【國外編輯部專欄】為什麼要重視技職教育?

作者/Mark Phillips

編譯/李苾琳

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

為什麼要重視技職教育?

 

我就讀的綜合高中裡,通常認為技職體系的學生是無法達成學科成就的人。我在一所零技職教育的郊區高中從事教學工作,幾年前,我受挪威教育部聘請擔任其職業教育的講師,在挪威我簡直大開眼界,他們的技職教育有極高的威信,財源雄厚、甚至可以依個人規劃進入醫學院學習。

《全球成就差距》(The Global Achievement Gap)一書與更近期出版的創建創新(Creating Innovators)之作者──托尼瓦格納(Tony Wagner)先生,向我社區內的教師與家長發表演說時提到:「在芬蘭成功的教育系統下,完成基礎教育後,有45%的學生選擇進入職業體系而非學科屬性的普通科。」這使我最近想起這段經歷。

 

白領社會中的藍領羞辱

我敢肯定許多高中的輔導老師都曾聽過他們有些學生傾訴道:不論是修汽車引擎、家裡的電路、美容美髮或按摩等服務,『透過自己的雙手做點什麼的時候有多麼的快樂』。我甚至敢言,這些學生可能向輔導老師表示,他們無法對父母說出:『比起去上大學,他們寧願去追求職業上的成就,為未來的專業或職涯做準備。』。

我們的社會向來認為專業人士與白領工作有相當高的價值,同時認為藍領工作者的地位較低。因此家長希冀自己的兒女去追求能保持、提高其社會地位的職業並不意外,在高社經群體當中這種狀況更為常見。對大多數教師而言,如果這個學生在學科知能上很有成就,有技職方面的興趣還會被當做是一種『人才的浪費』。

同樣的困境也發生在努力想改變成績差距的學生身上,大多數學校也能有效幫助他們克服這種差距,但成就卻是反映在錄取大學上面。能進入這些學校往往被貼上成功的標籤,而在家族中第一個從高中畢業的孩子如果完全不管這個標籤,選擇了非進入大學的其他條路或是從事藍領工作,周遭的人就會對他的選擇不以為然。

這種對技職教育產生的偏見很不正常,原因有二。第一、他毀了我們的孩子。不論是資質天賦或是興趣偏好,他們應該有機會讓這些能力進行培養與訓練,而不是對他們洗腦有天終將發現這些工作毫無意義。如果一個年輕人對髮型設計或是某一個行業有熱情,使他無法追求夢想或是發展這項技能就叫做毀了他。

第二、他破壞我們的社會。在二十一世紀的全球競爭市場中,最需要的能力就屬技術/職業領域的技術性技能,在技術與職業領域的缺乏卓越表現在經濟層面上也會對一國產生耗損。

六零年代初期,約翰佳德納(John Gardner)在他的經典著作──卓越(Excellence)──一書中暢談技職教育與我們經濟與社會健全狀況中所需,各種職業適得其所、卓越發展的重要性,不幸的是我們在這些年的干預下毫無進展。在傳統學術領域不擅長的學生、或是對學科知識興趣不大的孩子,不該從師長那裏覺察失望或不滿。而另一位佳德納,霍華德佳德納(Howard Gardner)也已經多次指出多元智能的存在,各種領域的資優特質都有同樣的價值。舉例來說,在許多技術性行業能大顯身手、有所成就的人,往往在身體運動智能與空間智能會有較高的表現水平。當然就全體學生而言,承認與發展這些多元智能,與發展基本語言能力或數學知能也絕對沒有矛盾。

 

職業教育風潮

改變社會價值需要時間,而「改變」,也許會發生在校園內或是直接反映在各個階層。值得高興的是,已經有越來越多的典範與資源能提供教師們方向。

喬克萊恩(Joe Klein)在最近時代雜誌上的文章提到,在美國優質卓越、資金雄厚的職業課程日益漸增。尤其是在亞利桑那州其中兩間──梅薩(Mesa)的東谷科技學院(East Valley Institute of Technology)與凱恩塔(Kayenta)的谷區紀念中學(Monument Valley High School),其技職教育課程都提供了可適用於許多地區的創新啟發與實用的教學模型。

在美國,還有更多學校建立實習計畫,協助進入普通高中的學生獲得職場經驗。舊金山的市藝高職(City Arts and Technology High),三年級與四年級的學生會在社區中實習,社區有專業人士臨場提供輔導與其學校顧問的定期訪視。加州奧克蘭的識西高中(MetWest High School),就是其中一所提供學生實習的學校,此外還有很多地方有實習機會。而南西霍夫曼(Nancy Hoffman)出色的新著作──職場中學(schooling in the Workplace)──著眼於六個國家如何整合學校教育與工作場域,此外也提供在美國地區該教育整合情況的觀點研究。

