In Singapore, passengers of our bus services are allowed to stand and one particular bus service has standing room in the front half of its buses while the seats are located in the rear half. During peak hours, these buses will encounter a jam within the buses as passengers who are standing will clog the front end of the buses and make it difficult for others to board the buses as the entrances are usually located at the front of the buses. The rear half where the seats are mainly located but with grip poles for standing passengers would have no passenger standing. This has led to the drivers having to remind (yell at?) the standing passengers to move to the rear of the bus, usually to little avail. Alighting from the bus is also made difficult as the exit is near the middle of the bus. In my view, the bus services should have just “flipped” the design of the bus and place all the seats in the front half and the standing area at the rear half. Passengers boarding the buses at the front will more naturally move to the rear that is designed for standing only as it leaves them with little option and the appearance of space at the rear will invite them there.

A similar thing can be done to schools. Schools too can be flipped. The flipping here involves the re-thinking on how instruction is done and also the change in emphasis on the collaboration between teachers and students, and also between students and students. A flipped classroom according to Jerry Overmyer is:

“…. a model of teaching in which a student’s homework is the traditional lecture viewed outside of class on a vodcast. Then class time is spent on inquiry-based learning which would include what would traditionally be viewed as a student’s homework assignment. Synonymous with Reverse Classroom.”

Whether it is inquiry-based learning or more traditional classwork is not very important to me. What is important is that the students get more time to work with the teachers and their peers in the classroom, rather than sit passively listening to lectures.

This flip model is made possible with the advances made in ICT. Lectures can be podcasted or “vodcasted“. Recordings of lectures can be done easily and the availability of free online platforms like Moodle to host these online. Email and IM software allows for additional support to be given.

Of course, doing all these is not new. Even in Singapore, it is done by schools. However it is done on an ad hoc basis rather than it becoming central to the delivery of the curriculum. Schools have adopted it as part of the “Teach Less, Learn More” approach. But has never been the main means of curriculum delivery. It is all too often just to pander to “Teach Less, Learn More” where perhaps one week of lessons (out of a possible forty weeks) is transferred online.

A school in the US, Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology, has taken to flipping in earnest and is ripping the advantages of flipping. The advantages of the model are many but two stands out. As Technology with Intention states:

• Flipped teaching means that an educator doesn’t need to guess at what speed to deliver content – with students watching lectures at home they can move at their own speed and review concepts as necessary.
• Without large portions of classroom time spent lecturing, educators can use that time to see students working through projects and assignments that would have previously been done in isolation at home:  break out sessions can occur spontaneously, students can work in mentor-based groupings, jigsaw opportunities, supplemental support, etc.

From the Singapore viewpoint, it can also help address the problem of excessive private tuition that many of its students attend to seek additional assistance. It may also mean a cutting back on the amount of homework. Furthermore, the flexible and more social arrangement inherent will also better reflect a 21st century workplace.

Of course, there are some who will think that such flipping can only benefit the brighter students. What do you think?

Have you ever wondered why is it that there are fewer official learning hours at the higher institutions of learning as compared to being in a primary or secondary school, or in a Junior college? Why is it we have longer hours for the younger students?

Why does it suddenly change at the higher levels? If you argue it is because the older students have a lot of other work to do outside their lectures and tutorials, so do the younger ones. They have tons of homework and revision to do. Help me anyone?

So if the official hours of learning can be reduced drastically at the higher levels, why can’t this be done at the lower levels? Would anyone care to explain what in my view is a very strange but widespread phenomena? Obviously, the curriculum is heavier it seems at the lower levels. But why?

In both Singapore and Finland, opportunities for receiving an education is present and accessible. In Finland, according to the Finnish National Board of Education, a “basic education is completely free of charge (including instruction, school materials, school meals, health care, dental care, commuting, special needs education and remedial teaching).”Under their comprehensive education system, “schools do not select their students but every student can go to the school of his or her own school district. Students are neither channeled to different schools nor streamed.” In addition, education is compulsory by law from the ages of 7-16.

