世界在危機中：一個勢在必行的模式轉變，以培養出21世紀的學習者(下)

 

閱讀此文前，歡迎先閱讀：

世界在危機中：一個勢在必行的模式轉變，以培養出21世紀的學習者(上)

 

作者/Yong Zhao

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]

[tab title=”中文”]

世界在危機中：一個勢在必行的模式轉變，以培養出21世紀的學習者(下)

面臨大量年輕人失業的危機，我們應該對未來抱持怎樣的希望呢?

全世界數以百萬計的失業年輕人可以成為具有足夠能力的人才，以符合日益增加的商業貿易需要，抑或拜科技及全球化之賜，成為當今世界正需要的具有創新能力的創業者，讓機會操控在自己的手裡(Salkowitz, 2010)。在理論上，除非生活在極度隔離的孤立小島上，否則每一個人都會接觸到一個擁有70億人口的全球市場(Zhao, 2012)。所以問題在於，他們是否具備正確的技能和知識呢?因此，提供他們教育就成為解決年輕人失業危機的最為重要的行動(Gatti, et al., 2013; World Economic Forum, 2011a, 2011b)。

同樣的，人才短缺的危機也可算是另一個契機。

有鑑於問題的嚴重性，全球的商業界、政府以及國際組織業已付諸行動。目前世界上的普遍共識是，我們必須集體投資，讓我們的孩子具備得以因應新的經濟模式所需要的技能和知識(Krell, 2011; World Economic Forum, 2011a)。對於許多已開發或發展中國家來說，擴大教育機會及提升教育品質已成為首要的任務。而對於追求更良好的教育所下的決心和意志，都可以很清楚地在許多國家積極地，甚至是非理性地參與諸如PISA和TIMSS等國際評量測驗，以及對測驗結果所做出的反應看出端倪。

然而，堅守舊式的教育模式並以之為主導卻也令人備感無奈。已有充分的證據顯示，人才的匹配並非教育不足所致，而是因為錯誤的教育所造成的。例如，南韓因為考試成績優異而被世界公認為教育品質極高的國家，但是”南韓最優秀人才卻無法勝任工作”(Guilford, 2013)。中國也是另一個被世界公認為教育最卓著的國家，尤其當上海學生連續兩屆勇奪PISA各科冠軍後更是如此，可是中國只有10%的大學畢業生可以在跨國企業公司工作(D. Farrell & A. Grant, 2005)。而根據麥肯錫研究所(McKinsey Global Institute)的研究顯示，大約有45%的美國雇主表示，造成工作缺額的主要原因是”缺乏技能”(Mourshed, et al., 2012)；此外，該研究也發現，全世界只有42%的雇主認為，大學應屆畢業生已為工作做好準備。

很明顯的，傳統的教育模式不僅不適用，更糟的是，還有害於培養21世紀的公民。新的經濟模式需要的是具有創業精神的個體，但傳統的教育模式卻是培養出滿腦子只知找工作的求職者。研究顯示，愈是因為考試成績斐然而被傳統認定為績效卓著的教育體系，就愈不可能培養出創業者。例如我們發現，PISA成績和各國的創業信心和活動具有負相關(Zhao, 2012)。

毫無爭議的是，世界需要追求教育上的卓越，但這所謂的卓越又該如何定義呢?

我認為目前有兩種教育模式，一種是就業導向(employee-oriented)模式，另一種則是創業導向(entrepreneur-oriented)模式(Zhao, 2012)。儘管這兩種模式的目的都是要讓孩子的人生獲致成功，然而前者著重的是將社會和經濟所需要的既定知識和技能傳輸給個體，而後者則是假定，如果個體的潛能已被開發，那麼他(她)將照著自己的方式去使自己成為有用的人。就業導向的教育模式重視的是學生應該學些什麼，但創業導向的教育模式則是著重於學生能夠學些什麼。就業導向的教育模式讓學生具備擔任既有工作的能力，但創業導向的教育模式則是讓學生具備創造工作的責任。

