Easy instant annotation tool from Mandarinspot.com

It has been a while since I used Mandarinspot.com, a clever site someone coded a few years back.  Mandarinspot.com provides an easy to use tool to annotate online Chinese text with 注音 or 拼音 and English definition. Pop-up annotation tooltips open when you move mouse over the word.

For example, my DDs are working on a Chinese debate on the topic of mandatory vaccination.  There is a Chinese Wikipedia page on vaccine hesitancy.  So, I copy and paste the link under “Web site annotation” as below.

 

Enlarged:

After clicking “Annotate”, it leads me to a Mandarin Spot version of this webpage.  If I don’t know the pronunciation or meaning of certain Chinese characters or words, hovering the mouse over the word will bring up a box with the Chinese pronunciation (注音 in this case) and English meaning.  Pretty nifty, no?

You can do the same with pinyin.  Just change the phonetic system above to pinyin.

 

Reflection on 7th grade Chinese Language Art textbook

7th grade CLA textbook
First semester, chapter 5
.
My DD#2 is working on chapter 5 this week.  There are a couple of words that I can’t pronounce either, having gone through 5th grade in Taiwan 30+ years ago.  So, we learn together.
.
I was able to read 金庸 novels and newspaper just fine by my mid teens, without additional lessons in Chinese, which is likely a typical experience for youth immigrants who had received ~ 4th grade education in Taiwan/China and kept on reading afterwards.
.
Looking at my DD reading aloud this chapter, I am like, yeah, they will be just fine with their Chinese.  What a relief!
.
We can work on her Spanish more now…. 🤣。 It happens I also grew up in a Spanish speaking country, in my teens.
心囚

杏林子

在許多人眼裡,我看來多麼像是一個囚犯,一個被病禁錮○1在床的犯人。
是的,自從小學六年級時,我被一種叫做「類風溼關節炎」的怪病纏身之後,就逐漸失去活動的自由。年復一年,我全身的關節都受到病魔的「轄制○2」,有如戴上一道道無形的鐐銬○3。
腿不能行,肩不能舉,手不能彎,頭也不能自由轉動。甚至,我連吃一口心愛的牛肉乾的權利也被剝奪了,因為咬不動。
二十多年來,生活的天地僅限於六席○4大的斗室○5之中,屋外春去秋來,花開花謝,似乎都與我無干○6了。就像一個被判無期徒刑的犯人,不知何年何月才能重見「天日」。
想像中,這樣的「犯人」一定是蒼白憔悴○7、鬱鬱寡歡○8的吧!剛剛相反,因為我了解真正能夠囚住我的,不是身體上的疾病,而是心理上失望、悲觀、頹喪○9、憤怒、憂慮,築成了一面看不見的網,隨時準備將我陷在中間。一個人只要能突破心靈的枷鎖○10,這個世界就再也沒有什麼能困住他的了。如今,我活得無憂無慮,也自由自在。而世上多的是身體健康,卻心理不健全的人;多的是表面歡樂,卻心中痛苦的人;多的是行動自如,卻找不到一條正確人生方向的人。
有些人看似生活得繁華熱鬧,卻往往是天底下最寂寞的人,因為他們把自己的心封閉了。
還有那些沉溺○11在罪惡中無法自拔,迷戀在情慾中無法脫身,以及為名利權勢所左右○12迷失了自己的人,他們看似自由,卻心陷囹圄○13。
比起我,到底誰更像是囚犯呢?

注釋
○1禁錮:囚禁。錮,音ㄍㄨˋ,封閉、監禁。
○2轄制:管轄限制。轄,音ㄒㄧㄚˊ,管制。
○3鐐銬:音ㄌㄧㄠˊ ㄎㄠˋ,刑具。鐐,鎖住腳的刑具。銬,鎖住手的刑具。
○4席:通「蓆」,三尺寬、六尺長為一蓆。
○5斗室:狹小的房間。
○6無干:沒有關係。干,關聯。
○7憔悴:音ㄑㄧㄠˊ ㄘㄨㄟˋ,面色黃瘦,沒有精神的樣子。
○8鬱鬱寡歡:悶悶不樂。寡,少。
○9頹喪:情緒消沉低落。頹,音ㄊㄨㄟˊ。
○10枷鎖:原指刑具,引申為束縛。枷,套在脖子上的刑具。鎖,拴在犯人身上的鎖鏈。
○11沉溺:指陷於不好的嗜好或境地中。溺,音ㄋㄧˋ。
○12左右:影響、控制。
○13囹圄:音ㄌㄧㄥˊ ㄩˇ,牢獄。

7th grade Chinese Language Art

DD#2, 13, 8th grade now, is moving unto 7th grade Chinese Language Art textbook from Taiwan.  Her Chinese lessons now mainly consist of reading aloud to fluency Chinese Language Art textbooks and doing Chinese debate, besides watching 「如懿傳」(Ruyi’s Royal Love in the Palace).  This movie series sits nicely between the two series she previously watched,「後宮甄嬛傳」and 「延熙攻略」.

Here is the first chapter she is working on, which is chapter 2 of 康軒’s 7th grade second semester textbook.  I previously couldn’t acquire the first semester book.

下雨天,真好(琦君)

一大清早,掀開窗簾看看,窗上已撒滿了水珠。啊,好極了!又是個下雨天。雨連下十天,半月,甚至一個月,屋裡掛滿萬國旗似的溼衣服,牆壁地板都冒著溼氣,我也 不抱怨。雨天總是把我帶到另一個處所,在那兒,我又可以重享歡樂的童年。那些有趣的好時光啊,我要用雨珠的鍊子把它串起來,繞在手腕上。

那時在浙江永嘉老家,我才六歲,睡在母親暖和的手臂彎裡。天亮了,聽到瓦背上嘩嘩的雨聲,我就放了心。因為下雨天長工不下田,母親不用老早起來做飯,可以在 熱被窩裡多躺會兒。我捨不得再睡,也不讓母親睡,吵著要她講故事。母親閉著眼睛,給我講雨天的故事。在熹微的晨光中,我望著母親的臉,她的額角方方正正, 眉毛細細長長,眼睛瞇成一條線。我的啟蒙老師說菩薩慈眉善目,母親的長相一定就跟菩薩一樣。

雨下得越來越大。母親一起床,我也跟著起來,顧不得吃早飯,就套上叔叔的舊皮靴,頂著雨在院子裡玩。溝裡水滿了,白繡球花瓣落在爛泥地和水溝裡。我把阿榮伯 給我雕的小木船漂在水溝裡,中間坐著母親給我縫的大紅「布姑娘」。繡球花瓣繞著小木船打轉,一起向前流。我跟著小木船在爛泥地裡踩水,吱嗒吱嗒的響。

天下雨,長工們不下田,都蹲在大穀倉後面玩。我把小花猫抱在懷裡,自己再坐在阿榮伯懷裡,等著阿榮伯把一粒粒又香又脆的炒豆子剝殼送到我嘴裡。豆子吃夠了再吃芝麻糖,嘴巴乾了吃橘子。下雨天真好,有吃有玩,長工們個個疼我,家裡人多,我就不寂寞了。

五月黃梅天,到處黏糊糊的,母親走進走出的抱怨,父親卻端者宜興茶壺,坐在廊下賞雨。院子裡各種花木,經雨一淋,新綠的枝子頑皮的張開翅膀,托著嬌豔的花 朵,父親用旱煙袋點著它們告訴我這是丁香花,那是一丈紅。大理花與劍蘭搶著開,木樨花散布著淡淡的幽香。牆邊那株高大的玉蘭花開了滿樹,下雨天謝得快,我得趕緊爬上去採,採了滿籃子送左右鄰居。玉蘭樹葉上的水珠都是香的。

唱鼓兒詞的總在下雨天從我家後門摸索進來,坐在廚房的長凳上,唱一段「鄭元和學丐」。母親一邊做飯,一邊聽。淚水掛滿了臉頰,拉起青布圍裙擦一下,又連忙盛 一大碗滿滿的白米飯,請瞎子先生吃,再給他一大包的米。晚上就在大廳裡唱,請左鄰右舍都來聽。寬敝的大廳正中央燃起了亮晃晃的燈,燈一亮,我就有做喜事的 感覺,心裡說不出的開心。雨嘩嘩的越下越大,瞎子先生的鼓咚咚咚咚的也敲得越起勁。母親和五叔婆聽了眼圈兒都哭得紅紅的,我就只顧吃炒米糕、花生糖。父親卻悄悄的溜進書房作他的「唐詩」去了。

如果我一直不長大,就可以永遠沉浸在雨的歡樂中。然而誰能不長大呢?到杭州念中學了,下雨天,我有一股淒涼寂寞之感。

有一次,在雨中徘徊西子湖畔。我駐足凝望著碧藍如玉的湖水和低斜低斜的梅花,卻聽得放鶴亭中響起了悠揚的笛聲。那是許多年前的事了,笛聲低沉而遙遠,然而我卻仍能依稀聽見,在雨中…。

辯論練習: 中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展利大於弊/弊大於利 (Smart phone use in school)

 

For parents who want their children with more advanced Chinese proficiency (say,  Chinese AP score 4-5 or HSK level > 4) to try out learning Chinese partly by using the debate format, I shall attempt to provide differentiated read-aloud material based on this debate contest on 7/31/18 in Hong Kong between 正方: 台北市立中山女子高級中學 and 反方: 北京清華附中國際學校.  The topic is 中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展利大於弊/弊大於利.  Our USA team tied with the debaters from 北京清華附中國際學校 this July on a different topic and their debaters are all the same ones, except for 三辯.

Below are three levels of the first affirmative/pro speech 正ㄧ申論 and the first negative speech 反ㄧ申論, with the advanced level speech being the actual speech, delivered in 4 minutes.  The actual speeches are 1411 and 1327 characters, which are a little fast for my taste.  I would say my DD#2 can comfortably deliver 1,100 – 1,200 characters in 4 minutes.  The three levels are differentiated mostly by the length of the speech, not difficulty of the characters and phrases.  These debaters are mostly 8-10th graders and this topic is not academic.  So, the language itself is fairly basic for native speakers, i.e. good to know for kids with more advanced Chinese in the international market.

You can convert these to simplified Chinese and add 注音 or 拼音 if you like.

(I am definitely not a Chinese language teacher, just a passionate parent with only 5th grade formal education in Taiwan.  So, parents, please do due diligence and make sure I didn’t make any mistakes here.  Please do let me know if you spot one.  Thank you.)

 

Affirmative/pro speech 正ㄧ申論

Beginner (559 characters)

在討論辯題前讓我們先了解辯題。這幾年來有越來越多中學生甚至小學生開始把手機帶去校園。由於手機的特殊性和極強的誘惑力,使得手機成爲校園學習的一項嚴重干擾。我方認爲,在中學校園使用手機會傷害中學校園的教學目的,違犯對於青少年應有的管教態度。

第一,學生在校園裏使用智慧型手機,會讓學生非常容易轉移注意力,嚴重影響校園中的所有學習。禁止使用,當然對學生利大於弊。中學校園有其特定的教育目標,和應負起的責任,也因此對於個人自由,有些限制,像是重視校園更強調遵守團體生活規範,以及培養與人相處溝通能力,幫助學生提升學習成效,也希望學生能夠融入團體生活。但智慧型手機強大的吸引力和誘惑力,往往讓學生難以剋制。現在小孩在下課和午休時,只想玩手機,下課也滑,上課也滑,嚴重影響學生情緒。我方認爲,禁止學生在校園使用智能手機,就是在幫助學生在沒有手機干擾的環境,能夠更加投入校園學習,上課更加專心,下課也讓他們和同學有更多互動,這也才是義務教育階段的教育目的。

第二,因為青少年身心尚未成熟,本身的自制力就不夠好,因此禁止使用手機才符合校園對學生應有的管教責任。校園是學生一天待最久的地方,透過在校園內重新教育學生放下手機,專注於學習和生活中的其他活動,才能幫助學生真正找到與智能手機的共處之道。

所以在校園禁止使用智慧型手機,才能夠真正讓學生知道怎麼使用手機,而非沈溺於手機,故中學校內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生的發展,利大於弊,謝謝各位。

 

Intermediate (994 characters)

在討論辯題前讓我們先了解辯題。這幾年來智慧型手機越來越普及,有越來越多中學生甚至小學生開始把手機帶去校園。然而由於手機的特殊性和極強的誘惑力,使得手機成爲校園學習的一項嚴重干擾,也開展了今天的辯題。所以禁止使用智慧型手機,就是禁止學生在校園內使用個人的智慧型手機,因爲如果是使用智慧型手機做教學相關用途,重點並非能不能使用,而是老師的教學應不應結合科技。因此面對手機究竟是要更開放或更保守的態度,就是今天討論的核心。

