盧 David 在 TVB 台慶節目中問兩個女主持人那一種香水最好，是最貴的，普通的，或是最平的？兩個女主持一個說最貴的，一個說最平的。盧 David 說兩個都錯，答案是普通的，因為普通的是 common，「襟聞」，所以最好！
當 然這只是攪笑的環節，但事實上很多香港人把 common 讀成「襟聞」。可能是 come / kʌm / 的發音的影響，不少香港人把所有以 COM 開頭的字都讀成「襟」/ kʌm- / 音開頭 。其實Common 的 COM 是把 TOM 的 T 換成 C，IPA 是 / ˈkɒm.ən /。
以 COM 開頭而又讀成 「襟」的英文字是極之少的。唔計那些較少用的字之外，就只有如下的字：
come
comfort
company
compass
大多數的情況， COM 開頭的字，若重音在第一音節，發音都像 TOM (T 換成 C) / kɒm- /。若苐一音節不是重音的話發音就會是輕聲 / kəm- / ，如 comPUter / kəmˈpjuːtər /。
以後不要再 「襟聞」、「襟麻」、「襟飄TER」啦！
04 December, 2007
18 December, 2004
愉快學習的迷思
近年常強調愉快學習，以致很多人都認為這是最理想的學習模式。當然，學習得愉快固然是好，但只顧愉快而忘記了學習有時也須刻苦的話，就只會一事無成。為甚麼現代的人這麼容易忘掉前人的傳統智慧：刻苦是成功的必經階段。
美國新近的教授數學方法 New Constructivist Math Program，受到強烈反對就是一個好例子。
http://www.lit.net/orschools/everydaymath2.htm
其中我最認同的引述如下：
The Department of Education arrived at these programs at the recommendation of an ‘Expert Panel’ consisted of ......, and a list of public school officials and some education-related companies. Not a single active research mathematician or scientist was included in the panel. The panel's ‘expert opinion’ is not shared by the mainstream practicing mathematicians and scientists.
After this endorsement, university research and academic mathematicians became very concerned about the impact of its watered down approach toward teaching math on students’ ability to do math and science when they enter college. The concern was led by ... {a long list of math Professors in the top Universities in US} ... This resulted in an open letter led by them addressed to Secretary Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education in 2000, and supported by 200 top mathematicians and scientists, including four Nobel laureates, and two Field Medalists (the top honor in the field of mathematics).
A new pedagogy for teaching the new curriculum has emerged and according to Professor Wu of UC/Berkeley, the main features of the new teaching approach are:
1. An over-reliance on the so-called constructivist educational strategies (kids come up with the principals themselves by trial-and-error)
2. Misuse of technology (using calculators most of the time)
3. De-emphasis of drills and the role of memory in some texts (such as emphasis on not having to memorize the multiplication table)
4. An over-emphasis on the ‘fun’ component of learning without mentioning hard work.
The bottom line of the new approach is that 2000 years of mathematical discovery are to be abandoned in favor of self discovery through trial and error and observations made based upon a few simple concrete examples. No general principals are derived, proved and extrapolated. Several key skills are not learned. The devastating effects of not covering some key mathematical concept and skills are not apparent until the students enter college and pursue a science or engineering related curriculum where concepts and skills learned in grade schools become the back bone of the skills needed to do further work.
Originally, the emergence and adoption of the new math teaching was an attempt to bridge the gap between higher achieving students and minority students. The goal was very noble and ambitious. The program was aimed at the lower achieving population with the goal of reducing their math phobia. The new Constructivist math curriculum has been adopted in several school districts, and is gaining popularity, especially after the NSF expert panel identified the mentioned ‘exemplary’ programs. If they are so lacking in rigor why are they so popular? I believe part of the reason lies in the feedback from the teachers, students and parents themselves. First, students regard the hands-on activities ‘fun’. Of course it is fun when you are learning not by ‘dull rote memorization’ and drills but by hands-on manipulations, and ‘discovery’. Parents like it because they see how much their kids start to enjoy math lessons! The approach taken by the new curriculum is also ‘politically correct’ in that it emphasizes using real-world problems, which has been the main criticism of the traditional teaching of mathematics, in that many find it being irrelevant to the real world situations. The bottom line is that all these are fine and dandy, but the real evaluation criteria should be the students’ performance on standardized math tests, and their degree of preparation and success in taking math courses in a college environment. From two major studies this is not so.
