When a right answer is wrong

Marking rigidity stumps creativity

Letter from Jenny Ang

I REFER to the letter by Chan Wai Piew on the rigidity of schools’ marking criteria, “Incomprehensible comprehension” (Aug 11), and wish to share my similar experience.

My son is appearing for the PSLE exams this year and last month, I attended his school’s briefing for parents. During the Science session, the teacher highlighted that, in answering short questions, students can only give their explanation in relation to their selected answer.

So for example, in an experiment showing two kettles with same volume of water, where kettle A is placed on a bigger flame surface than kettle B, the question asked would be: Which kettle of water will boil first, and why?

The answer most students would give would be kettle A. But the explanation would be considered correct and marks awarded only if the students say that kettle A was subject to a bigger burning surface.

Students who explain that kettle B was subject to a smaller burning surface area would not be given marks.

In the English session, the teacher in-charge told us that when the students transform a sentence which contains the word “yesterday”, the term to use in its place must be “the previous day”.

A phrase that’s typical used, “the day before”, would no longer be accepted, we were told.

Despite seeking clarification from the teacher, I am still not able to comprehend the rigid rationale of the marking system.

Why should we hinder the creativity of young minds when they are still answering to the point and giving the correct analysis?

White sheets, glass houses

Letter from Chin Kee Thou

I AM neither puzzled nor amused by the letter “Incomprehensible comprehension” (Aug 11), on how English is being taught in our schools.

I recall once when my daughter, who was then in Primary 3, used the simile “as pale as a grub” in her composition. She had picked it up from story books. The teacher corrected it to “as pale as a sheet”, to my child’s bewilderment. I had to explain to her that the word “sheet” referred to a white bedsheet which is often used in hospitals.

She told me she has not seen white bedsheets sold at department stores.

In another incident, my son was chided by his teacher for being mischievous when he gave his own twist to a familiar proverb — he wrote, “People living in glass houses should not undress.”

How can we produce students to be creative and think out of the box, when they are being forced into the same mold on the production belt of education?

Incomprehensible comprehension

Letter from Chan Wai Piew Daniel

I AM a tuition teacher; among the subjects I teach is English Language. I have students from the age of 10 (Primary 4) to those preparing for the O-Level examinations.

For a long time, I have been amused and puzzled by the comprehension component of test papers, in which students are to read a passage and answer some questions on it. While the questions are straightforward at the primary school level, they become increasingly “difficult” at higher levels.

The problem is that the student must know the specific words a teacher is expecting, rather than answering the question directly and succinctly.

For example, in a Secondary 3 paper I came across, there was this question:

“In what way did Charlie move to the scene?”

The answers “ran” and “rushed” were marked as wrong; the correct answer was:

“In a quick way.”

What rigidity!

What does a student achieve doing such an exercise?

At best, he proves he can read the teacher’s mind.

However, such an uncompromising manner is undesirable in everyday life.

In my view, comprehension should be administered as an oral test, in which a student can be given an opportunity to explain his answer. In the process, he learns how to reason in a conversational setting.

EFFICACY  is the PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY KEY for NCPC in  National Crime Prevention ? ? ? ?

Disappointed over NCPC rejection

Letter from Paul Wee

Chairman, Tanjong Pagar Cantonment Towers RC

I REFER to the report, “Here comes project X Long” (Aug 5), in which Mr Alvin Yeo, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (Law and Home Affairs), was quoted as saying that the community has been playing a pivotal role in tackling crimes especially in the heartlands.

Mr Yeo also said the formation of Neighbourhood Watch Groups (NWG) was useful because the POLICE could NOT be present everywhere, all the time.

[## Is this the CASE of tOO many GENERALS but nOt  enOught sOodiers ? ? ? ? ## ]

Like most if not all the residents committees in Singapore, my Cantonment Towers Residents’ Committee has not only had a NWG, we even have two estate warden schemes — one with adult resident volunteers, and another consisting of young resident members in their teens.

The main aim of our estate warden scheme is crime prevention.

As volunteers with limited manpower resources, we find advances in technology most helpful — such as mass response alerts through mobile phones, SMSes, closed-circuit television (CCTV) and the Internet, all of which we have been among the first to implement and use.

After a recent spate of loan shark attacks in our estate, my RC had, with the blessings of the police, Town Council and the Housing and Development Board, decided to install more CCTVs but this time, at vantage points of entry/exit for a better watch of our estate.

As the NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION Council (NCPC) provides up to $500 annually to NWGs to fund their anti-crime programmes, we have applied for it, with the balance to be paid by my RC.

But imagine our utter disappointment when our application was rejected because our installation of the security cameras had missed the NCPC’s deadline by several days because the contractor had been unavailable with installations elsewhere.

If indeed the community is valued as pivotal in crime prevention, why then does the NCPC adopt such an ATTITUDE, especially when CRIME can STRIKE ANY TIME when we are least prepared?