For the generations who lived through the war or the immediate aftermath, or who were bred on stories of war from their own parents, the fact that many students sitting for their SEC exam in history did not know who Winston Churchill was is nothing short of appalling.
The examiners, in their report revealing that only just over half the candidates obtained a pass mark, chose to highlight a number of other serious gaps in knowledge, such as the meaning of Iron Curtain or ‘sovereign state’. These would be the kind of questions students with a decent grasp of general knowledge should to be able to answer, let alone those sitting for their final history exam.
Why such serious shortcomings?
In a subject that relies so much on the ability to understand text and express oneself in writing, one of the major factors has to be the poor standard of Maltese and English, as pointed out by the examiners. Many candidates failed to understand the questions properly and demonstrated a lack of vocabulary, especially in English.
This is a well-known weakness that crops up time and again in examiners’ reports on other subjects too, with one education minister after another seemingly unable to secure any significant progress, at least so far. Language being so fundamental, especially in the humanities, a poor grasp of it affects a student’s performance in practically every subject.
But language apart and howlers aside, there must be other reasonswhy only half of the students passed the history exam. Part of the blame, of course, must be laid at the door of their home background.
Through no fault of their own, and probably not of their parents either, there may be nothing close to a culture of reading or learning at home, which, of course, makes doing well at school difficult even for the best of them. In some cases, the parental attitude may be the very antithesis of one that promotes academic success.
But it is reasonable to assume thatit is slowly becoming evident to everyone who has a television or followsthe news that a certain success in lifeis dependent on getting good grades at school and, preferably, pursuing further studies. Gradually, more and more Maltese young people are attending post-secondary education and going on to tertiary.
Households that do not value education are a dying breed or, at least, shrinking in number. So there is hope yet.
One cannot, however, just blame background. That would be unfair on the students. The results also raiseserious questions about the standardof teaching.
No doubt, the majority of teachers are conscientious, well-intentioned and well-prepared, doing their best to finish the syllabus on time. But is that good enough?
Does the way they deliver their lessons inspire interest in the fascinating events of Maltese and European history? Do they harness the rich resources of technology to engage their students and help them to learn?
Do they make sufficient use of the extraordinary historic sites that this island is endowed with in an effort to bring the subject to life? Or are they, in the main, content in their habits of humdrum delivery?
Perhaps it’s not all their fault. A densely packed syllabus and rigid system may not even allow the more intrepid of teachers to appeal to their students’ imaginations.
But the SEC results don’t lie: they point to failure in the way history is taught. It is the methods themselves that must come under examination.