Singapore's Pedagogical Model and Its Implications for London
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Singapore’s Pedagogical Model and Its
Implications for London
Professor David Hogan
School of Education
University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia
Previously:
Vice Dean (Research), Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice (2004-2005)
Dean, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice (2005-2008)
Dean, Office of Education Research (2008-2010)
Principal Research Scientist (2010-2013)
National Institute of Education
Singapore
1
2009 PISA
Country Overall Overall Overall
Reading Math Science
Shanghai 556 (1) 600 (1) 575 (1)
South Korea 539 (2) 546 (4) 538 (6)
Finland 536 (3) 541 (6) 554 (2)
Hong Kong 533 (4) 555 (3) 549 (3)
Singapore 526 (5) 562 (2) 542 (4)
Canada 524 (6) 527(8) 529 (8)
New Zealand 521 (7) 519 (10) 532 (7)
Japan 520 (8) 529 (7) 539 (5)
Australia 515 (9) 514 (15) 527 (10)
United States 500 (10 487 (31) 502 (23)
United Kingdom 494 (26) 492 (28) 514 (16)
PISA Average 493 496 501
2
2011 TIMSS
Rank Country Grade 4 Country Grade 8
Maths Maths
(Adv/High) (Adv/High)
(625/550) (625/550)
1 Singapore 43/78 Chinese Taipei 49/73
2 South Korea 39/80 Singapore 48/78
3 Hong Kong 37/80 South Korea 47/77
4 Chinese Taipei 34/74 Hong Kong 34/71
5 Japan 30/70 Japan 27/61
6 Northern Ireland 24/59 Russian Federation 14/47
7 England 18/49 Israel 12/40
8 Russian Federation 13/47 Australia 9/29
9 USA 13/47 England 8/32
10 Finland 12/49 Hungry 8/32
Australia (13th) 10/35 USA (12th) 7/30 3
Today: Four Questions
1. What features of Singapore’s pedagogical regime help explain its
success in international assessments?
2. What are the limits/opportunity costs of Singapore’s pedagogical
model?
3. What is Singapore doing to address these challenges?
4. What implications, if any, does Singapore’s pedagogical
experience have for London?
4
The Argument, in Brief…
1. Singapore has developed a highly successful educational system in a very short time based
on the design and implementation of a rigorous performative pedagogy focused on exam
preparation . This is should come as no surprise ...
2. But this performative orientation has its limits and its opportunity costs, and constrains
the ability of Singapore to achieve its long term economic and educational priorities. This
conclusion has important implications for systems that aspire to enhanced performativity…
3. Policy makers in Singapore have been aware of these limits, for more than a decade and
without repudiating or abandoning its performative pedagogy, have determined to reform
Singapore’s pedagogy by developing a reform pedagogy – a knowledge building pedagogy -
that complements Singapore’s ambitions to be a cutting edge knowledge economy ...
4. Progress so far is limited, and for reasons rooted in Singapore’s cultural beliefs and
institutional settings. And its far from clear whether or how systems can reconcile a
performative pedagogy and 21st century knowledge building pedagogy…
5. Still, in the long run, Singapore is likely to succeed, in part because of the quality of its
policy making processes, its leadership , its capacity for renewal and its cultural self
confidence … And there are pedagogical principles Britain might contemplate adopting …
5
1. What features of Singapore’s pedagogical regime help
explain its success in international assessments?
6First, some comparative instructional
data on Singapore, London and
Finland
7Instructional Practices:
8the Grade Mathematics (2011)
% of Students Doing the Following Every/Almost
Every Lesson
Singapore England Finland Internat.
Average
Teacher Instructional Activities
Work problems (individually or with 41 69 83 55
peers) with teacher guidance
Work problems together in whole class 40 32 28 48
with direct teacher guidance
Work problems (individually or with 8 9 6 14
peers) while teacher occupied by other
tasks
Memorize rules, procedures and facts 21 24 13 45
Explain their answers 30 66 36 60
Apply facts, concepts and procedures 46 43 37 49
8
Source: TIMSS 2011, ch. 8 (p.400)Curriculum Resources:
8the Grade Mathematics (2011)
% of Students Whose Teachers Use the Singapore England Finland Internat.
