I thought I should share with you what I have seen (thanks Wayne!) in this video clip. It is for all parents, who still have children in schools in Singapore and elsewhere, to think about. For all those teachers and school administrators still stuck in a school system and approach that belongs to the 19th century; and who still try to console themselves that high stakes written examinations are the most important thing in schools, it is time to borrow the Apple tag, “Think Different”.

On January 27, 2009, the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) released  the preliminary recommendations of the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee. While the preliminary recommendations represents another attempt to change the direction of education in Singapore schools it still suffers from the MOE‘s traditional reluctance to let go or downgrade the position of the main reason why education is not education in Singapore but just a huge examination preparation exercise, namely, the high stakes examination system.

If we just look at the people that PERI consulted it will be no surprise why the changes are not fundamental changes. The changes would result in miniscule impact on the education system. the Committee it seems consulted “School Management and Advisory Committees of Primary Schools, Principals, Vice-Principals, Heads of Department (HODs), teachers, parents, students, as well as members of the public.” One can’t help feeling that what the MOE has done is to ask the people who have been responsible for perpetuating the Singapore school system’s emphasis on examinations to change themselves. As much as I would like to believe that real changes or reforms will take place as a result of these group of people’s recommendations and views, I am reluctant to believe so. These are the people who have through sheer inertia or reluctance to contemplate other possibilities, scuttled most of the MOE‘s initiatives in the past because of they can see nothing better than what they have been good at, that is, examination preparation. These are the people who have long been in their comfort zone. They are just implementers of the examination systems. But where are the experts? Where are those people in academia who specializes in education? Are we to assumed that they are included in the consultations as members of the “School Management and Advisory Committees“, “parents” and “members of the public”? Is this a reflection of the traditional disdain in MOE and schools for these academics? I know that lecturers for example at the National Institute of Education (NIE) of Singapore have often been regarded by MOE staff both at HQ and school levels as people who are out of touch with reality and as people who are stuck in their ivory towers. This is because the reality that the MOE people refer to is that examinations is one of the bedrock of Singapore’s “education” system.

It is interesting that the recommendations started with the following ominous words:

“Retain the strong fundamentals of our education system…”

No prizes here for guessing what one of those “strong fundamentals” are. In effect what those words really mean is “It is the exams, stupid!” This has been repeatedly hammered by MOE and this simply means that no matter what the changes that will take place as a result of these recommendations, the front line workers in the Singapore school system knows that at the end of the day it is the examinations that matter. School principals and teachers will humor these new initiatives as another that will come and go.

PERI wants that through this recommendations “the future of primary education should be about developing well-balanced and confident children who enjoy learning as they build strong fundamentals in both knowledge and skills during their foundational years of education.” It is strange that to change the primary education to be more well-balanced the high stakes examination system will on the whole remain untouched. The PERI Committee recommended that, among others, instead of the semestral examinations at Primary 1 and 2, the “MOE consider using “bite-sized” modes of assessment, such as topical tests, to provide regular feedback on pupils’ learning to parents.” Here I agree with an editorial by Singapore’s leading newspaper, the Straits Times. In an editorial entitled “Parents primary (school) concerns” on 30 January 2009, it pointed out:

“But how the substitute periodic tests are to be conducted will also depend on the inclination and occupational beliefs of subject teachers and principals. Old-style educators (sic) reared on drilling and school rankings could design these “mini” tests to be as grueling and constant as normal exams.

When spread over subjects and topics within subjects, continuing assessments can grow so intense they become replicas of the semester exams. The net effect is that child stress attributed to “exam hell” is hardly reduced.”

I can already imagine the MOE responding by saying that the stress is due to the parents as no matter what it does, it is the parents who will push their children and cause the additional stress. This view is based on past comments from the MOE. It does not take a genius to see that this will be the net result of “bite-sized” topical tests! So why still insist on topical tests. Where is the Senge system thinking that MOE has tried to push to its administrators and teachers?

The answer is in the mindset of the people that PERI have consulted, namely the school principals, vice-principals, HODs and teachers. The fact that the term “topical tests” is used indicates the mentality of the people that PERI have been listening to. They cannot see any other way of assessing learning. Such tests by nature also tend to focus on the end result rather than the process of learning itself. That same editorial goes on to say:

“The pedagogical (sic) system has been so exam- and grades- validated it is hard to shake habits. Teachers need to undergo self-reform of mind and reflex in order to accomplish what the Review committee has suggested in the way fo rounded learning for pupils and giving parents more useful feedback on their children’s strengths and weaknesses than test scores.”

