Star Q
iii. Spiced Prawns
The Education section of the Star newspaper instantly caught my attention with the blaring headline that went like this; "Bring English to its Old Glory in schools" written by KW Moon, Penang. It was indeed something that I wanted to read, but as I got to the second paragraph, my interest began to wane.
My disinterest was mainly due to the two things mentioned in the second paragraph; firstly, the teaching hours for English is being increased and secondly, English will become a must-pass subject in the SPM examination by 2016.
First of all, I would like to look at the matter (and will delve into the second matter much, much later) of the increase in the number of teaching hours for English. There a few things about this idea that gets me a bit worried. Let's take the scenario of a secondary school where a single English period is forty minutes and the total number of periods per week is five, making it a total of 200 minutes per week or 3 hours and 20 minutes.
I would think that to justify an increase of teaching hours for English, it would require students to have some kind of purpose for using the language for so many hours. It is clearly noticeable that even with five periods per week it is difficult to get students to really focus on the subject (even with props, aids and teachers becoming actors and clowns in front of the class!) because students know they don't have a real purpose for learning the subject, unlike Maths! Yes, I know about the high-flyers but consider the submariners, too!
Next, the increase of teaching hours of English will mean the deduction (or omission!) of hours for certain subjects. I mean, how do you really decide which subject is more important and which subject can be kicked into the nearby monsoon drain. I personally, have had the unpleasant experience of teaching 5 periods of English per week to students who made it clear that they didn't want to have anything to do with English; or me! I remember handing out worksheets (which took hours to create and prepare) to them. The worksheets instantly turned into paper planes and doormats; in front of my eyes! My persistence in teaching them was not even appreciated when one day, all my notes for them written on the board, were erased using somebody's palm! If the increase in teaching hours of English becomes a reality then two other things will also become a reality; the students will end up hating the teacher and the teacher will end up, well, having high blood pressure!
Last, but definitely not the least, even with all that I have mentioned above, I would think that five periods is still enough especially when you consider to make the five periods count. Think of it as quality over quantity. It would be a win-win situation for both teachers and students when the five periods per week is retained but the quality of those five periods is increased. For example, since the Malaysian Education Blueprint states access to success and equity to all students, then, all students wherever they are should get access to the same facilities which will then help teachers to avoid using textbooks all the time.
Come to think of it, if the government is really serious about bringing the old glory of English, then I suppose there is nothing wrong in looking at the old ways of teaching English; and maintaining the 5 periods per week. The old ways certainly have their merits and you can see the the remarkable proof in the outstanding proficiency of English in our ministers themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment