| Grade 9 Jubillee Secondary School students during fundraising day at Taurama Leisure Centre 2012 |
Is it for political convenience or research based that we have to do away with the Outcome Based Education (OBE) system? Second question: Is it the curriculum or the syllabus? Which one are we referring to when we make references to OBE that the government had just scraped?
These are some of the
obvious questions raised in regard to the decision of the government last week.
I think it is a bit rush for such a decision to come about without considering
the emerging issues from such a decision.
The editorial of The National newspaper was spot on
regarding the issue. I am of the same view: The editorial asked: “Are we going
to just sweep away all we have learnt in two decades and usher in a brand new
era?”
In the early days of my
career as an academic I was involved one way or another in developing the
Language and Literature Syllabus used at the upper secondary level. Other
contributions include participating in offering advice on literacy and education
at the elementary and non-formal sector literacy development,
In whatever we did the
wisdom was drawn from The Matane Report alluded to in the editorial of this
paper: “It was a noble vision which was powerful and argued persuasively,
sufficient for the country to turn the entire system it has been practicing on
its head and introduced in 1992 the reformed education system. An elementary
school system was introduced. For a period of three years, every pupil starting
school was to pass through the elementary school.”
The principle behind that
report was for integral human development. Those of us who represented the
universities in the Syllabus Advisory Boards at that tine worked hand in hand
with school inspectors, headmasters, curriculum advisors, and subject head-teachers
to develop the syllabuses that are used in the education system today.
Herein is my point. The
vision and wisdom that went into developing what later was termed the Outcome
Based Education was consistent with The Matane Report or The Philosophy of
Education, especially in the conviction that education in Papua New Guinea must
have as its objective the full integral development of every Papua New Guinean.
It was best for children to
learn in their vernacular or whichever language was popular in the area of the
school. The principle behind it was so that a Papua New Guinean child will
remain connected to their cultural self in later years.
The importance of this is
that English is a pervasive and dominant language that has done more
irreparable damage to receivers of that language in terms of replacing the
mother tongue of a learner as well as moving a child away from the cultural
environment constituted by the language of birth or other languages known to
the learner.
Indeed the objective was
noble. Are we now satisfied that we have achieved full integral
development? I doubt it. There are more
frustrations and overt sentiments nowadays about illiterates overpopulating our
cities and urban centers, people who claim themselves to be educated behaving
irrationally, and many of our problems are the result of a wider social and
economic variables that political decisions seem to jockey with or worse still
ignore in addressing.
The problems cited as the
cause of poor performance of children in schools are not accurate. A number of
reports on curriculum reforms were done previously under the AusAID CRIP program
should have been the basis for alternative decisions. A number of educators and researchers
presented excellent papers on the reformed curriculum. I think a visit to those
papers would have been instructive.
The problems lay in the
provision of resources, learning environments, quality of teachers’ knowledge
and command of English language. Provisions of bridging courses and subject
specialist’s input have been insufficient over the years.
I have argued in this column
and elsewhere that it is not so much the reform curriculum our blame should
rests on, but on a number of critical elements that need attention. Take as an
example the Grade 11 and 12 Language and Literature Syllabus. The current
revised version is based on original version designed in a retreat the Syllabus
Advisory Committee had in Jais Aben Resort that I was part of. Much of the
materials, especially the list of resource materials and thematic concerns have
changed little.
Every time I look at this
syllabus one concern remains clear to me. The syllabus needs revision. Some of
the books on the reading resource list are out-of print or are not available to
every child or schools in Papua New Guinea. In terms of resources not every
school has a TV and full electronic equipment and resources to teach units like
film and media studies. How many teachers of Language and Literature in Grades
11 and 12 are trained in the field of literature for that matter. Many of the
teachers are using basic applied linguistic methods and theories without the
specialized knowledge and theories in teaching works of literature.
The bottom line for me is
that a review of the system at this time is a must. At the university level we receive students
from the 16 or so years of education Papua New Guineans have to do before
entering university. The problems
students have with the English language, speaking and writing, are the result
of many factors that we need to consider.
For example, the English language is a complex language with complex
structures of articulation that even first language speakers have problems
with. Majority of our students are born
speaking their vernacular or Tokpisin that the structures of those languages
are innate and often students use these easily as a bandwagon to ride the
complexities of the English languages. When they cannot that’s when they are
stuck with moving forward.
Research has shown that many
children in multilingual environment are better performers than are those in
monolingual environments. The simple
reason is that with multiple languages at a learner’s grasps different tools of
learning become available.
Comments
Post a Comment