Following Every / Almost Every Lesson Average
Textbooks as basis of 59/38 29/57 88/12 77/21
instruction/Supplement
Workbooks or Worksheets as basis of 51/48 21/74 26/64 34/62
instruction / Supplement
Concrete Objects or Materials that help 10/85 8/57 9/83 23/71
students understanding quantities or
procedures as basis for instruction /
Supplement
Computer software for mathematics 11/82 21/76 1/53 7/55
instruction as basis for instruction /
Supplement
Source: TIMSS 2011, ch. 8 (p.394)
9Classroom Assessment Practices:
8th Grade Mathematics (2011)
Singapore England Finland Internat.
Average
% of Students Whose Teachers Give Test 39 9 1 45
Questions Every 2 weeks or More
% of Students Whose Teachers Give Test
Questions Always or Almost Always
Involving Application of Mathematical 91 71 82 15
Procedures
Involved in Searching for Patterns and 16 38 35 31
Relationships
Requiring Justification or Explanations 10 45 45 37
10
Source: TIMSS 2011, ch. 8 (p.410)What does this add up to?
1. Singapore stronger in some measures that highlight Singapore’s performative
pedagogy strengths …
• Textbooks as basis of instruction
• Workbooks/worksheets as basis of instruction
• Assessments every two weeks
• Assessments that involve knowledge application
2. London stronger in some measures that highlights London’s comparative strengths
in knowledge building pedagogical practices and Singapore’s weaknesses…
• Instructional practices that engage students
• Instructional practices that requiring students to explain their answers
• Assessments that involve searching for patterns and relationships
• Assessments that require justification or explanation
• Computer software as basis of instruction
3. Some differences were very surprising ….
• Memorize rules, procedures and facts: L~>S
11But this instructional data unable to
adequately capture Singapore’s
pedagogical regime …
12Instructional Strategies: Mean Scores
Secondary 3 Secondary 3
Mathematics English
Mean SD Mean SD
（1-5） （1-5）
Traditional Instruction
(Exam Prep, textbooks, worksheets, 3.69 .642 3.45 .669
memorization, drill)
Direct Instruction
(practice, revision, structure and clarity,
3.67 .670 3.61 .655
maximum learning time, frequency of
questioning)
Teaching for Understanding
(monitoring, feedback, flexible teaching,
3.38 .602 3.43 .564
focus on understanding, engaging
students)
13
Co-regulated Learning Strategies 3.01 .770 3.28 .688Instructional Hybridity:
Correlations of Instructional Strategies
(Secondary 3, 2010)
TI DI TfU CRLS
Mathematics
Traditional Instruction 1
Direct Instruction .72** 1
Teaching for Understanding .58** .70** 1
Co-regulated Learning Strategies .28** .35** .73** 1
English
Traditional Instruction 1
Direct Instruction .75** 1
Teaching for Understanding .63** .68** 1
Co-regulated Learning Strategies .41** .39** .77** 1
140.22
0.11
0.02
0.01 0.01 0.01
Contextual Fixed 15Task Design: Epistemic (Knowledge) Focus
Panel 3 Mathematics English
2010 2010
(N=171/2991) (N=180/3247)
N=351 (lessons) Fraction of Fraction of Fraction of Fraction of
N=6238 (phases) Effect Size:
lessons with phases per lessons with phases per Cohen’s
h
at least one lesson at least one lesson
occurrence occurrence
Factual Knowledge
0.95 0.41 0.88 0.63 .44
Procedural Knowledge
0.99 0.80 0.87 0.57 .50
Conceptual Knowledge
0.85 0.27 0.26 0.06 .60
Epistemic Knowledge
0.27 0.05 0.09 0.02 .17
Rhetorical knowledge
0.35 0.04 0.29 0.12 .30
Hermeneutical Knowledge
-- -- 0.14 0.08 .57
Metacognitive knowledge.
