論英文畢業考

輔仁大學外語學院 那湯姆副教授

中文摘要:

大學究竟該不該規定通過某個英文檢定考試，以為畢業門檻？要回答這個問題，我們該從不同的面向來思考，包括：大學教育的本質、這些深具影響力的重要考試所造成的後果、學習英文的目地、我們的英語文教育的根本問題、以及如何有效提昇大學生英文能力，與正確使用各種不同的語言測驗。作者在這篇短文中強調大學首要任務在於培養人格健全、具獨立思考與批判精神的學生，是一種全方位的全人與通才教育。然而，為了應付各式重要的考試，國內填鴨式學習及補習風氣之盛行，是有目共睹的。也因此造成許多學生能高分通過考試，卻無法在生活中或工作上流利地使用該語言。這樣的結果與語言學習的初衷恰恰相反。目前台灣英語文教育所面臨的瓶頸在於：合格且認真教學的老師，其來源與分配呈現嚴重的城鄉不均、授課時數短缺、無法落實小班教學、教學使用的語言、無法在日常生活中使用英文、及一般大眾及學生家長對英語學習過度熱衷所造成的反效果。如何設法解決這些英語教育本質上的問題，並導正一般人錯誤的英文學習觀念，要比多設一個畢業門檻（進而增加學生負擔及助長補習歪風）來得實際也重要多了。就大學本身而言，增加英文必修課程及提高教學品質，就是最負責任的做法。最後，在決定使用任何語言測驗前，必須確定我們沒有濫用測驗，畢竟能力測驗與成就測驗是大不相同的。

Thoughts on an English Exit Exam

Thomas Nash

Fu JenCatholicUniversity

　　Why should university students in Taiwan want to improve their English?So they can pass another high-stakes exam, or so they will be able to use English to perform important tasks in their professional and personal lives?If we assume that people learn a language in order to do stuff with it, how effective is it to make them take exams which are tied to other very important goals, such as graduation from university (which in itself, in Taiwan, does not naturally or necessarily require mastery of English)?We have all witnessed, for years and years, how high-stakes exams lead to cramming and to widespread teaching to the test, which may result in passing the exam, but which often do not result in real abilities to use the language.When will we ever learn?Do we want university students to focus on their general education and major field, or do we want them to be more concerned with passing an English exit exam?Should our English courses be geared to helping students pass an exam?

　　A larger question involves the nature of university education.Are universities job training centers, or are they places where people have the opportunity to develop their minds and become better developed all-around human beings, with independent and critical thinking and abilities to handle many types of situations and events?If the latter, how much will an English exit exam contribute to the goal?In contemporary life in Taiwan, there are many other types of skills and knowledge arguably as important as English (or more important),such as Chinese, computer literacy, driving, world geography, and economics.Should we require exit exams in all essential skills? Should we require exams on basic knowledge in each major?

　　If we believe students need to improve their English, why don’t we make them take more English courses which will give them practice in using the language to do stuff?As a student wrote in her journal a few years ago in reference to English departments, “A good English Department should teach the students to have the ability to really communicate some ideas with others . . . instead of training a crowd of vocabulary-machines or English nerds” (Y. Kao, personal communication, 2002). Good English teaching in general should have the same goal, because knowledge of English structure and vocabulary without the ability to actually use it for various purposes in a variety of circumstances is essentially useless.

　　What is it reasonable and ethical for a university to require?Is it appropriate to require students to pass an exam for which the university does not prepare them?At Fu Jen Catholic University, for instance, the current requirement is for all students to take 4 credits of a foreign language, not necessarily English.Can this university, then, now make all students pass an English proficiency exam in order to graduate?

