weekly
Written by: Cheng Xue
2020-05-19 18:32
Last update date: 2020-05-19 18:34The Department of History of the Secondary School Diploma (DSE), which was tested last Thursday (May 14), provided two reading materials on the test questions indicating that modern Japan had helped China, and asked whether the candidates agreed to "Japan during 1900-45 The claim that China brings more benefits than disadvantages "has caused great controversy. Yang Runxiong, director of the Education Bureau, said that the question hurt the national sentiment and was unfair to the candidates, and asked the assessment bureau to cancel the relevant test questions; the Education Association found the authorities ’actions shocking and worried about destroying the independent examination system. Through much controversy, we should ask: What kind of history education do we need? What kind of next generation of Hong Kong do you want to cultivate?
In the Department of History of the Secondary School Diploma Examination (DSE), there are two reading materials on the test questions that indicate that modern Japan has helped China, and asked whether the candidates agreed with the statement that "Japan has brought more benefits than harm to China in 1900-45". Caused great controversy. (Photo by Huang Shuhui)
The controversy mainly focused on the selection of materials with the same position in two paragraphs, and the question of "whether you agree that Japan will bring more benefits than harm to China during 1900-45". The Education Council issued a statement stating that the information provided in the test questions omitted the most important historical history of Japan ’s aggression against China during the period 1900-45, and only selected materials that were biased toward Japan ’s superficial assistance and support to China; Chairman He Hanquan said that the problem The guidance is very great, and I think the question should be changed to "more harm than good." Ye Jianyuan, the vice president of the Education Association and a member of the Legislative Council of the education sector, pointed out that the test questions are "open questions". Students need to use the knowledge they have learned to answer the questions. The above questions cover up to 1945, so the answer must be applied to the historical facts during the war of resistance; History teachers said that similar types of questions often appeared in the past.
If according to He Hanquan's "avoidance of guidance" is changed to "more harm than good", does it mean that the "correct answering direction" is not included in the title, it is wrong guidance? As for the one-sided material, the title also states that "answering what you know" requires candidates to combine what they have learned on weekdays. So, what is the fundamental problem of this problem?
He Hanquan, a member of the Education Council, said that the question is very instructive and that the question should be changed to "more harm than good." (Information picture / Photo by Lu Yiming)
Kang Chencuihua, deputy secretary general of the Bureau of Education, wrote on Sunday (May 17) on the website of the Bureau of Education, "What's wrong with history education", pointing out that "some topics that involve major issues, such as aggression, massacre, ethnic cleansing, etc., should not be guided at all. At the stage of basic education, students discuss their positive values, and it is impossible for countries to put them in textbooks, and even let students discuss their pros and cons in the test questions. This is based on the consensus of human conscience, and it is also the education of students with empathy for people who have experienced painful experiences. For someone trying to rationalize the test questions as "open questions", she not only criticized this as "completely out of focus sophistry", but also questioned whether "receiving foreign aid and being aggressed by foreign countries can be said to be measurable, comparable, and mutually cancelable" "Pros" and "Cons"? "
Liang Mingde, a Ph.D. in East Asian economic history at the Department of Japanese Studies at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, believes that, despite national sentiments, the reason why the questions issued by the HKEAA "failed" lies in the "outdated view of history" reflected therein. First of all, the question of whether "benefits outweigh disadvantages" or "worse outweighs disadvantages" is a kind of binary opposition of black and white, a kind of "final accounting" thinking. Although it can judge the pros and cons of individual events, it is not suitable for evaluating macro history. What is binary opposition? It is either good or bad, either or not, and pros and cons. For example, "Song Dynasty is good or bad", how to finalize? What is the relative? Going back to the title itself, the title "China and Japan, 1900-45" named the broad and complicated history, but asked candidates to measure the pros and cons, in fact, it is encouraging a very excessive reduction of history (Reductionism)- -This itself has violated history, even "nonhistorical" (Ahistorical).