我方認爲,在中學校園使用手機會傷害中學校園的教學目的,從事違犯對於青少年應有的管教態度,以下進行論證。

第一,學生在校園裏使用智慧型手機,會讓學生非常容易轉移注意力,嚴重影響校園中的所有學習。禁止使用,當然對學生利大於弊。中學校園與大學校園和成年人所處的社會,完全不同,有其特定的教育目標,和應負起的責任,也因此對於個人自由,有更多限制,像是重視校園更強調遵守團體生活規範,以及培養與人相處溝通能力,所以比起大學,會有更嚴謹的班級生活公約,以及全校共同作息和時間表,透過建立規範和時間觀念,幫助學生提升學習成效,也希望學生能夠融入團體生活。但智慧型手機強大的吸引力和誘惑力,往往讓學生難以剋制,一使用就無法控制。美國青少年統計也指出,學校超過五分之一的簡訊都是上課時間傳的,平均一堂課傳超過三則信息。法國教育部也指出,現在小孩在下課和午休時,只想玩手機,不再與同儕互動嬉戲,下課也滑,上課也滑,這樣的現象已成爲中學校園的常態,嚴重影響學生情緒。所以法國已經直接全面禁止中小學校園使用智慧型手機。可怕的是,儘管至少一半的學生認爲,自己這種行爲非常不應該,但還是難以剋制自己,顯見手機誘惑力已經超越了學生的自制力。我方認爲,禁止學生在校園使用智能手機,就是在幫助學生在沒有手機干擾的環境,能夠更加投入校園學習,上課更加專心,下課也讓他們和同學有更多互動,這也才是義務教育階段的教育目的。

第二,就因為青少年身心尚未成熟,本身的自制力就不夠好,手機對他們造成的傷害也更大,因此禁止使用當然的學生利大於弊,同時也才符合校園對學生應有的管教責任。校園是學生一天待最久的地方,對學生的影響也最劇烈,透過在校園內重新教育學生放下手機,專注於學習和生活中的其他活動,才能幫助學生真正找到與智能手機的共處之道。腦部醫學專家也指出,青少年腦部發育尚未完全,往往更加衝動更難剋制,面對用戶也比成年人更難專注,更容易成癮。

各方學著從校園開始禁止使用智慧型手機,才能夠真正讓學生知道怎麼使用手機,而非沈溺於手機,故中學校內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生的發展,利大於弊,謝謝各位。

 

Advanced (1411 characters)

在討論辯題前讓我們先了解辯題。這幾年來智慧型手機越來越普及,有越來越多中學生甚至小學生開始把手機帶去校園。然而由於手機的特殊性和極強的誘惑力,使得手機成爲校園學習的一項嚴重干擾,也開展了今天的辯題。所以禁止使用智慧型手機,就是禁止學生在校園內使用個人的智慧型手機,因爲如果是使用智慧型手機做教學相關用途,重點並非能不能使用,而是老師的教學應不應結合科技。上至討論上學期間禁止離開校園,重點絕不是要討論老師可不可以帶學生去校外教學。因此面對手機究竟是要更開放或更保守的態度,就是今天討論的核心,而要求和禁止並不是今天討論的重點。

我方認爲,在中學校園使用手機會傷害中學校園的教學目的,從事違犯對於青少年應有的管教態度,以下進行論證。

第一,學生在校園裏使用智慧型手機,會讓學生非常容易轉移注意力,嚴重影響校園中的所有學習。禁止使用,當然對學生利大於弊。中學校園與大學校園和成年人所處的社會,完全不同,有其特定的教育目標,和應負起的責任,也因此對於個人自由,有更多限制,像是重視校園更強調遵守團體生活規範,以及培養與人相處溝通能力,所以比起大學,會有更嚴謹的班級生活公約,以及全校共同作息和時間表,透過建立規範和時間觀念,幫助學生提升學習成效,也希望學生能夠融入團體生活。但智慧型手機強大的吸引力和誘惑力,往往讓學生難以剋制,一使用就無法控制。新南威爾士大學教授指出,智能手機轉移學生閱讀 完成課業,和參與體育活動的注意力,嚴重影響校園生活。美國青少年統計也指出,學校超過五分之一的簡訊都是上課時間傳的,平均一堂課傳超過三則信息。法國教育部也指出,現在小孩在下課和午休時,只想玩手機,不再與同儕互動嬉戲,下課也滑,上課也滑,這樣的現象已成爲中學校園的常態,嚴重影響學生情緒。牛津大學研究也指出,這些過度耽溺在網絡的年輕人,對人和人之間的交際,變得更生疏,還會導致自我認同的障礙。多數學生也認爲,和同學的互動品質變差,彼此間更不信任。英國中學教師調查也指出,超過三成學生認爲,智能手機完全影響他們的作息,在螢幕前和其他活動之間沒有良好的平衡,幾乎每十分鐘就要看一次手機,不然就會焦慮。所以法國已經直接全面禁止中小學校園使用智慧型手機。英國和德國有許多學校禁止學生使用。可怕的是,儘管至少一半的學生認爲,自己這種行爲非常不應該,但還是難以剋制自己,顯見手機誘惑力已經超越了學生的自制力。我方認爲,禁止學生在校園使用智能手機,就是在幫助學生在沒有手機干擾的環境,能夠更加投入校園學習,上課更加專心,下課也讓他們和同學有更多互動,這也才是義務教育階段的教育目的。

在學習成效方面的那幾所學院實證也指出,禁用手機讓成績差的學生學習成效提升了百分之十四,全校學生整體提升了百分之七,由此可見,通過排除智慧型手機、這個難以控制的誘惑,的確幫助學生學習如何放下手機,也能更好的幫助學生融入校園學習。

第二,就因為青少年身心尚未成熟,本身的自制力就不夠好,過動時候,手機對他們造成的傷害也更大,因此禁止使用當然的學生利大於弊,同時也才符合校園對學生應有的管教責任。校園是學生一天待最久的地方,對學生的影響也最劇烈,透過在校園內重新教育學生放下手機,專注於學習和生活中的其他活動,才能幫助學生真正找到與智能手機的共處之道。腦部醫學專家也指出,青少年腦部發育尚未完全,往往更加衝動更難剋制,面對用戶也比成年人更難專注,更容易成癮。然而多數家長在買手機給孩子的時候,都沒有妥善建立使用手機的規範與督促,才導致臺灣現況已經有至少ㄧ成的學生手機重度成癮。

各方學著從校園開始禁止使用智慧型手機,才能夠真正讓學生知道怎麼使用手機,而非沈溺於手機,故中學校內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生的發展,利大於弊,謝謝各位。

 

反ㄧ申論, first negative speech:

Beginner (467 characters)

手機已經成爲中學生生活中必不可少的一部分。到處在外,經常看到路人低着頭拿着手機。我方認爲,中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展,弊大於利。下面我將從三個方面論述,爲何中學校園禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展,弊大於利。

首先,校園中的課堂已經不再是死板的課本教學。現在教師更加提倡多元化的,具有趣味性的課堂。手機可以使學生有了更加廣闊的學習範圍,用一種更加讓學生可以接受的趣味性教學,從而提高課堂對學生的吸引力。

其次,智能手機可以在緊急情況時,起到更加有效的作用,解決沒有準備時的問題。緊急情況分爲兩種,其中一種,影響到學生身體健康的緊急情況。如果這樣的緊急情況真的發生了,智能手機才可以派上用場,用來通知緊急聯繫人。第二種緊急情況,發生在課堂中。當學生還沒抄完筆記,但老師要擦掉黑板或換PPT,這時候他就需要智能手機去拍一張照片。

最後,禁止學生使用智能手機,不利於提高他們的自我管理能力及自控力。不禁止學生使用手機,而是建議學生適當合理地看手機,在這個過程中,學生的自我管理能力及自控力也會有所提高。

綜上所述,學校有許多多元化課堂上的需求,提高學生的自我管理能力及發生緊急情況時的應對,禁止智能手機對學生的發展,都是弊大於利。

 

Intermediate (867)

謝謝各位。手機已經成爲中學生生活中必不可少的一部分。到處在外,經常看到路人低着頭拿着手機。我方認爲,中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展,弊大於利。

手機的功能已經變得十分多元化,他可以使學生知道外面的社會中發生了什麼,可以用手機學習等等,但也會被一位容易沉迷傷害了學生的身心靈健康。我方今天的比較標準就是,如果在中學校園的某些情況下,手機有它不可代替的優勢,那麼中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生的發展,就是弊大於利的。下面我將從三個方面論述,爲何中學校園禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展,弊大於利。

首先,校園中的課堂已經不再是死板的課本教學。現在教師更加提倡多元化的,具有趣味性的課堂。而智能手機就可以很好地詮釋這新的課堂模式。現在課堂已經不再僅僅限制於課本中的內容。中學生也不再是「兩耳不聞窗外事,一心只讀聖賢書」的書呆子了。手機可以使學生有了更加廣闊的學習範圍,用一種更加讓學生可以接受的趣味性教學,從而提高課堂對學生的吸引力。

其次,智能手機可以在緊急情況時,起到更加有效的作用,解決沒有準備時的問題。緊急情況分爲兩種,其中一種萬一影響到學生身體健康的緊急情況。如果這樣的緊急情況真的發生了,智能手機才可以派上用場。iPhone有ㄧ種功能,能叫做「醫療急救卡」。假設學生真的受了傷,而身邊沒有別人,這時候智能手機的優勢,就體現了出來。學生只需要將手機上的休眠和喚醒鍵按五下,「醫療急救卡」就會給存儲在裏面的緊急聯繫人發送通知,並通知她的緊急聯繫人學生當前的位置。

第二種緊急情況,發生在課堂中。比如說老是要換下一張PPT,但學生這張PPT的筆記還沒有抄完,而老師又因爲課堂中時間有限,而不可以等學生抄完筆記,這時候他就需要智能手機去拍一張照片。

最後,禁止學生使用智能手機,不利於提高他們的自我管理能力及自控力。近日學生們使用智能手機,已經說明了它的誘惑性是極大的,而如果脫離了老師及學校的嚴令禁止,手機的誘惑完全暴露在光天化日之下。難道學生就可以拒絕這個極大的誘惑嗎?而如果不禁止學生使用手機,而是建議學生適當合理地看手機,在這個過程中,學生的自我管理能力及自控力也會有所提高。

綜上所述,學校有許多多元化課堂上的需求,提高學生的自我管理能力及發生緊急情況時的應對,禁止智能手機對學生的發展,都是弊大於利。

 

Advanced (1327)

謝謝各位,大家好。手機已經成爲中學生生活中必不可少的一部分。到處在外,經常看到路人低着頭拿着手機。今天我們要討論的問題,是在中學校園內,禁止使用智慧型手機,對學生發展,利大於弊還是弊大於利。我方認爲,中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展,弊大於利。

手機的功能已經變得十分多元化,他可以使學生知道外面的社會中發生了什麼,可以用手機學習等等,但也會被一位容易沉迷傷害了學生的身心靈健康。當我們仔細想ㄧ想,使用手機的弊,真的足以值得讓我們放棄他諸多的利嗎?因此我方今天的比較標準就是,如果在中學校園的某些情況下,手機有它不可代替的優勢,那麼中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生的發展,就是弊大於利的。下面我將從三個方面論述,爲何中學校園禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展,弊大於利。

首先,校園中的課堂已經不再是死板的課本教學。現在教師更加提倡多元化的,具有趣味性的課堂。而智能手機就可以很好地詮釋這新的課堂模式。美國的皮尤研究中心(Pew Research Center) 調查顯示,百分之七十三的美國教師及他們的學生不許用智能手機在課堂中參與教學活動。現在課堂已經不再僅僅限制於課本中的內容。中學生也不再是「兩耳不聞窗外事,一心只讀聖賢書」的書呆子了。手機可以使學生有了更加廣闊的學習範圍,用一種更加讓學生可以接受的趣味性教學,從而提高課堂對學生的吸引力。舉例說明,一者新出現的APP宇課堂就提供了這樣的學習環境。宇課堂可以讓老師上傳PPT,而學生只需要在APP上掃碼,就能看到老師上傳的課鑑。老師可以在宇課堂APP裡留課堂作業。它真正的亮點不僅在於可以共享老師講課的PPT,並留課堂作業,還在於學生可以把自己不理解的東西告訴老師。學生在翻看PPT的過程中,下方有一個不懂按鈕。如果學生沒有理解這張PPT所講解的,他就可以按下這個按鈕,而老師那裏可以清楚地看到那張PPT,有多少同學不理解,並可以瞭解到準確的有誰不理解。據調查顯示,大部分學生玩手機的原因,就是因爲比起枯燥的課堂,手機更加具有吸引力,而宇課堂的例子,不就正好解決了課堂的枯燥這一問題嗎?

其次,智能手機可以在緊急情況時,起到更加有效的作用,解決沒有準備時的問題。緊急情況分爲兩種,其中一種萬一影響到學生身體健康的緊急情況。如果這樣的緊急情況真的發生了,智能手機才可以派上用場。iPhone有ㄧ種功能,能叫做「醫療急救卡」。假設學生真的受了傷,而身邊沒有別人,這時候智能手機的優勢,就體現了出來。學生只需要將手機上的休眠和喚醒鍵按五下,「醫療急救卡」就會給存儲在裏面的緊急聯繫人發送通知,並通知她的緊急聯繫人學生當前的位置。而如果學生自己使用智能手機,學生就會陷入孤立無援的狀態,直到有人發現他為止。

第二種緊急情況,發生在課堂中。比如說老是要換下一張PPT,但學生這張PPT的筆記還沒有抄完,而老師又因爲課堂中時間有限,而不可以等學生抄完筆記。這時候他就需要智能手機去拍一張照片,這樣既不會拖延課堂的進度,還可以滿足學生抄筆記的需要,不是兩全其美嗎?