某個善於培育就業者的教育體系不盡然也善於培育出創業者，因為不同的教育模式會產出不同的教育體系和制度。對就業導向的教育模式而言，其主要目的就是要把既定的知識迅速有效地傳遞給學生，所以必須明確地訂定出每一位學生的學習成果，由訓練有素的教師熟練地把豐富的知識傳遞給學生，讓學生願意且能夠吸收這些內容，然後學校實施頻繁的標準化評量，以監控每一位學生的進步情形，其他資源也都和這些既定的內容有良好的連結。統一、一致、標準、競爭、被資料驅策的實務，以及強調學習成果都是就業導向教育模式的特徵。

相反的，創業導向的教育模式則是需要一個機制，足以把個體的差異最大化。遵循這個模式的學校教育將不需要為每一個學生訂定標準和共同課程，每個學生各自追求自己的興趣和熱情，教師則給予學生支持與回饋，學生的進步情形只按照其所追求的予以評量。差異、多元、包容甚或寬容、自主，以及由學生自我驅策的學習則是創業教育模式的特徵。

現今，我們仍然沿用舊有的模式來評量教育是否卓越。

我們認為卓越的教育體系，就是能夠快速有效地傳遞規定好的內容，把學生形塑成相同的性質，並且在少數科目的標準化測驗中獲致高分。只要某個學校和某個國家的學生考出優異的成績，那麼就會被認定為擁有優質的教育。正因為遵循著這套邏輯，學校、教師和教育體系無不汲汲營營於提高學生的考試成績，認為這麼做就是在追求卓越。正因為受到這樣的定義所指引者，全世界的教育改革都著重於強化舊有的教育模式，就如同”國家在危機中”所提議的，要把課程固定，把標準提高，把上學時間延長，把教師產力提升，以及要求教師和校長負起責任。

如果我們想要培育出21世紀所需的人才，那麼我們就必須重新定義何謂卓越的教育。

一個卓越的教育應該支持各種才能的發展，而不是有效率地將學生同質化；一個卓越的教育應該謹慎地培育創意和個人特質，而不是去打壓創意和個別差異。一個卓越的教育應該致力於鼓勵學生成為創業者，而不是順從的員工。一個卓越的教育應該培育孩子具有全球視野和能力，而不是過分地強調全球競爭力。因此，一個卓越的教育應該有效地提供(學生)個性化教育(personalized education)，促進多樣性和創造性，讓學生在一個全球化的校園裡與來自全球各地的人互動，並且透過產品導向的學習(product-oriented learning)，激發出學生創業和創新的精神(Zhao, 2012)。

我們擁有必備的原料讓我們所需要的教育改革得以落實，我們也擁有適當的工具讓(教育)模式得以完成轉變。

現代的研究證實了，世界上普遍存在著不同才能、興趣、熱情和文化的人(Ehrlich, 2000; Ridley, 2003; Pinker, 2003; Gardner, 2006; Rose & Fischer, 2011)，然而，這些多樣性卻因為大規模生產的經濟體需要同質的生產力而備受打壓。全球化和科技的進步極度擴大了有用技能的殊異性，傳統上被輕忽的技能也變得愈來愈有價值(Florida, 2012; Pink, 2006)。在過度分工化的時代(Malone, Laubacher, & Johns, 2011)，獨特、小眾的技能也可能極具價值。

科技如此進步，致使人們可以在任何時候，在任何地點，和任何人，學習任何東西(Bonk, 2011; Christensen, Horn, & Johnson., 2010)。所以，學習不必然要侷限在物理上的空間，跟著老師學習，也可能透過不同的學習風格和學習型態，使不同的興趣和才能獲得發展(Fischer & Silvern, 1985; Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Tomlinson, 2001)。