0.19 0.03 0.10 0.02 .06 16Knowledge Practices, Sec 3 Mathematics
Panel 3 Sec 3 Mathematics
2010
(N=171/2991)
N=351 (lessons) % lessons with at % phases per
N=6238 (phases) least one lesson
occurrence
Knowledge Communication (Syntax) 0.85 0.42
Knowledge Representation 0.94 0.66
Knowledge Generation 0.58 0.14
Knowledge Deliberation 0.10 0.01
Knowledge Justification 0.39 0.06
Knowledge Communication (Presentation) 0.96 0.65
17Percentage of Performative and Knowledge Building Tasks in Sec 3
Mathematics
N %
Performative Tasks 2,305 77.3%
Remembering Tasks 409 13.7
Routine Procedural Practice Activities 1,044 35.0
Repetition 55 1.9
Review 767 25.7
Revision 30 1.0
Knowledge Building Tasks 676 22.7%
Comprehension/Knowledge Manipulation Tasks 423 14.9
Procedural Activities with Connections 227 7.6
Doing Mathematics 26 0.9
Total 2,981 100%
18Structure of Classroom Interaction: Teacher Talk
Secondary 3 Secondary 3 Effect
Teacher Talk: Whole Class Settings Mathematics English Size
(Cohen’s
(N=171/2991) (N=180/3247) h)
N=351 (lessons) % lessons Mean % lessons Mean Lesson
N=6238 (phases) with at score with at score Level
least one (phases least one (Phases
occurrence per occurrence per
lesson) lesson)
Frequency of Teacher Closed
Question: Whole class 0.96 0.68 0.91 0.58 .21
Frequency of Teacher Open
Question: Whole class 0.30 0.04 0.62 0.14 .36
19Classroom Knowledge Talk (Teacher)
Sec 3 Mathematics Sec 3 English
% of phases per lesson % of phases per lesson
(~20) (~20)
Factual Talk 35% 56%
Procedural Talk 72% 51%
Clarifying Talk 5% 4%
Connecting Talk:
7% 7%
(Conceptual Talk)
Explanatory Talk 1% 1%
20In short, Singapore has developed an instructional
system focused on -
o Transmission of factual and procedural knowledge
o Exam preparation / teaching to the test (“performativity”)
o Functional cognitive activities (recall, memorize, practice, revision, drill)
o Procedural and representational fluency / automaticity / mastery
o Teacher dominated whole class activities
• Teaching is talking and learning is listening
• Worked examples (Mathematics: 60%+ class time)
o Performative talk rather than understanding talk
21sustained by four key institutional principles …
1. Curriculum coverage of prescribed national curriculum
2. Teaching to the test in an assessment regime driven by national high stakes
assessments at Primary 6 (PSLE) and Secondary 4 (“O” levels)
3. Bureaucratic system of teacher accountability based on student performance
4. Competitive credentialling and meritocratic selection (including school allocation and
streaming
22And by …
1. Highly prescriptive national curriculum and tightly coupled textbooks
2. National high stakes assessment system
3. Extensive curriculum resources and support from MOE
4. Dedicated, well trained, highly competent, school leadership in a progressively
decentralized environment
4. Pervasive folk pedagogy (beliefs; teaching scripts; interactional genres)
5. An integrated, coherent, tightly coupled system of public education that
preserves sufficient autonomy at the school level to ensure responsiveness to
local circumstances and the professional judgement of teachers.
23The Logic of Instruction: Teaching to the Test.
“At the end of the day, I still think onus is on me to deliver the results for the
PSLE. And this is what I have to deliver at the end of the year. And so,
naturally, we tend to teach to the test, no matter how much we want to try
certain projects which we think will deliver certain skills which are much
needed in the children etc. But at the end of the day, these kids are still sitting
for PSLE….. And hence the state of our teaching and pedagogy--- it’s still
unfortunately chalk and talk because it’s still the instant results”
Primary 5 English Teacher
24Why has Singapore done so well in international assessments?
The key pedagogical reason is Singapore’s commitment to a pragmatic,
fit-for-purpose, instrumental, hybridic, non-sectarian pedagogical model
that combines elements of two pedagogical models and focused on
preparing students for local and international assessments
Performative
Pedagogy:
21st Century /
Curriculum
Knowledge
Coverage,
Building
Knowledge
Pedagogy
Transmission,
Reproduction
252. What are the Limits of Singapore’s Performative
Pedagogy?
26Limits/Opportunity Costs of Singapore’s Performativity Model
1. Aversion to risk and innovation: innovation very high transaction and
opportunity costs
2. Press for curriculum coverage and teaching to the curriculum has generated a
pervasive curriculum tension between performativity and curriculum depth (cf.
British debate on curriculum breadth and performativity).
