2013年7月12日 星期五

馬克 顧德曼:對未來犯罪的一個看法

馬克 顧德曼:對未來犯罪的一個看法

Todd Humphreys: 如何愚弄GPS

Todd Humphreys: 如何愚弄GPS

Raghava KK: 你的200年的計劃是怎樣的?

Raghava KK: 你的200年的計劃是怎樣的?

John Graham-Cumming: 史上最偉大的機器

John Graham-Cumming: 史上最偉大的機器

亞當•戴維森: 我們在財政懸崖邊搖擺不定時所學到的事

亞當•戴維森: 我們在財政懸崖邊搖擺不定時所學到的事

Andy Puddicombe:一切只需要十分鐘的專注

Andy Puddicombe:一切只需要十分鐘的專注

溫漢.羅汪 (Wingham Rowan):新型態的就業市場 Wingham Rowan: A new kind of job market

溫漢.羅汪 (Wingham Rowan):新型態的就業市場

凱撒‧庫里雅瑪 (Cesar Kuriyama): 每日一秒

凱撒‧庫里雅瑪 (Cesar Kuriyama): 每日一秒


人生中有許多渺小、美麗、有趣、悲傷的時刻 -- 你如何才能逐一記住?導演凱撒‧庫里雅瑪 (Cesar Kuriyama) 每天都拍攝一秒並且持續在拍攝中的影片,作為一個收錄他生命中每個特別片段的計劃。
Cesar Kuriyama has been s

米切爾.瑞斯尼克: 讓我們教孩子編寫電腦程式

米切爾.瑞斯尼克: 讓我們教孩子編寫電腦程式

Fahad Al-Attiya : 一個缺乏水源的國家

Fahad Al-Attiya : 一個缺乏水源的國家

扎赫拉'蘭吉: 為什麼利比亞的革命沒有成功 -- 而什麼有可能成功

扎赫拉'蘭吉: 為什麼利比亞的革命沒有成功 -- 而什麼有可能成功


Tyler DeWitt: 嘿科學教師們-- 使學習有趣些吧

Tyler DeWitt: 嘿科學教師們-- 使學習有趣些吧

Shabana Basij-Rasikh: 敢於教育阿富汗的女孩們

Shabana Basij-Rasikh: 敢於教育阿富汗的女孩們

詹姆士.葛雷菲爾德 : 誰掌控了世界?

詹姆士.葛雷菲爾德 : 誰掌控了世界?

陳凱斯:你的語言會影響你的儲蓄能力嗎?Keith Chen: Could your language affect your ability to save money?

陳凱斯:你的語言會影響你的儲蓄能力嗎?

