A Survey of Classroom Practices in Singapore
- Preliminary Findings
Maureen Ng, Joy Chew, Christine Kim-Eng Lee and Vilma D’Rozario
National Institute of Education, Singapore
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference
(September 11-14 1997: University of York)
Introduction
In this paper, we shall present the preliminary findings of a survey of classroom practices of primary school teachers in Singapore. The survey of 324 teachers was conducted in March 1997, concerning their usage of several classroom organisational strategies in various school subjects.
This survey is part of a four-year study of classroom organisation practices in Singapore and England. The research project involves the collaboration of the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore and the University of Leicester, UK. The opportunity to carry out a joint study with Leicester University was presented to NIE by Leicester’s School of Education. A benefit of such a cross-national project is to enable comparisons to be made of the incidence and effectiveness of different forms of classroom organisation in the two countries.
There will be three phases in the project. This first phase of the project has been to conduct a survey on teachers’ classroom practices, looking specifically at how teachers organise their children for learning in different subjects.
Rationale of the Study
The objective of this survey is to gather empirical baseline data on classroom practices of Singapore teachers. Hopefully, it will help to open for discussion how institutional and contextual factors affect teaching practices. The findings of this study may also help teacher educators understand how teachers adapt to educational policies and changes in schools such as those brought about by economic and societal changes. Both Singapore and England/Wales are poised to accommodate some important changes in their schools in the coming years. In Singapore, there will be an increased emphasis on the development of creative and critical thinking and on IT skills. In England, the changes have already begun with the introduction of Key Stages 1 and 2 of the National Curriculum.
Singapore education has been characterised by a centralised system and a National Curriculum since 1980. It was then that major educational reforms and the New Education System (NES) was introduced (Goh et al, 1979). This was followed by a further restructuring of primary and secondary education in 1991 (MOE, 1991). Given the centrally planned school system, subject teaching, rigorous standards and examination achievement have been features of education in Singapore. However, little has been documented of how Singapore teachers, in particular primary teachers, conduct their daily classroom work.
As one Singapore teacher educator put it, the lack of documentation of classroom situations in Singapore could be due to an over-confidence that we know enough about what goes on in Singapore classrooms (Cheah, 1997). Cheah herself has attempted to document new practices in primary classrooms in Singapore since the 1980s, particularly in the teaching of English. There are also a number of official documents, status and progress reports generated by the curriculum subject specialists and inspectorate of the Ministry of Education on the implementation of new curricular emphases. However, such documents are not easily accessible and will not have examined why teachers do what they do.
The hiatus in classroom research in Singapore contrasts with the situation in England and Wales. In the latter, there has been considerable research and documentation of policy and practice in primary education since the 1980s (see for example, Alexander, 1992; Alexander et al, 1992; Campbell, 1990; Galton et al, 1980; Galton, 1989; Galton and Williamson, 1992, Pollard, 1985). The fact of the matter is that Singapore has neglected the classroom as an area of educational research for too long. Without empirical data to describe teachers’ and pupils’ daily classroom activities, it will be difficult to compare our practices with those in other countries.
The Primary School System in Singapore
Formal schooling in Singapore begins at the age of six. By that age, most of the children will already have had two years of pre-school education at privately-run kindergartens. Primary education comes under the provision of the Revised Primary School System introduced in 1991, with bilingualism as the official policy. Thus, lessons are conducted in two languages - English as first language and the child’s Mother Tongue (MT) as second language.
Primary education in Singapore is further structured in two stages: the foundation stage (Primary 1 to 4) and the orientation stage (Primary 5 to 6). The foundation stage concentrates on basic skills learning, namely English, MT and Mathematics. In the foundation years, eighty percent of the total curriculum time is devoted to the learning of the two languages and Mathematics. The remaining twenty percent of curriculum time is divided among Science, Social Studies, Art and Crafts, Music, Health Education and Physical Education. While there is written work for all primary subjects, only English, MT, Mathematics and Science are examinable subjects (MOE, 1993).