全球化已顯著增進人們進行跨文化及跨疆界的交流與移動，使學生更可能從事全球性質的學習活動(Zhao, 2009a, 2012)。

支持新教育模式的理論和實務已存在了幾個世紀之久，近年來甚至更加精進。目前，儘管新的教育模式只有小規模的落實，然而，許多教育先驅業已發展出成功的策略和作法，使其得以真切地在全世界運用(Zhao, 2012)。

只要這些原料，加上社會大眾的承諾、政府當局和企業界的決心，以及年輕世代的強烈動機，就有機會可以為下個世代創造出卓越的教育。我們所需要的是提起勇氣和擁有智慧，把過時的模式予以拋棄，並為創建新的模式而努力。

鑑於改善教育的工程迫在眉睫，不論就近期或就長遠來看，我提出以下的建議，若政策制定者和教育工作者能夠立即著手進行，那麼不僅只需幾年的時間就可實現，而且保證新時代的教育必將卓越。

1.停止透過共同課程標準和考試，繼續將窄化的既定內容強行灌輸給孩子，而是要開始實施個性化教育，支持獨特、創造和創業才能的發展。

2.停止耗費時間在選擇、培訓與留住所謂更好的教師人選，來固定教學人力，而是要開始賦予學生權力，去解放他們的潛能，讓他們充分利用自己的熱情，並且針對他們所追求的給予支持。開始把學習的所有權提供給孩子。

3.停止為孩子分派教室和教師，並在有限的物理空間裡限制住孩子學習的機會，而是要開始讓孩子超越班級和學校的圍籬，使其擁有在全球社會中學習的機會。

4.停止強迫孩子學習成人自認為他們需要學的內容，同時停止藉由考試來測試他們是否已精熟彼等內容，而是要開始讓孩子有機會著手創造出真實的產品，並且讓他們學習感興趣的。

5.停止過去訂定標準以驗證是否達到卓越的作法，而是要開始為未來做投資，如此才可能達到卓越。我們不可能搭著馬車前往月球，而是必須借助火箭的技術。

若要落實上述諸項建議，那麼首先，我們就必須拋棄就業導向教育模式的思維，這個思維不僅由”國家在危機中”所催生，而且還一直延用到現在。歷經了30多年的實驗，對美國的教育不但沒有任何改善，甚至造成了徹底的破壞，現在正是從這個思維中解脫出來的時候了。

(*原作發表於Society 52(2), pp 129-135, April 2015。國家在危機中30週年紀念特輯(http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-015-9872-8)。原作者有感於”國家在危機中”對美國所造成的巨大影響，以及本文的重要性，乃仿效該報告的文筆寫成此文。)

【作者介紹：Yong Zhao】

本文作者Yong Zhao為國際知名教育學者、作家及演講者，專精於全球教育方法及應用，目前任職於美國奧瑞岡大學(University of Oregon)，擔任教育測量、政策和領導學系教授，發表學術文章百餘篇，以及出版20餘本書，包括2014年出版的”誰害怕大惡龍:為何中國擁有世界上最好(最差)的教育體系(Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World)“、2012年出版的”世界級的學習者:教育創新與學生創業(World Class Learners:Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students)“，以及2009年出版的”迎頭趕上或引領世界:在全球化時代的美國教育(Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization)“。此外，他尚有經營部落格: http://zhaolearning.com.。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

A World at Risk: An Imperative for a Paradigm Shift to Cultivate 21st Century Learners[1]

“Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 1). The bedrock of American prosperity, the massive middle class, has been shrinking. The economy that once created the American middle class has been going through a hollowing-out process (Wohlsen, 2012). Traditional middle-class jobs have been disappearing quickly, offshored to other countries or replaced by machines (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2012) (Goldin & Katz, 2008; McAfee, 2012). The U.S. economy is growing–companies are making record profits and investing, and new businesses are created every day. That growth, however, is creating jobs at the very top and the very bottom (Aspen Institute, 2012), hence the fast growth of rewarding opportunities for the creative and entrepreneurial and the low-paying jobs in the service sector (Auerswald, 2012; Florida, 2012).