Afra Raymond: 貪汙的三個迷思 Afra Raymond: Three myths about corruption

Afra Raymond: 貪汙的三個迷思


安德里亞斯‧施萊歇爾:用統計資料來建立更好的學校 Andreas Schleicher: Use data to build better schools

安德里亞斯‧施萊歇爾:用統計資料來建立更好的學校


但我想要把第二個重要的特點 加入這個現象中 教育界人士喜歡討論公平 我們想用PISA來衡量他們究竟如何實現公平 如何確保所有的學生 來自不同的社會背景都擁有平等的機會 我們看到在一些國家 社會背景對學習成果的影響 非常巨大 機會的分配是不平等的 許多有潛力的孩子們被忽略了 我們看到在其他國家 成長背景的影響小了許多 我們都希望自己屬於右上角的那個象限 學生表現優秀而且學習機會均等 沒有人也沒有任何一個國家想要在那裡(左下角象限) 不僅學生表現差 而且社會差距過大 然後要討論的是(剩下的兩個象限)哪個比較好 是要屬於成績好 但社會差距大的象限? 還是要注重平等但接受平庸? 但實際上如果你去檢視圖上的各個國家 可以發現有很多國家 能夠兼顧優秀和公平 事實上這個比較結果讓我們上了重要的一課 那就是無需犧牲公平 來達成優秀 這些國家從少數人優秀 進步到所有人優秀 這是一個非常重要的發現 這也挑戰了很多學校體系的範例 他們認為學校的存在主要是為了把學生分類這些測驗結果發佈後世界各國的政治決策者 教育工作者和研究人員 都想試著去找出 那些體系的成功有什麼訣竅
讓我們更詳細地來看 紅點表示 對每位學生的花費占一個國家財富的比例 投入金錢的方式之一是提高教師收入 你可以看到韓國大量地投入 來吸引最優秀的人才成為專業教師 韓國也投入長時間的上課天數 進一步提高了成本 還有,韓國希望老師們 除了傳授知識,還要去培養及開發 他們投入專業的發展與合作專案 以及其他許多項目 這些都要花錢 韓國如何負擔這些?答案是大班教育 就是這條藍色的圓柱使得成本下降 再來看看旁邊的盧森堡 這個紅點與韓國在一模一樣的位置 這表示盧森堡在每位學生身上的花費與韓國相當 但盧森堡的家長、教師和政策制定者 都喜歡小班教學 因為走進一個小班級感覺很舒服 所以他們把錢都投入在那裡 藍色的這一條,也就是班級大小使得成本上升 但即使是盧森堡也無法將金錢重複使用 而代價就是 教師的收入沒有特別好 學生的上學時間不長 基本上,老師除了教書之外並沒有時間去做其他事情 所以你可以看到,兩個國家花錢的方式非常不一樣 而實際上他們如何用錢 比用了多少錢對教育有更多的影響
讓我們回到2000年 記住,這一年iPod還沒有出現 這是當時世界各國的樣子 以PISA測驗結果來看 首先你會注意到所有的泡泡都小了許多,對吧? 那時我們在教育上的花費少了許多 大約少了35% 我們自問:如果已經在教育上投入了這麼多的錢 它是不是也跟著改善了許多? 但讓人難堪的事實是 沒有多少個國家真正如此 不過有一些國家 已經有了不起的進步 我的母國德國,在2000年 屬於底下的那個象限 成績低於平均,社會差距大 要知道,德國曾經是一個 在擁有學位的國民數量上名列前茅的國家 測驗結果讓人非常失望 人們感到震驚 史無前例地,德國的公眾辯論 圍繞教育話題進行了數月 不是稅收,不是其他問題,而是教育 成為了公眾議題的焦點 後來政策制定者開始做出應對 聯邦政府大幅增加教育投資 努力提供更多機會 給來自移民家庭或社會弱勢群體的學生 有趣的是,這不僅是 使現有的體制更完善 同時也轉變了一些信念及範例 原本是德國教育的基礎 譬如,幼兒教育在傳統上 被認為是家庭的職責,而且你能看到在許多例子中 當婦女把孩子送到幼稚園 會被視為忽視家庭職責 PISA轉變了這個爭論 並且促使幼兒早期教育成為 德國公眾政策的核心 還有,傳統上德國的教育 把10歲的小孩,很小的年紀 區分為將來會成為知識工作者的人 以及將來為知識工作者工作的人 這樣的區分主要是依循社會經濟的路線 而這種典範現在也遇到了挑戰 發生了許多改變
所有這些產生了一個問題: 我們能從綠色象限的國家中學到什麼? 這些國家創造了高水準的平等 優秀的表現,並且提升了成果 當然,問題在於:在某個國家的成功經驗 能否複製於另一個國家? 當然的,你不能複製整個教育體系 但這些比較結果辨識出了一些要素 是表現優異的體系共同擁有的 每個人都認同教育是重要的 每個人都這麼說 但對事實上這個測驗是顯示出:如何去衡量教育和其他事務 的先後順序? 國家付給老師的薪水 如何和其他高技術勞工比較? 父母希望孩子當老師 還是做律師? 媒體上是怎麼談論學校和教師的? 這些都是至關重要的問題 而我們從PISA學到,在高績效的教育體系中 領導者讓市民相信並選擇 要重視教育、重視未來 更甚於今天的消費 有趣的是,你可能不會相信 有些國家最吸引人的地方 並不是購物中心,而是學校 這樣的事情真的存在
而教育系統的品質 取決於系統中教師的品質 高績效系統非常注重 教師的招聘和挑選 以及培訓教師的方法 他們注重如何去改善 那些有困難的老師的績效 以及如何規劃教師的薪水 他們也提供一個環境讓教師共同合作 開發優良的教學方式 他們為教師提供深造的途徑 在職業發展上 在官僚作風的學校體系中 教師總是獨自一人在教室裡 照本宣科 而高績效系統非常清楚好的績效是什麼 他們訂立了野心勃勃的標準 但同時也讓教師自由發揮 —今天我要教些什麼?過去的教育是在傳承智慧 現在的挑戰是要讓需要的人產生智慧 高績效系統已經不是 責任和控制的專業或管理模式 也就是,如何去檢查學生是否有做功課 它們已轉變成工作組織的專業模式 他們鼓勵教師在教學方式上推陳出新 為教師提供所需的進修 來發展更優秀的教學方法過去的目標是標準化和循規蹈矩 高績效系統讓教師們 和校長們勇於創新 在過去,政策著重於結果 和規章制度 高績效系統幫助教師 和校長放眼教師的未來 和學校的未來
(掌聲)