Children in Singapore are streamed at two points of their primary education. At the end of Primary 4, pupils are streamed by academic and language ability. This determines the curriculum track they will be in at Primary 5-6, when they will be expected to attain different levels of language proficiency for MT:
(a)EM1 - English and MT1 (Higher Chinese, Higher Malay or Higher Tamil)
(b)EM2 - English and MT2 (Chinese, Malay or Tamil)
(c)EM3 - English and MT3 (Basic Chinese, Basic Malay or Basic Tamil)
A differentiated curriculum is provided also for the other subjects in which core and extension topics are delineated. The curriculum time allocation is as shown below:
Table 1
Subjects and Curriculum Time Allocated for EM1, EM2 & EM3
Stream / English and Math / MT and ScienceEM1 / 44 % of the weekly time-table / 31 % of the weekly time-table / The rest of the curriculum time is divided among Social
EM2 / 48 % of the weekly time-table / 27 % of the weekly time-table / Studies, Art & Crafts, Music, PE, Civics and
Moral Education & Health
Education
EM3 / 60 % of the weekly timetable / 14 % of the weekly time-table
Note : All the three streams at the orientation stage prepare pupils for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) held at the end of Primary 6.
There is a distinct difference in the treatment of subjects through the allocation of curriculum time and examination status. As indicated above, not all subjects of the primary curriculum are tested in the national examination. English, MT, Mathematics and Science are the four key subjects that are examined at the PSLE. The others are “non-examination” subjects, and are allocated less time in the curriculum, varying from one to three periods of thirty minutes each per week.
The students’ performance at the PSLE determines the curriculum track that they will take at secondary school level. The top sixty percent of each cohort is admitted to the “Special” and “Express” tracks to be prepared for the GCE O-levels at the end of four years. The Normal (Academic) track is designed for academically weaker pupils who are given five years to prepare for the GCE O-levels. The Normal (Technical) track offers a four to five year technically biased curriculum created for the fifteen to twenty percent of the least academically inclined pupils.
The majority of schools in Singapore have pupil enrolments of between 1000 - 2500 pupils. With such large enrolments, most primary schools are required to operate over two sessions each day, from 7.30 am to 12.50 pm for the morning session, and from 12.55 pm to 6.15 pm for the afternoon session. Thus the entire school premises are utilised for instructional and extra-curricular activities for the whole day. Half the school population functions in the morning session followed by the other half in the afternoon session.
Research Questions
The general question of the study is, “How do primary teachers in Singapore schools organise their classes so that they can meet the requirements and demands of a centralised national curriculum?”
Based on informal and formal observations of classroom activities by principals, Ministry of Education (MOE) inspectors and teacher educators, there is general agreement that Singapore teachers are still using a largely transmission mode of delivering subject matter. The MOE has been concerned that teachers be trained and encouraged to use a wider repertoire of teaching strategies for all subjects. Would this be reflected in the survey data?
We are also interested to find out how frequently teachers use group work in teaching different subjects of the primary school curriculum. Since 1985, the Curriculum Planning Division, Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) have been actively promoting the use of co-operative learning in most subjects. Supportive curriculum materials and teacher training in the use of group work have taken different forms for the subjects mentioned. They include the dissemination of centrally prepared syllabus guides, schemes of work and curriculum materials for classroom instruction, as well as in-service training of teachers for implementing such innovations.
The specific questions that have guided this phase of our inquiry are as follows:
1.What is the proportion of time used by teachers for whole class teaching compared to the use of group work, pair work or individual work?
2.Is whole class teaching the predominant mode of instruction for all subjects?
3.Are there variations in classroom organisation from subject to subject?
4.Are there significant differences between teachers’ use of classroom organisation at the lower primary compared to the upper primary level?
5.How is group work being used by primary teachers in Singapore?
6.What are teachers’ concerns regarding the use of group work?
Besides providing baseline data on Singapore primary teaching, this study of primary teachers’ classroom practices should reveal the sociological and organisational factors that influence teachers’ school work. In this sense, this study will provide the basis for further discussion of how and why primary teachers in Singapore operate the way they do in response to systemic conditions that regulate their classroom activities.
