School Days
May 24th, 2007 | Published in general | 13 Comments
What has education become? A junior college (high school) student showed me her General Paper ‘notes’ (GP is that compulsory subject every junior college student sits for, comprising a comprehension text and an essay question in the English language). It is generally said to test one’s knowledge of current affairs, and ability in writing and comprehension. Apparently, according to junior college GP tutors, whenever there are the words, ’solely’, ‘merely’, ‘only’ in a question, it is a “inviting options” question. When there is ‘never’, or ‘ever’, it is a “exceptions” question. E.g. The only purpose in reading is for information. Apparently at this stage the student needs to think: “okay, this is an inviting options question. I need to introduce other options, such as reading for pleasure.” To which I have to say: “WTF?”
According to these same educators, in a comprehension passage there are five types of questions — I prefer to call it PUII-A. Paraphrasing, Understanding, Interpretation, Inference, Attitude. Students are taught to identify questions as ‘direct argumentative’ and told to provide ‘alternative viewpoints’ and ‘rebuttals’ in such and such a case, and other things in other types of questions.
In my view, what these educators are essentially doing is handing a power drill, a cement mixer and paint to these students who are already poorly equipped in the basic essentials of writing, comprehension, and in most cases any inkling of interest towards current affairs, and telling them to build a house. When what really needs to be done is to shake them down to their foundations and make them learn how to read and write in a comprehensible and intelligent manner. The process goes as such. The teachers identify the traits possessed by already good students: truisms such as, good students (1) display the ability to furnish alternative viewpoints and rebuttals in direct argumentative questions (2) and are able to paraphrase, understand, interpret and infer. Therefore, they think, if we teach the rest (the majority) how to identify PUII-A questions, and make them understand they must provide alternative viewpoints and rebuttals in direct argumentative questions, they will become good students. Or at least pass.
Is it any wonder so many students are tormented by GP in the two years they are in JC? Okay, so I didn’t have any trouble with GP — I found it incredibly easy. I skipped classes, never did my homework, and refused to buy the whole bullshit about PUII-A and other such nonsense. It was just writing and reading; so I had a good foundation in that, and I loved current affairs and politics. I had no idea what an ‘inviting options’ question or an ‘exceptions’ question was — you just answer the damned question. This points to certain deficiencies in our education system. Up to the point one sits for your Advanced levels examinations, the ability to communicate and convey ideas, to say things in your own words, to have an opinion, had never been important. Then you get to JC and you’re expected to be able to do that. The signs are all there: 16 year old geography students, when faced with a standard “What is urbanization?” question, can recite to you a memorized definition of urbanization and its traits. Then you give them the part (b), asking them to say, talk about urbanization in the context of Singapore — or anything that isn’t in their textbooks or Ten Year Series, and they’re stumped. They try for definitions, go in a roundabout manner skirting the question, and never quite get to the point. It’s as if they’re unable to even understand what the question is asking for: they have never seen these questions asked before, and thus never memorized them. But how to memorize GP? You can read model essays as much as you like; but you’ll never get beyond a B3. It’s a chain that can’t be broken: the handful of good students sail along because they’ve already “gotten it”, but for everyone else, it’s: don’t do the hard questions, do the easy ones that everyone does, and try to pass. The educators don’t address the core of this question either: they’re telling them how to suck less, not how to be better. When what you need to teach them is basic reading and writing 101.
We’re a mostly literate generation, but sorely lacking in basic skills presumed by literacy.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:06 am (#)
My GP days are filled with mind-numbing sessions with the GP tutor (the HOD, too), who comes to class with model answers prepared for the discussion topic of the day. Seriously. But coming from the Science stream, I am not surprised.
I can’t remember what they taught for the comprehension sections because I never paid attention as well, hah.
I’ll be attending your Friday stint, if the video conferencing room is indeed on the second floor of RTP as I suspected. 1 semester in that damn (cold) building and I still don’t know what’s in the rest of it.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am (#)
What a load of bullcrap!
PUII-A sounds exactly like what it is -an expectorant out of the depths of my lungs, spat at whoever came up with such a dumb way to “teach” GP.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am (#)
I agree with your argument against the way GP is taught in JCs. I think it points to a greater problem - we tend to target the symptoms of problems rather than the roots. The reason for this is generally that it is much simpler and yields much quicker and visible results. The teacher who teaches using the methods you mentioned will probably see his/her students GP grades improve quicker than a teacher who encourages his student to think for themselves and explore their views and opinion on the various topics, though the latter method will probably serve the students better in the long run.
The result of targeting the symptoms is students seeing education as a means and not an end in itself. And this in turn leads to a plethora of other problems that we face in our society today.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:30 pm (#)
I loved GP. Cos I was the only one in class who actually read books. Haha. Showoff.com
May 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pm (#)
Word up.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:35 am (#)
You forgot to mention: “Poke fun at GP tutor”. Or wait, is that only me?