For someone trying to rationalize the test questions into "open questions", Kang Chen Cuihua criticized this as "completely out of focus sophistry." (Information picture / Photo by Lu Yiming)
Second, the subject of the problem is not clear. The exam questions seem to be turning "China" and "Japan" into two conscious subjects, which can have pros and cons to each other. Liang Mingde pointed out that this is a historical view that equates the government—specifically a very few ruling elites—with the whole country. This approach erases the different views and responses of various parties and strata of Japan's complicated society on China, and also reflects the excessive simplification of the test questions on history. He believes that if the question asked by the HKEAA was "1900-45, did the Japanese ruling class do more good than harm for China", it would undoubtedly be a more meaningful question that complies with the historical norm.
Third, there is also the problem of imprecise chronology in this topic. The examination range of the DSE history course began in 1900, and the authors simply delineated the questions for this stage from 1900 to 1945. Liang Mingde believes that this approach is lazy and does not conform to history. The so-called "modernization" refers to the beginning and the end of a certain period of time in history, and historians are very cautious about this and taboo arbitrariness. In his view, if we want to comprehensively investigate the modern Sino-Japanese relations, before Japan defeated China in 1985 and sinked the achievements of the Westernization Movement to the bottom of the Yellow Sea, Japan should borrow from China to carry out reform and opening up from the post-war period. among them. The one-size-fits-all approach from the history course to the DSE exam is undoubtedly guiding the candidates to establish an imprecise outlook on history.
The thousand waves caused by the test questions may be the opportunity for reflection-what kind of history education do we need? (Profile picture / photo by Wu Weihao)
Some people think that similar types of questions are not uncommon in Chinese history and history subjects. It also means that students who study this subject cannot possibly have not been exposed to the course of "Japanese invasion of China", so they must understand that Japan was between 1900 and 1945. What China does is not "more advantages than disadvantages"; it is also said that the function of the public test itself is somewhat different from the teaching purpose. The former is to evaluate the knowledge and skills of the candidates through a fair and fair mechanism to distinguish different levels, rather than to cultivate values Platform.
However, it is just like Liang Mingde ’s torture-if what the history department teaches has nothing to do with real history, students even have to practice test questions that distort historical methodology and historical views in order to score, then how can high school history lessons become university and later history The basis of training? If teaching the wrong things is not a problem, just answer the (wrong) skills. Is this kind of education really the education we want?
Long before the controversy broke out in the subject of history, the Chief Executive, Lin Zhengyue, said in an exclusive interview with the Ta Kung Pao that education cannot be an "uncovered chicken coop." The above Kang Chen Cuihua's article also pointed out that history teaching materials and textbooks must clearly and accurately explain historical facts, and allow students to establish a sense of identity and belonging to the nation and the country from the perspective of the nation and culture when learning the history of their own country. Tu Fengen, PhD class of the East Asian Department of Harvard University, wrote that history education in the era of globalization should jump out of the country ’s perspective and meet neighbors with a broad horizon, and history education should aim at cultivating world citizens and cultivate critical thinking and universal values , A shared destiny with human society and a vision that is obscured and ignored.
The thousand waves caused by the test questions may be the opportunity for reflection-what kind of history education do we need? We also want to train the next generation of Hong Kong who has a historical perspective in order to cope with the great changes that have not been seen in the past century and adapt to "one country, two systems"?
More "Hong Kong 01" in-depth report articles:
【Depth】 Liang Junyan's proselytism will be full of ups and downs-this is how the Parliament shut down for half a year
【Ocean Park. Depth] Applying 5.4 billion yuan to the finance and accounting for salvation, or is the long-term pain better than the short-term pain?
[Within the storm. Depth】 Why did Liang Junyan turn a blind eye on the majority of Panmin Rab?
[Article 22 of the Basic Law. Depth] Xinhua News Agency to the Central Liaison Office has never been a general department
[Depth] When "political pursuit" meets "political neutrality", to whom should civil servants be loyal?
[Oil prices plummeted. Depth] The international oil price sees a negative point
[Depth] When will the government blindly push 200 mobile applications to understand "One App Access"?
Coronavirus disease. Depth ｜ Is it useful to not rent 5,000 shops or hold the government “appeal”?
01 depth
In-depth report on DSE 2020DSE History Modern History Education Bureau Education and Education Association Ye Jianyuan Evaluation Bureau Yang Runxiong