So with PISA, we try to change this by measuring the knowledge and skills of people directly. And we took a very special angle to this. We were less interested in whether students can simply reproduce what they have learned in school, but we wanted to test whether they can extrapolate from what they know and apply their knowledge in novel situations. Now, some people have criticized us for this. They say, you know, such a way of measuring outcomes is terribly unfair to people, because we test students with problems they haven't seen before. But if you take that logic, you know, you should consider life unfair, because the test of truth in life is not whether we can remember what we learned in school, but whether we are prepared for change, whether we are prepared for jobs that haven't been created, to use technologies that haven't been invented, to solve problems we just can't anticipate today.
And once hotly contested, our way of measuring outcomes has actually quickly become the standard. In our latest assessment in 2009, we measured 74 school systems that together cover 87 percent of the economy. This chart shows you the performance of countries. In red, sort of below OECD average. Yellow is so-so, and in green are the countries doing really well. You can see Shanghai, Korea, Singapore in Asia; Finland in Europe; Canada in North America doing really well. You can also see that there is a gap of almost three and a half school years between 15-year-olds in Shanghai and 15-year-olds in Chile, and the gap grows to seven school years when you include the countries with really poor performance.There's a world of difference in the way in which young people are prepared for today's economy.
But I want to introduce a second important dimension into this picture. Educators like to talk about equity. With PISA, we wanted to measure how they actually deliver equity, in terms of ensuring that people from different social backgrounds have equal chances. And we see that in some countries, the impact of social background on learning outcomes is very, very strong. Opportunities are unequally distributed. A lot of potential of young children is wasted. We see in other countries that it matters much less into which social context you're born. We all want to be there, in the upper right quadrant, where performance is strong and learning opportunities are equally distributed. Nobody, and no country, can afford to be there, where performance is poor and there are large social disparities. And then we can debate, you know, is it better to be there, where performance is strong at the price of large disparities? Or do we want to focus on equity and accept mediocrity? But actually, if you look at how countries come out on this picture, you see there are a lot of countries that actually are combining excellence with equity. In fact, one of the most important lessons from this comparison is that you don't have to compromise equity to achieve excellence.These countries have moved on from providing excellence for just some to providing excellence for all, a very important lesson. And that also challenges the paradigms of many school systems that believe they are mainly there to sort people. And ever since those results came out, policymakers, educators, researchers from around the world have tried to figure out what's behind the success of those systems.
But let's step back for a moment and focus on the countries that actually started PISA, and I'm giving them a colored bubble now. And I'm making the size of the bubble proportional to the amount of money that countries spent on students. If money would tell you everythingabout the quality of learning outcomes, you would find all the large bubbles at the top, no?But that's not what you see. Spending per student only explains about, well, less than 20 percent of the performance variation among countries, and Luxembourg, for example, the most expensive system, doesn't do particularly well. What you see is that two countries with similar spending achieve very different results. You also see -- and I think that's one of the most encouraging findings -- that we no longer live in a world that is neatly dividedbetween rich and well-educated countries, and poor and badly-educated ones, a very, very important lesson.
Let's look at this in greater detail. The red dot shows you spending per student relative to a country's wealth. One way you can spend money is by paying teachers well, and you can see Korea investing a lot in attracting the best people into the teaching profession. And Korea also invests into long school days, which drives up costs further. Last but not least, Koreans want their teachers not only to teach but also to develop. They invest in professional development and collaboration and many other things. All that costs money.How can Korea afford all of this? The answer is, students in Korea learn in large classes.This is the blue bar which is driving costs down. You go to the next country on the list, Luxembourg, and you can see the red dot is exactly where it is for Korea, so Luxembourg spends the same per student as Korea does. But, you know, parents and teachers and policymakers in Luxembourg all like small classes. You know, it's very pleasant to walk into a small class. So they have invested all their money into there, and the blue bar, class size, is driving costs up. But even Luxembourg can spend its money only once, and the price for this is that teachers are not paid particularly well. Students don't have long hours of learning. And basically, teachers have little time to do anything else than teaching. So you can see two countries spent their money very differently, and actually how they spent their money matters a lot more than how much they invest in education.
