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.