學術科目課程不夠深入及學生學習相關的科目數量不足，例如德國一些工科學系，除了基本數學外，要求報讀的IB學生必須修讀最少三科其他數理科目，而可不用修讀人文學科。
One characteristic of IB education is integration of knowledge (especially in PYP and MYP).  Higher education has segregated knowledge into different disciplines for specialisation.  At pre-U level or even junior U level, it seems that the trend is towards breadth rather than depth.  In the real world, professionals also need cross disciplinary knowledge nowadays.
這樣的制度，對那些在能力或喜好方面都只偏向文／理科的學生來說極之不利，隨時扼殺了他們因整體成績而未能入讀心儀的頂級大學，也不能讓一些極具天分及有廣泛能力的學生，報考多個高級程度的科目。
For these candidates, say A level may suit them better for the sake of U application.
- 然而，IBD硬性規定之六科組合之制度，可能會誘使一些短視而功利的學店，為了學生取得更好的IBD成績，可能早於初中時就為學生選定那六科集中催谷學習。這樣，反而影響學生涉獵其他學科的廣泛性。幸好香港一些負責任的國際學校，例如ESF，會要求學生Year 11時，先報考最少十科八科GCSE，到Year 12，13時，才專攻IBD選定之六科。這樣，學生至少可撐握達GCSE程度的不同學科的廣泛知識，已可達廣泛基礎學習之目的，是否需要在Year 12，13仍要文理兼備，花時間修讀一科不喜愛的文／理科？何不專注修讀自己喜愛的科目，全力為揀選之心儀大學學系作準備？這些都是富爭議性之處。
Pre DP specialisation should not occur in IB MYP.  Details of MYP may be found from IBO's website.  Such specialisaton mentioned probably occurs in other (IB DP only) schools not following MYP.  GCSE/IGCSE may cover a large no. of subjects but lack the integration of MYP.  Knowledge was originally integrated before man segregated it for specialisation.
總括來說，IBD能提供一個頗全面性的不錯教學模式及制度，對於仍未建立一套自己獨特優質教學模式的新興學校，是一個好的參考，在IBO的監管及指導下，那些新興學校能很快地建立一套有一定水平的教學模式，但就要負出可觀的費用及資源來配合。
Agreed.
然而，IBD所標榜與其他學制不同之處，例如：Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay, CSR (CAS?)等，在一些優質的中學裡，早已包函以上之原素在其六／七年之中學課程和教學模式中，那些學生，無論最終報讀甚麼學制，例如IBD，英式的A Level或美式的AP等，及上了大學後也能同樣優秀及出色。可是，若那些優質中學選擇了只提供IBD，則會受先前所說有關IBD之局限，而失去了A Level或AP 等學制之靈活性及彈性，部分不適合IBD的學生便會受影響，孰得孰失，就留待家長自己衡量了。
Despite being the most popular programme among IB's trilogy, I always think DP exhibits the least 'IB' characteristics due to its examination-oriented constraints for the sake of U application.  Of course, inquiry-based learning is not the monopoly of IBO and other well-established schools can offer equivalent educational programmes to suit the needs of their students.  It is agreed that IB education may not be the best choice for everyone, in particular for the demanding resources required.
總結，隨了需要負出龐大資源，IBD之局限性也不能滿足社會上不同能力及性質之學生對多元化及靈活性教育之需求，因此並不適合作為一 個國家／地區的主流教育制度。
I tend to agree to a plurality of educational choices to suit individual students' needs.
以上純粹個人觀點，如有錯漏，請多多包涵，歡迎指導及討論。
Thank you.

ANChan59

Thanks for your inputs and constructive comments.

We all learn something from your comments.

slamai

回復 oblivion2077 的帖子

多謝你建設性的回應，提供了很多新資訊及觀點。

Most welcomed.

／／As you have pointed out, there is moderation from IBO for internal assessment.
If the outcome of the moderation shows that the internal assessment has overgraded the sample by 20%, the whole batch from that school will be downgraded by the same %!／／

我不清楚IBO的moderation的細節是如何進行，但任何的制度，也有機會有漏洞，而學校推行時也可以「上有政策，下有對策」。例如，若學校的老師在為學生進行內部評核時，必定是根據學生的一些作業或測考，若要出術，在作業方面，老師可以預先要求學生交Draft work，然後給予comments讓學生可作改善 ，然後才正式交Final work作評核；而測考就更容易，預先給予一定的貼士就輕易可提升整體的成縝。因此，老師給internal assessment的grading可以是按IBO的標準來進行，只是那些grading未必合理地反映學生的真正能力。