Our schools and colleges that have historically contributed to the prosperity of the United States and the well-being of its people (Goldin & Katz, 2008) have been under assault and profoundly changed (Berliner, 2006; Carter & Welner, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ravitch, 2010, 2013; Tienken & Orlich, 2013; Zhao, 2009a, 2012). The educational foundations of our society that once made America the center of innovation and created the American middle class are presently being eroded by a rising tide of misguided reforms that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. “What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1)—American education, once the envy of the world, is losing its traditional virtues and becoming more like its admirers’.

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the misguided policies that threaten democracy, turn American children into robotic test takers, narrow and homogenize our children’s education, encourage standardization instead of helping the needy children and stimulating innovation, value testing over teaching, and scapegoat teachers that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have squandered the opportunities brought about by technology, ignored research evidence, and paid no attention to what the future needs. “We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1).

America is not the only nation that has “been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” in the world. Over the past few decades, many Western democratic and developed nations have engaged in such suicidal educational reforms. Led by the same mistaken assumptions that gave birth to A Nation at Risk, Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and others have made or are about to make similar changes in their education systems. These changes, just like the changes the U.S. has made, are simply trying to do the wrong thing more right. They are putting the world at risk.

The Risk

“History is not kind to idlers” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1). It is even crueler to reckless reformers who keep fiddling with the past to meet the needs of the future. The time is long past when most people worked on assembly lines and other routine jobs, which required only basic and standardized knowledge and skills. A growing portion of these jobs has been automated or offshored to places with abundant people who are unable to demand higher wages. We have entered a new economy. The new economy favors highly skilled, highly educated workers, and their prosperity creates greater demands for low-paying service workers–but not for the kind of medium-skilled, middle-class jobs that formed the backbone of the workforce in the past (Wohlson, 2012). The new economy needs creative and innovative entrepreneurs to create jobs and new opportunities (Florida, 2012; Wagner, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2012; Zhao, 2012). Thus the new middle class will have to be equipped with “skills for which there are only imperfect (domestic or international) substitutes” (Goldin & Katz, 2008, p. 352). It was once possible to predicate and prescribe the skills and knowledge one might need for success in a given society because societies were isolated from each other and the pace of change was slow. Moreover, the majority of the jobs were created by a few exceptionally creative and entrepreneurial individuals and required similar skills. “It is no longer” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1).

“The world is indeed one global village” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p.1). In this interconnected and interdependent village, one cannot achieve prosperity alone by simply exploiting and competing with others. Globalization is not a zero-sum game. One nation’s rise does not have to be another’s demise, as suggested by A Nation at Risk. In a world where people, ideas, goods, and resources move across national borders constantly and freely, the prosperity of any individual or nation depends on working with others, treating others as potential customers and partners instead of enemies or competitors. To achieve global prosperity, our education has to help children develop the knowledge and skills to live and work across cultural and national borders as global citizens.

The risk is not only the destruction of the traditional virtues of education in America and other Western developed countries, which tend to tolerate exceptionality, respect individual differences, and condone unconventional behaviors—the beginning of creativity and entrepreneurial spirit (Zhao, 2009a, 2012). It is not just the rigorous but blind pursuit of test scores as the only outcome of education at expense of creativity and other non-cognitive skills that have been proven to be equally, if not more, valuable than academic test scores for life’s success (Brunello & Schlotter, 2010; Levin, 2012); or the imposition of uniform curriculum standards on all children in all classrooms that narrows children educational experiences and reduces the professional autonomy of educators (Alexander, 2009; McMurrer, 2007, 2008; Tienken & Zhao, 2013); or holding educators accountable for raising student test scores beyond reason that results in the loss of morale and widespread cheating (Nichols & Berliner, 2007).

