Primary school textbooks leave teachers and parents dumbfounded

Parents flicking through their children's textbooks are unlikely to be able to understand the language and curriculum contained therein, even if they are meant for Year 1 students, judging from MalaysiaNow's conversations with parents and experts, many of whom were shocked after reading through their children's primary school curriculum.

Among the many complaints is the content of the Year 1 Mathematics textbook.

They noted that the introduction to arithmetic using the abacus as well as various numbers and other graphs could be overwhelming even for adults.

Meanwhile, the science textbook for Year 4 is full of technical terms such as "operational definition", "variables", "hyphothesis".

For example, a question in the book is about the "operational definition for the height of a tree".

"If you want to find out the height of a tree, just measure it. There is no need for an operational definition," said education expert Othman Talib of UCSI University, who recently spoke to MalaysiaNow about the national curriculum and textbooks.

"I have worked and researched in the chemistry department for 10 years and I have never used operational definitions.

"Imagine if students were asked for the operational definition for the height of a tree," he said.

His comments reflect the concern and frustration of many parents and educators who point out that students are increasingly disinterested in subjects such as maths, science and history because they are presented in a complicated way that is not appropriate for the age of the students.

One problem that often occurs is a curriculum that is too advanced and language that is too difficult, which baffles not only the students but also the adults.

MalaysiaNow found that many of the complaints and allegations were valid after reviewing several textbooks for Years 1 to 6.

For Othman, one of the biggest problems is the layout of the book itself and the fact that too much information has been crammed onto a single page.

"For example, there is just too much colour and information, leaving no empty space. When a student looks at the page, they can lose track.

"There are a lot of distractions on one page. These are all ideas from the older generation who think you have to include every single point. When you open the book, students are put off," he said.

Othman cites the science book for Year 1 as an example, which contains too many diagrams with confusing labelling on pages 20-21.

"Parents may want to write in the space provided, but they can not because there is a logo of a pencil. Why is there a picture of a pencil?" he asked, pointing to page 25 of the same book.

Then we showed Othman a page about plants, where a diagram on page 56 explains the individual parts of a plant.

Othman admitted that the authors had tried to make the topic interesting, but said: "It's out of place".

"It's not in line with what students think. What is the point of Standard One students learning the importance of leaves if they still have trouble reading?" he asked.

He said that students at young age need to digest information gradually and can not process all the information at once.

Meanwhile, Othman noticed an error under the topic of "Science Room Rules", the second topic in the Year 1 science syllabus.

He points to a picture in the book labelled as a science room and says that it is actually a science laboratory.

'Meant for geniuses?'

As an education expert, Othman was invited to take part in discussion sessions organised by the education ministry in 2007 to "refine" the school curriculum.

However, he stopped attending after being told that no changes would be made to the existing curriculum.

Flicking through the Year 1 maths textbook, Othman cited more examples of "too much information" on pages 5, 6, 17, 18 and 19, accompanied by a graphic of an abacus and various other figures and diagrams.

In Year 2 maths textbooks, the labels are not helpful at all and only make things more complicated for students, apart from being repetitive, he said.

Othman said that a student's ability to do maths calculations is not at the level of the textbook.

He wondered if those who developed the syllabus had "genius" kids in mind.

The same goes for the introduction of rounding and fractions in the Year 4 maths textbook.

He said it was too much to expect students to master these skills at this age.

Othman questioned the various trips by ministry officials to study curriculum preparations in different countries and said that despite all the suggestions, nothing has changed.

"I once accompanied a delegation from the education ministry on a visit to schools in Australia. They came, saw and ate, and in the afternoon they went shopping. The next day they visited another school. They held session after session and then returned to Malaysia with nothing," he added.

Meanwhile, a private tuition teacher questioned why Standard Three students had to learn the exchange rate of Asean currencies.

"First, they should teach the children how their peers in other countries live. Only then should they be taught what kind of money is used there.

"Currency exchange is not important at this age," she said.

She said that based on her experience, the education ministry should cut the current curriculum and reduce the number of subjects in primary schools.

As an example, she cited the question of why students are taught the theory for physical education.

"The way the subject of history is presented is also boring. They want to explain the entire history of Malaysia from Year 1 to Form 5."

She said the same goes for Nilam, a programme launched by the ministry more than two decades ago to inculcate the reading habit among students.

"They only require students to fill up the book. It doesn't matter whether the child has read or not," the teacher added.