我不是教育家，但我是一個十分喜愛數學，而且對數學是一個十分有觸覺的人。我認為用這種 New Math Program 教下一代肯定”死硬”！我相信所有精通數學的人都會認同我的講法，只有那些不懂數學的教育家才會支持這種 New Math Program。當然，若果背後的意識形態是要 no child left behind，我就無話可說。但必然的結果是 no child race ahead, 因為 every child left behind！
記憶在學習的過程中有其非常重要的地位。腦袋裡空空如也，甚麼資料也沒有，如何思考？分析力是透過把一些已知的事物，在心中不斷仔細思量鍛鍊出來的。
我們現在是站在巨人的肩頭上（Isaac Newton名句），不可能每一個人都花時間重新發現一切。當然，我們必須有敏銳的心靈去發掘萬事萬物的根本原理，和其中所要求的嚴謹思考模式，but in real life, deriving/operating everything from "first principle" is very inefficient and impractical.
問題是選擇甚麼去記，和怎樣才是最有效的記憶方法。九因歌當然要背！
我們不是要放棄愉快學習，但我認為愉快學習只是手段，作為幫助提起興趣，絕不應迷失本來的方向。學習的動力來自多方面，一個真正懂得學習的人絕對不會因為一時枯燥而放棄學習！
"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
- Thomas Alva Edison
美國新近的教授數學方法 New Constructivist Math Program，受到強烈反對就是一個好例子。
http://www.lit.net/orschools/everydaymath2.htm
其中我最認同的引述如下：
The Department of Education arrived at these programs at the recommendation of an ‘Expert Panel’ consisted of ......, and a list of public school officials and some education-related companies. Not a single active research mathematician or scientist was included in the panel. The panel's ‘expert opinion’ is not shared by the mainstream practicing mathematicians and scientists.
After this endorsement, university research and academic mathematicians became very concerned about the impact of its watered down approach toward teaching math on students’ ability to do math and science when they enter college. The concern was led by ... {a long list of math Professors in the top Universities in US} ... This resulted in an open letter led by them addressed to Secretary Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education in 2000, and supported by 200 top mathematicians and scientists, including four Nobel laureates, and two Field Medalists (the top honor in the field of mathematics).
A new pedagogy for teaching the new curriculum has emerged and according to Professor Wu of UC/Berkeley, the main features of the new teaching approach are:
1. An over-reliance on the so-called constructivist educational strategies (kids come up with the principals themselves by trial-and-error)
2. Misuse of technology (using calculators most of the time)
3. De-emphasis of drills and the role of memory in some texts (such as emphasis on not having to memorize the multiplication table)
4. An over-emphasis on the ‘fun’ component of learning without mentioning hard work.
The bottom line of the new approach is that 2000 years of mathematical discovery are to be abandoned in favor of self discovery through trial and error and observations made based upon a few simple concrete examples. No general principals are derived, proved and extrapolated. Several key skills are not learned. The devastating effects of not covering some key mathematical concept and skills are not apparent until the students enter college and pursue a science or engineering related curriculum where concepts and skills learned in grade schools become the back bone of the skills needed to do further work.
Originally, the emergence and adoption of the new math teaching was an attempt to bridge the gap between higher achieving students and minority students. The goal was very noble and ambitious. The program was aimed at the lower achieving population with the goal of reducing their math phobia. The new Constructivist math curriculum has been adopted in several school districts, and is gaining popularity, especially after the NSF expert panel identified the mentioned ‘exemplary’ programs. If they are so lacking in rigor why are they so popular? I believe part of the reason lies in the feedback from the teachers, students and parents themselves. First, students regard the hands-on activities ‘fun’. Of course it is fun when you are learning not by ‘dull rote memorization’ and drills but by hands-on manipulations, and ‘discovery’. Parents like it because they see how much their kids start to enjoy math lessons! The approach taken by the new curriculum is also ‘politically correct’ in that it emphasizes using real-world problems, which has been the main criticism of the traditional teaching of mathematics, in that many find it being irrelevant to the real world situations. The bottom line is that all these are fine and dandy, but the real evaluation criteria should be the students’ performance on standardized math tests, and their degree of preparation and success in taking math courses in a college environment. From two major studies this is not so.
