Some time ago, while I was with the Educational Technology Division (ETD) of Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE), a colleague of mine and I was asked to accompany a visiting master teacher from the United States as she went round a few places in Singapore. We visited the Sungei Buloh Wetlands Nature Reserve.

During the course of our conversation there, the topic of acid rain came up. She regaled us of how an American senator, in his attempt to show off his green credentials while talking about acid rain, said that he would like to bring the pH level to zero! We had a good laugh then. But a few moments later while still taking about how students could study the water quality in the area to check for acid rain and its effects, I received a first-hand experience of scientific ignorance (now that’s contradiction of terms). While she was explaining how it could be done, she asked what the water quality would be like if the rain clouds had passed over industrial areas before pouring into the reserve. My colleague, who was a Science teacher, promptly answered, “It would be acidic!” He did it with a big knowing smile like a child who had provided the teacher with the correct answer in school.

On my part, I think I looked stumped by the answer. The master teacher also looked a little surprised. I am not sure if she was annoyed but we both knew that the water from the rain may not be acidic. It may be alkaline. It all depends on the kinds of pollutants in the air! The master teacher then proceeded to explain with a  straight face why the rain water might not be acidic as my colleague had blurted out.

Even then, I felt that my colleague’s “answer” was a reflection of the kind of science teaching that goes on in Singapore schools. All too often what goes on is the teaching to the examinations. This implies again rote-learning and mechanical operations.  Little time time is spent to teach the scientific approach which is about asking questions and testing hypothesis. Little effort is spent at making observations and inferences or deductions and classifying data and trying to understand processes. Laboratory work in schools usually only have students follow written set of instructions about what to do and is left for them to carry out the experiment and draw their conclusions from “their” experiments. Students don’t create their own experiments to answer their own questions. We in fact don’t teach them to ask questions. We don’t encourage them to be curious. This was a point raised by the American master teacher too. At Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve, she noticed that at the exhibits were all in the “telling” mode. Information was given about the plants and animals found there. But what about the questions? I remember her saying that it is not important to provide the answers to the questions as what we want the visitors to do is to think. This is what science education is about.

On the other hand, in Singapore, concepts are over-simplified (see what happens to the idea of acid rain) and memorized rather than understood and applied outside of the examination papers. Little knowledge transfer is attempted by teachers to make the learning meaningful. It is because of this approach to the teaching of science in Singapore schools that many false or wrong ideas are carried to adulthood. I have often come across many “educated” people who believe all fishes lay eggs. Or that all mammals give birth to their young. Simplistic ideas are taught and these tend to stick in the students’ heads till adulthood due to what is known as contiguity. Perhaps this is the reason why we are importing scientists from overseas to pad our R & D pool in Singapore. We simply don’t teach our students science. What we teach them is bordering on science fiction sometimes. I will end this post with a quote from Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics and also tough critic of Science education. He said:

“…I couldn’t see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, and teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything.”

(PS My thanks to Kelvin for the quote and for inspiring me to write this piece.)

Addendum: Just for a comparison with the way Science is taught in Singapore’s , read this article.

Singapore’s reputation as a country with a very good education system has spawned many educational consultancies to meet the demand for Singapore-style education in neighboring countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and China. This is true in the light of the previous financial crisis that affected countries like Indonesia badly. The financial crisis has meant that where Indonesian parents once would readily send their children to Singapore for a “quality”, Singapore education, today they would prefer to have their children remain in Indonesia and experience the Singapore education system back home in Indonesia itself. This has led to the mushrooming of private schools in Indonesia and other neighboring countries that claim to follow the Singapore system.

Unfortunately, quite a few of these educational consultancies have also mushroomed quickly to meet this demand for Singapore-style education or schools. It is unfortunate because many of these only feed on the gullibility of the clients. Most of their foreign clients only have a hazy idea of what a good school is about except that since the schools in Singapore is regarded as good so they want something akin to that of Singapore. The educational consultancies from Singapore have resorted to the easy way out and sell their idea of Singapore-style schools as schools with international examinations and Singapore school textbooks.

What has happened is the transfer of these things with little thought to the prevailing conditions of the host country. Singapore textbooks are being used when they are more suitable for the GCE O levels examinations that Singapore’s students sit for rather than the IGCSE that students in Indonesia are more likely to sit for. It doesn’t matter if the textbooks are for students taking English as a first language rather than as a second language. The Singapore marking system is adopted although the requirements of the IGCSE differs from the GCE O levels. Singapore schools’ examination paper format is adopted rather than one more suitable for the IGCSE. Force fitting is the Singapore way it seems with some educational consultancies from Singapore.

This has resulted in great confusion. It shows also just how unprofessional such Singapore consultancies have been. They have not even bothered to find out the differences between the two countries. They remind me of Procrustes of Greek mythology who would either stretch his victims on a bed-like rack or cut off their excess length to fit the rack. The rack is always correct.

ICT for education is now a popular catch phrase. Schools use it to advertise the progressive nature and vendors of “educational” ICT tools also jump on the bandwagon to sell their products to schools. Some even promote themselves as consultants to schools to sell these ICT tools to schools. But ICT for education is not just about tools. It is also about how to use ICT tools in a very pedagogically sound manner. To be sure, ICT for education also includes its use for  the administration and monitoring of a school’s activities. However, here I will limit the discussion to the use of ICT for learning.The knowledge of the technical aspect of the ICT tool is important but for it to be used as an educational tool, great thought must be given to what learning is to take place with it and how that learning is to take place

Schools, therefore, have to be aware of this important element in using ICT for education, especially when they are dealing with vendors masquerading as consultants. Many of these vendors are only keen to sell their products to the school but cannot advise the schools on the quality use fo the tools for learning. Schools keen to use ICT can fall prey to such vendors because often schools themselves have little expertise in the use of ICT for learning.

Among the questions that schools need to ask vendors or consultants are:

a) how the tools are to be used;

b) the frequency of use, the learning goals that can be achieved with the tools;

c) the limitations of the tools;

d) the kind of training that is required for the teachers;and

e) the learning curve for mastery of the tool

Consultants claiming to have expertise in ICT use for education should also be quizzed on their understanding of learning as a process and not only as an ICT platform. Schools owe it to themselves to do these because usually not only are the ICT tools relatively expensive but all too often it is being pushed only for its promotional and novelty value and not due to some real educational objectives.