The pitfalls of teaching in English

The pitfalls of teaching in English

Veteran education expert Mochtar Buchori has tirelessly
advocated higher quality education throughout his illustrious
career. The Jakarta Post reporter Ida Indawati Khouw talked to
the former rector of the Islamic Muhammadiyah Institute and
former Vice Chairman of the National Institute of Sciences
recently at his home about the government's plan to allow the use
of English in the teaching of mathematics and science.

JAKARTA (JP): The government's decision to allow the use of
English in the teaching of math and science comes well after
similar moves in neighboring countries, according to education
expert Mochtar Buchori.

Buchori has not been involved in the technical process of
teaching English himself but echoes many in observing the
noticeable poor grasp of English among high school graduates.

"This reflects our lack of discipline in speaking languages,"
he says, referring to tolerance -- and the delight -- of speaking
broken English here.

"If you want to speak in English, talk in complete sentences,"
he said.

Buchori said the government's intention was "good", but
doubted the ability of most teachers' English and feared many
courses would not be prepared properly.

"How many of our natural sciences lecturers and teachers are
able to teach in English? A teacher is a model (for students); if
he/she is poor in the language, students will follow," Buchori
said.

Teaching the subjects in Bahasa Indonesia has not even had
satisfactory results, he said.

Proper articulation is needed in the teaching of natural
sciences to instill in students "clarity of thought, methodology,
observation, clarification and analysis", said Buchori.

But Buchori has observed the growing predilection for "pseudo-
scientific thinking" or the tendency of reaching decisions
without thorough prior analysis -- though he does not pinpoint
the teaching in poor language as the only cause.

Hurried

Asked whether the government's intention was too hurried,
Buchori said it was only a statement of intent. Once a policy has
been made, "a mere decision is not enough.... teachers should be
shown how to implement it."

Buchori notes the teaching of English here lacks regular
drills. "When I was in elementary school there were always
writing exercises when learning languages, and (the teacher)
always showed me the mistakes.

"There are still writing exercises now, but with 40 students
in a class and the teacher having to do other things (to make
ends meet), does the teacher have time to check assignments?

"We cannot blame teachers for that, they are the victims of a
system which allows them to remain poor. So the whole problem of
managing the school must be completely overhauled.

"It's an interwoven problem; if teachers' economic life is not
improved there won't be teachers doing their jobs correctly."

Buchori says that what was hurried was the preparation of
schools following the rush in demand for education following
independence.

"During the Dutch colonial period we had an elitist education
system... in which teachers were properly prepared.

"During the Japanese period we only had six high schools
throughout the country so only selected people could study at a
higher level: those with financial and intellectual ability, and
others supported by foster parents.

After independence, "There was a sudden expansion of the
system with a lower quality of teachers, who were prepared in a
hurry. The curriculum was an experiment of copying the Dutch one
but adapting it for (the situation in) Indonesia.

"When high school graduates started to show their
shortcomings, universities seemed helpless; hence the drop in the
quality of local universities."

In this context, improving the teaching of English would be
one good measure, Buchori believes. But he adds that given the
questionable ability of high school teachers to teach subjects in
English, universities must be involved.

So far, he said, universities "do not care about students'
lack of English, assuming the study of English is a problem for
high schools, which is not true."

The false assumption continues from assumptions educators made
in the Dutch period. "Anyone who entered university was
considered having no problem with basic knowledge."

"Due to the decreasing quality, high school graduates' English
ability dropped little by little until it went into a thorough
decline: they hardly know anything now."

"We cannot be indifferent to our shortcomings. Universities
cannot wait until high school graduates are ready (with
sufficient basic knowledge). There should be an inventory of
problems elementary schools and high schools are facing."

There is hope, he feels, as long as people do not rely on the
minister alone -- but invest some trust in the teachers.

"In the end those who can improve the system are the teachers.
If each teacher tries to improve his/her way of teaching, I am
sure that within five years there will be improvement, so long as
they are given freedom to improvise -- to make corrections based
on their vision and ability.

"What happens now is uniformity. As long as there is no
freedom there won't be improvement in the education system."

The present curriculum, he said, should not serve as a final
model. "We live in a very pluralistic environment which needs
adjustments to implement the curriculum based on local
conditions."

"Central bureaucrats should change their attitude as they
aren't almighty creatures. They have power to determine steps and
to motivate teachers to make improvements, the desire to improve
themselves must be there within their (teachers') mind."

It's time, says Buchori, to replace the centralized
supervision limiting teachers' creativity, or what he calls
"foreman management" with "trust management." Only then might the
goal of teaching math and science in English be realized
successfully.