　　If English is so crucial, are universities shirking their responsibilities?Should they require a test, or should they provide more instruction?Recent research indicates that at least 12 hours of English classes over two years (equivalent to a total of 12 credits, 3 per semester) would be needed to raise a student’s proficiency by one level within levels 5 to 8 inthe Canadian Benchmark levels (estimated as appropriate levels for university graduates, depending on field) (Chen, 2004, as cited in Chang, Su, Chou, & Chen, 2004, pp. 18-19).If this information is accurate, the practice of requiring an exam without providing the relevant instruction would seem to be highly questionable. It would mean that students have to find their own means of raising their proficiency level, at additional costs in time and money, on top of their university class and study time and tuition. At the same time, if universities required and provided 12 hours or more of quality instruction in English and applied rigorous standards to that instruction (and associated problems at earlier levels of education were simultaneously addressed; see below), no exit exam would really be necessary.Students who did not reach acceptable levels would fail, and all students would have course grades which potential employers and other evaluators could refer to. If employers still require a proficiency test score, it would then be the individual responsibility of the applicant (university graduate) to take one of the available standardized tests—GEPT, TOEFL, IELTS, TOEIC, Cambridge ESOL Exams, and so on.

　　A related issue of responsibility is what would happen to students who do not pass the exit exam.For the locally-developed GEPT, at all levels the normal passing rate is around 30-35%.Most people who take the test, in other words, do not pass.What, then, will universities do with the majority of students who do not pass?Schools may already be requiring only minimal credits in English (or none at all).Will they provide remedial courses for their students?Do they have the resources to do this?

　　In relation to assessment as a field, an English exit exam is also problematic.If the exam is based on the instruction that students receive in the university, it is then an achievement test, and appropriate from the standpoint of assessment.If, however, the exam is a proficiency test, which “is designed to measure how much of a language someone has learned” and “is not linked to a particular course of instruction” (Richards, Platt, & Platt, 1992, p. 292), there is some confusion of purposes and possible misuse of tests.If the purpose of the exit exam is to measure the level of English reached through the course of studies in the university, it must be an achievement test based on the English curriculum required of all students in the university.If it is deemed appropriate to require an exit exam in English while the university has no responsibility for the level of students’ English, a proficiency exam could be used.However, the trend seems to be to adopt standardized proficiency exams, with no distinction drawn between achievement and proficiency exams.A very recent notice from the Language Training and Testing Center (March 18, 2005), for instance, states how the Cambridge ESOL Exams have been adopted by some local universities and middle schools as achievement tests or standards for graduation.[ . . .多所學校採用，作為教學成果評量或畢業檢核參考。]

　　Perhaps it is finally time to reconsider the testing culture we have here. Instead of implementing another high-stakes exam, to add to exams to get into high school, university, and graduate school, as well as government exams, might it be wiser to examine English education and its myriad problems(see Chou, 2005; Nunan, 2003), including a lack of qualified teachers (especially at the primary school level and in remote areas), limited class hours for English at both earlier levels of education and in universities (and thus insufficient exposure for real learning), large class sizes, difficulties in using English as the medium of instruction (at all levels) even in English classes, lack of opportunity for many learners to apply English in everyday life, and the over-enthusiasm of parents and the general public. If we could make improvements in all these areas, students would in general reach higher levels of English ability for actual communication, much more than would be generated by inducing students to cram for a standardized exam in order to graduate from the university.

References

Chang, H., Su, Y., Chou, S., and Chen, M. 張顯達、蘇以文、周碩貴、陳美華. (2004). 建立我國大學生英語能力指標之研究 . [Research into establishing English standards for　university students]. Report to Ministry of Education, Republic of China.

Chou, C. 周中天(2005, March). ELT in East Asia: lessons to be learned from our neighbors.

The 5th Annual Wenshan International Conference: English Studies in Asian Countries (pp.3-11). Taipei: Department of English, NationalChengchiUniversity.

Language Training and Testing Center 財團法人語言訓練測驗中心(March 18, 2005).

[Official letter accompanying Cambridge ESOL Exams material for university level]. (九四綜合二字000八號).

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and　practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 589-613.

Richards, J.C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and　applied linguistics. (2nd ed.). Harlow, Essex, England: Longman.