Let's go back to the year 2000. Remember, that was the year before the iPod was invented.This is how the world looked then in terms of PISA performance. The first thing you can see is that the bubbles were a lot smaller, no? We spent a lot less on education, about 35 percent less on education. So you ask yourself, if education has become so much more expensive, has it become so much better? And the bitter truth really is that, you know, not in many countries. But there are some countries which have seen impressive improvements.Germany, my own country, in the year 2000, featured in the lower quadrant, below average performance, large social disparities. And remember, Germany, we used to be one of those countries that comes out very well when you just count people who have degrees. Very disappointing results. People were stunned by the results. And for the very first time, the public debate in Germany was dominated for months by education, not tax, not other kinds of issues, but education was the center of the public debate. And then policymakers began to respond to this. The federal government dramatically raised its investment in education. A lot was done to increase the life chances of students with an immigrant background or from social disadvantage. And what's really interesting is that this wasn't just about optimizing existing policies, but data transformed some of the beliefs and paradigms underlying German education. For example, traditionally, the education of the very young children was seen as the business of families, and you would have cases where women were seen as neglecting their family responsibilities when they sent their children to kindergarten. PISA has transformed that debate, and pushed early childhood education right at the center of public policy in Germany. Or traditionally, the German education divides children at the age of 10, very young children, between those deemed to pursue careers of knowledge workersand those who would end up working for the knowledge workers, and that mainly along socioeconomic lines, and that paradigm is being challenged now too. A lot of change.
And all that raises, of course, the question: What can we learn from those countries in the green quadrant who have achieved high levels of equity, high levels of performance, and raised outcomes? And, of course, the question is, can what works in one context provide a model elsewhere? Of course, you can't copy and paste education systems wholesale, but these comparisons have identified a range of factors that high-performing systems share.Everybody agrees that education is important. Everybody says that. But the test of truth is, how do you weigh that priority against other priorities? How do countries pay their teachersrelative to other highly skilled workers? Would you want your child to become a teacherrather than a lawyer? How do the media talk about schools and teachers? Those are the critical questions, and what we have learned from PISA is that, in high-performing education systems, the leaders have convinced their citizens to make choices that value education, their future, more than consumption today. And you know what's interesting? You won't believe it, but there are countries in which the most attractive place to be is not the shopping center but the school. Those things really exist.
But placing a high value on education is just part of the picture. The other part is the belief that all children are capable of success. You have some countries where students are segregated early in their ages. You know, students are divided up, reflecting the belief that only some children can achieve world-class standards. But usually that is linked to very strong social disparities. If you go to Japan in Asia, or Finland in Europe, parents and teachers in those countries expect every student to succeed, and you can see that actually mirrored in student behavior. When we asked students what counts for success in mathematics, students in North America would typically tell us, you know, it's all about talent. If I'm not born as a genius in math, I'd better study something else. Nine out of 10 Japanese students say that it depends on my own investment, on my own effort, and that tells you a lot about the system that is around them.
And nowhere does the quality of an education system exceed the quality of its teachers.High-performing systems are very careful in how they recruit and select their teachers and how they train them. They watch how they improve the performances of teachers in difficulties who are struggling, and how they structure teacher pay. They provide an environment also in which teachers work together to frame good practice. And they provide intelligent pathways for teachers to grow in their careers. In bureaucratic school systems,teachers are often left alone in classrooms with a lot of prescription on what they should be teaching. High-performing systems are very clear what good performance is. They set very ambitious standards, but then they enable their teachers to figure out, what do I need to teach to my students today? The past was about delivered wisdom in education. Now the challenge is to enable user-generated wisdom. High performers have moved on from professional or from administrative forms of accountability and control -- sort of, how do you check whether people do what they're supposed to do in education -- to professional forms of work organization. They enable their teachers to make innovations in pedagogy. They provide them with the kind of development they need to develop stronger pedagogical practices. The goal of the past was standardization and compliance. High-performing systems have made teachers and school principals inventive. In the past, the policy focus was on outcomes, on provision. The high-performing systems have helped teachers and school principals to look outwards to the next teacher, the next school around their lives.