The risk is also the choice of educational systems to idolize, to emulate, to benchmark to. The fixation on international test scores as indicators of educational quality and the fear of being surpassed by others that give birth to A Nation at Risk has made educational systems in East Asia the model because of their superb performances on international tests such as the PISA and TIMSS (Tucker, 2011). But these educational systems have been struggling to produce creative and entrepreneurial citizens for decades. They have ironically looked up to America and other Western nations for strategies to move away from their traditional practices, which produce great test-takers at the cost of creativity (Zhao, 2009a, 2012).

Creativity, entrepreneurship, and global competence are the new basic skills that will bring the “coming prosperity” to the world (Auerswald, 2012). If only to keep and improve on the accidental opportunities for cultivating creative and entrepreneurial talents that once existed in America and other Western developed education systems, we must stop the misguided reforms that have already brought tremendous damages and wasted resources. To prepare our children for the new economy, we must begin the shift to a different educational paradigm.

The concern, however, goes well beyond economical success of individuals or a few nations. It includes the very survival of humanity and the continuation of civilization. Globalization and technological advancement have the potential to both lift people out of poverty and engender greater inequality (Friedman, 2007; Stiglitz, 2006). They have also given individuals the destructive power that once could only be held by a state and thus could send disasters to anyone anywhere. Environmental degradation and destruction are no longer confined to one place. With over seven billion people living different economic, social, and cultural settings, some of which do not necessarily share the same values or interests, we must be concerned about how to get along and what we can equip our children with to make the world they will occupy peaceful and sustainable. They have to be educated as citizens of the world beyond citizens of a nation. A global perspective and genuine concern about the well being of others are essential for citizens in the age of globalization (Asia Society, 2008; Zhao, 2009b).

The risk, to summarize, is that educational reforms around the globe, aptly shortened by the Finnish education author Pasi Sahlberg as the GERM, which stands for Global Education Reform Movement, have focused on fixing an educational paradigm that has little chance of preparing the talents and citizens we need in the 21^st globalized century (Sahlberg, 2012). The GERM, characterized by competition, standardized testing, and test-based accountability, have infected educational systems around the world and sent them to fiddle with curriculum, teachers, and assessment instead of inventing a new paradigm that cultivates creativity, entrepreneurship, and global competence. The old paradigm aims at strengthening schools to prepare citizens for a by-gone era, resulting in the global phenomenon of talent mismatch: the co-existence of massive youth unemployment and widespread talent shortage. As a consequence, the world is more at risk than before the reforms.

Indicators of the Risk

Indicators of the risk the world faces are well documented. First, there is massive youth unemployment around the world. Large youth unemployment is both a long-term and short-term economic and social risk. Second, while a large number of youth are unemployed and individuals who are highly educated in the traditional sense are unemployed, underemployed, or working on jobs that do not require the level of education, companies are facing a talent shortage. The shortage of talent around the globe is another economic and social risk.

Massive Youth Unemployment

• World wide, almost 300m 15- to 24-year-olds are not working around the world. Nearly half of the world’s young people are either outside the formal economy or contributing less productively than they could, according to The Economist (The Economist, 2013).
• With 45 million new entrants in the global job market annually – most of them young – 300 million new jobs will be needed between now and 2015 to keep pace with the growth in the labour force (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
• In the Middle East and North Africa, 54% of working age population is unemployed or inactive; 1 out every 4 youth aged 15-25 are jobless, according the World Bank (Gatti, et al., 2013).
• In Europe, the youth (ages 15-24) unemployment rate was over 23% in the last quarter of 2013 (Eurostat, 2013).
• “In South Africa, 70% of under 35 year olds are out of work,” according to a 2013 BBC report (Mbele, 2013).
• In Australia, more than 27 per cent of Australians aged 17-24 were not in full-time study or work in 2011 (McDonald, 2013).
• In South Korea, the youth unemployment rate was 22% in 2013 (Guilford, 2013).
• In the United States, the unemployment rate of youth aged 16 to 24 was 16% (International Labour Organization, 2013), with almost six million youth out of school and work (Elliot, 2013).