我不是教育家，但我是一個十分喜愛數學，而且對數學是一個十分有觸覺的人。我認為用這種 New Math Program 教下一代肯定”死硬”！我相信所有精通數學的人都會認同我的講法，只有那些不懂數學的教育家才會支持這種 New Math Program。當然，若果背後的意識形態是要 no child left behind，我就無話可說。但必然的結果是 no child race ahead, 因為 every child left behind！
記憶在學習的過程中有其非常重要的地位。腦袋裡空空如也，甚麼資料也沒有，如何思考？分析力是透過把一些已知的事物，在心中不斷仔細思量鍛鍊出來的。
我們現在是站在巨人的肩頭上（Isaac Newton名句），不可能每一個人都花時間重新發現一切。當然，我們必須有敏銳的心靈去發掘萬事萬物的根本原理，和其中所要求的嚴謹思考模式，but in real life, deriving/operating everything from "first principle" is very inefficient and impractical.
問題是選擇甚麼去記，和怎樣才是最有效的記憶方法。九因歌當然要背！
我們不是要放棄愉快學習，但我認為愉快學習只是手段，作為幫助提起興趣，絕不應迷失本來的方向。學習的動力來自多方面，一個真正懂得學習的人絕對不會因為一時枯燥而放棄學習！
"Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
- Thomas Alva Edison
17 December, 2004
Kindergarten English
聽聞無線的新聞透視在十二月初的節目中，批評一些香港幼稚園的英文太深，目的只在貪求吸引盲目追求高水平課程的家長。節目中並拿了某幼稚園教 Phonics 用的幾個例字作街頭訪問，發現只有一個人能完全懂得，而且那個不是本地人，是新加坡人。本地的連大學生和議員也不懂。新聞透視的結論是這些幼稚園“谷”小 朋友，教導他們一些不合理地遠超過他們能力，而又沒有用的英文。這結論我絕對不能苟同。我認為這節目只反映幾點：
1.香港英語教育方法的一些問題
2.一般人普遍對英語教育方法和幼童怎樣學習語言缺乏認知
3.新聞透視篇採部缺乏國際視野和對教育方法的完全誤解
那五個英文字是
Astronaut
Caterpillar
Ostrich
Quilt
Igloo
除了Igloo外，頭四個字我在中學的時侯都學過。回想起來，這五個英文字全都在我讀給我的三歲兒子的書或在遊戲中出現過(他的一幅puzzle有個太空 人)！當然，他現在還未懂得認字（除了cat,dog,boy等），但他起碼聽過以上五個字，也肯定一看到毛蟲的圖片時會說Caterpillar，其他 四個字他若然聽得懂我也不會感到出奇。當然，現在他能記得的只是讀音，因為所有人學習母語都是先懂聲音，然後認字。對外國一個以英語為母語的小朋友來說， 入小學前已全懂這些字的讀音全不出奇。教 Phonics 的用意就是教他們閱讀，由“小文盲”變成能自己閱讀。重點是教授拼讀時所要掌握的方法，不是要他們強記硬背。以上幾個字全都是英語國家入小學前，教 Phonics常會用到的字的例子。
我相信大多香港人會認為 Crocodile 這個字不深，但 Alligator 卻是個“深字”。但試想想為何？兩個字都是九個字母，所指的是很類似的生物，但為何多數香港人不懂 Alligator？ 香港人也會認為Umbrella,Elephant等字不深，但明明這些字又長，又難讀！在我眼中，英文字只有常用與非常用之分，没有深淺之分。 Alligator是個英美小朋友肯定懂的字，我的兒子也懂。(我指的當然是聲音！)因文化關係，外國人常用的字和我們常用的字很不同。香港人懂的大多局 限於工作上應用的書寫英語，不夠生活化也不全面。英美的小朋友是在日常生活中先學聲音，後學文字。香港的小朋友大多是先學文字才學讀音（而且往往是廣東話 式的英語發音）或根本不理讀音。這是一個沒有英語環境的無可耐何的結果。
但我們以前不能做到的，我們的下一代就正如新聞透視認為的不應該做到嗎？ 對我來說，學英語是很困難的，因為我是港式的英語教育中成長的，除了在中學學到的基本語文知識外，很大部份的學習是我自己離開中學後，透過閱讀英文書籍， 慢慢地，一點一點的學回來的。當然中學老師的啟發十分受用，尤其是聽老師說買了一本 Daniel Jones 的 Pronouncing Dictionary。但正如所有香港中學一樣，課程完全沒有教IPA和Phonetics,要自己很辛苦的慢慢摸索，根本不太知自己的發音是否準確。我 真不希望我的下一代要像我這樣辛苦，學得這麼慢。所以每天晚上和我兒子的說故事時間是十分重要的。