最後,在一區能開始對技職教育進行立法,取決於一般認為社會地位不高的職業相關議題對父母進行職業價值觀的成功再教育。邁克羅斯(Mike Ross)的衷心於業:珍視美國工人的智慧(The Mind at Work: Valuing the Intelligence of the American Worker)就我們對職業所產生的社會偏見──不論是職業所需智能、與我們社會過去貶抑認知與技能結合所產生的偏誤──已提供了一帖良方。

在各地就能實施、也應該採取的第一步便是:各中學與大專院校的技職教育都應該予以高度重視、充足經費,與有效實踐。

 

【作者介紹:Mark Phillips】

曾任職於加州大學聖塔巴巴拉分校和舊金山州立大學。退休後現為加州報紙Marin Independent Journal專欄作家。

 

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Why Should We Care About Vocational Education?

 

Some years ago I was hired by Norway’s Ministry of Education to train vocational education teachers. Having myself attended a comprehensive high school where vocational students were those who couldn’t make it academically, and having taught in a suburban high school where there was zero vocational education, it was eye-opening to be in a country where vocational education had high prestige, was well-funded, and included students who could have gone to medical school if that had been their preference.

I was reminded of this experience recently when Tony Wagner, the author of The Global Achievement Gap and, most recently, Creating Innovators (much more on that book in a future column), spoke with educators and parents in my community and noted that in Finland’s highly successful educational system, 45% of the students choose a technical track, not an academic track, after completing their basic education.

 

Blue-Collar Stigma in White-Collar Society

I’m sure many high school counselors have had some students confide that what they enjoyed doing most was working with their hands, whether on car engines, electrical circuits in the house, hair, or doing therapeutic massage. I bet that many of these students also confided that there is no way they could tell their parents that they’d rather pursue one of these occupations than go to college to prepare for a professional or business career.

We live in a society that places a high value on the professions and white-collar jobs, and that still considers blue-collar work lower status. It’s no surprise that parents want their children to pursue careers that will maintain or increase their status. This is even more evident in high socio-economic communities. And for most teachers, if the student is academically successful, this will be seen as a “waste of talent.”

The same dilemma often exists for students who are working to overcome the achievement gap. Most schools that are effectively helping kids to overcome this gap and achieve academically also place a premium on college admissions, often the mark of success for these schools. And kids who are the first in their families to graduate high school appear foolish to “throw this all away” by choosing some alternative to college and a blue collar career.

This bias against vocational education is dysfunctional. First, it is destructive to our children. They should have the opportunity to be trained in whatever skills their natural gifts and preferences lead them to, rather than more or less condemning them to jobs they’ll find meaningless. If a young person has an affinity for hair design or one of the trades, to keep him or her from developing the skills to pursue this calling is destructive.

Second, it is destructive to our society. Many of the skills most needed to compete in the global market of the 21st century are technical skills that fall into the technical/vocational area. The absence of excellence in many technical and vocational fields is also costing us economically as a nation.

In the early sixties, John Gardner, in his classic book Excellence, talked about the importance of vocational education and of developing excellence across all occupations for the social and economic health of our society. Unfortunately, we’ve made little progress in the intervening years. Students who don’t excel in traditional academic areas, or who have little interest in them, should not meet with disappointment or disapproval from parents and teachers. As another Gardner, Howard Gardner, has repeatedly pointed out, there are varied types of intelligence, and they are of equal value. As one example, bodily-kinesthetic and spatial intelligence are frequently high in those who are successful in varied technical trades. And there is absolutely no contradiction between recognizing and developing these intelligences and developing basic verbal and mathematical literacy for all students.

 

Vocational Education Groundswell

While changing societal values will take time, changes can take place on a school or district level more immediately. And the good news is that there are increasing models and resources to guide educators.

Joe Klein in a recent Time magazine article described an increasing number of excellent and well-funded vocational programs in the U.S., particularly in Arizona. Two of these, the East Valley Institute of Technology in Mesa and the Career and Technical Education Program at Monument Valley High School in Kayenta, provide both inspiration and practical models that could be implemented in many districts.

There are also more schools across the U.S. that are creating internship programs to help students gain workplace experiences while enrolled in an academic high school. At City Arts and Technology High in San Francisco, all juniors and seniors secure internships in the community, where they are mentored by an on-site professional and regularly visited by their school advisor. MetWest High School in Oakland, California is one of many that place student internships at the center of their mission. And Nancy Hoffman’s excellent new book, Schooling in the Workplace, looks at how six countries successfully integrate schools and workplaces, while also providing a look at where this is happening in the U.S.

Finally, being able to begin legitimizing vocational education in a district may also depend on successfully re-educating parents regarding the value of occupations that aren’t high on the social status scale. Mike Rose’s The Mind at Work: Valuing the Intelligence of the American Worker, provides an excellent antidote to our social biases about intelligence and an eye-opening look at the combination of cognitive and manual skills needed in occupations that our society has mistakenly devalued.

Vocational education on both a secondary and post-secondary level should be highly valued, well-funded and effectively implemented. The first steps can and should be taken on a local level.

 

【Author:Mark Phillips】

Mark Phillips was a teacher educator at UCSB and then at San Francisco State. Now he retired from SFSU,doing volunteer work with the California Film Institute’s Education program and writing a monthly column on education for the Marin Independent Journal.

 

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:The Municipal Archives of Trondheim@flickr

原文經合作媒體:《edutopia.org》授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】韓國教改與技職學校的轉型

 

作者: Michael Horn
編譯: 吳姵瑱

[tabs style=”nav-tabs”]
[tab title=”中文”]

Michael B. Horn 和前教育科學部部長李周浩合影。

 

韓國教改與技職學校的轉型

 

韓國政府向來對於非主流的教育觀點和做法一律採取抵制的態度。即便如此,還是有人勇於挑戰傳統,改變現今韓國教育體制的現況。

李周浩(Lee Ju-Ho)是南韓前任教育科技部長,目前擔任KDI 公共政策與管理學校的教授。一直以來,他致力於推動韓國教改,改善南韓現今教育規範、學校管理、以及政策執行的方式。

在我與李周浩的訪談中, 他首先提到改變現狀的困難之處。韓國的補教業年產值高達三千億,補習班不僅扮演課後加強補救的角色, 也加劇正規學校教育的競爭壓力。市場需求以及補習班客製化的教學方式讓民眾看不到改革的動機與理由。 政治利益與龐大的企業產值讓韓國的補教業在政經界有絕對的影響力。李周浩認為,這樣的情況雖然對教育本身並沒有直接的負面影響,卻嚴重阻礙公立學校的改革。

許多學生補習班下課後回家熬夜唸書,白天在學校無法專心甚至在課堂上睡覺。 因此,學校體系的老師開始失去自信與教學的熱誠。越來越多公立學校的老師擔心,補習班牴觸學校教育的價值與目的,開始提出改革的想法與方案。

李周浩認為,學校改革必須建立於幾個基本原則上──學校的選擇、多元化、自主自治、責任歸屬和透明化。 在訪談中李周浩自豪地提到,在南韓前總統李明博任期內,他推動教改達成的六項成就。 第一項是推動教科書數位化。 雖然2012年內閣改組導致此項改革進度落後,已經有一項學科的教科書完全數位化並正式上路使用。

另一項成就是教育方針的轉換。韓國的學校一向著重知能教育和學術技能的培養,卻忽略品格與創意教育。六項教改的成就之一,就是學校對音樂和體育活動的推廣。

李周浩也提到韓國大學在招生入學方面的改變與革新。當年,韓國政府補助約600名額外人力到各大學院校協助處理入學申請事宜, 徵選15%(約五萬名學生)的大學新生。除了學生學力測驗成績(KSAT),更要以各方面的表現審核入學的新生。

另外還有教師評鑑制度和學校校長評鑑任用機制。由於過去任用門檻取決於年資,許多即將應屆退休的校長當選後,只能做完一年的任期,造成學校領導階層不必要的異動與困擾。現在校長的評選是由家長、老師和專家學者組成的委員會執行。當選後,校長服務任期為四年。

在訪談中,李周浩和我談到最多的是達人高校(Meister High Schools)的誕生。特定產業與技職學校合作,根據職場人力的需求設計課程與學習經驗,試圖改變社會大眾對於技職教育的負面觀感。多元發展教育資源,同時幫助企業找尋開發中階管理人才。

李周浩認為,韓國只有大約10-20%的大學具有國際競爭力。與其提供水準參差不齊的大學教育,不如推動高品質的技職教育,幫助學生學習一技之長,在畢業後順利就業。

達人高校鎖定金融、造船、機械工程和半導體製造業等特定產業,並雇用業界已卸任的執行長擔任校長,善用各產業專門人才的經驗與人脈,提供辦學獨到見解與實際教學設備的增設。

李周浩提到,學歷並不是成功唯一的要件,具備符合產業需求的技術才是關鍵。達人高校借鏡德國的技職教育和實習制度,讓學生提早適應職場及培養專業。工作四年後,學生可以利用網路教學、夜間部或周末進修的方式取得學位。家長也不需顧慮子女學歷與就業的問題。