最後,禁止學生使用智能手機,不利於提高他們的自我管理能力及自控力。近日學生們使用智能手機,已經說明了它的誘惑性是極大的,而如果脫離了老師及學校的嚴令禁止,手機的誘惑完全暴露在光天化日之下。難道學生就可以拒絕這個極大的誘惑嗎?而如果不禁止學生使用手機,而是建議學生適當合理地看手機,在這個過程中,學生的自我管理能力及自控力也會有所提高。

綜上所述,學校有許多多元化課堂上的需求,提高學生的自我管理能力及發生緊急情況時的應對,禁止智能手機對學生的發展,都是弊大於利。

 

正二申論 (Second affirmative speech), starting at around 18:40

Second affirmative speech is supposed to respond to any previous cross-examination and the first negative speech.  So, it is more colloquial and has less previously prepared statements.  I can comfortably divide it into two levels, based on length.

Basic (558 characters):

各位好。今天對方證明禁止在校園內使用智慧型手機後,會有弊害,所以我們先確定,他剛至今還沒有證明任何避害。那麼往下來看,他剛今天說,他可以用手機來學習,可以辦ㄧ些趣味性課堂。但我方想要說的是,首先辯題討論的禁用智慧型手機,背景正是因爲現在「人手一機」的時代下,學生在校園內濫用私人手機的情形,那我們才會討論是否應該要禁用,絕對不是要討論,老師可不可以使用科技來補助教學嗎。所以老師上課有需要,可以拿來用,無法證成禁止使用智慧型手機弊大於利。

而且我們進一步來談,如果使用科技上課真的是未來趨勢好了,也絕不是讓學生使用個人的智慧型手機。爲什麼?應該是要由政府來規劃,讓學校統一發放教具,才能夠確保學生真的是在用手機學習。在臺灣,也有很多中學都已經有教學用平板。所以他方談的,什麼教學結合科技,根本不是這場比賽想要討論的重點。

所以我們還是回過頭來看,學生在校園內使用私人手機的狀況。今天他方說,我們應該是讓大家帶手機來學校,教他怎麼用,培養他正確使用。但是自由跟禁止,從來都不是衝突的。我們本來就可以一邊教他,一邊慢慢給予他更多自由,給他教導,這兩者並不衝突。

而且他剛完全誤解,使用手機問題的根本原因。今天學生之所以會無法克制自己去滑手機,根本不是因爲不知道不能滑手機,而是他明明知道滑手機錯的,是不好的,卻還是沒有辦法控制自己。而且我們看到了,禁用之後,這有良好成效,所有我方認爲,面對手機成癮最好的方法,還是要直接脫離手機一段時間,謝謝。

Advanced (1082 characters in 3 minutes):

各位好。今天對方證明禁止手機,弊大於利,要證明禁止在校園內使用智慧型手機後,會有弊害,所以我們先確定,他剛至今還沒有證明任何避害。那麼往下來看,他剛今天說,他可以用手機來學習,可以發展多元化,可以趣味性,可以辦ㄧ些趣味性課堂。但我方想要說的是,首先辯題討論的禁用智慧型手機,背景正是因爲現在人手一機的時代下,學生在校園內濫用私人手機的情形,那我們才會討論是否應該要禁用嗎,絕對不是要不要討論,校園內應不應該有科技課,或是來討論說,老師可不可以使用科技來補助教學嗎。所以就像是,禁止學生上課離開校園,也不是要討論可不可以在上課時間,我們可以開放進行校外教學啊。所以先確定,就像老師可以帶學生去校外教學,也不等於不應該禁止學生外出。學校有電腦課,也不等於學生可以帶自己的電腦去上課。所以老師上課有需要,可以拿來用,無法證成禁止使用智慧型手機弊大於利。

而且我們進一步來談,如果使用科技上課真的是未來趨勢好了,也絕不是讓學生使用個人的智慧型手機。爲什麼?應該是要由政府來規劃,讓學校統一發放教具,因爲他們才知道這很重要啊,才能夠確保學生真的是在用手機學習。我們看到了,在德國,政府爲了提升科技素養,培養未來人才,他們直接與廠商合作,生產教學用的智慧型手機,在上課的時候發給學生,手機裏面就有下載只有三十個跟教學有關的特定網頁跟APP。所以在香港,政府他們也已經撥了一點零五億港幣,他們要買教學平板給所有的中學生。而在我們臺灣,也有很多中學都已經有教學用平板。所以他方談的,什麼教學結合科技,根本不是這場比賽想要討論的重點。
所以我們還是回過頭來看,學生在校園內使用私人手機的狀況。我們看到了是什麼,今天他方說,我們應該是讓大家帶手機來學校,教他怎麼用,培養他正確使用,但是我們可以看到什麼,今天自由跟禁止,從來都不是衝突的。我們本來就可以透過循序漸進的方式,一邊教他,一邊慢慢給予他更多自由,給他教導,這兩者並不衝突。

而且他剛完全誤解,使用手機問題的根本原因。今天學生之所以會無法克制自己去滑手機,根本不是因爲不知道不能滑手機,而是他明明知道滑手機錯的,是不好的,卻還是沒有辦法控制自己。哪一個青少年不知道上課不該滑手機,哪一個青少年會不知道一直滑不好,大家都知道。但重點是什麼,青少年還是難以剋制自己,所以香港青少年服務處訪問才會說,有六成學生覺得手機對於自己,實是弊大於利的,但是還是無法剋制自己使用。而且我們看到了,禁用之後,這有良好成效,所有我方認爲,我們還是要透過,像是面對手機成癮最好的方法,還是要直接脫離手機一段時間。而且我們來看到,今天他剛說,我們這樣沒有老師,一路從臺灣來到,這樣還說我們自治力還不夠嗎。我方想要說的是,今天因爲比起一般身心發展已成熟的成年人,正值中學階段,十二到十八歲的青少年,往往是更需要被關注的,所以我們在法律上,才會說這是限制行為能力,這是不一樣的,謝謝。

 

 

Practice Debate topic #1: The benefit vs. harm of the prohibition of smartphone use in secondary schools in student development.

This is one topic that I find useful for teens to practice debating in Chinese.  First, it is highly relevant to our teen’s lives here.  Secondly, the entire concept is easy to grasp, without requiring research and comprehension of advanced topics.  Thirdly, web resource is widely available for this discussion and I found many videos of English debate practices by what appears to be middle school students in the Indian subcontinents.  Finally, it was one of the topics used for Group B Debate Asia in 2018, with video footage.  For these reasons, I think this is an excellent topic for middle school students to delve into Chinese debate.

中學校園內禁止使用智慧型手機對學生發展利大於弊/弊大於利

Affirmative: The benefit of the prohibition of smartphone use in secondary school exceeds the harm for student development.

Negative: The harm of the prohibition of smartphone use in secondary school exceeds the benefit for student development.

Below are actual Debate Asia debate competition for Group B (16 & under, typically 14-16) in 2018.  The first one is between Taiwan’s 中山女中 and PRC’s 清華附中國際學校.  Our USA Atlanta team debated and tied with 清華國際學校 in July for our second topic, with these same debaters except for their third seat (三辯).   For this topic, 中山女中 won the debate on the affirmative side.

 

Here is the same debate between 關丹中華 and 八打靈公教, two schools from Malaysia.  Malaysia has about 7 million ethnic Chinese or about a quarter of the population.  In this debate, 八打靈公教 took the negative side and won.  As you can tell, these ethnic Chinese Malaysian are very fluent in their Chinese, with likely slight difference in usage and accent.  八打靈公教 was very kind to our USA team in July and did a friendly debate match with us for one of our topics.  Our team learned a lot and got much better after that debate.  There is nothing like an actual debate with another team to figure out some of one’s weaknesses.

 

Here are some English videos on this topic:

I searched online and found some useful sites for this debate.

Debate.org: Should smartphones be allowed in school?

The Perspective: Should we allow smartphones in school?

USA Today: Parental debate: Should your kid have a cellphone in school?

Driven to Distraction: The Device Debate

Below are some background information, discussion, and debate scripts in either English or Chinese.  I suggest that the students read what they can in English and Chinese.  Then, they should type up their own scripts in English (or Chinese) for one or both sides of the topic – one page, single-spaced, 12 font size.  Next, they can work on translating the work to Chinese if they prepared their scripts on English.  The parent or coach assist the students as needed.  These exercises teach them critical reading skill, writing skill, and then translation and Chinese typing skill.  The parent coach can then provide the students with a more refined constructive speech with more advanced Chinese.  Then, it is time to practice reading aloud till fluency.  Then, debate practice using one format or another.  I believe I provide almost everything that one needs to engage in an intelligent debate on this matter in Chinese.  If you need to convert the Chinese from traditional to simplified or add phonetic assistance using 注音 or 拼音, you can do that separately.  I firmly believe the skills learned in this or other similar exercises are invaluable, regardless of the language used.

Affirmative: We should ban smartphones from school

Less physical activity during recess

Kids spend most of their time sitting down in the classroom. Aside from gym class, a couple times a week, the only time they get to stretch their legs and exercise is during recess. What happens when you let children bring their phones to school? The obvious. School kids who would otherwise be running around, playing ball, or just hanging on the monkey bars, are now sitting down nose glued to their tiny screens.  These kids will be missing out on exercising, which is not only good for their health but is also linked to improved cognitive function, better memory and being able to concentrate better.

Unwanted exposure

Parents rely on the school’s staff to make sure their kids are safe when at school. This includes safety from exposure to X-rated materials, such as porn and excessive violence. But even with the best teachers’ supervision, children with smartphones and even children who do not have smartphones can be exposed to such material on someone else’s phone. Not to mention what they see watch on smartphones while on the school bus to and from school. It’s true that there are many parent-control apps that filter and manage kids’ usage of smartphones. But kids are smart and digital natives; they enjoy the challenge of coming up with new ways to bypass these measures. This can lead to an endless cat-and-mouse game of new measures and new workarounds.

The un-social network

For some children, screens are also used as a place of refuge. Kids, especially socially awkward ones, sometimes lack the social skills required to make or interact with friends. They may shy away from social interactions if they feel out of place. But face-to-face interaction is a critical life skill. When we interact with others, we are continuously processing wordless signals like facial expressions, tone of voice, and even the physical distance between us and them. Equipping children with smartphones may increase the chance they will choose the phone over socializing with other kids. This will make it harder for them in the long-term to face social situations as they grow up.

Students are constantly on their phones engaged in social and 9 out of 10 they are just playing and taking selfies. If a teacher allows students to use their phones for research; they usually end up back on social media. This generation is addicted. You see it everywhere. People can’t even work without checking their phones. Its sickening!

Students should not be allowed to be used in school because they could be taking photos of other students without their permission. They might have taken an embarrassing photo of another student without them knowing and could post it on social media or use the photo to threaten the student to do stuff they might not want to do.

We are paying $600 billion for a students education… They need to respect that and stay focused… If they leave school without having had learned a thing, they have wasted all that effort put into their education… When they go to school, learning should be it. You do not need to be playing Angry Birds on your smart phone or texting your ‘bff.’   If you need some high class technology for your lesson, the school will provide it for you.

More and more studies are coming up highlighting how damaging phones are to the brains of children. Even though, we live in a tech world in the 21st century, adults can manage the resulting effects of living in a virtual world, children do not. They also do know moderation and restriction, and they are suppose to be learning how interact and socialize with other children, teachers and more in normal setting . Schools already use computers in the classroom to aid learning. Phones are not needed and parents of today need to stop blocking the normal development that children had in previous generations.

Because if students bring cellphone so there should be an competition between them that who has the latest and hottest modal.It can also led to theft.If children’s want to convey any information so schools have computers so they can conveyed throughit.If we say that students should bring cell phone to that parents can call their children in an emergency but parents can also call on school or in school reception.

They are a big distraction from learning and education. They might help if there is an emergency but teachers and the office could have phones to reach families of the students. If it goes off in the middle of the class then the kids that are trying to learn will be distracted from the vibrate or sound of the phone if it is not turned off.

Most schools already have computers and tablets in there system. The students can simply email each other or actual face to face talking. They can write essays at school and study there too. But for the less fortunate schools, they can take a libertie and let student use their phones.

Theft may occur when students bring phones to school because the other students may get jealous so they might steal it. Because of that the school have to waste time finding who is the culprit and also it is a loss to those who lost their phone. So it is good not to waste time and just don`t bring phone to school.

Students can be addicted to the Internet and games . And of course, there are always some bad movies or films that will affect students a lot in very negative ways. If kids use phone too much, that will lead to many problems for them such as myopia ,autism, obesity …..And so on.

USA Today

“When we’re asking these 12  to 13 year olds to carry the phone and not be on them, we 100 percent know that’s not happening,” says Delaney Ruston, a physician and director of the documentary “Screenagers: Growing Up in the Digital Age.” “You can go into any classroom or ask any middle schooler, and they will tell you consistently how they and/or their friends are sneaking being on the phones during class times.”

The consequences? According to the “Away For The Day” initiative Ruston developed with the team behind “Screenagers” to try to institute policies requiring phones to be put away, 56 percent of middle schools allow students to carry phones on them all day, yet 82 percent of parents don’t want their kids using phones there.

The Away For The Day website cites various academic studies that point to potential negative outcomes of classroom phone use. In one such study, 75 percent of teachers reported that the attention spans of students have decreased. In another study, students regularly interrupted by text messages had test scores that were 10.6 percent lower.

Ruston believes that putting the phones away can improve a child’s emotional well-being in school and help with their focus in and out of the classroom.