Cindy Ong Ching Chong. oh my..those were the days. Taboo!!
May 25th, 2007 at 10:14 am (#)
well said, wei.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:31 am (#)
I never bothered with these ’strategic methodologies’ in GP. Writing off the cuff worked fine.
Once, I tutored a girl in GP. She looked absolutely incredulous when I asked if she ever reads the newspapers…
May 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm (#)
awww jason, cindy ong is sooo sweet!
May 26th, 2007 at 12:41 am (#)
Hi I’ve been a lurker reading your blog for awhile now but this post prompted me to comment, seeing as to how i’m fresh out of JC. I must say that I agree with what you have said about GP. I think that the way that GP is taught in our education system stifles any creativity and real interest in currents affairs that might be latent in students. The very concept of GP notes in itself is pretty ridiculous especially the way that some students memorise them and regurgitate it wholesale instead of thinking about the issues raised which in my opinion is really the whole point of GP, to get students to think. I know of friends who, having never read The Prince by Machiavelli or Republic by Plato,will shamelessly cite them from their GP notes for an essay on politics. That is really a shame in my opinion since I believe that we would all be a bit better off with less mugging and more thinking.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:58 pm (#)
I must say a word in defense of GP tutors who have labored much to produce to techniques and yes, the notes which seemed to have acquired a notorious reputation of being the instant fix to many students painfully lacking in knowledge of current affairs.
While GP teachers, or perhaps all well-meaning teachers in various subjects, seek to provoke the element of inquiry in their charges, it is regrettable that the education system is designed in such a way that students come into the JC curriculum with little higher order thinking skill (from the rigorous drill and practice in secondary schools). Within a span of 1.5 years, GP tutors are expected to work magic by giving the students a MIND. And that is a tremendous task, especially when students are still resistant to the idea of any form of tutorial without notes. Singaporean students are brought up on a diet of expectations of their teachers. Definition of a good teacher? Notes-generator. Honestly, in spite of how invigorating the lesson was, or how inspired the students have become of environmental concerns after the explorative-styled tutorial, they would always expect some sort of materials to bring home and file up, as a form of security and assurance that they will have the fodder for exams. “Good  teachers, unfortunately, are those who prepare succinct notes for their charges, and students of great and inspiring teachers have been known to regress by zapping notes from their classmates, whose boring teachers dutifully churned out stock phrases and examples to be cited, or shall I say copied unashamedly, in their essay.
Secondly, not every student is blessed with the urge to enquire. In fact, only a minority ever read anything more than the New Paper, and you know how biased it sometimes is, and of course, the horrendous grammatical mistakes which make you wonder at how much they pay their sub-editor (but that’s neither here nor there). Despite plaintive urging by their tutors, students are reluctant to even try reading one page of ST (and I don’t mean the entertainment page). So reading the papers becomes a mandatory activity, and to ensure there is meaningful purpose, they are expected to perform some sort of activity, else how would one track their ability to discern what they have read? And students resent it when it becomes institutionalized in that particular college, which leads to a vicious cycle. Is the desire to enquire and question innate? Can it be cultivated, or perhaps in the context of some students, awakened? It might seem an incredulous notion, but there does exist some strange beings who have simply no desire to KNOW. for these particular students, GP teachers have no choice but to do what is best: think on their behalf, with the hope that, with adequate modeling, the students will learn to do likewise. But, I must concede, thankfully, they form a minority of the local student population.
Time is another element under consideration, and lamentably, it is probably the most crucial. If you were to examine the number of subjects any regular JC takes on, it is simply astounding. So where does that leave exploratory learning? In a utopian scenario, any GP tutor would gladly have a lesson that expands the boundaries of the classroom to the world, literally. But the cruel fact remains that as teachers, results are integral to students at the end of the day, and while some students thrive under an unguided system of self-discovery, many will be floundering if left unattended. True, ultimately, they will be “enlightened  but that may take a number of years. Is anyone quite ready to forsake a pass in GP so that one may slowly reach that state of “Nirvana ? I should think not, at least in Singapore.