這波改革最大的成功在於改變大眾對技職教育的觀感。職業學校成為就業的跳板和學生自信的來源。學生變得充滿熱誠並主動學習,因為他們相信自己可以成為身懷絕技的達人。

韓國的教改經驗讓我們了解通往成功的路徑絕對不只一條。社會大眾對教育的觀感和態度也絕對有改變的機會和空間。

 

【作者介紹:Michael Horn】

美國非營利組織Christensen Institute共同創辦人暨執行董事,致力推動破壞性創新。合著有Disrupting Class、合編有Private Enterprise and Public Education。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Michael B. Horn and former Minister of Education, Science, and Technology Lee Ju-Ho, pose for the camera while each holds the other’s book.

 

 

Meister Of Korean School Reform: A Conversation With Lee Ju-Ho

 

Although there has often been a knee-jerk reaction within the Korean government to block new forms of education emerging outside mainstream, government-funded schools, not everyone who has served in government has been limited by that stance.

I met Lee Ju-Ho, the former Minister of Education, Science, and Technology and now a professor at the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, to understand his efforts to improve the Korean education system In the book The Smartest Kids in the World by Amanda Ripley, Lee comes across as a forward-minded thinker about the challenges facing Korean education and the need to make changes to the status quo of how education is regulated, managed, and delivered. In a wide-ranging conversation in his office, Lee did not disappoint.

He first explained why it is so hard to change the status quo. Korean hagwons are a $30 billion industry, but unlike private schools in the United States, they do not compete against and therefore create pressure on mainstream schools. Instead they exist alongside as complements. The wealthy in society have no incentives to lobby for education reform as a result because they have market-based solutions to provide a customized education for their children. And because politicians are under strong political pressure from hagwons because the private-tutoring industry plays an active role in political donations and elections, there are vested interests in protecting the hagwons. This situation is not damaging per se, Lee said, but it delays reforms of the public schools.

Lee said that an increasing number of public school teachers are enthusiastic about reforming public schools because hagwons are hollowing out the purpose and value of the classroom. As students learn concepts in their hagwons and stay up all hours of the night studying, more students are sleeping in class. As a result, teachers are losing their self-efficacy and passion for teaching.

The basis of school reform should revolve around a few principles, he said, including school choice, diversification, autonomy, accountability, and transparency.

In our conversation, Lee spoke proudly of six accomplishments from his time in President Lee Myung-Bak’s administration in moving education reform forward.

Under his leadership, Korea began digitalizing its textbooks. Although there appears to be delays in this effort since the change in administration in 2012, one subject has been digitalized and is being implemented.

Second, Korea has historically focused on cognitive skills at the expense perhaps of what Lee called “connective” skills that focus on character or creative education. He is proud of the efforts to bolster school orchestras and sports teams.

Third, Lee spoke of his accomplishments in moving Korean universities to emulate how students are admitted. The Korean government funded roughly 600 admissions officers to join universities and select 15 percent of the incoming college class—roughly 50,000 students—based on a more holistic look at the students, not just based on their KSAT score. This practice, Lee said, has encouraged too much of an emphasis on the Confucian traditions of rote learning.

Fourth, Korea now has a teacher evaluation system.

Fifth, in the past, Korea’s school principals were chosen based on a point system among school administrators. Seniority counted for the most points, which often meant that someone would be selected as principal literally the year before her retirement, which created a one-year rotating position in effect. This was damaging to leadership across the school system. Principals now serve 4-year terms and are chosen by an open search committee that consists of parents, teachers, and experts.

Lastly, Lee and I spoke the most about the creation of Meister High Schools under his and President Lee’s watch. Created in 2010, Meister—meaning master of a trade—High Schools are converted vocational schools that partner with companies in specific industries to create educational experiences tailored to the needs of the workforce. They emerged in an effort to turnaround vocational schools that were looked down upon within their communities; diversify educational options; and help industry find the mid-level managers who are both critical and hard to find. Partnering with these schools is a smart backward integration step by the companies.

In Lee’s view, only 10 to 20 percent of Korean universities are competitive globally compared to 50 to 60 percent in the United States. Pushing people to attend low-quality universities is a bad strategy, he said. A better one is to narrow the gap between learning to know and learning to do by creating these Meister High Schools that offer direct links to employment after graduation.

Meister High Schools focus on a particular field—banking, shipbuilding, mechanical engineering, semi-conductor manufacturing, and so forth—and hire a former CEO from that industry as the principal. For example, the former CEO of Renault-Samsung’s automotive group became principal of a Meister High School in Busan focused on automotive manufacturing. One school, called the Chungbuk Semiconductor High School, had a semiconductor company donate semiconductor machinery to it.

