I ECHO the view of parents interviewed in Monday's article that our primary schools are being overly rigid in penalising pupils for answers that deviate from the marking scheme ("Only one right answer to science questions?").
It appears that we are quibbling over mere semantics.
Having coached my daughter in science for her Primary School Leaving Examination last year, I concede that the exam-savvy way demands a fair bit of rote learning in terms of memorising key phrases and words from textbooks, as well as so-called "model answers" from past-year exam papers.
Sadly, there is no way of circumventing this mode of learning. Indeed, it is a travesty of the inquiry-based learning approach and expels all the joy of appreciating the wonders of science.
Another bugbear is the use of science textbooks that are woefully inadequate in terms of content coverage. All that these slim volumes provide are key concepts, with scarce examples for application. Most children and parents are, thus, forced to buy an assortment of other textbooks and assessment books to plug the deficiency.
But what about the children whose parents can ill afford to pay for these supplementary materials, let alone tuition classes? It is an uneven playing field where income disparity impacts a child's academic performance.
There seems to be something inherently wrong with how science is taught in primary schools today. Perhaps the time is ripe for a systemic review of the curriculum to address all these concerns.
Marietta Koh (Mrs)
It appears that we are quibbling over mere semantics.
Having coached my daughter in science for her Primary School Leaving Examination last year, I concede that the exam-savvy way demands a fair bit of rote learning in terms of memorising key phrases and words from textbooks, as well as so-called "model answers" from past-year exam papers.
Sadly, there is no way of circumventing this mode of learning. Indeed, it is a travesty of the inquiry-based learning approach and expels all the joy of appreciating the wonders of science.
Another bugbear is the use of science textbooks that are woefully inadequate in terms of content coverage. All that these slim volumes provide are key concepts, with scarce examples for application. Most children and parents are, thus, forced to buy an assortment of other textbooks and assessment books to plug the deficiency.
But what about the children whose parents can ill afford to pay for these supplementary materials, let alone tuition classes? It is an uneven playing field where income disparity impacts a child's academic performance.
There seems to be something inherently wrong with how science is taught in primary schools today. Perhaps the time is ripe for a systemic review of the curriculum to address all these concerns.
Marietta Koh (Mrs)
