《兒登教曉我的事 — 為什麼香港好老師這麼少?》
前陣子在發表了《回應連登仔 “能者多努”話我英文廢,憑咩教人》這篇文章,讀者似乎對這篇文章頗有興趣,文章獲得了將近300個clap,成績算是不錯,似乎許多讀者對我如何回應連登的所謂hater頗有興趣。(其實我不贊成把批評者稱為hater,因為這樣似乎先入為主的標籤了他們為盲目的批評者的感覺。)
事實上,之前medium上寫過的文章,有幸被連登朋友放在論譠上評價。(critique中文應該翻譯做評價嗎?我也不肯定,反正就當所謂的批評者為衷心critique,而不是一心criticise吧。)
【Hater?做咩咁介懷?】
每次當我反駁或者討論連登仔提供提出的觀點時候,就會有許多人告訴我:
「何必呢? Tiffany,連登的人/haters說什麼是他們的自由。你不用那麼介懷啊!。」
他們的意思彷彿是,我覺得因為害怕自己形象受損,又或者覺得尊嚴受損,才去回應批評者。
事實上,我之所以會花這麼多唇舌去討論連登的觀點,是因為我覺得連登可謂是香港社會的縮影,上面許多人說的話,都反映了許多人的心聲。
我這樣說,也許許多人覺得難以置信,但我之所以回應,是我關心香港的教育風氣。
連登的無知,就是(許多)香港人的無知。
和許多其他公眾討論一樣,每當討論事情時候,香港人就只會歸邊,只有非黑即白的對與不對。
【連登式與反連登/歸邊的批評者和回應者】
當連登有人說:「芬尼的英文那麼廢,怎麼也會上到位?/怎麼也能教書?」和「芬尼的教的都是小學英文,小學英文有必要教嗎?Native English teachers教得更好,說話更標準,用不着芬尼教呀!」
另一邊廂,有人回應這些批評者說:「你英文這麼強,就你來教我吧!」、「你英文很厲害嗎?」;有些人說:「芬尼的英文已經很好了,絕對有做老師的資格。」
雙方喋喋不休,吵個不停。
這樣的討論其實沒有什麼意思,因為教得好與不好,教的知識有沒有用,是觀點與角度的問題。有些人英文很厲害,他們當然覺得我教的沒有用,有些人英文很厲害,當然也會覺得我英文很廢。
道理就好像討論10萬元是否一筆很大的錢,窮人會覺得10萬元已經很多了,有錢的人會覺得10萬元不算什麼。
這樣爭論只會無休止的下去。
在GaryVee的頻道裡,常常說有許多年輕人phone in上他的節目《Tea with GaryVee》向GaryVee詢問種種問題,關於創業的、關於人生的、關於家庭的、關於朋友的、關於前途的。
GaryVee常常勸勉年輕人一句話:
「你很年輕啊!你知道嗎?許多你這個年紀的人一無所知,你知道自己一無所知,你已經被他們走得前許多了!」
(You’re young! You know that? People at your age? You know what people at your age do? They don’t know shit! You’re so much better off than so many people out there!)
為什麼大家都會視GaryVee為一個好老師呢?不只因為他把自己的紅酒和social media agency VaynerMedia搞得有聲有色,還因為GaryVee有同理心。
【好老師和壞老師的區別】
兒登的批評者和GaryVee的區別很簡單;壞老師和好老師的區別也很簡單:
就是同理心的區別。
我不排除這個世界上,有些批評我英文差的人自己英文真的很厲害,能力高本身是一件好事。但為什麼沒有能力高的人在網上教導大眾呢?
原因是大部分厲害的人,沒有時間、沒有興趣,又或者沒有影響其他人,把這個世界變得更好的決心和commitment。
為什麼我可以這樣說?