And while she recognizes that a teacher might ask a kid to pull out a phone during a given lesson, “to do X, Y, Z … the reality is that many of these kids now on their personal device have gotten so many notifications that they’re actually not going to whatever the teacher is saying they should be doing, but instead sending and receiving messages or going onto their video games.”

“You’re already going to have those struggles with (school supplied) educational devices,” Ruston adds, “but it gets exponentially more challenging when it’s a personal device.”

Even if a device on a student’s desk is turned off, the worry is that it still becomes a distraction.

Ruston also dismisses the safety argument. She pointed to an NPR report in which security experts have said that letting a kid have a phone in the classroom during a lockdown makes them less safe, not more. When students should be quiet, for example, a ringing or vibrating phone might alert an assailant where kids are hiding. Parents trying to reach youngsters in an emergency might jam communications and interfere with first responders. And the kids might miss instructions from the authorities.

But Ruston concedes that “that’s not to say there’s not an emotional upside for a parent.”

Negative: We should allow smartphones in school

Interactive learning in classrooms

Many schools today don’t have the equipment needed to make technology accessible for their students. This is where smartphones as learning aides come into the picture. These everyday hand-held devices have more processing power than all of NASA’s computers when they landed a man on moon. So, instead of dealing with computers, the teacher can simply ask the class to scan a QR code, or enter a www address that will take students directly to interactive content for the subject they are currently studying. Digital education is just another way for students to learn about the world around them and for teachers to communicate with them – on various digital platforms, all accessible by smartphones.

Keeping in touch

Back in the day, for parents to contact their children at school, they would have to call the school secretary, dictate a note and have it passed to the teacher and then to the student. Such inefficient methods are no longer required; the ability to be immediately contactable allows students and parents increased flexibility and freedom in their after-school playdates, activities, and pick-up arrangements. Plus, given the record number of school shootings occurring across America, smartphones give both students and their parents an added feeling of comfort, knowing they can call and text and video each other at any moment in time.

That’ll teach you

Children are growing up in a world dominated by smartphones. Instead of keeping this significant societal change outside of school and trying to pretend it doesn’t exist, we are better off educating students in school about the benefits and risks of smartphone use (and overuse). This includes teaching children about digital and cyberbullying and its harmful effects and how to responsibly use various social media platforms that are accessible from their smartphones. Teachers can also encourage children to question information and sources they are exposed to from their smartphones, which is an especially important lesson in today’s age of “fake news.”

As long as it is not distracting to the student or other students then it should be allowed in school… What about during lunch when they want to take pictures with friends to capture there high school experience? What about to call there parents after school for a ride? So what i am trying to say is during class no but in school when they are not in class then sure let them have there phone…

They can be used for additional research, calculators when needed (but no cheating in tests) and reading digital books. Also contacting parents in emergencies. So I think they should be allowed in school – also a great source of entertainment at break / lunch times when children can get bored!

In school their is no need of mobile phones because students are under the supervision of teachers and guards if there is any emergency they can use school office phone. So can be mishap pen with them. If they use in classroom they are just wasting time and parents money…..

Smart phones are a valuable asset to us now days as in our modern world , it helps us to sharpen the knowledge and at time of emergency it would help us contact with our parents or others. Even it helps students to retain their health and not carry loads even after.

Allowing phones is wonderful idea and should be considered in schools everywhere. Of course it would be disrespectful to use them while teachers are speaking, so phones would only be allowed if the teacher the class to use them. Studies have that giving the students the privilege in using cellophane’s during school have improved there accede records in multiple ways. For instance https://www.remind.com/ is an app thousands of teachers around the U.S use to remind students about homework assignments, projects, tests, etc. Most students do not chose to do their homework intentionally, rather they forget about it and are not able to do it. Remind allows teachers to send a quick message to all of their students in order to remind the kids.

Cell phones have many purposes and they can help students complete their work and they can get apps to help them on lessons and help with future lessons in math. You can look up facts about anything for any subject, History, science. That is my view on smart phones in class.

We can use them in many ways. In society today, almost every middle school student goes home and plays on their smartphones. So excluding part of our daily life at home, from school, is not right at all. Plus we can use them in many ways. They come in handy.

Smart phones should be allowed in schools because it plays a vital role in society. If there is ever an emergency the kids need to be able to contact their parents immediately. If the school were to have a lockdown how would the kids contact their parents to come get them. When most people here smartphone the first thing that comes to mind is fancy gizmos and games. It would be better if the school provided a phone without any games, or fancy gizmos for emergencies. This is what I believe about smart phones.

When a child of today wants to know something, what do they do? They google it! Think of the incredible power, versatility of a device like the smartphone. You can research, make notes, everything. In fact, why no issue them free, without texting or calliing to avoid distraction, for free!

Smartphones can be distracting but they are a great way to communicate with others. In case of emergency, A smart phone could be used to communicate to possibly save someones life. They could also help people with research, Directions and expressing their opinion. That’s my view of smartphones in school.

Smart phones are a great tool for keeping days; assignments and daily tasks organized and in check. The issue of distraction arises when an individual is unable to keep self control and in consequence they will be the ones to fail their courses. The smart phone gives an individual the opportunity to have an individualized computer which can then be used as a tool rather than a distraction. It is the lack of self control which causes issue; which then brings the question is it the smartphone that is the issue; or the students using the tool?

Come pick them up if they are sick. Also, cell phones allow parents to keep track of their children’s whereabouts before, during, and after school. And, of course, there’s always the possibility of a student  needing to contact a parent because of a dangerous situation. Thus, having a cell phone is like having a guardian angel. Students can also connect with friends, but not just because it’s a fun thing to do; my teacher asks us to text or email our friends when they are absent to let them know what’s going on in class and to inform them of any homework. When used responsibly, a cell phone can be an excellent
communication tool.

Cell phones – especially smart phones – are a fabulouslearning resource. Students can use tools such as the calculator, the map finder, and the calendar. I’ve used my cell phone in Math and Geography and to keep track of my homework. My science teacher lets us use our smart phones to do research when we are doing group work or working on a project. For example, when we were studying ecology we did research on local jobs having to do with protecting the environment. Plus there are lots of great learning websites – including essay-writing websites – we can use to supplement the learning in class.  Cell phones are a quick and easy way to incorporate technology in the classroom.
Cell phones encourage the responsible use of technology.  Students can learn when and how to use their cell phones to enhance their learning. They will become more independent in their work and more motivated to learn. Students like being allowed to make choices, and they understand consequences. If a student is texting when he/she should be paying attention to the teacher, the teacher should take the cell phone temporarily away. No big deal. Before a test, all cell phones should be placed on the teacher’s desk. Again, no big deal. By allowing the use of cell phones, students will feel like they are being treated like responsible young adults, and they will appreciate that. If
teachers are patient, understanding, and consistent, students will……

USA Today

“Have a plan, not a ban,” says Liz Kline, vice president for education at Common Sense Education in the San Francisco Bay Area, a group whose  mission is to help kids thrive in a world of media and technology. “There are legitimate learning contexts for using devices in the classroom,” Kline says, whether students are making movies or studying photography.

Kline acknowledges that digital distraction is “totally real,” and she recognizes that setting up the classroom norms for when it’s appropriate to use a phone – and when it is not – is not a simple matter.

Lisa Highfill, an instructional technology coach at the Pleasanton Unified public and secondary school district in Pleasanton, California, believes letting students have phones helps them prepare for higher education and eventually the workplace. “How many people go to work each day and turn their phone in?” she asks. “To me, getting ready for career and college is learning how to avoid the distraction of your phone.”

Educators should have dialogs with students about when and why kids feel compelled to pick up their devices, she says. “Teach students how to refocus, how to take care of something that is really nagging at them and then move on and put it away … Self-monitoring is a lifelong skill that we have an opportunity to integrate into our lessons.”

Of course, there ought to be times when phones are put away or even collected by teachers, no questions asked, namely during test time. Indeed, some students use the devices to cheat.

Safety concerns are also often given as a reason to let kids have devices at school. When there’s an accident or tragic incident, the presence of phones lets parents get in touch with the kids, and the kids can get in touch with a parent.

“Phones are as much for peace of mind of parents as they are for kids,“ says New York City-based social media coach Sree Sreenivasan, a parent and co-founder of the Digimentors consulting firm.

But parents may also try to reach the youngsters under more routine circumstances.

“I ask kids all the time, who do you normally get texts from during school? Their friends, of course,” Highfill says. “But their mothers are texting them, and it’s actually very practical. ‘Don’t forget to talk to your math teacher’ or ‘don’t forget you have this appointment at the end of the day.’ ”

Kline adds another dimension to the let-kids-have-phones-in-school argument. In some lower-income areas where there’s concern surrounding the digital divide, the school might offer the kind of speedy internet access that is not available at home. “I think there is some nuance around this,” she says.

And then there’s this argument: Restrictions just might not work.

“I really believe that the more rules and restrictions you put on top down, the more kids will just work to try to work around those rules. And they’re good at it, the best hackers,” Highfill says.

When her IT department blocked Snapchat access at school, kids built their own server as a workaround. Highfill also knows of students who put their cellphone cases – but not the phones themselves – inside pocket charts to fool teachers.

The Device debate

If a time traveler from 1990 came to 2018, they’d most certainly ask: “What is everyone carrying around and staring at?” Smartphones, tablets, laptops — the world is so immersed in technology; it’s hard to believe that even 20 years ago things were extremely different.

As some of today’s teachers represent the last of the pre-digital-native generation, can we really expect modern learners to put away their iPhones to go totally old school? Should they have to? Or should educators adapt their practice to support tech-savvy learners?

While many applaud the banning of devices as a way to rebuild student attention spans and overall focus in the classroom, others believe banning technology is a mistake we can’t afford to make.

The device debate around the world

France is considering banning cell phones in schools because students are simply too distracted. Right now, French students cannot have phones in class but can choose to use them during breaks. The new ban, slated for next school year, would get rid of cell phones in schools completely.

Meanwhile, in some parts of Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Romania, and Estonia, students are encouraged to bring their own devices to school for learning, while the acceptance of cell phones in class varies by local region. A ban on phones in Italian schools was lifted recently when the Education Minister, Valeria Fedeli, in an interview with La Republica, referred to cell phones as an “extraordinary tool to facilitate learning.”

In the U.S., states and cities make their own decisions about device usage. The New York City Department of Education famously overturned previous mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on phones after businesses popped up in the form of trucks parked outside schools, charging students to store their devices during the day — an enterprise that racked up over $4 million a year.

Is there any clear evidence one way or the other?

There is not a lot of agreement on what to do about devices in the classroom, and the research doesn’t yet provide clear answers either. A study out of the Centre for Economic Performance London School of Economics and Political Science found that test scores rose by over 6% after cell phones were banned in British high schools in Birmingham, London, Leicester, and Manchester. However, a study out of Singapore Management University determined that students whose devices were taken scored 17 percentage points lower on tests than those whose devices weren’t taken, a trend the researchers attribute to — get this — anxiety and an inability to focus caused by FOMO or Fear Of Missing Out.

Teaching responsible tech usage

Barring some kind of technological apocalypse, chances are we’re not going back to a world without technology. So to ban devices in a learning environment erases their value as learning tools and does not teach students how to be responsible device users.

Secretary general of the French teachers’ union, SGEN-CFDT, Alexis Torchet, told NBC, “The question is not about banning phones but teaching students how to use them in a sensible and reasoned manner. About 90% of students have what is basically a computer in their pockets that are often more operational than the school’s. The debate must be centered on technology education.” It’s the job of educators to usher digital native students into this new realm by teaching them social responsibility. We must teach students about cyberbullying, focus, etiquette, and safety. As young people enter a work world teeming with technology, to delete devices from their education can seem foolish.

Engaging a new generation

Many of today’s teachers didn’t grow up on social media, with cell phones, or even with the Internet. In the past 20 years, humanity has quickly evolved to integrate technology deeply into our lives, and education systems that largely operate just as they did at the turn of the 20th-century risk becoming obsolete if they don’t evolve as well.

Stephen diFilipo, a digital education consultant, told Ed Tech Magazine that devices represent independence and a connection to the modern world for youth — much like getting one’s first car. “To take that away from [students] during the class period is deconstructing their world. Now you’ve walled off your learning environment from the rest of their world.”

New modes of learning

Not shockingly, students want to use technology as part of their learning process. An Educause Learning Environment Preferences survey noted that students prefer using technology to learn and that 54% of students often use at least two devices simultaneously for school work. Enter any college classroom and you’re likely to view a sea of laptops, with students typing away taking notes. Never before have students been able to access information more quickly or more thoroughly. What used to take hours at a library, chasing down titles and skimming through encyclopedias now takes seconds.

And a new world of 21st-century skills has emerged. Learners can now Skype with experts, chat with primary sources, and watch video tutorials to understand just about anything. No longer is the classroom teacher the keeper and dispenser of all knowledge. Devices can help make learning more self-directed, inquiry-based, and much faster. The trick is for educators to adapt more engaging modes of teaching and learning, steering away from lecture-based teaching and into more hands-on, collaborative learning.

SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) is a framework created by Dr. Ruben Puentedura (2006) to help teachers integrate technology into classroom learning in meaningful ways that go beyond merely substituting old tools for tech tools — like substituting a laptop for a notebook to take notes. The framework shows how students can amplify and complexify their skills acquisition via technology — like redefining the understanding of Shakespeare through an original film production.