Out of roughly 400 vocational high schools in the country, seven were selected to become a Meister High School in the first year, and 35 in total were converted over President Lee’s five-year term. Even more have converted now to Meister High Schools by creating memorandums of understanding—with over 1,300 companies in total across the schools—so that they can guarantee employment opportunities.

Ultimately President Lee’s leadership made a big difference, Lee said, as he acutely understood industry’s needs for mid-level managers from his days as CEO of Hyundai Engineering and Construction. President Lee would often say, look at Germany. No one requires a soccer player to have a diploma.

The point, Lee said, is that you don’t need a degree to succeed; you need the right skills. The Meister High School takes a page from Germany’s vocational schools and apprenticeships to prepare students for careers earlier. And after four years of working, students can then get that college degree through an online, night, or weekend program while continuing to work to assuage the 93 percent of parents that want their children to have a degree. It’s the best of both worlds.

The biggest changes are that these schools go from being the shame of the community to being the pride of it. And the students go from listless participants in their education to enthusiastic learners in it, Lee said, with “fire in their eyes” as they know they can be the best in something. A master.

There’s nothing better than that, and it’s yet one more chip away to show that there can be multiple pathways to success in Korea, not just one, and that the Korean culture can change its views on education.

 

【Author:Michael Horn】

Michael Horn is the cofounder and the Executive Director of Education at the Christensen Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank dedicated to improving the world through disruptive innovation. He is also the co-author of the award-winning book Disrupting Class with Clayton M. Christensen, as well as the co-editor of the book Private Enterprise and Public Education.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:韓國仁德大學(인덕대학교)@WIKI

原文刊登於Forbes,經作者Michael Horn授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】自造者運動:在巨人的肩膀上創造未來

 

作者/Sylvia Martinez

編譯/黃于馨

[tabs style=”nav-tabs”]
[tab title=”中文”]

自造者運動:在巨人的肩膀上創造未來

 

近年來,自造者運動已成為教育界的潮流,老師們運用新穎有趣的機器人、3D列印、電子紡織品等教具和教材融入教學,藉此讓學生有獨立作業的機會,深入瞭解課程目的,更提供學生理想的教育環境。

我認為所謂的『做』並不只是將所有課程實作,而是透過最簡單的方法來暸解複雜的學術概念,此外,我們更應當不斷提高水準、挑戰自我,並創造具有學術價值的過程。為了達成這些理想,運用電腦科技會是最好的方法,因為透過電腦軟體我們可以進行模擬設計、精準計算、傳感回報、數據程序等作業,甚至大大提升運作的可能性。雖然數位與物理界的相互作用會變得更加複雜,但卻能讓學習者對兩方面有更深入的暸解。

 

有意義的學習

Seymour Papert是提倡電腦輔助教學的先驅,他將教育理論定義為『建構主義』,主張學習是知識重建而不是知識傳達,所以我們發展實作教材,讓學習者透過操作經驗創造有效結果。即使學問只會在頭腦裡產生,但只要學習者自身投入實作活動,學習會變得更加真實,更能透過建構共享激發機器人、樂曲、混凝紙漿火山、詩詞、會談技巧或全新學說等創作。

而建構主義最有意義部分在於學習者並非受到外界脅迫而學習,而是透過自身對事物的好奇或衝動產生做中學力量,並從中連結本有的知識,拓展新學問,以跳脫對傳統知識傳授的依賴,自主學習。

 

製作與轉型

近代的自造者運動主打結合傳統手工藝與新式素材,建立網路社群讓解決問題全球化。實作工作坊以及點子工作坊也在全球各地紛紛成立,各國圖書館及博物館更開放工作坊進駐,主要讓人們聚在一起分享經驗並共同解決問題。而教育機構則應當注意外界教育變革,與世界接軌,保有與年輕人有關的議題。

哈佛大學的教育轉型技術研發中心(TLT)正致力於電腦建模、機器人學、數位形構、快速成型等尖端教育科技,創造做中學環境讓孩子能自主進行精密的規劃。此外,哈佛大學設計中心也進行另一項與做中學習者未來展望、實作經驗和教育方法相關的研究,研究發現做中學教育法可以激發社群合作精神,促成教育跨界及教學應對的調整。

 

人力資產

當孩子能有意識發展自我解決問題的能力,他們將會是自己和家人最大的資產,也會是全球社會的菁英人才。我相信將創新教具、尖端科技以及自造者精神融入課程不但得宜,也會獲得全球最好研究機構的支持。

 

【作者介紹】

Sylvia Martinez 加州大學洛杉磯分校電機系、派普丁大學教育科技系碩士畢業

曾任美國教育非營利組織Generation Yes執行長,合著有Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering the Classroom。該書被譽為「校園自造者運動聖經」。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

The Maker Movement: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants to Own the Future

 

OCTOBER 1, 2014 Sylvia Martinez M.A. Education Technology

Many teachers know that children learn best by doing. In recent years, the Maker movement has generated anew following in education with many teachers adding interesting new tools and materials like robots, 3D printing, e-textiles, and more. The idea that interesting materials and opportunities for students to work independently on in-depth projects dovetails nicely into what we know about creating optimal learning environments for children.