Unemployed, Underemployed, and Underpaid College Graduates

• In 2012, an Associated Press study found that half of recent college graduates were unemployed or underemployed in the United States (Associated Press, 2012). At the same time, nearly half of the college graduates were in jobs that did not require a college degree, according to a study by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (Vedder, Denhart, & Robe, 2013).
• In the U.K., while some 8.6% of graduates were unemployed after six month in 2012, about 30% of college graduates were in jobs that did not require a college degree, according to a 2012 report by theTelegraph (Paton, 2012).
• In China, nearly seven million college students graduated in 2013 but less than 30% of the college graduates in Beijing area had an employment contract in April, just two months before they head out of school (Li, 2013). The average starting salary for college graduates are similar to that of migrant workers because many of the jobs do not require a college education (Guo, 2010).
• In South Korea, around 25% of college graduates were unemployed in 2011(Guilford, 2013).

The Global Talent Shortage

• Out of the 30 world’s major economies, 18 are experiencing talent shortages, according to the Hays Global Skills Index 2013 (Hays, 2013).
• The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that by 2020 there will be a global shortfall of 85 million high- and middle-skilled workers (Mourshed, Farrell, & Barton, 2012).
• Worldwide, 35% of over 38,000 employers surveyed report they are experiencing difficulty filling jobs due to lack of available talent. 54% of employers surveyed reported that talent shortages impact their client-facing abilities to a high or medium degree (Manpower Group, 2013).
• In the U.S., at least 3 million U.S. positions currently remain unfilled (Krell, 2011). 25 million workers will be needed to add to the U.S. talent base to sustain its economic growth (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
• In 2010, 76 percent of Japan’s employers said they had difficulty finding the right people to fill jobs (Krell, 2011).
• There are over 2 million unfilled vacancies in the European Union (European Commission, 2013). 45 million workers will need to be added in Western Europe by 2030 to maintain its economic growth (World Economic Forum, 2011a).
• In China, one the top 10 concerns of international businesses in China has been the shortage of talent (The U.S.-China Business Council, 2013). Only about 10% of Chinese college graduates are reported to have the skills to work in multinational businesses (D. Farrell & A. J. Grant, 2005).

The world thus is faced with two paradoxical crises: massive youth unemployment and equally massive talent shortage. Both are dangerous if allowed to continue. Massive youth unemployment leads to not only personal poverty and psychological trauma, but also social unrest and inequality. Talent shortage slows down economic growth and in turn generates fewer employment opportunities. Talent shortage can also drive up the incomes of highly talented workers, which in turn result in even bigger income gaps between the high-skill and low-skill workers.

Hope and Frustration

In the crisis of massive youth unemployment lies tremendous hope for the future. The millions of unemployed youth around the world can become the qualified talents to meet the rising demand of businesses or the creative entrepreneurs the world needs to harness the opportunities technology and globalization present (Salkowitz, 2010). In theory, any individual (except in extremely politically isolated places) has access to the global market of seven billion as well as global collaborators and financing (Zhao, 2012). The question is whether they are equipped with the right skills and knowledge. Education has thus been considered the most important action to address the youth unemployment crisis (Gatti, et al., 2013; World Economic Forum, 2011a, 2011b).

Likewise, the crisis of talent shortage is another opportunity. The severity of the problem has already made businesses, governments, and international organizations willing to take action. There is general consensus around the world that we must collectively invest in better equipping our children with the skills and knowledge for the new economy (Krell, 2011; World Economic Forum, 2011a). Expanding educational opportunities and improving educational quality have become a top priority for many nations, developed and developing. The resolution and determination to better education are clearly visible in the active, almost irrational, participation in and response to international tests results such as the PISA and TIMSS.

Education presents hope. It also presents frustration.