Check out the SAMR Padagogy Wheel by Allan Carrington for a list of apps and how they connect to the SAMR progression.

Special accommodations

While sweeping bans feel like an easy way to curb the issues associated with technology integration, they leave out and call out those who depend on technology to assist in their learning or day-to-day living. If students require devices for disabilities, they must, of course, be able to use them.

Banning technology for everyone except disabled students brings up issues of equity — singling out those who need devices. According to the American Bar Association, “Under the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act), students do not have to disclose their disability to other students and when professors have a ‘no- laptops-unless’ policy, it forces the student to choose privacy over learning.”

Where do we go from here?

The National Center for Education Statistics says that we are trending away from device bans. Their survey reports that the number of public schools banning devices fell from nearly “91 percent in 2009 through 2010 to nearly 66 percent in 2015 through 2016.” The initial frenzy of device backlash may be waning, but if educators don’t shift their practices to truly integrate technology into the learning process in meaningful ways, we risk not preparing students for a new 21st-century world.

Leslie A. Wilson, the chief executive officer of the One-to-One Institute, a nonprofit that consults with schools on Ed Tech told Ed Week, “There’s nothing transformative about every kid having an iPad unless you’re able to reach higher-order teaching and learning. If schools take all this technology and use it as a textbook, or just have teachers show PowerPoint [presentations] or use drill-and-kill software, they might as well not even have it.” The focus now should be on training both pre-service and in-service teachers to integrate technology authentically and to develop policies and curriculum that teach students digital responsibility.

Educators can seek out in-service professional development programs to elevate their teaching through responsible, meaningful, and cutting-edge technology-integrated teaching and learning.

The next step is to search and read similiar discussion in Chinese.

BBC 2016: 大家談中國:「高中生帶手機被勸退」背後有何真問題?今年3月初,河北滄州市第一中學(下稱滄州一中)12名高中生因在校攜帶或使用手機陸續被勸退,引起熱議。隨著社會的飛速發展,手機早已從奢侈品變成生活必需品,絕大多數學生家長都有經濟能力為自己的孩子配備手機。高中生帶手機已經成為一個具有普遍性的社會問題,如何應對高中生帶手機問題,已經成為困擾大多數高中學校的一大「難題」。據筆者了解,在不少高中,都對高中生帶手機問題持禁止態度,一般情況下,如果高中生帶手機進校園,第一次被發現的話,就要面臨「停課回家反省7天」的嚴厲懲罰,假如該名高中生不思悔改,第二次帶手機進校園又被發現的話,基本上都要面臨被勸退的命運。該如何理性審視「高中生帶手機被勸退」問題?筆者認為,至少應該從以下「三個為什麼」和「一個怎麼辦」入手。首先,高中生為什麼要帶手機進校園?這是探尋解決「高中生帶手機」問題的起源。如前文所述,從經濟因素考量,目前絕大多數高中生的家庭都已經具備給孩子配置手機的條件。但是,這不能成為高中生帶手機進校園的原因。那麼,高中生帶手機進校園的目的是什麼呢?這才是問題的關鍵。不可否認,不少學生家長為了方便聯繫,及時掌握孩子的學習生活情況,對學校禁止學生帶手機的規定「陽奉陰違」,這也是可以理解的。但是,如果僅僅是為了滿足聯繫交流的需要的話,完全可以採取其它方式,比如校園公用電話亭等就可以很好地滿足這個需要。需要注意的是,高中生帶手機進校園,由於自身自製力差等原因,不排除使用手機上網娛樂,影響正常學習的情況,甚至還有可能引發盲目攀比等不好的現象。總之,從高中生為什麼要帶手機進校園的角度進行分析,無法得出高中生必須要帶手機進校園的結論。其次,高中學校為什麼禁止高中生帶手機進校園?有人會問,大學生帶手機不是很自由嗎?為何不讓高中生也帶手機?這就要分析一下大學生與高中生的區別了。誠然,大學生與高中生都是充滿活力的年輕人,但是,必須承認,無論是從年齡還是心理、自製力等各個因素進行比較的話,高中生與大學生都不能同日而語。況且,大學生帶手機進課堂已經引發了不少質疑,有的高校已經實行了大學生上課之前自覺上交手機的制度,那麼,對於面臨巨大的高考升學壓力的高中學校和高中生來說,為了全力以赴一心一意地投入到學習中去,不帶手機進校園幾乎毫無疑義。而且,如果對學生帶手機問題聽之任之的話,影響其他同學學習、干擾課堂秩序、引發管理混亂等惡果都會一一齣現!為了照顧大多數人的利益,絕大多數高中都對高中生帶手機問題持禁止態度。第三,高中學校為什麼要對帶手機進校園的學生處以「勸退」的嚴厲懲罰?「人非聖賢,孰能無過。」「懲前毖後,治病救人。」學校是教育人的專門機構,懲罰不是目的。事實上,嚴格地說,並不是所有高中都對帶手機的高中生處以「勸退」的。一般情況下,第一次發現的話,都要給一次改過自新的機會。關於「勸退」,目前在我國的九年義務教育學校,小學六年初中三年,除重大違紀情況外(如違反國家法律、危害民族利益等行為)是不允許勸退的。而高中三年,由於目前並不屬於國家義務教育規定範圍內,所以學校是有權利對學生進行勸退的,一般情況下,校方會根據學生一學期或一年的違紀情況對其進行適當處理,超過一定的底線會對學生進行勸退。勸退後,一般會被要求寫檢討書,在家進行反省,反省期間不允許返校。經過家長、班主任、組內主任、學校主任確定其確實已經進行深刻反省以後,可以考慮准許回校學習。其實,「勸退」也是學校的無奈之舉。「國有國法,家有家規。」「沒有規矩,不成方圓。」良好的紀律是學習能夠取得預期效果的保證。沒有家長會願意把孩子送到一個紀律不好的學校的。因此,學校都對紀律有嚴格要求,為嚴格學校管理,教育學生自覺履行教育法律法規規定的義務,規範學生處分程序,學校往往會根據《教育法》、《未成年人保護法》、《預防未成年人犯罪法》等法律、法規及學籍管理規定, 處分學生也要遵循依法、公正、教育從先、保護學生合法權益、非歧視、嚴格控制受處分人數的原則。事實上,學校對違反紀律的學校的處罰手段也是非常有限的,一般來說,對小學生的處分為包括警告、嚴重警告、記過;對初中學生的處分為包括警告、嚴重警告、記過、記大過;對普通高中學生的處分包括警告、嚴重警告、記過、留校察看、開除學籍等。一個不爭的事實是,當高中生在畢業之際,如果其在校期間曾經受過學校處分的話,一般情況下,這些處分可能都會自動取消。因此,從這個角度去理解的話,「勸退」也並非「洪水猛獸」,因為高中生帶手機被勸退的話,不至於面臨失學的危險,數量可觀的各類公辦、民辦高中都為其提供了足夠的挑選餘地。因此,在筆者看來,有些人為被勸退的帶手機的高中生而過分擔憂,其實是杞人憂天,大可不必。最後,對於高中生帶手機問題,該怎麼辦?對於高中生帶手機進校園,有沒有比勸退更好的處理辦法?其實,嚴格地說,「高中禁止學生帶手機」的說法是很不嚴謹的。其實,在現實生活中,很多高中學校的通常做法是,原則上不允許學生帶手機到校,但是,如果由於種種原因,高中生事實上還是把手機帶到了學校,在這種情況下,學校一般都會要求學生把手機交給班主任老師代為保管,在需要時再向班主任老師提出申請。這樣無形中加大了班主任老師的工作量,但是,在當前的現實語境中,應該不失為一條解決高中生帶手機問題的有效途徑。總而言之,對於當下引起廣泛關注和討論的「高中生帶手機被勸退」事件,我們應該全分析,理性思考,提出更多建設性的、可操作性較強的建議,共同努力促成此類問題的圓滿解決。如此,則善莫大焉!本文不代表BBC的立場和觀點。網友如要發表評論,請使用下表:(責編:董樂)

網友反饋

我現在正是高中生,我也是在上課的時候發的這個評論,其實我感覺主要是高中假期不多,接觸外面的事物有限,有時只能通過手機獲取。可能你會問為什麼不從書本(雜誌)上獲取,一是老師管的比較嚴,上課看書只能看資料書,下課的時候可以看雜誌,但是下課根本沒有多少時間看。特別是住宿生,只有星期日那半天假期,根本不夠玩,大部分都是採購一星期的用品。愛玩的同學所以就把手機帶進學校玩了。儘管老師繳了一個又一個,還是有同學帶,這就是治標不治本。

Montessori Way: 學校如何規範青少年手機使用?蒙特梭利這樣

流傳百年,培育出亞馬遜創辦人貝佐斯、谷歌創始人布林與佩奇,大提琴家馬友友等人的蒙特梭利教育,怎麼看待手機這個科技物?美國哈德森蒙特梭利中學校長亞當這麼說:讓國中生更專注於與人互動,才是學習的重點。

青少年用手機容易沉迷於手遊、社交軟體,一不小心就養成手機癮,但手機的功能多、互動性強,也可以是助於學習的工具。談起手機、總是有各種面向的爭論,怎麼做對學生比較好,也是許多老師的困惑。

3月初,由國立政治大學蒙特梭利全球影響力計畫,毅宇未來教育基金會與台灣實驗教育推動中心共同主辦的「以場域為本的蒙特梭利青少年教育」工作坊,邀請美國哈德森蒙特梭利學校中學校長亞當‧雷得(Adam Ladd)與該校國中部人文科老師凱莉‧雷得(Kelly Ladd)分享蒙特梭利中學教學經驗。

流傳百年,培育出亞馬遜創辦人貝佐斯、谷歌創始人布林與佩奇等人的蒙特梭利教育,讓許多人好奇。國內的蒙特梭利教育多停留在幼兒、小學階段,而這次的工作坊以蒙特梭利青少年教育為主題,也吸引了台灣各地的蒙特梭利教育工作者。

工作坊的提問環節相當踴躍。其中,學員接連提出了幾道「手機題」:蒙特梭利教育會讓孩子用手機嗎?有沒有可能將手機融入到蒙特梭利系統裡?除了要孩子把手機收起來,還有什麼更好的引導方式 ?講師回應了在蒙特梭利中學的做法與身為蒙特梭利者的教育觀:

1. 控制青少年使用手機的時機

在哈德森蒙特梭利中學,校方會控管學生的手機使用時機。學生可以攜帶手機,但是到校後需要將手機關機並鎖在櫃子裡。亞當指出,當學生對螢幕連結太深時,會影響到他們對其他事情的注意力,更形容中學生使用手機會是個「災難」,他表示學生常是手機的消費者,像是玩snapchat、instagram,而非創造者、透過手機做有意義的事。

蒙特梭利將兒童發展為成人(0~24歲)的過程分為4個階段,並歸類出孩子在每階段不同的心理特質、智力與體能發展等。亞當認為,國中生接觸手機還太早,應該等到高中,因為就發展來看,高中生的大腦較能做出明智抉擇,這時便能引導他們如何在有限度的時間內使用手機。 (看更多:哈佛大學研究:關鍵不是幾歲給青少年手機,而是有沒有做到這9件事

2. 別讓手機取代與同儕的互動

凱莉介紹,哈德森蒙特梭利中學過去在校外教學時,學校會租舊式、無法連網的貝殼機讓學生連絡用,但現在已經租不到貝殼機了,因此今年的校外教學,校方將首次讓學生攜帶智慧型手機,不過也只能放在包包裡、參觀時不能使用,晚上老師也會把手機收回來保管。

亞當說明,校外教學想設計給孩子的學習環境,就是希望學生能夠離開家庭生活,並且與同儕互動,但如果有手機介入,學生就能和其他人連絡、心思不在當下,如此一來便會佔用與同伴真切相處的時間。

3. 移除手機,讓孩子練習專注與投入體驗

手機的「方便」用途,像是可以用google map查地圖、拍照做紀錄等,或許不是蒙特梭利老師們在教學時的第一考量。就像相較用google map,亞當會讓學生在校外參觀前先畫出地圖,培養學生的方向感與地理位置關係。他也提到,實際上路時,學生應該要靠著自己畫出來的地圖來走,而非讓google map告訴他們哪邊要左轉、右轉。

亞當舉例,先前他帶著學生到紐約校外教學時,發現學生走錯路了,但他容許學生們犯錯,「除非我們可能會錯失百老匯的秀,不然就讓學生理解自己走錯路、再做修正。這樣當然不方便,但他們必須要有這樣的體驗,專注投入去做這些事。」亞當如此說。

4. 須訂定手機使用規範

不只亞當,也有其他的蒙特梭利學校建議讓孩子晚一點再接觸科技。美國伊利諾州的一所蒙特梭利學校Forest Bluff School在學校網站上發布一篇蒙特梭利對青少年使用科技的指南。

內文指出,有太多青少年的父母苦於孩子對科技上癮。文章提及,高中生較有能力能夠面對抽象的科技世界,經過學校的中學教育,學生對於溝通的線索與如何精確表達有些經驗了,高中時也比較能夠判斷虛擬世界的訊息。校方也建議父母給孩子手機或電腦時,將這些科技工具定位成是學習的工具,與孩子訂下使用的規範。(看更多:智慧型手機愈用愈憂鬱?5建議幫助孩子放下手機

參與過蒙特梭利中學課程培訓的台灣實驗教育推動中心計畫主持人、政大教育系副教授鄭同僚說明,蒙特梭利教育著重孩子的感官發展,會避免他們被聲光刺激較強的外物吸引,因為在這樣的情況下,孩子就無法深刻運用感官感受與外在的互動,也會影響到孩子的注意力。

蒙特梭利教育者對於手機的看法,也許不太會受青少年歡迎,但暫緩手機使用的用意,仍是希望讓學生建立真誠互動,打開感官,豐富生命體驗。

天下雜誌:如果禁帶手機上學 孩子成績會變好 你贊成嗎?