 

Should we worry that making in the classroom is just the new-new thing, soon to be replaced by some other newer new-new thing? Should we worry that lots of schools will run out and buy 3D printers without thinking about what they will do with them? Yes, I think we should worry, but not give up! To prevent this, I like to combine the work of education pioneers and giants with the new work of scholars to show that this is more than just a fad or a chance for a shopping spree.

 

I also think that “making” shouldn’t be just making anything. Schools have a tendency to cherry-pick the easiest parts of implementing complex ideas. When we talk about making in the classroom, we have to continually raise the bar and challenge ourselves to create an academically worthy process. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to add computational technology to the making.

 

A computer with appropriate software means that opportunities for design, simulation, precision, accuracy, measurement, feedback, sensors, data, and programming are not just possible, but greatly enhanced. Interaction between the digital and physical world adds a level of complexity that results in greater understanding of both.

 

Meaningful Learning

One of the first people to understand the potential of computers in education was Seymour Papert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert),a mathematician who worked with Piaget and helped found the MIT Media Lab. In our book, Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering in the Classroom (http://www.inventtolearn.com/), we make the case that Seymour Papert could be considered one of the founders of the Maker movement.

 

Papert defined a learning theory, constructionism, that holds the key to understanding the educational potential of the Maker movement:

From constructivist theories of psychology, we take a view of learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge. Then we extend the idea of manipulative materials to the idea that learning is most effective when part of an activity the learner experiences is constructing a meaningful product.

 

Papert’s constructionism takes Piagetian constructivist theory a step further toward action. Although the learning happens inside the learner’s head, it happens most reliably when the learner is engaged in a personally meaningful activity that makes the learning real and shareable. This shareable construction may take the form of a robot, musical composition, paper-mache volcano, poem, conversation, or new hypothesis.

 

This is much more than hands-on learning. The “meaningful” part of constructionism is not just touchy-feely new age language. It acknowledges that the power of making something comes from the learner’s question or impulse and is not imposed from the outside. Questions like “How can my car go faster?” or “I like the way this looks, can I make it prettier?” are treated as valid, and in fact, potentially more valid than criteria imposed by anyone else, including a teacher. Constructionism empowers learners to connect with everything they know, feel, and wonder, stretching themselves into learning new things. It seeks to liberate learners from their dependency on being taught.

 

But you can look back even farther to find educational pioneers who taught that learning with “head, heart, and hands” is the key to uplifting all children. The phrase is attributed to Johann Pestalozzi (http://modeducation.blogspot.com/2013/01/johann-heinrich-pestalozzifather-of.html), who taught that all children were worth teaching, even the poor — and even girls! His writing influenced thousands of educators, and the schools established using his methods taught tens of thousands of children to think for themselves. One such student, Albert Einstein, said of his childhood education in a Pestalozzi school, “It made me clearly realize how much superior an education based on free action and personal responsibility is to one relying on outward authority.”

 

Friedrich Froebel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Fr%C3%B6bel) built upon Pestalozzi’s ideas to design the first kindergartens. Italian medical doctor Maria Montessori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Montessori) embraced many of Froebel’s ideas, notably the deliberate use of materials for learning specific concepts, in creating her approach to educating poor preschoolers. It’s easy to find widespread support for the idea that hands-on experiences are crucial for students to develop deep understanding.

 

Making and Transformation

It’s not just the work of historical figures that we can use to make the case for making in the classroom.

 

The modern Maker movement has its roots in timeless craft traditions combined with new materials and a community approach to problem-solving spread globally by the reach of the internet. Makerspaces and hackerspaces (http://www.inventtolearn.com/resources-makerspaces-andhackerspaces/) are springing up around the world where people come together to solve problems and share solutions. Libraries and museums are opening makerspaces as well, extending hands-on discovery centers into the 21st century. Educational institutions should take notice when a learning revolution is happening outside its doors. School loses relevancy to young people when it fails to connect to the real world, to their world, and the world of the future.