我希望IBO的moderation能防止如上述的作弊手法。

The internal assessments of IB DP are normally 20% of the full marks and are primarily written works mostly completed after some investigations.
IB DP, unlike, say GCE A level, is an educational programme concluded by a public exam (while the latter is simply a public exam - it’s interesting that there are even no prerequisites for GCE A level and anyone can choose to take the exam of the subjects they want).
Internal assessments similar to those of IB DP are not uncommon, including U programmes.
While I think IBO's moderation is quite reasonable, it is difficult to find a "fail-safe" system to eliminate all kinds of cheating.
Even in the universities, there were cases that students paid someone to write dissertations for them.
I’ve also read a case that a programmer (should be in America) was found to pay a software company (in India) to write programmes for him so that he could simply relax and enjoy himself at his company every day!
All in all, widespread cheating should not occur with the moderation system though there is always a residual risk of individual cheating in any system.

／／One characteristic of IB education is integration of knowledge (especially in PYP and MYP).
Higher education has segregated knowledge into different disciplines for specialisation.
At pre-U level or even junior U level, it seems that the trend is towards breadth rather than depth.
In the real world, professionals also need cross disciplinary knowledge nowadays.

Pre DP specialisation should not occur in IB MYP.
Details of MYP may be found from IBO's website.
Such specialisaton mentioned probably occurs in other (IB DP only) schools not following MYP.
.／／

學校推行IBD，不一定要同時推行PYP或MYP。即使有同時推行，卻沒有一個如GCSE般的公開試去確保學生真的有廣泛及涉臘多科的基本知識並達一定程度。

While public exams are unavoidable for one reason or another and it is agreed that students should have 廣泛及涉臘多科的基本知識並達一定程度, the question I want to discuss is the need to have two public exams within a short (two-year) period.
GCSE cannot serve the purpose for U application.
With the contemporary inflation of academic qualifications and alternative vocational training, the purpose of GCSE to serve as employment qualifications may also be limited.

至於Pre-U或junior U is towards breadth是對的，但rather than depth則富爭議性，有不少大學教授投訴大學新生對學科的基本功嚴重不足，但學科的學術發展一日千里，越來越難在指定學年讓學生掌握日益增多的基本但重要的學科知識。因此，一些大學的個別學系對學生在中學曾修讀那科及達那水平有嚴格的規定。

In this age of information explosion, it is difficult to spoon-feed U students all the “required knowledge” before they graduate.
In some professions, they change the entry requirements from bachelor degree to master degree.
In some places (like Hong Kong), they add one year to U education. In general, learning high level transferrable skills is emphasized so that U graduates can continuously develop their knowledge after graduation.

也同意professionals also need cross disciplinary knowledge nowadays.，但若學校只推行IBD 未必能有效使學生達到此要求。

I didn’t mean IB DP could alone achieve it but only work towards it as IB DP is merely a pre-U programme.
It’s probably my fault that I didn’t express myself clearly.

從教育角度來看，學生應該有廣泛的基礎學習，涉獵多個 文理科目，要做到 文中有理，理中有文。可是，我認為單靠IBD去達致文中有理或理中有文是不足夠 ，也不需要。因為學生中學 時若只按IBD課程學習，只得一科是文／理，是不足以達廣泛基礎學習的要求（當然若學校同時推MYP可能會好些）。其實，英國的GCSE OL 十 兩年的GCE AL是頗理想的學制，因為GCSE正是一個廣泛而基本的程度，適合作一般普及教育，並為能上AL及 大學 的學生打好廣泛學習的基礎，文理兼備。到了AL，可不需要再文理兼傋，而是專注在喜愛的文／理科目，當然，個別學生喜歡在AL仍然文理兼備，在AL制度下是容許的，這正是AL靈活富彈性之處。

It is allowed to take another science or humanities subject for group 6 in IB DP.
With the norm of taking 3 A levels, it is difficult to be文理兼備.
Even for GCSE, there is freedom in picking the subjects and no specific requirements for 文理兼備.
Back in the old days of HKCEE, it could not be said to be the norm for students to pick subjects to be文理兼備.
Unlike HKCEE/GCSE, the curriculum of MYP covers eight subject groups of at least two languages, humanities, sciences, mathematics, arts, physical education and technology, plus a personal project in the final year of MYP.

／／GCSE/IGCSE may cover a large no. of subjects but lack the integration of MYP.
Knowledge was originally integrated before man segregated it for specialisation／／

我認為GCSE多個科目之Integration 不是大問題，這視乎老師的教學手法，是否懂得引渡學生將知識螎匯貫通，我認識不少優質學校的課程及教學模式（不是行MYP)，都能有效地將多方面學科知識結合，而又同時能讓學生達到個別學科的學術水平要求。

I think it is not the norm but exception for schools following GCSE to integrate knowledge from a wide spectrum because it is simply not the requirement of the curriculum.
HKCEE resembled GCSE and I couldn’t find such integration therein as well.

