Recently, I was reading about a new lot of teacher assistants who have been placed in classrooms to help teachers. I applaud this new practice as we need to acknowledge that teachers do need this kind of support in their large classes of mixed ability pupils. However, some of the practices we have in our classrooms need to be questioned and changed as they often impede effective teaching and learning. I will focus on 3 practices to question and change in our classrooms.
1. Completing the syllabus
Teachers tell me all the time that they have to complete the syllabus and that they have no time to teach what I consider important skills because they are not in the syllabus.
I often tell them that there is no syllabus in English and by that I mean that what we teach in English are skills and strategies that need to be taught over and over again, year after year at increasing level of complexity. From P1 to Sec 4, we teach the same parts of speech, the same skills for writing and reading, but at more and more sophisticated levels.
What teachers consider the syllabus is nothing but the textbook and we know the textbook is not meant to be taught from cover to cover. How else can you explain the presence of 16 units in one series and 6 units in another series of textbooks?
Teachers then say that since parents have paid money for the textbook they must ensure that it is used. I think parents think that way when they are not well informed. Covering the textbook is one way of showing how diligent and hardworking teachers are but it is not a smart or even productive way of teaching. Do students learn more from your careful covering of the textbook and finishing the workbook? I doubt it.
Suggestion: I would suggest teachers think carefully about what pupils need to learn at each level. What are the outcomes for language learning according to MOE's syllabus (not the textbook)? How much do they have to read and write in order to move to the next level? Then sit down as a level and decide how much of the textbook is really necessary. It is better to cover a topic in great detail than to skim over many topics. At least your pupils will be minor experts in the topic rather than mere dilettantes.
2. Teaching to the test
It is a common practice for us to use the PSLE (or the P4 streaming test in the earlier years) as a guideline to set our test papers. How else can we explain all the different components in the lower primary test papers? Teachers know that many lower primary pupils struggle with cloze but it remains firmly entrenched in many school test papers. Grammar tests are invariably multiple choice and writing is based on one picture when it is easier to write with several pictures as stimuli.
Many teachers ignore topics that are not part of the test syllabus so our pupils do not write poems or stories, fear dramatic or oral activities and are ignorant of metacognition skills and other comprehension activities apart from answering questions. We thus deprive our children of truly creative and useful learning. Is it a wonder that some pupils leave school disliking reading and writing?
Suggestion: Our fundamental goal must be to create an interest in and develop the skills for reading and writing. Focus on developing these skills in the foundation years. Get children reading, read to children; get children writing and teach children how to write and not just do picture compositions. We don't do picture compositions in real life! Give reading and writing a personal meaning beyond the test and make learning a natural and enjoyable part of school.
3. Determining the amount of work by the quota given
All schools have a "quota" that teachers fret over. The quota refers to the amount of work to be given and it is often 4-5 pieces of comprehension exercises and 4-5 pieces of compositions per term. Principals and HODs ensure that this quota is met and teachers work themselves to distraction meeting the quota. Now it's true that without a stated quota, some teachers will not give much written work. On the other hand, the quota also serves to instil a "give work" attitude among teachers so much so that week after week, pieces of work are doled out to pupils with little thought given to the need and purpose of the task. Meanwhile teachers too wear themselves out marking. This is like a dog chasing its tail situation and no good can come out of this practice if we continue at it.
Most harmful of all is that with all this work given out, teachers have little time to teach any skills and the pupils are the ones to lose out. If there should be any manifestation of the TLLM (Teach less learn more) slogan in schools, it should first be the reduction of this quota. Interestingly, a former Deputy Director of Schools told me that this idea of a quota was first mooted in the 1970s by the Ministry. I think the quota idea has outlived its usefulness and relevance. I might even suggest that it is both insulting and disempowering to teachers to be told that they need to show that they are doing their job this way, and it also goes against our principles of teaching the children instead of the syllabus. Who says all pupils need the same amount and the same kind of work?
Suggestion: Focus on meaningful work rather than the amount of work. Teachers should spend time on teaching skills and strategies and not on completing worksheets or other tasks. Currently, every piece of work is like an assessment. Spend time instead on practising the "shots" not playing the game, on building stamina and skill and not running the race. Three pieces of work may be sufficient but require teachers to show evidence of teaching by looking for shorter exercises and lesson plans.
Finally, it is our business and duty to educate parents that giving a lot of work can be counter productive. We also need to inform them that a textbook is not meant to be taught from cover to cover. We ourselves as professionals should refuse to be intimidated by parents and instead take a more professional approach. Remember we fear what we don't understand. If parents understand what we are doing, they will be less apprehensive and consequently, less aggressive.
In a sense, these are entrenched mind sets we are dealing with and they won't be easy to dislodge from the system. But as teachers and principals we need to be aware of these practices and the thinking behind them. I do know of many enlightened principals who do not require such quotas but often, the teachers are the ones who keep reinforcing the system. Our education system has come a long way since the 1970s and since my time in school. As teachers, our beliefs and practices have to keep pace too.
source:LEARNING VENTURES NEWSLETTER (August 2005, Vol. 66)
No comments:
Post a Comment