試想想,如果英語好到爆的人,都走出來在YouTube上教英文,如果英文很好的人,天天在Medium上寫文,我絕對是「冇行」的,我不會再有market。我怎麼可能走到今天數萬訂閱的這一步呢?在free market裡,我會徹底地被我的對手打敗。
有些你覺得能力不高的人,之所以能夠達至成功,原因無他,就是因為能力高的人有許多,但能力高的,同時又會關心極度關心能力低的人,探討為什麼能力低的人能力會低,並嘗試lift them up,這樣的人就不太多。(最起碼我很少見。)
They succeed, not just because they’re capable, but because they care. (成功的人成功,不只因為能力高,而且因為他們關懷。)
【連登的fail to see the underdog syndrome】
許多能力高(其中包括部分連登的批評者)的人都犯了Fail to see the underdog(看不見弱者)的謬誤。他們自己也許能力很高,但他們眼中看不見那些能力低的人,不知道別人根本拍馬也追不上他們的能力。簡而言之,就是「離曬地」。
你教過會考零分的人英文嗎?我教過。你教過讀拔萃喇沙的尖子門生嗎?我也教過。而我知道,拔萃的學生用半秒明白了的概念,會考零分的人可能用24小時也搞不懂。
【教育是一成技術知識;九成同理心】
做好老師,唔係要自己叻咁簡單,而係要好關心唔叻嘅人點解唔叻,唔叻嘅人點解學唔識。
我說得極端一點,做好老師,一成是技術知識, 九成是同理心。 十個英文老師之中十個,也會知道he、she、it後面的verb要加S,但是十個英文老師之中,有多少過有這樣的魄力和心思,同理為什麼學生覺得學習痛苦,培養學生對英文的興趣?
學術能力固然是能力;但同理能力(empathy),也是能力。有學術能力而沒有同理心的人,很難做好老師。
【點解喺香港,「廢」人都可以做老師?】
以上現象要究其原因,香港的文化土壤和大環境並不鼓勵人成為好老師,因為許多人覺得做三師才是成功的表徵;成功的人許多都做了律師醫生。大家覺得書讀不成才做老師。(“He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.”)
正正因為大家都有這種鮮明的階級觀念,對社會地位有追求的人而公開考試考到了幾條火箭的人,相信也不會咁睇唔開做老師這份工作。
香港人重視學術能力,但教師這一行不只講求學術能力,更講求同理心。而在香港,有多少人談同理心?我們又有多重視同理心?
就是因為大家對教育行業的輕視,導致人才都不願意進入教育行業。
社會風氣如此,連登的人還說,英語這麼廢的人做什麼老師?
如果我們的社會不是輕視教育工作,就會有更多有心有力的人進入教育行業,我也就會冇行了。
引用周星馳一句話:「你唔驚冇得撈咩?」
當有人咁同我講嘅時候,我會引用Tea with GaryVee裡面的一段對話:
“Gary, I started a social media agency.” (Gary,我開了一個social media agency(和你一樣的生意)
“So, you’re gonna put me out of business?” (你要取代我嗎?)
“No, I…” (不,我。。。)
“I want you to! I want you to put me out of business!” (我急不及待你取代我!)
其實,我內心好期待,富同理心嘅英文高人出現,而我唔使做嘅一日,咁我就可以挑戰下其他野喇。
如果想看更多文章,就要去Medium Blog喇!
If you'd like to read even more articles written by me, be sure to visit my blog on Medium😊:
http://bit.ly/2L7ERR6
訂閱電子報:http://bit.ly/fla-nl
(定期接收有關學英文嘅知識同心得分享,及最新課程的情報。)
criticise中文 在 東講西讀 Facebook 的最佳貼文
Financial Times:
//中國的統戰工作遠遠不止於影響澳、紐政府。 澳洲國立大學國家安全學院院長Rory Medcalf說:“中國共產黨正試圖壓制世界各國僑民的異見。” “它使用一套方法來實現其目標:政治捐款,控制中文媒體,動員社區和學生群體去從事中共代理甚至參與領事官員的強制性活動“。//
金融時報日前報導, 西方各國開始更為警惕"外國勢力中國"。內文提到,中共在各國的統戰活動,比俄羅斯更具長遠目光,也更傾向同化他國社會;中國所用的統戰策略,香港與台灣大概不會感到陌生。
在中國日漸被視為具威脅力的sharp power之際,值得重溫新加坡學者朋友早前的文章——這篇文章,談在新加坡加強以國家為本位的中國國情教育之必要, 以應對愈來愈複雜且緊張的新中關係, 也為防止新加坡在中國壓力之下"芬蘭化"。
Commentary: The growing importance of China studies with Singapore characteristics
https://www.facebook.com/…/a.10294936538…/1451773864921387/…
#中國作為外國勢力
#星港比較
West grows wary of China’s influence game
“Chinese operations are much more subtle, less targeted and more about long-term influence-building than Russian operations,” says Christopher Johnson, the former head of the China desk at the Central Intelligence Agency and now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“But as we start to realise that China intends to socialise us rather than become more like us, the debate in the west has taken on a harder edge and people are asking whether 40 years of engagement might have been a sham.”