The frustration comes from the persistence and dominance of the old educational paradigm. Ample evidence suggests that the talent mismatch is not the result of insufficient education, but the result of the wrong education. For example, in South Korea, a nation that has been globally recognized for its high education quality indicated by test scores, “Korea’s best aren’t suited to the jobs on offer” (Guilford, 2013). China has also been recognized as one of the best education systems in the world, especially after it’s Shanghai took the number one position on the PISA in all three subjects twice in a row but only 10 percent of its college graduates are qualified (D. Farrell & A. Grant, 2005). About 45% of U.S. employers said the main reason for entry-level job vacancies is the “lack of skills” in a study by McKinsey (Mourshed, et al., 2012). The same study found that only 42% of employers worldwide believe new graduates are adequately prepared for work.

Clearly the traditional model of education is no longer adequate. Worse, it is harmful for preparing citizens for the 21^st century. The new economy needs entrepreneurially spirited individuals, but traditional education prepares employment-minded job seekers. Research shows that the more successful an educational system is in the traditional sense as indicated by test scores the less likely it is to cultivate entrepreneurs. PISA scores, for example, have been found to be negatively correlated with nations’ entrepreneurial confidence and activities (Zhao, 2012).

Excellence in Education

There is no disagreement that the world needs excellence in education but what defines excellence matters. There are two educational paradigms: employee-oriented vs. entrepreneur-oriented (Zhao, 2012). While both aim to prepare children to live successfully, the former focuses on transmitting a body of knowledge and skills predetermined to be valuable and the latter emphasizes on the developing the potential of each individual child. The former presumes that a body of knowledge and skills can be decided based on predications of needs of the society and economy, while the latter assumes if a child’s potential is developed she will become valuable in her own way. Employee-oriented education values what childrenshould learn, while entrepreneur-oriented education values what children would learn. Employee-oriented education prepares children to fit existing jobs, while entrepreneur-oriented education prepares children to take the responsibility to create jobs.

Excellence in one paradigm does not mean excellence in the other. When a school or system becomes extremely good at preparing employees, they are not necessarily good at preparing entrepreneurs because different paradigms lead to different arrangement of educational institutions and systems. Given its primary goal to efficiently and effectively transmit predetermined knowledge, the employee-oriented education paradigm requires an apparatus with clearly defined learning outcomes for all students, well-trained teachers knowledgeable of the content to be transmitted and skilled at doing so, engaged students willing and able to learn the content, standardized measures to monitor the progress of each student as well as institutions frequently, and other resources well-aligned with the prescribed content. Uniformity, consistency, standardization, competition, data-driven practices, and an emphasis on outcomes are the features of the employee-oriented education paradigm.

In contrast, the entrepreneur-oriented paradigm requires an apparatus that maximizes individual differences. School following this paradigm have no standardized and common curriculum for all students, each child pursues his or her interest and passion, teachers respond to and support individual student’s pursuit, and students’ progress is assessed only in accordance with their own pursuit. Variation, diversity, tolerance (or indulgence), autonomy, and student-driven are some of the features of the entrepreneur-oriented education.

Today, the measure of excellence in education follows the old paradigm. Excellence is defined as effectiveness and efficiency in transmitting the prescribed content and homogenizing children, indicated by standardized test scores in a few subjects. Schools and nations that produce higher test scores are considered having better education. Following the same logic, schools, teachers, and educational systems are working hard to raise test scores, believing that they are pursuing excellence. Guided by this definition of excellence, educational reforms worldwide have focused on strengthening components and arrangements of the old educational paradigm as suggested by A Nation at Risk: fixing the curriculum, raising standards, lengthening school time, improving the teaching force, and holding teachers and school leaders accountable.

