An increasing number of people are using google to look for information instead of going to the library, and google might take over the position of the library in the future. However, to what extent can google do that? I agree that google turning books into e-books may reduce the number of people going to the library to look for information, but there would always be people who would prefer going to the library.
Even if google plans to digitise books, there are still notations which are not easy to express with the alphabet and numbers 0-9. We still need superscript, super-superscript (note that this is not a function of MS word), etc. to express math notations properly, and it is much more comfortable reading a math book than reading formulas and theories off the internet because half the time you are actually deciphering what the notation means.
People would also go to the library to find novels to read during leisure time. You seldom find people reading a google e-book on a bus or train, but only people with a novel in their hands. This is another area which google cannot take over as it is rather unconvenient to carry a laptop just to read a google book, and annoying too if your monitor goes blank when the computer runs out of power.
How effective would digital books be? If google digitise 15 million English books, it can only cater to countries that use English as their core language, and most other countries would still require people to go to the library. Hence, it is unlikely that a googlary would take over the position of the library in the near future.
Therefore, it still takes time before google can be used to such an extent as there are still many limits to technology and doing thing the traditional way might always be easier.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A gift of a programme
Majority of those who have contributed to Singapore's success may be from the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), but does that mean that the programme is successful? MOE may have launched the programme, but it does not have much control of it. Hence, how much more credit can we give to MOE besides giving support in terms of funding.
GEP, is simply a label. It has labelled the top 1% from the rest of the students, but does not necessarily provide better education. The GEP primary schools cannot cross the bounderies of preparing primary school students for PSLE in case some of then do not score well and are unable to get into a good secondary school. The results of PSLE each year have shown that the top scorers are usually not GEP students but from the mainstream. Hence, most GEP students do not end up much different from the mainstream students after PSLE because the schools are unable to stretch them further without proving that they can do the basis.
Most top secondary schools in Singapore are independent and has decided to start their own SBGE after in introduction of IP. However, how much different a curriculum can the schools offer these GEP students? One of the major problems is the lack of resources. GEP students have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the top secondary schools are forced to put them together with the mainstream students into science and humanities classes at Sec 3. It is also a complete waste of resources just to get a person to fix a set of syllabus for the lower secondary GEP as there is no one to evaluate it and decide if it's appropriate. It is completely out of MOE's control to decide what is taught to the students as MOE does not even know what is appropriate themselves, having a group of math professors complaining that there are more topics that are important and should be included into the syllabus.
Research has also shown that GEP students do not interact well with other students. GEP may have done its job in nurturing talents, but these talents have poor socializing skills, which are much more important than knowledge, as having good relationships with others would benefit you at times of need. Possessing good moral values and socializing skills have always been valued in Asian societies, and one cannot survive with IQ alone, but also need AQ, CQ, EQ and MQ.
Hence, the GEP may have nurtured top students, but they are already born with smart brains. We cannot give credit to the programme because it has selected the top students, but are unable to turn all of them into president scholars when there are already many from the mainstream.
GEP, is simply a label. It has labelled the top 1% from the rest of the students, but does not necessarily provide better education. The GEP primary schools cannot cross the bounderies of preparing primary school students for PSLE in case some of then do not score well and are unable to get into a good secondary school. The results of PSLE each year have shown that the top scorers are usually not GEP students but from the mainstream. Hence, most GEP students do not end up much different from the mainstream students after PSLE because the schools are unable to stretch them further without proving that they can do the basis.
Most top secondary schools in Singapore are independent and has decided to start their own SBGE after in introduction of IP. However, how much different a curriculum can the schools offer these GEP students? One of the major problems is the lack of resources. GEP students have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the top secondary schools are forced to put them together with the mainstream students into science and humanities classes at Sec 3. It is also a complete waste of resources just to get a person to fix a set of syllabus for the lower secondary GEP as there is no one to evaluate it and decide if it's appropriate. It is completely out of MOE's control to decide what is taught to the students as MOE does not even know what is appropriate themselves, having a group of math professors complaining that there are more topics that are important and should be included into the syllabus.
Research has also shown that GEP students do not interact well with other students. GEP may have done its job in nurturing talents, but these talents have poor socializing skills, which are much more important than knowledge, as having good relationships with others would benefit you at times of need. Possessing good moral values and socializing skills have always been valued in Asian societies, and one cannot survive with IQ alone, but also need AQ, CQ, EQ and MQ.
Hence, the GEP may have nurtured top students, but they are already born with smart brains. We cannot give credit to the programme because it has selected the top students, but are unable to turn all of them into president scholars when there are already many from the mainstream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)