如果禁帶手機上學 孩子成績會變好 你贊成嗎?
國內少部分學校不准學生在校期間隨身帶著手機,引起不少學生和家長的反彈。但有研究發現,不讓孩子帶手機上學,尤其是智慧型手機,確實有助於孩子的學業。
國內研究顯示,有高達八成的國中生帶手機上學,且高達九成都是智慧型手機。有些學生只要沒帶手機。就會渾身不對勁,上課無法專心。到底該不該讓學生帶手機上課?幾乎全世界都曾經或還在為這問題爭論。有些家長會希望能連絡上孩子,老師則多抱怨學生因手機不專心上課。美國紐約市長白思豪3月解除全市學校奉行10年的手機禁令,讓各校自行制定規則。在台灣,教育部訂定的「校園攜帶行動電話使用規範原則」,允許中小學生帶手機到學校,但禁止在上課時間使用。罰則則授權各校自訂,但鼓勵學校以勸導代替記警告或記過。台灣現在極少有學校禁止學生帶手機到校,少部分私立學校有些規定較嚴,雖不禁止帶手機到校,但採取進教室前統一收走學生手機,放學再發還。臺北私立復興小學則嚴禁小學生帶手機到校,臺北市私立東山高中要求學生在校內關機,否則記小過處分。臺北市私立延平中學、高雄市立旗山國中都規定學生到校後必須關機到放學才能使用,臺南市立崇明國中除非事先申請,禁帶手機。但有研究發現,禁止學生帶手機,效果等於每週在學校多留1小時,對成績差的孩子尤其有效。根據英國倫敦政經學院最新研究,學校禁止學生帶手機到學校後,學生考試成績顯著改善。研究學者墨菲(Richard Murphy)和比蘭德(Louis-Philippe Beland)說:「我們發現禁止這些學生帶手機的效果,等同每週讓他們在學校多待1小時,或每學年增加5天在校時間。」學者檢視2001年以來英格蘭91所學校手機政策的變化,比較16歲學生在全國考試的表現,對象包括13萬名學生。研究發現,禁止使用手機的學校,學生成績提升6.4%。在學習成績低於一般水平的學生身上,效果更顯著許多,他們平均考試成績升高了14%。學者說:「結果顯示,成績不佳的學生更可能因手機分心,而成績好的學生不管學校有沒有管制手機,都能在教室專心學習。」墨菲和比蘭德說,這不代表手機及其他科技沒辦法促進學習,只是學生可能會受到傳簡訊、打手機遊戲或上社群網站聊天的誘惑。

校園禁不禁學生使用手機?

法國調查十二歲至十七歲青少年,高達九成三擁有手機,造成青少年對手機有依賴性,甚至成癮。為避免學習分心、網路霸凌、過早接觸色情等,法國國民議會(下議院)日前通過「戒癮」法案,預計於今年九月起,除教育目的外,全面禁止十五歲以下的幼兒園、小學、中學學生在學校任何一處使用手機,即使是休息時間也不例外,但並未提出違反規定時的罰則說明。針對校園禁不禁手機的議題,國內學者、家長、教師及學生都有不同的聲音。

iWIN網路內容安全防護機構指出,我國逾八成兒少擁有智慧型手持裝置,年齡越大比率越高,國小高年級為七成二,高中則達九成五。有五成兒少遇過網路危險行為,兩成兒少曾做過不當行為,如辱罵或嘲笑他人。

國內未明文禁止
教育部在「校園攜帶行動電話使用規範原則」中,未禁止中小學學生帶手機到校,但要求上下課時間、早自習、午休等時間儘量關機,如果需要使用,應向教師報告後才能開機使用,相關罰則授權各校自訂。
高雄市中山國小教師郭蓉認為,兒少使用手機時,常衍生網路霸凌、個資安全等問題,帶手機到校園,也會因貧富差距而產生比較心態,上學時實在沒必要使用手機,也許放學去安親班或其他地方,才有聯絡家長的需求;此外,她會利用網路、科技媒材當學習工具,融入各科教學中,學生如果有需要智慧型裝置,學校會提供,不須自行攜帶。

學校管理需依據
臺灣家長教育聯盟理事長謝國清表示,他不主張小孩使用手機,贊同法國的規定,但家長仍擔心兒少在外會有危險,如果臺灣提出類似法案要有配套措施,讓孩子沒有手機也能與家長聯繫。
身為幼兒園教師及家長的江蕙如則說,這個年紀的孩子自制力不足,需要師長介入,但每個人對於規範的認知不同,如果能有詳細法規讓學校遵循,教師就不會無所適從或難以對家長交代,畢竟家長也許贊成在學校不能使用手機,但對於教師的管理方式卻不一定能全盤接受,教師如果觸碰到學生私人物品,很可能惹上麻煩。

在家使用不受限
清大教育心理與諮商學系助理教授李昆樺表示,過去網路成癮研究是針對上網時間及頻率進行調查,認為使用時間、頻率越高,會產生憂鬱、焦慮、注意力缺陷等,後來的研究發現網路使用的內容才是成癮關鍵,則著重在「線上遊戲成癮」的研究;法國法案是治標不治本,國內曾做過調查,發現中小學學生使用網路的地點多在家裡,且使用時間,假日多於平時,可見規定校園禁用手機,不如鼓勵家長規畫假期內容。另外,在網路時代,越來越多教師使用網路進行教學,與其禁止,不如教導學生正確使用觀念及使用時間,學會自律、監控自我,如果擔心兒少使用內容,也可以透過軟體加以限制,而非全天候禁止使用手機。

學生偷用不勝防
剛升高一的袁祥恩說,之前國中有規定不能在校使用手機,如果被發現就會被沒收,但同學上課覺得無聊時,仍會偷偷使用,規定也是防不勝防;輔導課曾獲得教師允許,使用手機查找資料,因此他認為不需要立法,只要教師與學生之間共同訂定規範遵守即可,但他也強調,大人在限制兒少時,也應以身作則。
教育觀察家謝宇程表示,科技是中性的,單看如何運用,學生可能是先分心,對課堂內容感到無興趣才使用手機,教師應設法帶動學習興趣;網路時代,學會使用手機功能也是一種能力,如打字、攝影、剪接、畫圖等,善用這些技能,也能讓它成為好工具。

Debate

謝謝主席,老師,同學們,大家好!我方的觀點是中學生應該帶手機到校園”  

在討論這個問題之前,我們有必要先瞭解一下手機的用途和給我們中學生帶來的好處。

手機作為一種現代化的即時通訊工具,無時無刻充實、方便著我們的生活成為我們即時與家長溝通的必備生活工具。想想我們是否遇到過這樣的窘境:當我們放學回家時,突然大雨傾盆而下,無論是走在路上的我們還是遠方為我們擔心的父母,心裡都十分焦急。這時,手機就向我們和父母之間的紐帶般瞬間減輕了親人們對我們的擔憂。當然在遇到很多意外極端情况時,遇上了歹徒、不法分子等突然事件時,手機就更會成為我們的救命工具。

其次,21世紀是資訊高度發達的時代,手機已不僅僅是單純狹義的通信功能了我們欣喜地看到小小的一個手機已融合了諸多功能,成為我們學習的助手,生活的幫手,諸如字典,小算盘,記事本等等。我想這些大家都是同感深受了吧。 當然又有同學會擔憂中學生的自製力差會使手機成為影響學習的工具而提議絕對地禁止手機被帶入校園。那麼我們就需要靜下心來審視自己,是手機所帶來的壞處影響到我們正常的學習,還是我們某些同學自身的個別問題沒有讓手機發揮其長處而成了壞處了呢?水是我們生活的必需,但是也可以淹死人,難道說我們囙此就要遠離水嗎?我想這是弱者的回答吧? 

為了逃避可能發生的困難就一味地拒絕而不去想想我們是否應該去學習游泳,瞭解水性,使水被我們所用,成為水的征服者和享受者呢?此外,在對我校不同班級及部外校的調查中,被調查的學生中有74.4%的同學平時帶手機到校,且可以自覺做到在校上課期間保證關機狀態。囙此如何使學生們能不斷提高自製力,合理使用手機,讓手機發揮長處,才是我們需要深入討論的問題。

同時允許學生帶手機進校園也完全符合我校以空氣養人的辦學理念:讓我們在這種有如空氣般,無形、無味、無痕,卻無處不在、無時不在的有效制度下,潜移默化的、日積月累地培養提高我們的自製能力,讓高科技能有效地為我們所用,做一個時代的追隨者,而不是膽怯地一味禁止,成為新時代的拒絕者。

1.影響學習? 

現在是個資訊時代,時代在發展。(手機,象徵著時代的進步)現在是個資訊時代,時代在發展,中學生用手機很正常,是一種時代潮流,再過個8年或10年,肯定絕大多數學生擁有手機。就像我們當時用手錶一樣,由稀奇到普通。所以我也不認為學生用手機會影響學習,如果認為玩遊戲、發短信不利於學習,那麼就算禁止學生用手機,學生還是會做其他的事打發時間,比如聽隨身聽,關鍵是學生的道德自律,懂得尊重他人,不影響他人的學習.如果用刀可能殺人, 那麼世界上為了避免殺人情况發生,就不再生產刀具了嗎? 不讓學生帶手機就永遠無法讓他們學習如何克制自己,而且這也是治標不治本的。在過去沒有手機年代,一些調皮的學生照樣不珍惜學業,况且筆、尺子、書本,這些學習用具也有可能變成學生們手中的玩具,難道說在課上轉筆、玩尺子會影響學生們的聽課效率我們就要禁止學生使用筆和尺子嗎?    

2,攀比? 

在手機出現在校園以前,學生同樣存在會以別的物品來攀比許多同學拿名牌衣服做攀比,那是不是我們都不用穿衣服了?所以我們根本沒必要把攀比的始作俑者的帽子扣在手機上。那麼我們可不可以戴手錶?如果是引發盜竊和搶劫,那麼我們可不可以帶錢?

3,手機輻射? 

輻射是自然界中一切物體,只要溫度在絕對溫度攝氏零度以上,都會以電磁波的形式時刻不停地向外傳送熱量,這種傳送能量的管道稱為輻射。在我們的生活中,輻射無處不在,比如紫外線、紅外線等等,而人們都沒有囙此而受到傷害,就是因為接受到的輻射並未過量。對於手機輻射也是一樣,只要我們使用不過量,就不會受到很大的傷害。世界衛生組織一篇關於手機輻射的闡述。其中說到,在近來的所有回顧中都沒有結論表明暴露於行动电话或基站所形成的射頻場中會對人體健康產生不良的影響。

侵犯同學受教育的權利以及老師的授課權? 

  不在上課時開機,首先就不會發生這類問題。再者,我們已經不是小孩子了,難道說為了保證學習質量就要懷疑我們的自製能力麼?要是這麼說的話,那麼大家都去上幼儿園好了,身邊的一切都是受到束縛的。照這麼說,大學生也不應該帶手機了,因為沒有人能給一個100%的保證啊! 。我們不能墨守成規。而應發展的看待問題,以好好學習為根本目的,開拓更多的通路為學習這一根本要務服務。  

5.能保證自己的自製能力嗎? 

