Sun News: 港人英語能力急跌

I think listen to English songs is not efficient, we should read more English newspapers, watch English TV programs, films with English substitutes on DVD etc.

If you have a chance to take IELTS exams, you should know better what is your English level.

It's true that many of us aren't paying much effort to study the language,
but bear in mind, many of the non-native English teachers are indeed very
poor in English - actually, as a semi-native speaker of English, I understand
and have seen that many of these English teachers (including those who
work in secondary schools) speak even much worse than I do. It is a gift
for me to be able to study in a top school here, but how about those who are
not as fortunate? What kind of English will they hear and read daily?

I know that many of our present-day English teachers (including many
oral invigilators) have merely got a grade C or D in their HKCEE English. One may
argue that only one-tenth of those who take HKCEE English syl.B may get
a C or above, but I assure you that MANY WHO ARE GETTING AN A AT
PRESENT DON'T DESERVE IT!

But the main problem is: few are willing to teach English or study English at university level.
D in their HKCEEs

有冇板友可將所有回應用中文翻譯？

[ref=236602]S3BL100[/ref]  在 2005-5-19 04:51 PM 發表:

I know that many of our present-day English teachers (including many
oral invigilators) have merely got a grade C or D in their HKCEE English. One may
argue that only one-tenth of those who take HKCEE English syl.B may get
a C or above, but I assure you that MANY WHO ARE GETTING AN A AT
PRESENT DON'T DESERVE IT!

Give your examples!!  As far as I concern, all my classmates getting A in HKCEE English are very professional users.  The same applies to my elder sister.

It's just me who got a messy C.

[ref=236602]S3BL100[/ref]  在 2005-5-19 04:51 PM 發表:

But the main problem is: few are willing to teach English or study English at university level.
D in their HKCEEs

As far as I know, some Universities might force their students to study English by including English courses in the major studying programmes.  CUHK is partially the case, at least all Engineering students must take a 3-credit English course.

[ref=239781]Wright---AVW16[/ref]  在 2005-5-22 10:51 AM 發表:

有冇板友可將所有回應用中文翻譯？

Go get a dictionary and find it youself.
The replies are just basic grammar.#:-/

This may be a reason why students in Hong Kong have poor skills for using English.
They are always not willing to try anything themselves,
and just ask somebody for help...

[ref=239985]joeli16[/ref]  在 2005-5-22 06:40 發表:


Go get a dictionary and find it youself.
The replies are just basic grammar.#:-/

This may be a reason why students in Hong Kong have poor skills for using English.
They are always not willin ...

Good one, Joe. You really hit the nail right on the head with this reply...!

If they don't get their hands dirty and try their hardest themselves, there
is no way the standard of english of anyone could improve. I really cannot
agree more on what you say.

[ref=239818]238X[/ref]  在 2005-5-22 11:18 AM 發表:



Give your examples!!  As far as I concern, all my classmates getting A in HKCEE English are very professional users.  The same applies to my elder sister.

It's just me who got a messy C.

...

Well, just take a look at this year's English (syl.B) papers, they are simply naive; I'd say the papers are of a mere Form 1 or 2 standard. Being careful enough not to make any mistakes is sufficient for anyone to get an A.

Usually, at least half of my schoolmates can get an A in HKCEE English, but apart from some 20 or 30 of them who are native or near-native speakers, others are not really proficient in speaking; some confuse "n" and "l" sounds while others simply lack fluency. Some even make simple grammatical mistakes in their writing quite often.

[ref=239818]238X[/ref]  在 2005-5-22 11:18 AM 發表:
As far as I know, some Universities might force their students to study English by including English courses in the major studying programmes.  CUHK is partially the case, at least all Engineering students must take a 3-credit English course.

I'd like to clarify myself: what I meant is that many are not willing to major in English.

P.S. My English teacher, who is a Singaporean, is a friend of the Chief Examiner of HKCEE English Oral. According to the Examiner, many of our current Oral invigilators are rather poor in the language (as what I've said), but the HKEAA simplay can't stop them from becoming invigilators, so that is why we who are just "too good at English" are advised not to use difficult words during the Oral exam, or we may risk the jealousy of our invigilators.