Hopefully too, the findings will stimulate discussion on the similarities and differences of primary classroom practices in Singapore and England. It will reveal if teachers in the two countries are functioning in much the same way in response to the outworking of educational policies. Of particular interest are the effects of the national curriculum in each country. It should be possible to present a comparative account of the research findings of primary classroom practices in Singapore and England at a later conference. However, for now, we will report how we conducted our Singapore study and the findings of our survey.
The Survey Questionnaire
The first part of the research required the NIE and Leicester research team members to prepare and administer a common survey instrument. The administration of the questionnaire was targeted at appropriate times in the school calendar in each country. Four classroom organisation strategies are highlighted and operationally defined in the questionnaire - whole class teaching, small group work, pair work and individual work. After pilot testing, adjustments were made to the respective versions (England and Singapore) to accommodate variations in terminology and curriculum structure.
In the questionnaire, teachers are asked to indicate how frequently they use each of the strategies for the subjects they regularly teach. They are also asked to respond to several open-ended questions on their usage of group work, the procedures for organising pupils for group activities, their reported success with group work and concerns about using group work for subject teaching.
The Teacher Sample
The sample covered teachers from thirteen primary schools, randomly selected from a range of school types in Singapore. The gender composition (slightly over 80% are female) is reflective of the male-female ratio of primary school teachers. Forty percent teach lower primary, forty percent upper primary and the rest teach both lower and upper primary classes. The teachers include those who joined the teaching profession from as early as the pre-1960s, to the 1990s. Eighty four percent of the sample are generalist teachers ie they teach a combination of subjects including English, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. Among these, half also teach Art, Music and PE. Forty nine teachers are specialist teachers who teach Mother Tongue – Mandarin, Malay and Tamil – and Civics and Moral Education.
Findings of the Survey
Teachers’ use of whole class teaching
Most teachers use a mix of two or more organisational strategies for each lesson, but whole class teaching is the norm for most lessons, as is individual work after the class teaching.
“… the pupils are taught a specific lesson for about 10-15 minutes. Those who are able to do the individual assignment (eg worksheets) will carry on with their work; while those who have not grasped the lesson objective will be taught again. The able ones will go on to do written work, while a third delivery of the lesson may be necessary for the slowest ones.” (Teacher 0919)
Typically, teachers begin their lessons introducing new material and explaining subject matter to the class as a whole. This approach is seen as most efficient for covering the syllabus. Didactic teaching is also a less risky method than group work, particularly when the subject matter is new, difficult or beyond the personal experience of the average pupil.
“There is usually a short introduction before the students proceed to group/pair-work. Individual work is more for worksheets, workbook or tests.” (Teacher 0413)
“Whole class teaching is used depending on the topic and learning objectives. This strategy… can be as effective as other strategies with the use of appropriate resource materials.”
(Teacher 0519)
Whole class instruction, it seems, is a pragmatic response to the teacher who has to cope with both large class size and tight curriculum time:
“Due to time constraint, whole class instruction is carried out most often in order to catch up with the syllabus and marking. It would be more effective if class size was smaller so that more attention could be paid to the individual.” (Teacher 0115)
“They (students) sit for a common exam and the materials they use are standardised across the level… There is no time to cater to individual needs… cramming is done to ensure that they are prepared for the exam.” (Teacher 0316)
Classroom organisation between levels and subjects
The data indicates clearly that teachers use both whole-class and individual or group work in all subjects. The combination of strategies depends on the subject, the theme or topic of the lesson and the assessment method. In Mathematics, whole class teaching is followed by individual work. During individual work, pupils work on exercises in the workbook or worksheets and the weaker pupils may be taught again in smaller groups. Group work is used mainly for science practical work and for certain English lessons, e.g., Modified Language Experience Approach (MLEA). The classroom organisation that is seldom used is pair work, except in PE where it is used sometimes.