"Politicians from both sides of the aisle have been reticent to question how Jian Yang managed to have such a successful political career while keeping his military intelligence background secret. In contrast to Australia, New Zealand’s politicians and business elite appear much less willing to openly criticise any of Beijing’s actions out of fear of offending a big trading partner.
But China’s United Front work goes far beyond influencing antipodean governments. “The Chinese Communist party is seeking to suppress dissent among its diaspora in countries around the world,” says Rory Medcalf, head of the national security college at Australian National University. “It uses a tapestry of methods to achieve its goals: political donations, control of Chinese language media, mobilising community and student groups; and engaging in coercive activities that involve CCP proxies and even consular officials.”
Along with the carrots of economic engagement and market access, Beijing also uses sticks. Foreign journalists, politicians, businesspeople and academics regarded as “unfriendly” to China are refused visas to visit the country, attacked by state media and paid online trolls and sometimes targeted by Chinese hackers. The families of Chinese students and recent emigrants are often threatened by state security agents back in China if they are seen as stepping out of line while abroad.
One of the Chinese billionaires who allegedly provided donations to Mr Dastyari is Huang Xiangmo, founder of a property development company in Shenzhen who moved to Sydney with his family in 2011. Until recently he was chairman of the Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China, a United Front-backed organisation.
As well as donating to politics, Mr Huang helped fund a China-focused think-tank at University of Technology Sydney, which has Bob Carr, a former Australian foreign minister, as its director. Mr Huang eventually resigned as chairman of the Australian-China Relations Institute’s advisory board when some academics questioned whether it was becoming a mouthpiece for Chinese propaganda."
https://www.ft.com/con…/d3ac306a-e188-11e7-8f9f-de1c2175f5ce
criticise中文 在 無待堂 Facebook 的精選貼文
【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》- 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】
(Please scroll down for English version.)
近日,各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議,舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制,更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所,民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今,政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由,企圖向校方施壓,大興文字獄,大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。
在中大校園內,有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律,只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異,校方便指鹿為馬,無理指控其內容違法,圖以法律之名打壓言論自由,更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會,直接指派保安人員拆下橫額,完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調,《基本法》性質類近憲法,而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力,政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此,政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名,禁止學生討論香港獨立。
其後,中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而,校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生,反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧,有違教育者之原則,再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。
除此以外,早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世,教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」,更指若該二人不是教大學生,則「放他上網」。翌日,相關閉路電視截圖流出,實在令人髮指。的確,大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當,然而,冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策,當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育,蔡若蓮為其一一護航,年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩,最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩,實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論,卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥,更有機會違反《個人資料(私隱)條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌,他日有學生批評校長,會否亦遭受類似報復?大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖,並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。
《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由,我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重,而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申,言論自由是天賦人權,是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況,堅守我們的自由與權利。
二零一七年九月十日
香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.
In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.
Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.
Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.
Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.
10 September 2017
City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
criticise中文 在 Fair use on YouTube - Google Help 的推薦與評價
For example, in the United States, works of commentary, criticism, research, teaching, or news reporting may be considered fair use. ... <看更多>
criticise中文 在 Gavin職場英文- Criticism 和Critique 都是「批評」的意思 ... 的推薦與評價
台灣美語學習出版品牌,發行《EZ TALK 總編嚴選》雜誌,並出版語言學習書籍。 ... 教大家把中文翻成英文, 如計較, 撒嬌等! Help Chinese speakers translate ... ... <看更多>