 

The Transformative Learning Technologies Lab (https://tltl.stanford.edu/) at the Stanford Graduate School of Education focuses on how new technologies can deeply transform the learning of science, engineering, and mathematics. They are creating and researching cutting-edge educational technologies, such as computer modeling, robotics, digital fabrication, and rapid prototyping, creating hands-on learning environments in which children learn science and mathematics by building sophisticated projects and devices. Another of their projects is the FabLab@School (http://fablabatschool.org/page/about) project, adapting cutting-edge fabrication labs for schools worldwide.

 

It’s no coincidence that the director of the TLT Lab is Dr. Paulo Blickstein (https://tltl.stanford.edu/people/paulo-blikstein), who studied under Seymour Papert at MIT and channels his mentor when he rejects “hands-on without heads-in” and says that the lesson schools must learn is “that there can’t be making without sense-making.”

 

There are other research initiatives poised to provide evidence that making is not just another fad. Agency by Design (http://makingthinkinghappen.wordpress.com/) at the Harvard Graduate School of Education is investigating the “promises, practices, and pedagogies of maker-centered learning experiences.” They see a new kind of hands-on pedagogy emerging, one that “encourages community and collaboration (a do-it-together mentality), distributed teaching, boundary crossing, and a responsive and flexible pedagogy.”

 

Human Assets

I like being on the same side as Piaget, Papert, MIT, Stanford, Harvard, thousands of museums and libraries, and a global revolution. But an even better feeling is when I talk to teachers and students in maker classrooms who say things like, “I see the world differently now,” or “I can look at a complex thing, see how it works, and make it better.”

 

When children develop a sense of themselves as successful problem solvers who can change the world, they are assets to themselves, their families, our communities, and the world. I believe that bringing the tools, technology, and ethos of the Maker movement into classrooms is justified historically and supported by the finest research institutions in the world. Go forth and make it happen!

 

【Author】

Sylvia Martinez holds a Master’s in Educational Technology from Pepperdine, and a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from UCLA. For the past ten years, she has been President of Generation YES, a non-profit organization evangelizing student leadership through modern technology. The book she coauthored “Invent To Learn: Making, Tinkering, and Engineering the Classroom” has been called the “bible of the classroom maker”.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:gettyimages.com

原文刊登於edutopia.org,經作者Sylvia Martinez授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】德國雙軌教育 培養學子實務工作力

 

編譯 / 繆謙伶

在德國,完成中學學業的學生有三種方式可以繼續升學,其中兩種類似台灣的普通高中和高職體系,而第三種便是德國獨特的雙軌教育制度,讓學生可以一邊念書一邊實習,及早和職場接軌。

要瞭解雙軌教育制度的運作方式,先舉個例子。假設有兩個學生,安娜和愛麗絲。16歲的安娜想要成為攝影師,而15歲的愛麗絲則想成為電工技師。他們可以參加兩至三年半的職業訓練課程來學習這些技術,這些課程涵蓋了超過350種政府和企業認可的職業。

首先安娜和愛麗絲可以到各家公司尋覓實習的機會,而順利找到實習工作的機會很大。根據德國勞動局的統計顯示,2013年有超過45萬個實習職位,其中一些甚至可能招不到人。國外媒體Young Germany報導指出,德國工商總會的烏瑞克‧法瑞奇(Ulrike Friedrich)便曾表示,2012年和2013年有大約7萬個實習職位招不到學生(學徒)。有這麼多實習機會,找到實習工作並非難事。實習機會還涵蓋了各種不同專業程度的工作,也會因應市場需要隨時調整、增減,並聚焦於實務操作。

雖然越來越多人加入雙軌制訓練制度,但由於德國的少子化現象,代表許多職位沒有人遞補。另一個問題是實習的機會不一定是學生所想要的,但通常在某些領域像是金工、健康照護和社工等都有許多實習機會。

結果安娜在一家攝影工作室找到實習工作,愛麗絲也在一間電器修理公司實習。他們每周會花三至四天和專家一同工作,向同事學習,並記錄學習成果。另外還會在職業學校上相關領域的課程,這樣一來便能結合理論和實務,發揮最大的學習效果。

參與訓練的學生,他們的學業和實務表現都會列入評估,並且將成績向上司呈報。整個訓練過程,學生必須通過兩個考試,內容包括筆試、口試和實作測驗。第一個考試會評估學生的學習進度和不足之處。在課程結束前,學生得考第二個考試,評估是否有進入該領域職場的資格。例如愛麗絲除了筆試外,還得實際操作電路,而安娜考完筆試和口試後,必須根據指定的許多攝影主題拍照,並將照片集結成攝影集。最後兩人都順利通過考試,數年的額外訓練讓他們的前途一片光明。

