“Students can read a typical high-school “history” book from cover to cover without learning that real history emerges from the examination of evidence and the exercise of reason. Students can read a typical book from cover to cover without learning that the construction of real history involves a lot of detective work — e.g., the appraisal of claims and counterclaims, the separation of supportable assertions from superstitions and folklore, the scrutinizing of documents and other kinds of evidence, the detection of counterfeit documents and artifacts, the resolution of conflicting interpretations of evidence, the rejection of unjustified inferences, and the demolition of unwarranted generalizations”

- from “Good Stuff for History Teachers” by William J. Bennetta

There is a need to take another look at the teaching of History in Singapore. This is because most of the time the teaching of History is very much textbook-bound. Teachers tend to just explain what is already in the textbooks and get students to refer to the textbook as almost the undisputed master of information and opinion on historical events. What is of greater concern in Singapore is that while there is a shift in emphasis in the History paper for the high stakes examinations in recent years, the shift in the manner that History is taught has been far from revolutionary.

While there has been an emphasis on the higher order thinking skills and the need to interpret historical sources in the examinations, the way that History is taught in Singapore schools seems to be very disconnected from the way the students are assessed. While the current History syllabus in Singapore requires students to demonstrate an ability to think, and perhaps to think like a Historian would, teachers in Singapore do not teach students to think for this purpose.

Usually any thinking skill teaching done in a typical Singapore school History class is done only to teach students how to answer the examination questions which have been set to ensure that students demonstrate thinking skills. In other words, in the course of the lessons, thinking skills is not emphasized. Teachers would still dish out their notes or just “cover” what is said in the textbooks. What is said in the textbook are “givens”. They are taken to be facts.

Teachers only go through the thinking process with their students only because it is a requirement of the examination paper. Even then the manner that it is done will be very mechanical and little thought will be given to the need for the transfer of those skills to other situations other then through some invisible osmotic process. In other words, thinking is taught but with a spirit which is contrary to the whole purpose as to why these thinking skills were introduced into the syllabus in the first place.

This happens mainly because of the heavy examination orientation of the Singapore “education” system. Teachers know that, in Singapore, only the examination grades matter despite some recent pronouncements from up high to move away from that.The content heavy syllabus, which is based on the examinations requirements, has seen numerous reductions over the years but it is still a lot to cover. This has led to teachers still teaching rapidly to “cover” the content. There is little time for serious teaching for understanding. Very rarely will you see a teacher who actually uses mainly primary or secondary sources to teach History so that students have a more profound understanding of the learning of History as a process of learning that involves “the examination of evidence and the exercise of reason”. Little is done to show that History is:

“the appraisal of claims and counterclaims, the separation of supportable assertions from superstitions and folklore, the scrutinizing of documents and other kinds of evidence, the detection of counterfeit documents and artifacts, the resolution of conflicting interpretations of evidence, the rejection of unjustified inferences, and the demolition of unwarranted generalizations.”

If some of the above skills or processes is done in Singapore schools, it is done only when the teachers teach their students to answer the so-called source-based questions for the high stakes examinations. What this leads to is a cynical inculcation of thinking skills. The approach only teaches students to think that the thinking skills only makes their life harder and see no other application of the skills in the rest of their lives. Worse, it does little justice to a very interesting subject and students will continue to believe that History is nothing more than the learning and regurgitation of facts. Unfortunately, for too many in Singapore’s education system, it does not matter because students still ace their examinations.

In Indonesia, there is currently a deep interest in the “Sekolah Berstandar Internasional” or SBI concept. “Sekolah Berstandar Internasional” can be translated as “School of International Standard”. The idea of the SBI is being pushed by the Indonesian education ministry, DINAS, in an effort to upgrade the quality of Indonesia’s schools. It realizes the importance of Indonesia not falling behind internationally because of the poor quality of education offered in its schools.

DINAS itself is conscious of the rising popularity of schools in Indonesia that exist so that students can take international examinations like the IGCSE and the IB. However, it is concerned that such schools may orient Indonesians to look out of Indonesia and this may have an effect on its national development goals. Furthermore, it can be argued that such schools tend to cater to an elite minority belonging to the upper middle class and middle class. Such schools tend to be beyond the means of the average Indonesian who sent their children to the government schools. It is perhaps to cater to this lower income group, and to allay fears of the creation of an elite group of Indonesians with one foot out of Indonesia,  that DINAS has proposed the creation of SBIs. In official DINAS documents, the SBIs are supposed to be staffed by local teachers with a local curriculum that emphasized quality  teaching and learning that is on par with the rest of the world yet rooted in Indonesia.

However, private schools in Indonesia have been looking elsewhere for their model. In this search many schools have looked at the Singapore model as the example to be copied. Singapore-style schools have sprouted up with the typical Singapore emphasis on high stakes written examinations. “Educational consultants” from Singapore have pushed for a transplanting of the Singapore school system upon Indonesia without a thought or understanding of the real needs of Indonesia because little thinking is required by such an approach. There is also an almost arrogant assumption by some of these educational consultants that what works in Singapore, will work just as well with minor only minor tweaking.

As an example, Singapore school textbooks which are in English, are being used for lessons in such Singapore-style schools in Indonesia, never mind if the level of English language competency is not at the same level as Singapore. Not quite a few of these educational consultants have of course ingeniously argued that Indonesian students need to learn English like Singapore students because English is needed to be on par with the rest of the world.

Some even argue that Indonesian students need English to enroll in foreign educational institutions, which is far from true. They, of course, notably forget to mention that countries like Japan, Germany have done well enough without English at the earlier stages of school. Not too mention also that in Singapore you do have the environment that you need to learn English unlike in Indonesia where it is hard to come by, even through TV!

In addition, if the goal of DINAS is to produce good quality education, written examinations do not guarantee this. Singapore-style high stakes written examinations only turn schools into examination preparation centers, which are what Singapore schools really are in general. Students can still do well in such examinations even without deep understanding of the subject matter because much of such examinations require only rote-learning of facts and mechanical operations.

Indonesians would also do well to remember that even in Singapore there is already an acknowledgment to move away from this “examination-centeredness” in its schools. Yet, Indonesians are being peddled with the same outmoded Singapore approach. If Indonesians keep following these outdated approaches to education, they will always be playing catch up when they have every opportunity to jump to a higher level and a better approach to education more suited to the needs of their country.