It’s not what we teach ...

... but how we teach it.

This article by Andrew Vivian, an educational consultant and former principal of two national plus schools, was first published in the Jakarta Post

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Too often, I meet teachers who say that they want to be more innovative in their classrooms but are restricted by their curriculum. If asked why they feel restricted, the answer is invariably along the lines of “This is the way it has always been done” or “My principal makes me do it the way it has always been done”.

In an old Teachers TV video, Tony Buzan, the inventor of mind maps, asked his British audience which option would they choose first: teaching young people how to learn or teaching them the “basics” of all subjects. He, along with almost every other educational researcher, proposed that if we first teach children how to learn, they will not only learn the “basics” but more, in much greater depth.

Buzan, Sir Ken Robinson and others are telling us that traditional approaches to schooling are unnatural in terms of how our brains work and are teaching most young people to be not creative. To educators such as Buzan and Robinson, thinking and learning are easy.

If they are correct, why do so many teachers not teach their students how to actually learn and think? What are the restrictions?

First, there is not unanimous agreement about the purpose of schools. Some sections of society want schools to prepare students for work, others want them to be “successful” in the 21st century, without detailing what this means, and still others want them to make a “difference”, again, without a lot of detail.

Many schools have a vision and mission, but, too many of them often have no clear understanding of the educational needs of their young people and how to turn their vision into programs that meet these needs effectively.

 In excellent schools, everyone in the school community is clear about the school’s purpose, and the strategies that will lead to the successful fulfillment of it.

Second, most teachers teach the ways they were taught. This means that unless a teacher was influenced by someone who was innovative, students will receive exactly the same pedagogy that has existed in most school systems since public schooling was invented. In times of rapid change, this approach is very unlikely to be helpful to students.

Finally, particularly in schools in which student face external exams, teachers and principals lack courage. They know there is a better way, but they will not risk doing something different to other teachers and schools in case their students’ exam scores suffer.

However, there are enough schools out there that both educate their students and get good external exam results by planning student-centered classes.

 It is actually quite simple. The teacher or school needs to look at the material being taught and ask “What are the big ideas that underpin this?” They need to identify the concepts, the knowledge that students should have for life.

For example, rather than being able to simply memorize the presidents of the US from a unit of work, students should walk away from it with a strong concept of leadership. They can Google the presidents or the teacher can teach them quickly using games or flashcards. Teachers can develop questions that facilitate high-level thinking and lead to an understanding of the concepts. The material from the curriculum can be used as a vehicle for this.

There are a number of excellent thinking strategies around. For example, we could use Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking: A big idea is about national leadership, could be examined through questions such as “Which presidents made the most impact on their society at the time?” (analysis), “What things would the perfect president do?” (synthesis) and “Can you think of ways to improve the political system to ensure that every president is highly effective?” (evaluation/creative).

Once good questions are developed, they can be used to plan engaging activities for students do, so that as well as remembering the basic facts, they understand the underlying concepts and principles of the topic. Students can critically analyze the topic and come up a much better understanding of the topic than an external exam requires. Activities could include Internet research, surveys, practical work, library research, etc.

Students can even work from textbooks as long as they are answering the high-level questions and not wading through the textbook questions, all students at the same time.

An advantage of this type of approach is that students can work at their own pace, and the teacher, instead of standing at the front of the classroom, can move around and work with individual students or small groups of students.

When schools and teachers step outside the box a little, and demonstrate energy and imagination, regardless of the curriculum, students can be educated about the course material and write correct exam answers about it.

U.M. Time - Again

Yep, it's that time of year when elementary, junior and senior high school students face the dreaded Ujian Monyet, the multi-choice exams set by regional and national education authorities.

The tests set by the national Department of Education, which in its (lack of) wisdom or vision has emasculated the English language teaching sector, are sat by students throughout the country. Local governments set 'tryout' practice tests, and students in grades 6, 9 and 10 spend an eternity, which several months can seem to be, learning little new, or of practical use for their futures.

This is what Iqbal Widastomo said three years ago.

We need to change the mindset of many of our educators to first become critical thinkers themselves before they can develop and encourage critical thinking in the schoolchildren.

Our continuing obsession with discipline and strict order in schools creates a problem for our students and this problem leaves them and us at a disadvantage in the international community. Too often they are being left behind because they have not been taught to think.

They have not been given a chance to think and explore as they naturally should have as children growing up and learning. But they need to be able to think and question and challenge ideas for themselves. Our schools, however, still do not encourage this but instead continue to emphasize memorization rather than actual thinking.

I don't believe we should over-blame the schools. It's only been fourteen years since the abdication of Suharto and changing the mindsets of the powers-that-be takes a generation or two. That the élites in the legislatures and their bureaucracies are the self-perpetuating hangovers is a matter for the electorate to determine - and hopefully as soon as possible. However, teachers and parents of current school students are 'victims' of the Suharto era and, with a few notable exceptions, have yet to change their mindsets.

What gets my goat more than anything is that the tests themselves, both locally and nationally derived are flawed. Or, to put it more bluntly, are riddled with errors.

Last year, Our Kid graduated from grade 9 and is now settled in the senior high school regime. He goes to a school which bills itself as a 'National Plus', a private fee-paying school. These schools need a continued intake in order to survive as a commercial enterprise, and recruits qualified, experienced and caring teachers in order to ensure a 100% pass rate.

Image is everything. (That this year's annual wall calendar highlights various teachers including those who are awarded for their "Pucntuality" (sic) is somewhat unfortunate.) However, I do still feel a sense of resentment fostered at his graduation ceremony last year.

Our Kid came home after sitting the English exam and told me that he'd answered two answers (out of fifty) incorrectly. He'd made a note of the questions and the four possible answer.choices, and yes, he had got them wrong. But hey, 96% is an excellent result in my book.

At the graduation ceremony a lass was praised and awarded a month's free tuition for getting 100%. A couple of months later, the official certificate came through and it turned out that Our Kid had been awarded 98%.

Now, given that certificates are computer-generated, I can only surmise that one of the questions Our Kid had got 'wrong', had been a 'bad' question, i.e. had the wrong answer in the marking key. Therefore, the lass had given the 'right' answer according to the government, but was in fact 'wrong' and therefore did not actually achieve 100%.

If you've followed my convoluted thinking so far, consider this question set by Jakarta's (lack of) Education Dept. for this past week's tryout exams for this year's batch of grade 9s.

Q. When will the wedding anniversary be held?

.....A. In the afternoon. ......C. In the evening.

.....B. In the morning. .......-D. At night.

There's nothing wrong with the English, but the question ...?

How can you 'hold' an anniversary? The occasion is on a particular day or date, and is therefore of 24 hours duration, so none of the answers are correct. Surely it's a party, a get-together, or soiree that will be held at 8pm.

Then there is the matter of interpretation. 8pm in Indonesian is 'malam', i.e. night, yet to an Englishman such as myself, it's the evening, the gap between work obligations and bedtime.

Finally, the text preceding the one above is below. Your task is to work out how many mistakes you can find in the fourteen words.

We are not alone in Indonesia. Ruth Ann Dandrea has written A Teacher's Open Letter to Her 8th Grade Students: 'A Test You Need to Fail'


"…it doesn’t matter how well you write, or what you think. I’d been feeling [for] the past few years of my tenure in public education, that there was something or somebody out there, a power of a sort, that doesn’t really want you kids to be educated. I felt a force that wants you ignorant and pliable, and that needs you able to fill in the boxes and follow instructions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remember
Isaac Newton did poorly in grade school.
Winston Churchill struggled in school and failed the sixth grade.
Einstein was four years old before he could speak and seven before he could read.