3. Perverse instructional incentives: there is a tight coupling of performative
instructional practices and student achievement rather than knowledge building
instructional practices and student achievement
4. This results in
• restricted attention to knowledge building / 21st century instructional
tasks
• Limited development of ICT mediated tasks and the integration of
technology into instruction
• Task Infidelity (Task Implementation < Task Design )
• Limited use of high leverage instructional strategies
27Limits/Opportunity Costs of Singapore’s Performativity Model
6. Tension between good teaching and responsible teaching
7. Streaming generates perverse effects
• Institutionalizes and legitimates deficit discourses and low self esteem
and efficacy
• Results in some stratification of instructional practice
• compounds social class inequalities in student achievement: class
composition effects > instructional effects (Its not which families
students come from that matters so much as which students they go to
class with)
8. Long tail of low achieving students that drags down overall national
performance and reduces productivity and economic growth
28Task Infidelity
Cognitive and
Epistemic
Demands of Task
as Intended and
Represented in
> Task as
Set-Up
> Task as
Implemented
Curriculum
Documents
29Multilevel SEM Model of Classroom Talk and Mathematics
Achievement (L1 & L2)
Within
-.03(.05) Prior Ach. .01(.02)
SES Math Ach.
(Math)
Between
.67(.21)
1.87(.26) Prior Ach. .36(.08)
SES Stream
Connecting (Math)
.79 (.09) Talk
.40 (.20)
.21(.07) .31(.09)
Procedural .49 (.10) Explaining .66 (.19) Epistemic .12 (.12) Math Ach. .36(.11)
Talk Talk Talk
.38 (.06)
.59(.07) .19 (.07)
.20(.04) Performative .43 (.10) Clarifying .41 (.15)
Talk Talk
Goodness of Fit Math
Note: All values represent unstandardized estimates significant at
Chi-Square / df / p-value 48.625 / 29 / .013 pTension between…
Responsible Good
Teaching Teaching
313. What is Singapore Doing to Address these Challenges?
32For the Government then, the key challenge going
forward is to get from this …
Performative
Pedagogy:
21st Century /
Coverage, Knowledge
Knowledge Building
Transmission, Pedagogy
Reproduction
33To something like this...
Performative
Pedagogy
21st Century /
Coverage,
Knowledge
Knowledge
Building
Transmission,
Pedagogies
Reproduction
In effect, a balanced pedagogical regime for an
ambitious knowledge building economy 34The Changing Demand for
Skills in the US Labor Market,
1960-2000. c Non-Routine Interactive
(Complex Communication)
(Levy and Murnane, The New
Division of Labor, 2004)
Non-Routine Analytic
(Expert Thinking)
Routine
Manual
Routine
Cognitive
Non-Routine
Manual
35Current Pedagogical Initiatives in Singapore
Institutional and
Cultural Context: MOE Policy Settings Status Attainment /
(Globalization, (21st Century Education, Social Mobility
Knowledge Economy, Leveling Up, Holistic & Practices
Meritocratic Norms) Values Driven Education)
National Curriculum National High Stakes Assessment
(More Breadth & Depth; “Leveling Up” ) System (Banding; 21st C AT)
Curriculum Coverage
Teaching to the Test
Professional Technology /ICT
Learning (AST, PLCs, CM
Classroom Instruction mediated Tasks (ACTS21)
Prof. Networks, (Enacted Curriculum)
Language Institutes) Multi-Level Knowledge
Management
Professional Teacher Organizational: Decentralization, De-streaming, Specialist
Accountability System Sec. Schools, Pre-Schools, School & Prof. Networks, School
Excellence Model, MasterPlan of AwardsAssessment and Teaching for the 21st Century (ATCS21)
Ways of Thinking
1. Creativity and innovation
2. Critical thinking, problem solving, decision making
3. Learning to learn, Metacognition
Ways of Working
4. Communication
5. Collaboration (teamwork)
Tools for Working
6. Information literacy
7. ICT literacy
Living in the World
8. Citizenship – local and global
9. Life and career
10. Personal & social responsibility – including cultural awareness and competence
37Professional Learning: Academy of Singapore Teachers (2010-)
1. Professional Growth
• Professional learning communities (PLCs)
• Professional development programmes
• Skillful Teacher PD program
• In Situ Programmes
• Postgraduate scholarships
• Immersion programmes
• Beginning teachers orientation programme
• Senior Teachers Programme
• Professional Development for Education Officers, Executive Officers, etc
• Mentorship program *
2. Professional Networks (By Discipline: Biology, Mathematics, etc)
3. Language Institutes: English, Chinese, Malay, Tamil
• Research, publications, PD
4. Professional Focus Groups (whole of curriculum special interest)
38Key objective of the professionalization project going
forward is to reduce the tension between good teaching
and responsible teaching from something like this …
Responsible Good
Teaching Teaching
39… to something like this, or better.