And of course, there is the old long-drawn issue of students with a poor grasp of the language. What is the testing objective of GP? The ability to comprehend texts, bring forward arguments and verify their validity. So why are many GP tutors still expected to be teaching basic SV grammar rules to students? Unfortunately, a significant percentage of local students come from non-English speaking, occasionally Singlish speaking backgrounds, which cemented their flawed command of standard English. The inadequacy, or, horrors, inability in some, to even comprehend and dissect simple extracts of articles implies a fundamental problem with their language. The only solution is to return to the roots of the problem, as pointed out accurately by the author of this blog. Yet, bearing in mind that re-learning takes a much longer and tenuous path than learning; it is easier said than done. Coupled with the limited time, it is not surprising that GP tutors had to invent new strategies every now and then in their struggle to, at the minimum, help students to understand the requirements of the question. The more linguistically-inclined amongst us might scoff at this hand-holding, but if I were to draw an analogy, how many of us, not knowing how to swim, would indeed survive if we were thrown into the deep ends of the water? Doing so would be likened to subscribing to the idea of survival of the fittest. Should we mercilessly weed out the weaker ones, or lend them a hand, in the surest and fastest way possible? Ideally, we teach a man to fish. But what is he to satisfy his hunger with in the meantime? In an unforgivable society such as Singapore, falling behind is not an option. While many students DO actually have minds of their own, and contribute vociferously in class discussions, they face an incredible obstacle when it comes to penning down their thoughts, for they lack the simple language to do so. Should GP tutors be faulted for assisting theses students with stock phrases commonly used in argumentative or higher order writing? And as for using techniques to identify question types, why not if this would assist the weaker ones in grasping the requirements of the question? A simple understanding of the difference between “evaluate  and “explain  would go miles in assisting the student in answering the question.
It is understandable that GP is often the object of any witch-hunt when it comes to curriculum review, simply based on the fact that it has no fixed curriculum. What about math, or even science? Did anyone complain of the stifling and rigid syllabus that does not allow for students to explore beyond what is taught in the classroom?
The premise in which the author of this blog bases her argument on applies to the naturally-gifted amongst us who live and breathe the language to such an extent that it becomes second nature to them. But for the rest of us mortals, guidance would be appreciated, especially when one is not quite so privileged. Similarly, should the impoverished be left behind to their devices, even as the rich becomes richer? If your answer is a resounding “NO , therein lays the objective of differentiated learning. Those of us of higher caliber are encouraged to wander the garden of knowledge. For the rest of us, well, we simply have to travel the well-trodden path, til we acquire the courage and ability to venture and seek our own path of learning.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:28 am (#)
I see you point(s) — and that is why I believe that isn’t only GP that needs a rethink — it’s the entire education system. The emphasis on inquiry and reading needs to be encouraged from an early age. Before JC there isn’t ANY reason why a regular kid would read anything other than the new paper (and the sports pages at that), because rote regurgitation is all your need. How fair is it for that same child to go on to junior college and then be suddenly expected to ‘work magic’? Our entire education system, at least while I was a part of it, is one in which the gift of the English language is one that can change your education opportunities. My friends at school and myself were naturally-gifted in the language, yes, but my middle class background also meant that my neighbours and the kids I grew up with were not. Even among these kids, those who were given some semblance of direction and hand holding in the English language, the reading of books, and writing skills, reap the rewards — so why is there virtually no focus at all on doing so in a systemic manner? It’s not GP that needs to be changed: the entire system does. I have many immediate family members who are educators; I see and sympathize with what they have to put up with, how often they are limited by the overarching power of this system and its bureaucracy. That they have done as much as they can within their constraints. But surely these should only be temporary measures.
You urged me to look into the dilemma concerning the weaker students. I have. The entire post was inspired by one such student, in a neighbourhood junior college. I am merely concerned the educators of such weaker students, such as the ones in question, have already dug themselves a hole without acknowledging the possibility that with some effort, these students can do much better. Your PRC scholar from RJC can probably do pretty okay using these techniques described. Your motivated but not linguistically gifted student could probably do the same. But ‘the rest of us’? The rest of us who went to junior colleges where we were told, in no uncertain terms, that we could only do this much and not much more?
The O Level system (as I remember it) allowed a student to pursue the maths and sciences, substitute his score in English for Higher Mother Tongue, and the humanities with something that was ‘doable’ like geography. I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not convinced the O Levels and A Levels offers our children a holistic approach that can develop them in all areas — a programme such as the IB might do better at that, and at developing inquiring minds. The math and science curriculum may be rigid and stifling, yes, but you do not, generally speaking, need exceptional math and science skills to benefit the rest of your education; a better approach towards the teaching of the English language certainly will. Why wait until JC to do it, and do it so badly? Even within a span of 1.5 years, so much more could be done. A crash course in the basics of an argumentative essay, for example, easily held over a few weekends, rather a pile of notes. I’ve seen it done before, but people who came to Singapore with absolutely no working grasp of the language two years before, who armed themselves with good foundations in essay writing using simple vocabulary, who eventually go on to score A2s and A1s. Doing everything else without the basics is akin to encouraging them to take stabs in the dark.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:52 am (#)
“Doing everything else without the basics is akin to encouraging them to take stabs in the dark.”
Exactly.
I didn’t get gp in jc, because argumentative? what’s an argumentative essay exactly about? Couldn’t for the hell of me figure out how to score, and yes, in the end, I got a B3. No A1/2 for me. (though I’d say my problem is not in my grasp of the english language, cos I did well for lit.)
What you said- its so true. ;)