//Despite being the most popular programme among IB's trilogy, I always think DP exhibits the least 'IB' characteristics due to its examination-oriented constraints for the sake of U application.
Of course, inquiry-based learning is not the monopoly of IBO and other well-established schools can offer equivalent educational programmes to suit the needs of their students.
It is agreed that IB education may not be the best choice for everyone, in particular for the demanding resources required.//

同意。正如我之前講過，IB的優質教學模式，對䣁些未 能建立自己一套的學校十分有用及能保證學校的教學質素至少有一 定水平。然而，行其他制度的學校，並沒有一套如IB之嚴謹模式跟從及被IBO持續監管，所提供的教學模式是各自修行，不同學校所提供的教學質素參差很大。

Yes, agreed.
Thank you.

shadeslayer

以上的是很好討論。

差開少少，既然 NSS 是 model IB，或它們是接近的學制，IB 給人的印象是綜合語文解難能力強， NSS 可以短期達到相約效果嗎？

slamai

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

To inculcate inquiry-based learning in Hong Kong’s educational system, the last 3 years of secondary school (NSS) will not be effective.
Worse still, there is a lack of inquiry-based learning environment in the classroom (re: for both teachers and students) and parental support (re: to both the government policy and their children).

Back to language education, I don’t think it is the best part of IB as the primary characteristic of IB should be inquiry-based learning which can be better applied in science and humanities subjects.  For language subjects (and also maths), the application of inquiry-based learning is more difficult and limited.  Providing a good environment which encourages reading and writing can be conducive to language learning.
Again, starting it in the last 3 years of secondary school (NSS) will be a bit late.

slamai

回復 oblivion2077 的帖子

Thank you for your supplement which I have little to add as we are largely in agreement though putting across our ideas from different angles.

For GCSE, I'd like to quote from Wikipedia the following section on "controlled assessment" which can be compared with the internal assessment of IB DP (both pros and cons):

Controlled Assessment
In some subjects, one or more controlled assessment assignments may also be completed. Controlled Assessment can contribute to anything from 10–60% of a pupil's final grade, with more practical subjects, such as design and technology (60%), art (60%), ICT (60%) ,music (60%) and English (60%) often having a heavier coursework element. The rest of a pupil's grade (normally the majority) is determined by their performance in examinations. These exams may either be terminal exams at the end of Year 11, a series of modular examinations taken throughout the course, or a combination of the two. Pupils can sometimes resit modular examinations later in the course and attempt to improve their grade.
In terms of stress, the upside of controlled assessment is that it can help to ease the stress of examination because students who undertake their coursework with skill and diligence have already achieved around 20% of the marks accounting for their final grade, however the downside is that this means students have a greater workload to complete, sometimes having to produce a large amount of work for a minimal part of the overall grade. For example, in English a student may have to complete 4 pieces of coursework, each over a thousand words long, which individually only account for 5% of the grade. However, this varies between exam boards.
Controlled assessment was usually completed outside of lessons, however concerns about cheating have meant that more and more is now being completed in the classroom, under supervision. For many courses starting in September 2009, including those in Economics, Science and History, a requirement will be that controlled assessment is completed in a controlled environment within schools. Design and Technology subjects also switch to the new, more controlled, environment, with time limits and restrictions on the variety of projects allowed.[9] However, despite hopes that controlled assessment would eliminate the possibility of cheating, it still goes on. There are many cases of teachers allowing students to complete the work at home after the teacher has corrected and marked it, which does not comply with the 'controlled' element of this assessment. An Ofqual investigation shows that most teachers are deeply dissatisfied with controlled assessment - and it is incredibly surprising that it was launched without a trial run.

I understand it differs from the international version, i.e. IGCSE, which is commonly adopted in Hong Kong and mostly examination-oriented.

ANChan59

回復 oblivion2077 的帖子

lB例如英文HL，除了oral 是Internal Assessment，佔30%，其他3份公開試卷分別佔25%，25%，40%。每份卷各自有Score Boundaries, 如果lA跟公開試成績接近，作弊的機會理應不大。如果科科lA都偏高，systematic cheating 機會大増，不然，誤差還是會有。

我再細看lA要7，要25+/30。其他卷需要20+/25及34+/40才取得7，各個細分都要80%以上才可以取7，作弊空間不大。

ANChan59

我看過其他級別，自4以上，都是合理水平對照，好有透明度，遲些PM給你作參考。

擔心作弊，我覺得不必要。亦令一知半解者，誤會lB的lA作弊。