Responsible
Teaching Good
Teaching
404. What Implications, If Any, Does Singapore’s Pedagogical
Experiences Have for London?
41Preface
1. Pedagogy is not an aggregate of discrete practices but a hierarchically
organized interdependent system of educational practices and beliefs that
shape T & L
1. Pedagogical systems are contextually-specific cultural and institutional
formations. They cannot, therefore, be exported, rented, appropriated or
teleported as such.
2. There is no pedagogical Holy Grail. Improving the level and the intellectual
quality of student achievement depends on continuous reflection and active
and informed management of the pedagogical system at system-wide and
school levels.
42Key Design Principles…
However, despite these limits, Singapore’s experience suggests key design
principles that are generalizable for systems seeking to improve quality of
teaching and learning….
1. Gaining clarity about the learning goals and values at the system, school and
classroom: pursue broad educational aims rather than narrow performative
ones?
2. Gaining clarity about the epistemic and cognitive demands of the prescribed
curriculum
3. Establishing the epistemic and cognitive demands of national high stakes
assessment tasks. The quality of instruction depends on the quality of
assessment…
4. Recognizing the pivotal role of instructional tasks in distributing
opportunities to learn at the lesson level and to establishing the overall 43
intellectual quality of teaching and learningKey Design Principles…
5. Take knowledge seriously – not so much arcane knowledge transmitted to
students via school subjects, but engaging students in domain specific
knowledge practices responsible for generating, representing, communicating,
interrogating, deliberating and, above all, justifying, knowledge claims
(propositional, moral, aesthetic) in classrooms organized as epistemic
communities
6. Take cognition and learning seriously – and student motivation. Knowledge
building is as much a cognitive as it is an epistemic enterprise.
7. Take the structure of classroom interaction and classroom talk seriously. Talk
mediates the relationship between the national curriculum and the enacted
curriculum.
8. Promote task fidelity
o Aligning instructional strategies to instructional tasks
o The use of high leverage instructional strategies
44Key Design Principles…
9. Invest heavily in improving the achievement levels of low achieving students
for both efficiency and equity reasons
o Learning support for low achieving students
o Curriculum / pedagogical support for all teachers generally
10. Actively manage and moderate key institutional rules that shape the logic of
teaching in ways that support rather than constrain principled risk taking and
innovation.
11. Develop comprehensive multi-level knowledge management systems
(including research) and integrate them into policy making and instructional
practices, particularly in low-achieving schools
12. Grant sufficient institutional autonomy at the school and classroom level to
permit the adjustment of the curriculum and instructional practices to local
exigencies according to the professional judgement of teachers. 45Key Design Principles…
13. Invest heavily in professional learning through a combination of workshops,
extended in-situ programs, and extensive collaboration between schools
across levels of achievement.
14. Actively interrogate and challenge folk pedagogical beliefs and practices – and
do so at all levels of the system. Substantial and sustainable innovation is as
much a cultural achievement as a technical one.
15. Support development of a strong, coherent, integrated public education
system that is responsive (while preserving the capacity of schools to
mediate) to policy direction
16. Invest heavily in leadership selection, training /capacity building and support
at all levels of the system
17. Support and institutionalize extensive two-way (often in-situ)
communication/dialogue between policy makers, senior managers, school
principals and classroom teachers.
46Key Design Principles…
18. Rely on implementation models that avoid top down control and bottom up
activity exclusively. Rather, not too tight / not too lose strategies that permit
substantial autonomy at the school level within clear national frameworks,
promote whole school initiatives and provide substantial resources and
support.
19. In 21st Century institutional contexts, the key challenge for systems going
forward is not enhanced performance on international assessments, or greater
scholastic proficiency, but developing a knowledge building pedagogy that
• engages students in knowledge practices and knowledge transfer
• facilitates deeper learning, meaning-making and conceptual understanding
• develops disciplinary expertise
• develops metacognitive knowledge and self regulation, &
• Helps prepares students for rich and fulfilling lives in 21st C
institutional contexts as moral agents and members of
families, communities and nation states.
47Thank you
Email address:
david.hogan@uq.edu.au
48You can also read