The Science Faculty of CUHK also requires undergrads to take ELT(English Language Teaching) courses,
with the choice of course depending on the student's HKASL UE results,
e.g. D and below should take some fundamental courses,
while C and above can take some more "interesting" courses.
One can continue to take ELT courses as electives after they have met the requirement.

However, the use of English declines after one has entered university.
They tend to use Cantonese in daily conversations, write Chinese notes,
and they also ask questions in Chinese...really CU.

The rising spirit of "local belonging" after 1997 is also one of the reasons for the decline, I think.

[ref=241720]S3BL100[/ref]  在 2005-5-23 09:26 PM 發表:

Well, just take a look at this year's English (syl.B) papers, they are simply naive; I'd say the papers are of a mere Form 1 or 2 standard. Being careful enough not to make any mistakes is sufficient for anyone to get an A.

I didn't read them.  Can you give some examples?

As far as I know, even the paper of 2000 is naive.  But this is not a sufficient proof.  General Mathematics papers can be very naive too, but you need to get extremely high mark to earn an A.  I don't know what score does a student need to get for an A in English (Syl. B), so I can't come to any conclusion.  Do you?

[ref=241720]S3BL100[/ref]  在 2005-5-23 09:26 PM 發表:

Usually, at least half of my schoolmates can get an A in HKCEE English, but apart from some 20 or 30 of them who are native or near-native speakers, others are not really proficient in speaking; some confuse "n" and "l" sounds while others simply lack fluency. Some even make simple grammatical mistakes in their writing quite often.

For speaking, somebody just cannot speak fluently in any language, even in their mother tongue.  I am one of those people.  Say, can you justify that I'm not good at my mother tongue -- Cantonese?

For writing, native English users also make simple grammatical mistakes.  Actually, simple mistakes are easier to make, since people tend to be more aware of tough things.  Moreover, It's a matter of personaility of not proofreading their work, not the matter of ability.


To close, sometimes I am very annoyed with your standards and (moral) requirements.  We are ordinary people, not Gods.  To me, not only you act like God, sometimes I think you demand everybody to act like God as much as you do.  OK, I am taking it personal, but you have to know that your manner WILL make, or even HAVE made people frustrated.  Please loosen up a bit!!

[ref=241720]S3BL100[/ref]  在 2005-5-23 09:26 PM 發表:

I'd like to clarify myself: what I meant is that many are not willing to major in English.

But it's also true that many are not willing to major in Chinese.

[ref=241720]S3BL100[/ref]  在 2005-5-23 09:26 PM 發表:

P.S. My English teacher, who is a Singaporean, is a friend of the Chief Examiner of HKCEE English Oral. According to the Examiner, many of our current Oral invigilators are rather poor in the language (as what I've said), but the HKEAA simplay can't stop them from becoming invigilators, so that is why we who are just "too good at English" are advised not to use difficult words during the Oral exam, or we may risk the jealousy of our invigilators.

Please bear in mind that, Oral exams are not for the ability of using difficult words.  I WILL deduct your mark too if you use difficult words, even though I am at least 80% confident that I can understand at least 80% of your difficult words.

[ Last edited by 238X on 2005-5-23 at 22:26 ]

[ref=241835]238X[/ref]  在 2005-5-23 10:18 PM 發表:



I didn't read them.  Can you give some examples?

As far as I know, even the paper of 2000 is naive.  But this is not a sufficient proof.  General Mathematics papers can be very naive too, bu ...

Well, this year's Paper II is like this:

2 comprehension passages
MC cloze
matching
proof reading: unlike the previous papers, one is only required to add missing words into a passage using words from a box provided. One does not need to cross out or change any words.
cloze: it's terrible; the question setter provides us with the first few letters of the word to be filled in, e.g. incl____, and one will immediately know that the letters"uding" should be put in.

So who is supposed to consider this paper difficult? Bear in mind, one does not need to work on opposites either.

It is true that many are not willing to major in Chinese, but those who major in Chinese have at least some knowledge about Chinese culture. As for those who major in English, many didn't even show much improvement in the language after the 3-year programme. How, then, can such teachers who are poor in English teach our fellow students the correct uses of language?

I know a 7-year-old child who is studying at a primary school in Kowloon East. What his English teacher teaches him is full of nonsense and wrong grammar. For if the foundation of knowledge in English language of the child is laid on tonnes of misconception, how can he learn the language well (I do not mean master it) when he furthers his studies?