  正如我方之前所言,正是通過這種管道不僅可以培養同學們的自製力又可以提高同學們接受新事物的能力。如果一味的只是强行禁止,也不見得會起到作用,在青春期逆反心理,你不讓他帶他偏帶,會適得其反。相反,給彼此一個空間,放寬約束,保證上課時間不開機,既能鍛煉能力,又能培養好習慣,不是一舉兩得?不光如此,把手機帶進校園還可以成為一種讓學生養成良好自覺性的管道。正如我校以空氣養人的辦學理念:讓學生們學會時時刻刻克制自己的欲望,如何正確的使用手機,如何利用手機這種高科技電子工具來學習,培養學生利用高科技接觸新鮮事物的能力和素養讓這種無形的教育潜移默化的,日積月累,如同空氣一樣,無形、無味、無痕,卻無處不在、無時不在,時時刻刻滋養著每一個學生的心靈。   

科技方面: 

面對學校外面層出不窮的新生事物,無論是家庭、學校還是社會,都應該客觀地讓學生認知和接受,認識科技的重要作用。  隨著現在家庭生活的富裕,帶個手機已不算什麼了。如果我們擺正心態,不將手機看成一種高檔消費品,就像手錶、電子詞典一樣,又何來這一說法呢?攀比不是因為手機才出現的,更不會因為學生不使用手機攀比就不存在了。手機短信涉黃毒害學生更是不成立了,在現在網絡時代,黃色的傳播還有比互聯網更厲害的嗎?這麼說,我們是否應該禁止學生接觸電腦接觸網絡了呢?  手機是帶給人類的高科技產品,是傳遞資訊最方便最快捷的現代電子工具,本身並無利弊之處,關鍵在於我們要教育學生健康、文明的心態來合理的使用手機,讓學生具備自律意識。不僅可以使學生使用手機走上正常的軌道,還可以讓學生認識手機這高科技產品的實際意義。

***********

Negative

一、校園裏學生普遍使用手機

最近,我發現在校園裏學生佔半數以上都有手機,雖然學校方面禁止帶手機回校,但是同學們仍然我行我素,管他個三七二十一把手機帶回學校。根據統計,一個宿舍12人,擁有手機8人,佔66%,帶手機回校有6人,佔50%。由此可見,帶手機回校成爲了一種普遍、流行、時尚的現象。

二、帶手機回校的弊端

如果學生家中買得起手機,那麼相信這位學生所就讀的學校是一所不會差到哪裏去的學校。現在教育局已經下令,讓中小學都安裝設置校園通訊機。一所不會差到哪裏去的學校更是要好好完成這個命令。在中小學中,每個學生都會有一張通訊卡,有事可以隨時打電話給家人,且通訊卡在每一部通訊機上都管用,且免費使用。如果說,通訊機不能撥打家庭固定電話,那麼可以購買一張200卡,每分鐘2毛錢,不貴,適合我們中學生使用。所以,帶手機回校又是何苦呢?費錢又費電。

作爲一個學生,在學校的交際就只有同學和老師,試問帶手機回校是要聯絡什麼人呢?用得着動用得上手機嗎?如果說家長有急事要找孩子,那麼可以通過老師來轉達。作爲一箇中學生,我們都寄宿在學校裏面,帶手機回校會增加我們對家長的依賴性。家長送孩子來學校,是什麼目的?不就是爲了讓孩子能夠養成獨立的習慣,將來更好的立足於社會嗎?若一個學生帶手機回校,那麼有什麼事也求助於父母,能養成獨立性嗎?家長都望子成龍,望女成鳳。要成材,必須要成人。一個人連自己都不能照顧自己,將來怎麼去服務大衆呢?一部手機,可以決定兒女對父母的依賴程度,希望各同學與父母深思。

我認爲,帶手機回校是一種鋪張浪費。從上述觀點可看出中學生沒有必要帶手機回校。因爲地球資源正逐日減少,所以,教育局要求各校學生要養成勤儉節約的習慣。既然沒有必要帶手機回校,學生又何必與學校作對呢?學校何嘗不是爲了學生好?帶手機回校:①買手機要錢;②交電話費要錢;③要充電也要錢等等。這種種例子不是說明了手機是一種吃喝拉撒都要錢的東西麼?勤儉節約,從小事做起。難道連不買手機,不帶手機,不用手機這點小小要求對於我們中學生來說過分嗎?

相信肯定有人會說,手機可以方便學習。是嗎?那請看一下週圍帶手機回校的同學,他們是真的有在利用手機學習嗎?不是吧。相信帶手機回校的同學都是一些不遵守學校紀律,無視學校校規的同學。他們可能利用手機學習嗎?如果不是,那請看他們在用手機幹什麼?上課發短信與男女朋友約會?考試發短信作弊?午休上QQ聊天娛樂?收發不良信息打發消遣時間?呵呵,這就是你們口中的方便學習嗎?這根本就是在害他們!上課不認真;考試搞作弊;課後談戀愛;該休息不休息;利用手機惡搞!難道他們在學習?這一部小小的手機,使學生淪陷敗壞,爲什麼你們認爲還要帶手機回校?明知故犯可不是什麼好事情!

另外,對學生的注意力也有很大影響,大多數學生自制力都不好,若在學習或者上課或者寫作業時突然來了電話或者短信,就一定會分心的,就算沒有那上課時候也會下意識的看看有沒有漏接的電話或者短信。有的甚至無休無止的上課打遊戲,好象買個手機就是爲了玩遊戲似的,如此不良影響,你們怎麼看待呢?

以上陋點姑且不說,我們來談談手機的輻射。據中國室內裝飾協會室內環境監測工作委員會的趙玉峯教授介紹,手機輻射對人的頭部危害較大,它會對人的中樞神經系統造成機能性障礙,引起頭痛、頭昏、失眠、多夢和脫髮等症狀,有的人面部還會有刺激感。在美國和日本,已有不少懷疑因手機輻射而導致腦瘤的案例。去年7月,美國馬里蘭州一名患腦癌的男子認爲使用手機使他患上了癌症,於是對手機制造商提起了訴訟。這個例子,可以明確地說出手機對人體輻射的危害。手機輻射,會讓人減少壽命,對心臟不好,有可能會得心臟病,對頭腦,皮膚也不好。嚴重時老年會出現老年癡呆症。所以,我們作爲一箇中學生,這麼早就使用手機,對身體造成的健康隱患不可忽視啊。所以我方認爲中學生還是不要帶手機回校的好,如果可以,儘量不要使用手機。

使用手機最大的隱患,是對學生造成的心理健康問題。不論是初中,高中,大學生,很多學生都喜歡和同學們攀比手機,以有一個好的手機爲榮,同學之間平時也很喜歡討論手機,學生對手機的瞭解很專業,什麼型號的手機多少錢,有什麼功能都知道。有的學生本來的手機還可以用,但是不知道爲什麼過一陣就要換一個新的手機。而且有些學生的家裏並不是很富裕。學生總是礙於面子,在背後撒嬌、強逼父母給自己買手機來攀比。相信不少中學都蔓延着這股手機流行風。其實我認爲吧,作爲一名新世紀的學生,只要做好自己的就夠了。政治老師不是說過,要養成自尊人格,必須拋棄愚蠢的攀比心理和表面的虛榮嗎?學生,重要的是學習,至於這些攀比呀,錢財問題呀,長大之後自己有能力再說吧。

根據資料報道,在廣東省佛山市高明區的某所中學,學校對學生帶手機回校睜一隻眼,閉一隻眼。一個女學生,帶了一部超新款超時尚的手機回校,在衆多宿舍成員面前炫耀自己的新手機,其實就是從側面炫耀自己家都有錢。另一個女生,看了她的手機這麼有誘惑力,制止不住自己,就想辦法去偷那位女生的手機。那位女生髮現自己的手機不見了之後,學校老師、宿舍生活老師馬上來查。偷手機的女生被發現後,因爲很自卑,而且覺得自己沒臉見別人,就選擇跳樓自殺。一部手機,可以害死一個女生,一個花季女生。這不是攀比心理和虛榮所害是什麼?我認爲帶手機回校的女生也是做得不好,既然知道自己的手機新潮,就應該低調點,她炫耀什麼?炫耀家裏有錢?那只是她父母的錢,不是她的錢她憑什麼炫耀?老師告訴我們,不要去炫耀別人的東西,也不要去嫉妒別人所擁有的東西。總之做好自己的本分,管好自己的野心,就夠了。

三、如何避免帶手機回校現象

根據以上論點和論據,我們可以看出帶手機回校的危害性。我認爲,能夠使學生不帶手機回校,只有校方的控制與家長的教育。學校應該多宣傳手機的危害性,警戒同學們切勿帶手機回校,應該加強管理力度與懲罰制度,令學生望而生禁。在另外一方面,家長應該多教導孩子,關注孩子使用手機的用途,禁止孩子帶手機回校,採取等一系列做法。

我相信在家長和校方的雙重夾擊下,帶手機回校現象會有所減少!

****************

[正方一辯】手機是時代科技發展的產物,其目的是為了提高人們溝通的方便。當前手機在國內發展的速度和普及率就證明了人們對手機的需求.科技的發展就是為人們服務的,既然有先進的科技可以用,為什麼要禁止呢?再者,手機如今有許許多多的功能:手機是一種很快捷又方便的聯系工具;又是一種不錯的消遣工具。手機已成為我們生活中必 要的工具。這些都證明了手機明顯是利大於弊的!所以我方堅決認為,中學生使用手機一定 是利大於弊的。謝謝  

【正方二辯】隨著手機的應用和普及,中職生擁有手機的數量越來越多,我們相信這種趨勢還會持續下去,因為這是社會的進步。而伴隨手機的普及,手機的應用功能也越來越多,手機上網也稀鬆平常。這更為中職生接觸社會、瞭解社會開闢了新的途徑。試問,我們的社會需要的是一心只讀聖賢書的考試機器,還是能够融入社會、有所作為的人呢?再者,僅從手機通信這方面講,難道中學生就不能加强與親戚朋友的聯系嗎?難道與父母兄 弟表達一下感情都有錯?手機的便利必將惠及所有的中職生。手機科技的迅速發展給人們帶來了快捷與方便,但對方便辯友卻認為手機使用是弊大 於利的。我想請問對方辯友:沒有手機的日子裏,光有電話,你會知道那麼多的事情嗎?人找你有急事,不知道你在那,打你家固話,你在外面,找不到,怎麼辦?沒有手機的日子裏,當你遇到了緊急事情不知所措時,又怎麼辦?

[正方三辯】請問對方辯友既然手機的弊處那麼多,為什麼還要生產那麼多手機呢? 

【正方四辯】請問對方辯友如果你在上學的路上發生了交通意外,旁邊只有你和與你相撞的人,這時手機可以幫到你,請問手機好還是不好? 

【正方五辯】到了高中階段,不少同學都需要住宿,一周才可以回家一次,思家之情不言而喻,而手機在此時便可以起到穩定學生情緒的作用,如果父母擔心,一個電話,一條簡訊,都可以帶著濃濃的親情,傳遞到親人的手中,送來關切與安心;從使用手機的現狀來看,我們總結出中職生使用手機有利的方面: ①與以前同學多交流,可以保持原有的友誼;與現在同學多交流,可以增進友誼,遇到疑難問題時,可以用手機進行討論。②一些手機的拍攝功能,可以隨時拍下一些有意義有價值的東西。③手機的鬧鐘裝置,可以隨時使用④通話記錄功能, 手機不像家裡的電話一樣不在家的時候別人打電話來不知道,在手機裏是有記錄的。方便查閱。⑤手機的本身小巧玲瓏,占很小的面積可以隨身攜帶。⑥當學生外出遊玩或在其他地方 遇到危險時可以及時向家長,老師或警詧求助。⑦學生可以通過手機及時與家長聯系,也可以向老師彙報學習等。總之它能方便聯絡,方便使用,可以通簡迅,非常輕便。(這些觀點選擇 說一些。)

Mini Debate Asia team development

Having recently returned from Debate Asia, I want to share with you my thoughts on where I would like to take this.  My DDs (13 & 16) and I had a wonderful time participating in Debate Asia at the B team level (16 & below basically).   Here are links to my blog entry: highlights of first debate & team video.  There were 32 teams across Asia but one team could not make it to Taiwan due to visa issue, I heard.  Our team of urgently formed group of 5 debaters (who could make it to Debate Asia) had one win, one tie, and one loss.  We did better than 14 teams out of 31 teams!

However, we got lucky this time.  Our team debaters have a wide range of Chinese proficiency.  Basically, only my DDs’ Chinese are proficient enough or close to proficient enough to be competitive for Debate Asia.  Intellect is not the issue and a non-issue for our team, as most of the other team members are gifted students.  One skipped a grade and takes above level classes still, so skipping two grades basically.  Another was the president of the student government in a large middle school.  Chinese proficiency is the issue.  The coach and I did a lot of background work to get the team “ready”.  We studied the scoring rules closely and place debaters at positions that maximize their strength.  The scoring rule is in our favor this year, since the strength of the arguments weighs one third to one half of the score, this year.

We may not be so lucky next time.

Now that 2019 Debate Asia is over, I am thinking of how to get ready for 2020 Debate Asia.  There are inherent difficulty in doing so at the local level due to insufficient talents, insufficient interest, insufficient coach, and insufficient means.  It is expensive to fly to Asia for the debate.  It is difficult to find enough teens who are proficient enough in Chinese and interested in debate.  The parents need to involved and interested also.  There are few Chinese debate coaches.

What is the solution?  Chinese Mini Asia Debate teams at the local level and US Debate Asia team at the regional or national level.

First, I would like to paint the “grand” picture in my mind and my arguments (ha ha) for doing it this way.  I am not a debate coach but I have learned quite a bit as a Chinese debate parents over the last few months.

 

.

What is team debate?

Team debate is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by the topic. The clash of ideas must be communicated in a manner persuasive to the judge.  The debate should:

  1. Display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis 
  2. Utilize evidence without being driven by it
  3. Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team (rebuttal) 
  4. Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum

.

Why teach Chinese team debate?

Chinese team debate is an excellent way to teach Chinese at the next level, complementary to the usual Chinese instruction & CLE, and encompass everything that is important for language development: 

  1. (理解): Critical listening and comprehension skills in Chinese
  2. (表達): Verbalize ideas and arguments with clarity in Chinese
  3. (找資料):Research materials in English & Chinese
  4. (翻譯,整理):Organizing and writing sound arguments in English and then translating them back to Chinese or doing it in Chinese in the first place

Having the opportunity to compete in Debate Asia makes the learning process real, fun, urgent, and also useful for college application (least important, I think, but this helps greatly! ).  But other publicly verifiable debate competition format can work too.

.

Debate Asia Format

  1. Group A (16-18) & Group B (14-16 but no age minimum, so 16 & under) with Group C (13 and under) in the work for 2020
  2. Four debaters to a team at the minimum (many school teachers have close to a dozen students, with subteams for different topics)

.

Whom is Chinese team debate for?