To prepare the talents we need for the 21^st century, we need to redefine excellence in education. Instead of effectiveness in homogenizing students, an excellent education should support the development of diverse talents. Instead of suppressing creativity and individual differences, an excellent education should deliberately cultivate them. Instead of preparing compliant employees, an excellent education should intentionally encourage children to be entrepreneurial. Instead of overemphasizing global competitiveness, an excellent education should foster global perspectives and competence. Excellence in education should thus be measured by its effectiveness in providing personalized education that promotes diversity and creativity, on a globalized campus that engages children in global interactions, through product-oriented learning that inspires entrepreneurship and innovation (Zhao, 2012).

The Tools at Hand

We have the essential raw materials to realize the true education reforms we need. We have the right tools to complete the paradigm shift.

• Modern research supports the existence of the universal diversity of human talents, interests, passion, and culture (Ehrlich, 2000; Ridley, 2003) (Pinker, 2003) (Gardner, 2006) (Rose & Fischer, 2011), but that diversity had to be suppressed in mass-production economies that required a more homogenous workforce. Globalization and technology advances have drastically expanded the spectrum of skills that are valuable. Traditionally undervalued skills have become increasingly more valuable (Florida, 2012) (Pink, 2006). In the age of hyperspecialization (Malone, Laubacher, & Johns, 2011), unique, small niche skills can be of great value.
• Technology has advanced so much that it is a reality that one can learn anything, at anytime, with anyone, from anywhere (Bonk, 2011) (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson., 2010). Thus human learning does not have to be confined to the physically present teacher in geographically isolated places, making it possible to support the development a diversity of interests and talents, as well as different learning styles and patterns (Fischer & Silvern, 1985) (Fischer & Bidell, 2006) (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) (Tomlinson, 2001).
• Globalization has significantly increased human interactions and movement across cultural and political borders, making it more possible for children to engage in learning activities on a global scale (Zhao, 2009a, 2012).
• Theories and practices that support the new educational paradigm have existed for centuries and advanced even more in recent years. Pioneers have developed successful strategies and tactics to make it a reality all over the world, albeit on a very small scale (Zhao, 2012).

These raw materials, combined with the commitment of the public, determination of government agencies and businesses, and the strong motivation of today’s youth, offers us the possibility of creating the next generation of excellent education. All we need to is the courage and wisdom to abandon the outdated model and begin working on the new one.

Recommendations

In light of the urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long term, I propose a set of recommendations that policy makers and educators can begin to act on now, that can be implemented over the next several years, and that promise educational excellence for the new age.

• Stop prescribing and imposing on children a narrow set of content through common curriculum standards and testing.
• Start personalizing education to support the development of unique, creative, and entrepreneurial talents.
• Stop fixing solely the teaching force by selecting, training, and retaining better teacher candidates. It takes too long and we cannot wait.
• Start empowering the children by liberating their potentials, capitalizing on their passion, and supporting their pursuits. Start giving the ownership of learning to the children.
• Stop constraining children to learning opportunities present in their immediate physical environments by assigning them to classes and teachers.
• Start engaging them in learning opportunities that exist in the global community, beyond their class and school walls.
• Stop forcing children to learn what adults think they may need and testing them to what degree they have mastered the required content.
• Start allowing children the opportunity to engage in creating authentic products and learn what they are interested in, just in time, not just in case.
• Stop benchmarking to measures of excellence in the past, such as international test scores.
• Start inventing the excellence of the future. You cannot fix the horse wagon to get the moon. We have to work on rocket science.

A Final Word

To implement these recommendations, the first thing we need is to abandon the mindset deeply entrenched in the obsolete employment-oriented educational paradigm, they very mindset that both gave birth to and has been perpetuated by A Nation at Risk. After thirty years of experiments that have brought revolutionary, destructive changes to American education, without any measureable improvement, it is time to be freed from its spirit.

 

【Author：Yong Zhao】

Yong Zhao speaks around the world on educational issues, particularly on issues related to globalization and education, creativity, global competitiveness, educational reforms, and educational technology.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源：昇典 葉@flickr

本文轉載自小李的特教資訊站，未經許可不得轉載