理科的還記得讀中學生物課 Classification 時那些長得嚇人的名稱嗎 (e.g. Coelanterata)？我今天還記得，原因是我還記得它的讀音。研究人腦怎樣記憶的科學家發現人類很大部份的記憶是以聲音的形式記下的，而且以聲音 記憶是比其他方法(如圖像記憶)有效得多。據說，人死前最後喪失的知覺也是聽覺！
以下的一本書我很想看但未有幾會。這是一本在英語國家怎樣教育小朋友的方法上，引起一連串多年的研究和辯論的書。
Why Johnny Can't Read
http://www.literacyconnections.com/Reviews/ItemId/0060913401/ReviewPage/1
Amazon 有得賣
Why Johnny Can't Read: And What You Can Do about It
若然想挑戰真正"深"的英文，請試試回答以下的十條問題：
http://puzzles.about.com/library/weekly/aa020905.htm
(我只懂三題！)
1.香港英語教育方法的一些問題
2.一般人普遍對英語教育方法和幼童怎樣學習語言缺乏認知
3.新聞透視篇採部缺乏國際視野和對教育方法的完全誤解
那五個英文字是
Astronaut
Caterpillar
Ostrich
Quilt
Igloo
除了Igloo外，頭四個字我在中學的時侯都學過。回想起來，這五個英文字全都在我讀給我的三歲兒子的書或在遊戲中出現過(他的一幅puzzle有個太空 人)！當然，他現在還未懂得認字（除了cat,dog,boy等），但他起碼聽過以上五個字，也肯定一看到毛蟲的圖片時會說Caterpillar，其他 四個字他若然聽得懂我也不會感到出奇。當然，現在他能記得的只是讀音，因為所有人學習母語都是先懂聲音，然後認字。對外國一個以英語為母語的小朋友來說， 入小學前已全懂這些字的讀音全不出奇。教 Phonics 的用意就是教他們閱讀，由“小文盲”變成能自己閱讀。重點是教授拼讀時所要掌握的方法，不是要他們強記硬背。以上幾個字全都是英語國家入小學前，教 Phonics常會用到的字的例子。
我相信大多香港人會認為 Crocodile 這個字不深，但 Alligator 卻是個“深字”。但試想想為何？兩個字都是九個字母，所指的是很類似的生物，但為何多數香港人不懂 Alligator？ 香港人也會認為Umbrella,Elephant等字不深，但明明這些字又長，又難讀！在我眼中，英文字只有常用與非常用之分，没有深淺之分。 Alligator是個英美小朋友肯定懂的字，我的兒子也懂。(我指的當然是聲音！)因文化關係，外國人常用的字和我們常用的字很不同。香港人懂的大多局 限於工作上應用的書寫英語，不夠生活化也不全面。英美的小朋友是在日常生活中先學聲音，後學文字。香港的小朋友大多是先學文字才學讀音（而且往往是廣東話 式的英語發音）或根本不理讀音。這是一個沒有英語環境的無可耐何的結果。
但我們以前不能做到的，我們的下一代就正如新聞透視認為的不應該做到嗎？ 對我來說，學英語是很困難的，因為我是港式的英語教育中成長的，除了在中學學到的基本語文知識外，很大部份的學習是我自己離開中學後，透過閱讀英文書籍， 慢慢地，一點一點的學回來的。當然中學老師的啟發十分受用，尤其是聽老師說買了一本 Daniel Jones 的 Pronouncing Dictionary。但正如所有香港中學一樣，課程完全沒有教IPA和Phonetics,要自己很辛苦的慢慢摸索，根本不太知自己的發音是否準確。我 真不希望我的下一代要像我這樣辛苦，學得這麼慢。所以每天晚上和我兒子的說故事時間是十分重要的。
理科的還記得讀中學生物課 Classification 時那些長得嚇人的名稱嗎 (e.g. Coelanterata)？我今天還記得，原因是我還記得它的讀音。研究人腦怎樣記憶的科學家發現人類很大部份的記憶是以聲音的形式記下的，而且以聲音 記憶是比其他方法(如圖像記憶)有效得多。據說，人死前最後喪失的知覺也是聽覺！
以下的一本書我很想看但未有幾會。這是一本在英語國家怎樣教育小朋友的方法上，引起一連串多年的研究和辯論的書。
Why Johnny Can't Read
http://www.literacyconnections.com/Reviews/ItemId/0060913401/ReviewPage/1
Amazon 有得賣
Why Johnny Can't Read: And What You Can Do about It
若然想挑戰真正"深"的英文，請試試回答以下的十條問題：
http://puzzles.about.com/library/weekly/aa020905.htm
(我只懂三題！)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)