大約有60%的德國中學畢業生和安娜及愛麗絲一樣,選擇雙軌制的訓練計畫。這些職業訓練讓他們找工作更加容易,結訓證書在職場也是有力的能力證明。有超過一半的學生直接在原本的實習公司轉為正職,在課程期間甚至還有薪水拿,一個月平均約690歐元(約合新台幣2萬7千元)。

根據國外媒體Young Germany報導,德國經濟代表處(RGIT)的處長湯瑪士‧易克表示,雙軌制度的成功得歸功於企業的配合和投資,每年花在一位實習生身上的費用大約是1萬5千3百歐元(約合新台幣58萬),但也有1萬1千7百歐元(約合新台幣45萬)的回報。因為學生的工作內容和一般員工一樣,正式上工後的員工訓練相對簡單,公司也能減少打廣告徵人的費用,所以雙軌教育制並非看起來那樣所費不貲。除此之外,企業也能影響學校教學,將教學內容導向符合業界的真正需求,培養未來的優秀人才。

相較於歐盟的其他高失業率國家,德國的失業率在2015年1月創下了4.7%的歷史新低,青年失業率也僅有7.1%,而台灣同期的青年失業率則高達12.52%。德國之所以在歐盟國家中擁有最低的青年失業率,得歸功於成功的雙軌教育制度。

德國的雙軌教育制度也吸引了許多歐盟甚至非歐盟的外國人參加。德國政府建議外國學生盡早向公司直接申請,為了避免簽證問題,也應洽詢國際安置服務部門(ZAV)。

全球許多國家都以德國的雙軌成功經驗為標竿,台灣也不例外。勞動部與教育部自2009年開始合作推動的「雙軌訓練旗艦計畫」便以德國的雙軌訓練制為基礎,發展本土化的雙軌訓練制,期望能和德國一樣營造政府、企業和學子雙贏的局面。

 

圖片來源:WIKI

資料來源:Germany’s Dual Vocational Education System雙軌訓練旗艦計畫勞動部教育部全球資訊網

 

路仁教授:盲目追尋世界第一,台灣技職從根爛起

 

渴望世界第一的感覺在台灣瀰漫,從閃亮金牌填補不被國際承認的缺憾。「日內瓦發明展,台灣連四年第一!」在科大、職校評鑑加分、學生直升明星校系誘惑下,拼金牌風氣瀰漫技職。

金牌握於金髮瑞士人手,當他走近台灣攤位時,師生浮現緊張神情。日內瓦發明展本名Exhibition of Inventions Geneva,是類似世貿商展的博覽會,參展無門檻但得付高額攤位租金,與參展間的天價旅館費等旅遊支出,全進瑞士人口袋。「歡迎台灣!」是他說不出的話。

他不必多說,只要發獎牌,明年就更踴躍。台灣人口中的「世界大賽」,光台灣就發30面金牌,評審不嚴謹,只要參賽說出創意,中小學生也鼓勵;金牌數不限制、樂於發給東方國家。那西方人到哪裡了?

他們不在商展,在專利交易戰場,那裡台灣節節敗退。國際科技大廠互告搶專利時,沒台灣人的份,甚至鴻海等台灣公司,得花大錢跟國外買專利。那每年學校的發明、專利到那裏了?讓學校換獎牌、換評鑑分數、再換補助,讓學生換名校入學權後,多成遺跡。

不讓瑞士專美於前,法國也開始辦世界賽。法國麵包多年來打不進東方米食市場,但幾年前法國私人酵母公司樂意斯非(Lesafree)辦「世界麵包大賽」,頒發金牌後,台灣再度瘋狂。「我們是世界第一,」台灣人啃著比本土麵包貴三倍的法國麵包說。

台灣餐飲科學生,從學做中式餐飲,轉流行做法國麵包。進口法國麵粉、法國酵母粉,花費事小,忘了自己的根事大。台灣飲食多元性,本就世界第一、讓外國人流連忘返,何必苦尋外國人的金牌?何況在法國,第一流麵包烘焙賽是 Milleur Ouvrier de France,由法國總統頒獎(請見法國電影 Kings of Pastry),而我們的世界金牌,卻是由法國私企發給。

但縱由瑞士總理、法國總統手中拿金牌也不足喜。「不要追逐明星、做第一,要適性做自己,」教育部還拿著看板,在鼓吹12年國教理念。教育部,你看見一股「追逐世界第一」的低氣壓,從被殖民的台灣心靈處生成,在高教吹出競逐世界排名颶風,摧毀大學精神後,又繼續吹,想將技職教育連根拔起嗎?你手中的看板,還能撐多久?

延伸閱讀 :

看懂國外獎牌意義

吳寶春領軍 奪下2016世界麵包大賽亞軍