Therefore base on this comment, we can, by logical extension, also say that because these teachers (school principals, vice-principals and HODs included) still need to make that self-reform in their minds, they should perhaps be the LAST people to be consulted about reforms in the school system in Singapore.

Don’t forget also that the “removal” of the examinations is only for the Primary 1 and 2 levels. The message to teachers and principals is still very clear. At the risk of sounding boring, it is the exams, stupid! This is because teachers will still see the examinations as the real “business end” of their work. After those two levels, the preparation for the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) will continue maybe even at an increased pace since as the time given to complete the course has been shortened by two years. Knowing the mindset of many of those in Singapore schools today, the first two years of Primary school learning without the examinations will be soon  be considered as mere fluff. It will not be considered as fluff only if the topical tests become extended “bite-sized” exam hell.

One also wonders about other possible reasons for the retention of the PSLE, and retained probably not much different from its current format and approach. Is it also because MOE has through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) been pushing the international version, the iPSLE, to our neighbouring countires as part of the effort to make Singapore an education hub and bring in the money? How can they be selling the iPSLE to out neighbours if we do away with it or even admit problems with it? Moving away from the PSLE may also eventually affect our Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) performance which has been used by MOE shamelessly to sell Singapore’s education system. Maybe they are doing systems thinking here after all!

“Some of the discouragement of our natural inquiry process may come from a lack of understanding about the deeper nature of inquiry-based learning. There is even a tendency to view it as “fluff” learning. Effective inquiry is more than just asking questions. A complex process is involved when individuals attempt to convert information and data into useful knowledge. Useful application of inquiry learning involves several factors: a context for questions, a framework for questions, a focus for questions, and different levels of questions. Well-designed inquiry learning produces knowledge formation that can be widely applied.”

- Thirteen Ed Online

GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers today have become more popular with consumers. They are now commonly found in phones and cars as part of navigation systems. Today, teachers and students can use simple and relatively GPS receivers with built-in dataloggers into the “classroom” to make learning interesting. With these receivers teachers can encourage their students to undertake inquiry-based learning of their own using sophisticated but relatively inexpensive tools. GPS receivers, and its usual partner, the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can help teachers and students integrate ICT tools into the educational process.

Students can use GPS receivers like these to also map routes, mark locations and record their observation of things along the route digitally through their digital photographs. Of course the photographs can be tagged accordingly (see here for an example of how photos are tagged to Google Maps) and using these tags students can actually try to discern patterns of spatial distribution with great accuracy. Field work and inquiry becomes easier without losing the discipline that comes with serious inquiry. With such data, it becomes easier for other students to build on data that has been collected earlier and compile new layers of data using GIS for greater in-depth study.

The inquiry-based learning process engages the students innate curiosity to spur their own learning. In inquiry-based learning students learn need to learn what data to collect, how to get that data and make sense of the data that they have collected. This represents a shift from the traditional emphasis on rote-learning, memorization and traditional Trivial Pursuit-like pen-and-paper assessments. Postman and Weingartner wrote about this approach in their biting critique of modern day education, “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”, written about forty years ago.

The inquiry-based learning is not dissimilar to the scientific approach. It begins with deciding what is it that is to be discovered? What are the questions that need answering. The second part of the process is deciding what data is to be collected and how it is to be collected. The third part of the process is the actual collection of the data. Fourthly, the analysis of the data is done to draw the appropriate conclusion of the inquiry based on the data already collected and analyzed. A reflection of the whole process as the last stage is vital too because the reflection is feedback about what went well or otherwise in the whole process. It may also lead to the need for another round of the whole process to be carried out.

Using GPS for inquiry-based learning, teachers and students will undergo the same process mentioned above. The only difference perhaps is that the information will take on a spatial dimension. Students using GPS devices can now log where, for example, different species of butterflies are found. The location where digital photographs of these butterflies are found can be automatically tagged to a very specific location through the GPS receivers.The data distribution patterns can then be studied spatially using GIS software or by displaying them on Google Maps.