In contrast, in Singapore, basic education is not free but heavily subsidized. While this may seem like a little difference, schooling costs can be high if other incidental costs like textbooks, commuting and school uniforms are taken into account. While there are avenues for assistance, the Singapore government’s stance against “welfarism” means that it is not given as a right but any assistance would have to be sought. While the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore, have made it harder for students to drop out, there are still loopholes that allow for this to occur, especially after primary education (12 years old). Bear in mind that the Compulsory Education Act of 2000 only is targeted only for students up to that age and not after.

In addition, while in both systems, school-based remedial programs are available, there is perhaps a marked difference between the two. If looked upon at a systems level, the absence of high stakes examinations and the emphasis on a formative and nurturing learning environment mean that the degree of remedial action is less in Finland.  In Singapore, the emphasis on high stakes examinations mean that the perceived need for “remedial action” is multiplied.  It is common in Singapore schools for whole classes to come for regular “extra” or “remedial” classes. This is because schools (and the school principals) see these extra classes as vital to ensure that the students excel in their examinations in the light of the competition for places in the higher levels of education or because of the streaming of students. School principals are also concerned because of the ranking of their schools (and their own ranking too I suspect) is very much linked still to the schools performance in high stakes examinations. If one drives around Singapore, one is bound to be struck by the number of banners hung prominently on the school fences to highlight the performances of their best students. These banners will even highlight these students examinations score in big, bold numbers! This is done so parents will send their children to these schools (Add on: and the competition for places will mean that they will get a “better” cohort of students).

In addition to this, in the Singapore system, the overly heavy examinations focus means that parents will also scramble to ensure that their children will have extra after school tuition classes in various subjects. The MOE has blamed parents for being indulgent and for putting additional pressure on their children with these additional classes but seriously, most parents will see it as a necessary evil since the MOE is the one responsible for introducing student ranking and streaming, and competition for places at the higher levels of education. Parents send their children for these tuition classes not only to get them to pass the high stakes examinations but also to make sure they excel. What all these mean is that parents who have the financial means to support all these additional classes and all additional learning materials and programs, are likely to have the edge over those less well-off. So while there are equal opportunities for education in Singapore, on closer examination, the system supports the elite.

Another aspect of the less than “equal opportunity” system in Singapore is that the elite schools have been given greater freedom to move away from examinations like the GCE O levels on the grounds that the students in such schools will do well anyway. Students in such schools have opportunities for a more varied curriculum with more emphasis on the “newer” approaches to learning as opposed to the schools for the rest of the masses where rote-learning and routine mechanical operations is the norm in the teaching. It shows a bias in the minds of the MOE officials who cannot understand that perhaps many of the students do not perform as well in the average Singapore school because of the sheer senselessness and tedium of such approaches to teaching. This is in spite of MOE initiatives like “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN)” and “Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM)”. These students may actually excel with a different and more exciting approach to teaching and learning. It is as if the MOE has not heard of any other type of intelligences. One can’t help also feeling that the rest of the school population that is not in the elite schools has been set up for mediocrity. In contrast, in Finland, the absence of school league tables (ranking), streaming of students and the absence of high stakes examinations means that schools are more egalitarian in the opportunities that it offers. All schools are created equal.

In Singapore, the government has also created the Special Assistance Plan (SAP)schools to ensure that the survival of the Chinese culture and Mandarin. The Chinese schools at one time were in danger of being closed down due to their increasing unpopularity in the face of competition from the English medium schools. The MOE decided that these schools needed help and they were changed overnight into SAP schools and overnight these schools were able to attract the best students and today are considered among the elite schools in Singapore. In comparison, the Malay medium and Tamil medium schools were closed down for their “unpopularity”.

In comparison, in Finland, its Swedish-speaking and Saami-speaking minority are given equal treatment. According to the Finnish National Board of Education, “The national languages are languages of instruction in educational institutions on all educational levels.” A look at the place given to the Saami, the language of the Laplanders who number only approximately 1800 people or 0.03 of Finland’s population. They have the right to receive services from society in their mother tongue. There are schools and universities which are conducted in both the Swedish language and Finnish.

Obviously from this comparison, what is said to be equal educational opportunities for all in both Finland and Singapore is not quite equal. It sounds almost Orwellian in Singapore as some are more equal than others.

(To be continued)

The testking 70-431 online training is the most easiest and reliable way to get certification. Using testking HP0-S19 study guides and testking 1z0-043 training tutorials, pass your exam on first try guaranteed.