IN 2013, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that History would be made a compulsory subject for all students taking the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (Malaysia Certificate of Education). SPM candidates are required to obtain a pass in this subject in order to obtain their certificate.

This action seems in line with the aim of the Malaysia Education Blue Print to cultivate thinking skills and shift the education system towards holistic skills development. Under this plan, several polices were introduced to cultivate such skills, one of which was the inclusion of higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) questions in public exams.

The ability to think critically is vital to the study of History, and is often incorporated into the teaching of History as an academic discipline. Hence, the MOE’s decision make passing History compulsory in SPM is not that surprising, what more given its view that the teaching of history could instil love among students for the nation, hence strengthening their loyalty and identity as Malaysian citizens.

Historical thinking components consist of five aspects: chronologic skill, facts exploration skill, imagination skill, interpretation and analysis skill and rationalising skill.

History critical thinking skills (HTS) may be defined as a set of reasoning skills that students of history acquire in the process of making sense of historical facts. Components of historical thinking include evaluating evidence, interpreting facts and using analytical skills to form a reasoned and coherent narrative.

Steps towards cultivating HTS: are we on the right track?

The MOE has tried to cultivate HTS by introducing a revised History syllabus and introducing an additional exam paper (Paper III) in2013 (Exam Method). 

Paper III’s format is a 3-hour long open book examination, where candidates are required to produce an essay on a specific theme which is given few weeks prior to the examination. Paper III accounts for 20% of the total grade, a change to the previous scoring system.

To what extent does the introduction of Paper III actually help in cultivating HTS? The answer to this is still uncertain. At the end of the day, the paper is still graded based on a rigid marking scheme that forces students to focus on ‘ticking’ particular boxes to get the desired grade, instead of being concerned with the analysis of historical problems.

This formulaic approach to grading papers has in fact been long been engrained in our education system. While it may work for other subjects such as Chemistry and Biology, the beauty of studying History is that it teaches students to think critically and produce independent arguments based on their analysis of facts and evidence.

If cultivating HTS is truly the aim, MOE must firstly ensure that Paper III’s marking scheme does not penalise students for expressing judgements and opinions that run alternative to the official textbook narrative.

For example, the current History textbooks state that Malaysia’s independence was negotiated mainly by the three main parties in the Alliance, led by Tunku Abdul Rahman with the British. 

Yet a recently published book ‘Sejarah Rakyat Khususnya Perkembangan Nasionalisme Malaysia’ written by Syed Husin Ali argues that the contributions of grassroots nationalists also played an important role. Would incorporating such views into the written examination earn students more marks for shaping their own analysis, or would they instead be penalised for thinking ‘outside the box’ of the marking scheme?

Beyond just adjusting the curriculum, Historical Thinking Skills (and indeed, critical thinking skills) can only be unlocked if teachers themselves encourage students to form and propose their own independent judgments and opinions of what they read.

In this view, history teachers play an important role in fostering critical thinking among students.

A 2016 research paper titled ‘Why historical thinking skills was not there?’ found that in a sample of local secondary schools, teachers’ excessive dependency on textbooks had diminished the implementation of HTS in classrooms. Another study observed that there was no significant difference between the previous and current education system in terms of teaching and learning delivery.

This points to a weakness on the part of the teachers to be able to impart thinking skills to students through the curriculum. In this sense, little progress will be made simply by tweaking the curriculum, if the pedagogical skills of teachers are not improved. 

While the government’s efforts to cultivate critical thinking skills through the study of History in schools, revamping the syllabus and introducing the open book concept into written examinations are all good steps, cultivating critical thinking skills must necessarily go beyond that.

If the MOE is truly serious about wanting to cultivate critical thinking skills, it must tackle the root issues. A majority of students (and some teachers) view History as a boring subject, where rote memorisation is required in order to pass. Giving students room to discuss and debate beyond official textbooks is important. 

We have still a long way to go, after all, Rome was not built in a day.  Greater awareness and understanding of the importance of history is greatly needed.  To this end, acquiring a deeper and more nuanced understanding of our past should be the main focus of teaching History in our schools. – October 29, 2017.

* Esther Sinirisan Chong is a member of Agora Society. She was born and raised in the Land Below the Wind. Her research interest lies in education and government policies, and the history and heritage of East Malaysia.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.