Chinese team debate is intended for teens with Mandarin Chinese proficiency of third to fourth-grade level in China/Taiwan at the minimum, who can:

  1. Communicate activities of daily living, at least semi-fluently  
  2. Read Chinese teen/tween short stories or novels fluently.  Requiring phonetic assistance at times is acceptable. 
  3. Comfortable with read-aloud exercises
  4. Write or type in Chinese or be willing to learn to type in Chinese
  5. At this point, I would like to concentrate on 11-15 year olds who can go on to form Group B teams to compete in Debate Asia. The ages of our group B team was 12, 13, 14, 14, and 16 year olds.

.

Difficulty of teaching Chinese team debate with Debate Asia Format at the local level

  1. May not have enough people for each group at the local level
  2. May not have enough debaters in a group to form two opposing team at the local level
  3. May not have a Chinese debate coach

.

Solution around Debate Asia format

  1. Parent-driven Mini Debate Asia debate modeled after Public Forum debate (2 person team) at the local level that loosely mirrors the English counterpart
  2. Local, regional, or national level competitions in the US with parent judges (as often in the case of the regular public forum debate competition, which is my understanding)
  3. Formation of regional US or national US team for Debate Asia toward the end of the school year with regional or national coach acting as coach or advisor.  The topics are released at the end of May and competition is held in Asia at the end of July.  By that time, debaters ideally have been trained to be relatively independent in debate preparation with some parental assistance.  Through teleconference and various social media tools, the team can prepare for the debate over the summer under advicement of a coach, gather for two weeks before Debate Asia for intensive training with the coach, and then fly to Asia for the actual Debate Asia competition.

.

Public Forum Debate (English)

Wikipedia: “Public forum debate (PF) is a type of current events debate for teams of two which is the most widespread form of high school debate in the U.S. Individuals give short (2-4 minute) speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute “crossfire” sections, questions and answers between opposed debaters. The winner is determined by a judge who also serves as a referee (timing sections, penalizing incivility, etc).  The debate centers around advocating or rejecting a position, or “resolution”, which is a proposal of a potential solution to a current events issue.  Public forum is designed to be accessible to the average citizen.”

A PF debate lasts 33 minutes and can be broken down into the following:

  1. Team A: first speaker: opening speech:  4 minutes
  2. Team B: first speaker: opening speech: 4 minutes
  3. Crossfire (between first speakers): 3 minutes
  4. Team A: second speaker: rebuttal speech: 4 minutes
  5. Team B: second speaker: rebuttal speech: 4 minutes
  6. Crossfire (between second speakers): 3 minutes
  7. Team A: first speaker: summary:  2 minutes
  8. Team B: first speaker: summary: 2  minutes
  9. Grand crossfire (all speakers): 3 minutes
  10. Team A: second speaker: final focus: 2 minutes
  11. Team B: second speaker: final focus: 2 minutes

.

Proposed Mini Debate Asia format

Since Debate Asia and Public Forum have different formats, I try reworking PF debate to have features of Debate Asia. I propose the following Mini Debate Asia format for a two person team with Team A (A1 & A2 speakers) and Team B (B1 & B2 speakers) in a debate:

  1. Team A: Affirmative constructive 1正ㄧ申論:  A1: 3.5 minutes
  2. Team B: Cross examination 1 反二質詢: B2 asks A1 question: 2 minutes
  3. Team B: Negative constructive 1 反ㄧ申論: B1: 3.5 minutes
  4. Team A: Cross examination 2 正二質詢: A2 asks B1 questions: 2 minutes
  5. Team A:  Affirmative constructive 2 正二申論: A2: 3 minutes
  6. Team B: Cross examination 3 反ㄧ質詢: B1 asks A2 questions: 2 minutes
  7. Team B: Negative constructive 2 反二申論: B2: 3 minutes
  8. Team A: Cross examination 4 正ㄧ質詢: A1 asks B2 questions:2 minutes
  9. Team B: Negative short summary 反ㄧ小結: B1 short summary: 2 minutes
  10. Team A: Affirmative short summary 正ㄧ小結:A1 short summary: 2 minutes
  11. Crossfire (any speakers): 2 minutes each allotted to each side (4 minutes total)
  12. Team B: Negative final focus 反ㄧ總結: B2: 2.5 minutes
  13. Team A: Affirmative final focus 正ㄧ總結: A2 2.5 minutes

This works out to a grand total of 34 minutes for the whole debate, much shorter than Debate Asia with four person teams, with 13 minutes of constrictive and rebuttal speech, 8 minutes for four cross examinations, 4 minutes of short summaries, 4 minutes of cross fire, and 5 minutes of final focus. Each debater has on average 5.5 minutes of speech, 2 minutes of cross examination, and 1 minute of crossfire allotted or a total of 8.5 minutes.

Now, a speech of four minutes typically consists of 900 to 1,400 Chinese characters, depending on how fast you speak.  My DD # 2 was the one doing the opening speech at Debate Asia.  I gave her ~ 1,000-1,100 characters to read.  You can check out the video again. So, a speech of 3.5 minutes should have around 800-1,200 Chinese characters.

Here is a sample lesson plan for Public Forum debate (I only skim through it…).

Basically, if a Chinese proficient adult of at least ILR level 4 can find four kids in the ~ 11 to 15 age group that fit the requirement, you can run your own local Chinese PF group with two competing teams with the opportunity to compete in Debate Asia.  If you have six kids, then you can have three teams of two.  Then, for every topic, you can have three-way debates for which each team needs to debate both sides of the topic.  There are various ways to do this using technology but that’s the overall picture.

For me, Debate Asia and Chinese debate are the means to an end, but not the end.  The goal is to take our children’s Chinese proficiency to the next level, in a comprehensive and fun manner.  So, finer debate skills that require the expertise of a coach are the icing on the cake.   The meat of this whole exercise is to develop skill in independent research, critical thinking, structuring, and delivery of arguments for a topic, in Chinese.  And debate is just the method to make the process fun and pertinent.

 

.

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

We can break down the whole process to piecemeal standard operating procedure and let our children tackle each part separately.  The following is one way to do it.  

Here are a few actual Debate Asia topics for 2019.  All but topic #3 are for group A (16-18)  debate.  (From what I gather, US debate topics are policy driven.  However, there are many policy topics that are sensitive to the government and country to which many Debate Asia participants belong.  So, those would NOT show up as potential debate topics in Debate Asia.  So, some topics may be more value judgement / driven and harder to pinpoint.)

  1. 強制疫苗接種法案利大於弊(正)/弊大於利(反)
  2. 最低工資保障對勞工權益利大於弊(正)/弊大於利(反).
  3. 遏止全球暖化更需要國際立法(正)/民眾覺醒(反)
  4. 推廣基改作物是人類的福音(正)/災難(反)

I randomly take topic #1 on the relative degree of benefit vs. detriment of mandatory vaccine requirement (benefit > detriment or detriment > benefit).  I strongly encourage the debaters to learn how to debate both sides for any topic.  Parents or an adult proficient in Chinese help each child according to his or her need.

  1. Go to a website such as https://vaccines.procon.org/ where you can readily see the pros and cons for each side of the arguments, at least on the major points.  This removes the burden of independent research at this stage.
  2. Search the website for topic discussion in Chinese and English.  For example, Wikipedia.  Watch online videos on such topic discussion in English and Chinese.
  3. Copy & paste the arguments onto word processor and start working on how you want to phrase your own arguments.  If you do this step first in English, then translate it to Chinese at the end.
  4. Read aloud your own arguments, refine them, and keep practicing.
  5. Do the same thing for both sides of the debate.
  6. Get your two teams to start practice debating.

I can come up with a topic that each team works on for, say, two months at a time, under advisement of our coach. Then, teams can compete locally, regionally, or nationally depending on interest level. We can even use video conference to compete.

Part of the exercise is to be able to verbalize one’s argument, understand what the opponent is saying, and respond to the opponent’s argument. A winning argument needs a debate team proficient in Chinese to win. For example, my team wins the debate on the pro side. The other team can use my arguments against me, but if they are not as proficient in Chinese and can not deliver the messages effectively, they can still loose.

.

Graduated steps in preparation for Asia Debate

  1. Utilizing debate topics that have been worked out for public form already, with arguments and scripts already laid out and available online. This takes out the research part and the debaters just need to read up on the topics in English and Chinese, copy & paste, rework it to his/her liking, and translating them to Chinese. Both sides already know each side’s arguments but, to win the debate, a team needs to be able to deliver it effectively. To kick start the process, we can act as Debate Central and provides basic Affirmative and Negative constructive speech. The rebuttal speech, short summary, and final focus will all draw from the the constructive speech and any rebuttal each side presents.
  2. Use debate topics which warrant new research
  3. Debate Asia topics comes out late May and this is when one does more intensive training with the coach, online initially and then in person, say, two weeks before the competition.

.

So, I think that’s the main idea. Any takers?

Introduction to the work of Professor Stephen Krashen

“Stephen Krashen (born 1941) is professor emeritus at the University of Southern California,[1] who moved from the linguistics department to the faculty of the School of Education in 1994. He is a linguist, educational researcher, and political activist.” – Wikipedia

Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition by Stephen Krashen

“The acquisition–learning hypothesis claims that there is a strict separation between acquisition and learning; Krashen saw acquisition as a purely subconscious process and learning as a conscious process, and claimed that improvement in language ability was only dependent upon acquisition and never on learning……..Acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language, during which the acquirer is focused on meaning rather than form.” – Wikipedia     (CLE = subconscious acquisition + meaningful.  Weekend Chinese class = conscious process.  Based on a cursory review, this is where I may differ with the professor, as far as Chinese is concerned.  Using his term, I think acquisition and learning are complementary, due to the high opportunity cost and resource commitment required.)

“Furthermore, Krashen claimed that linguistic competence is only advanced when language is subconsciously acquired, and that conscious learning cannot be used as a source of spontaneous language production. Finally, learning is seen to be heavily dependent on the mood of the learner, with learning being impaired if the learner is under stress or does not want to learn the language.” – Wikipedia  (CLE =subconscious.  Weekend Chinese class = stress + does not want to learn)

“The monitor hypothesis states that consciously learned language can only be used to monitor language output; it can never be the source of spontaneous speech.” – Wikipedia  (Weekend Chinese class = consciously learned language => not the source of spontaneous speech)

“The affective filter hypothesis. This states that learners’ ability to acquire language is constrained if they are experiencing negative emotions such as fear or embarrassment. At such times the affective filter is said to be “up”.” – Wikipedia (Parents speaking Chinese with children in the public  [granted there may be some scenario that this is not wise].  Also, we parents can readily admit that there are things that we don’t know how to say but we can look it up and learn together => less fear or embarrassment)

“Krashen promotes the use of free voluntary reading during second-language acquisition, which he says “is the most powerful tool we have in language education, first and second………Proponents such as Stephen Krashen (1989) claim that reading alone will increase encounters with unknown words, bringing learning opportunities by inferencing. The learner’s encounters with unknown words in specific contexts will allow the learner to infer and thus learn those words’ meanings. While the mechanism is commonly accepted as true, its importance in language learning is disputed. “- Wikipedia.  (This is where  access to and reading of extensive Chinese books come in, of course.)

“Free voluntary reading (FVR) is the reading of any book (newspaper, magazine or comic) that students have chosen for themselves and is not subject to follow-up work such as comprehension questions or a summary.” – An introduction to the work of Stephen Krashen.     (I rarely ask the girls on the details of their reading.  As long as they read, it’s good.)

“In language learning, extensive reading is contrasted with intensive reading, which is slow, careful reading of a small amount of difficult text – it is when one is “focused on the language rather than the text”.   Extensive and intensive reading are two approaches to language learning and instruction, and may be used concurrently; intensive reading is, however, the more common approach, and often the only one used.  Extensive reading has been used and advocated in language learning since at least the 19th century.  In the first language, many connections have been made between reading and vocabulary size, as well as other academic skills.” – Wikipedia.  (For me, intensive reading comes in two major flavors.  The first one is the usual language instruction based on textbooks or the likes.  The second one is the read-aloud exercises of an appropriately leveled reading material – probably the most efficient way of increasing colloquial fluency in my pointed of view.  In my point of view, intensive reading and extensive reading are complementary, and, when combined with CLE, is the best long-term method to learn Chinese (or other difficult to learn languages), when the requirement of time, resources, and opportunity cost is high.  Interestingly enough, to a certain extent, Karaoke singing can provide CLE, read-aloud intensive reading, and voluntary-extensive reading, all concurrently!)

In conclusion….

To sum it up, I think I have done the many things that Professor Krashen promotes based on his research, by providing CLE and free voluntary reading.  Where he and I may differ is that I think acquisition and learning (his terminology) are complimentary, to provide long-term, effective, and efficient improvement in Chinese proficiency.  CLE makes long term possible, providing the psychological backdrop for the child, which promotes effectiveness.  Due to its high resource/time demand and opportunity cost, we need efficiency as well.  That’s where intensive reading and active learning comes in.  For me, the particular instruction curriculum and the actual instruction/active learning is the easy part.  Providing the CLE is the tough part.  Where Chinese weekend schools fail for most is not only for the lack of rigor, but that active learning is only part of the picture and can not provide the long term needs, which is required to sustain such learning.  Where Chinese immersion school is far less than optimal for most is that it provides only ~ 15-20% of students’ year-round waking hours as their CLE, which is a far cry from the amount of CLE required for difficult to learn languages such as Chinese, in the greater Anglophone environment.