Table 2AFrequency with which primary teachers use various classroom organisational strategies
Subject / No. of Teachers / Whole Class Work / Individual Work / Small Group Work / Pair Work
Seldom/ Never (%) / Often/ Always (%) / Seldom/ Never (%) / Often/ Always (%) / Seldom/ Never (%) / Often/ Always (%) / Seldom/ Never
(%) / Often/ Always (%)
Art / 120 / 17.6 / 68.0 / 9.4 / 81.3 / 53.8 / 18.8 / 68.1 / 7.1
English Language / 250 / 5.4 / 82.0 / 15.8 / 70.0 / 32.2 / 17.4 / 45.4 / 12.8
Mathematics / 220 / 5.2 / 79.4 / 11.4 / 76.5 / 48.4 / 13.6 / 52.0 / 12.7
Mother Tongue / 43 / 4.7 / 86.1 / 51.0 / 48.8 / 31.8 / 18.2 / 40.5 / 59.4
Music / 42 / 2.1 / 87.6 / 43.0 / 33.3 / 58.5 / 12.2 / 65.8 / 7.9
Physical Education / 110 / 14.3 / 71.0 / 50.0 / 25.0 / 7.6 / 66.3 / 27.5 / 28.4
Science / 125 / 9.3 / 68.2 / 30.6 / 48.3 / 9.4 / 62.5 / 54.6 / 11.7
Social Studies / 100 / 3.9 / 75.7 / 28.6 / 51.0 / 18.6 / 32.4 / 56.0 / 23.2
Whichever the subject being taught, whole class instruction characterises
classroom practice. Whole class teaching is used “often/almost always” by more than eighty percent of the English, MT and Music teachers. Likewise, it is used “often/almost always” by about seventy percent of Mathematics, Social Studies and PE teachers. Tables 2B and 2C show that whole class teaching has a higher mean score compared to any other organisational strategy in every subject, except Art. In Art, whole class teaching is also used, but pupils are engaged in individual work for a longer time.
Table 2B
Classroom Organization Strategies in the General Subjects & Mother Tongue
(Mean Scores & Standard Deviations)
Subject
/ No. of / Individual Work / Group Work / Pair WorkTeachers /
Mean
/ SD / Mean / SD / Mean / SD / Mean / SDMathematics
/ 230 / 4.20 / 0.84 / 4.08 / 1.08 / 2.56 / 0.92 / 2.48 / 0.91English / 259 / 4.06 / 0.81 / 3.85 / 1.13 / 2.85 / 0.75 / 2.63 / 0.81
Science / 129 / 3.82 / 0.92 / 3.31 / 1.18 / 3.63 / 0.85 / 2.43 / 0.91
Soc Studies / 103 / 4.04 / 0.86 / 3.39 / 1.23 / 3.16 / 0.85 / 2.64 / 1.02
M Tongue
/ 43 / 4.14 / 0.77 / 3.44 / 1.22 / 2.89 / 0.75 / 2.65 / 0.82Table 2C
Classroom Organization Strategies in Art, Music and PE
(Mean Scores & Standard Deviations)
Subject
/ No. of /Whole Class
/ Individual Work / Group Work / Pair WorkTeachers /
Mean
/ SD / Mean / SD / Mean / SD / Mean / SDArt
/ 119 / 3.84 / 1.28 / 4.19 / 1.05 / 2.48 / 1.06 / 2.06 / 0.98Music / 48 / 4.54 / 0.77 / 3.00 / 1.29 / 2.29 / 0.98 / 2.03 / 1.00
Physical Ed / 119 / 3.90 / 1.09 / 2.69 / 1.25 / 3.77 / 0.95 / 3.00 / 1.02
When work is assigned during class time, teachers usually make pupils work alone rather than with groups (see especially Art, Mathematics and English). The prominence of individual work in Mathematics and English reflects teachers’ concerns with monitoring and testing individual learning in core, examinable subjects of the curriculum.
“Individual work is essential for reinforcement of lessons. It also shows whether the student has understood the lesson. This has to be done in class individually without any discussion with friends.” (Teacher 0702)