Tip toe through the tulips with me

Lisa Daner, M.D., wrote the book, “Every Patient Tells a Story: Medical Mysteries and the Art of Diagnosis”. In the book, she recounted her experience being asked to take part in an experiment by Dr. Marvin Chun, professor in the Visual Cognitive Neuroscience Lab at Yale. In the experiment, she was asked to view a video. In the video are two teams, one dressed in black and the other in white. And each team is given a basketball. Daner was tasked with watching the white team and keep track of how many times the ball was passed between players “keeping separate counts of when it was passed overhead and when it was bounced from person to person.” This was how she described her experience (click on the gorilla to view the video):

“The image started to move and I kept my eyes glued to the white team’s basketball as it was passed silently among the moving mass of black and white bodies. I got up to six overhead passes and one bounce pass and I lost track. Determined not to give up, I kept going until the thirty-second video was complete.

Eleven overhead passes and two bounce passes? I ventured. I told Chun that I got a little confused in the middle. Despite that, I’d done a good job, he told me. I missed only one overhead pass. Then he asked, “Did you see anything unusual in the video?” Other than the unusual setting for the game, no, I saw nothing at all out of the ordinary.

“Did you see a gorilla in the video?”

A gorilla? No, I had definitely not seen a gorilla.

“I’m going to show you the video again, and this time, no counting, just look at the game.” He restarted the video. The white and black teams sprang back into action. Eighteen seconds into the game”around the time I lost my concentration”I saw someone (a woman, I find out later) in a gorilla suit enter the hallway court on the right. She strolled casually to the middle of the frame, beat her chest like a cartoon gorilla from a children’s TV show, then calmly exited out of the left side of the picture. Her on-camera business lasted eight seconds and I hadn’t seen her at all.

If you had asked me if I thought that I could miss a gorilla–or even a woman in a gorilla suit” strolling through the picture, I would have agreed that it was impossible to overlook such an extraordinary event. And yet I did. So did more than half of those who were given the same task by Daniel J. Simmons in his lab at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. How is that possible?

We have tremendous faith in our ability to see what is in front of our eyes. And yet the world provides us with millions of examples that this is not the case. . . . Researchers call this phenomenon “inattention blindness” because we often fail to notice an object or event simply because we are preoccupied with an attentionally demanding task. . . .

As it turns out, most of the time we see what we want to see, what we expect to see. Our ability to see objects or events that are unexpected and dissimilar to those that we are looking for is extremely limited. . . .

Based on research like this, Chun and many other researchers in this area now believe that the expectations of the viewer are the primary shapers of what is seen, and that the unexpected will often be missed. We become better seers when we have better expectations. When you are given a specific task”-follow the ball as it’s passed between members of the white team”you can predict what the expectations might be, and that observers are unlikely to see the passing gorilla because it’s not in their set of expectations.

What about in situations where you are looking but the task is more complex–the way it is in real life, or in the hospital taking care of patients? If their theory is true, what you see and what you don’t see will be shaped by what your experiences have led you to expect. Perhaps Osler was mistaken when he said that more diagnoses were missed because of not seeing than not knowing. Perhaps not knowing is what caused not seeing.

This is a cautionary tale for those involve in Singapore’s education system. Have we been so focused by the powers-that-be that we only see what they want us to see? I will be the first to admit that my blog has been very critical of the Singapore education system (I prefer to call it schooling system). I have lambasted the system and highlighted its faults. Someone actually said I was only taking “pot shots”. But I can honestly say that it was done with full awareness of the praise that the system has been garnering internationally. Our leaders never ceased to remind us of that. My purpose was to provide an honest alternative view or at least a view of the dark side of the moon.

But I wonder how many of those in education in Singapore can spot the gorillas in Singapore’s school corridors? While we have won accolades from all over and been the subject of study, not to mention be the model for emulation, I wonder how much of the negative aspects of the system been highlighted to international visitors?

Have they been told of the sheer narrow-mindedness of the system with its focus on high stakes examinations? Have they been told that much of these examinations concentrated to be not much more than an overblown version of a Trivial Pursuit game and mechanical operations? Something that even some commercial vendors know when they sell their accelerated learning programs and teach you how to “play the examinations game”?

Has anyone told them about the stigma that is attached to those less successful in the examinations game? Has anyone ever told them that the streaming of students that is a direct result of their performances in school examinations has led to their being labeled as underachieving students or failures? Has anyone told them how many carry this negative stigmas for the rest of their lives? Has anyone told these eager visitors why a large number of our students just choose to disconnect themselves from school? Has anyone also told them of the lost childhood of many a student due to extra classes and tuition? Has anyone told them the reason why such a good system seems to hinge on a large number of remedial classes? Not to mention, the army of private tutors that our students and parents depend upon?

How many of them have been told that while Singapore has done well to provide basic education for its population, what it is preparing for a large portion of its student population is a 20th century education? How many have been told that only the elite and the best students are only beginning to be exposed to a 21st century education?

These visitors probably have been told that in the Singapore system there are things like streaming. But like Daner in the experiment, their expectations of what they will see has been “managed”. They see what they want to see. They also see what they have been told to see. So even if they are told about the streaming of students into the clever and not-so-clever, they will see it as a positive step in making teaching more efficient. They won’t see the gorillas.

What about those in the education service in Singapore? Have they also failed to see the gorillas in the school corridors? Are they too busy counting the number of distinctions and failures that they do not see the lasting negative impact of the educational policies that they are implementing? Are the schools too busy going after ISOs, and Gold and Silver Awards, that they forget what is basic? Are they too busy counting everything that is not important that they fail to see the negative human impact of these policies?

It seems that we have “inattention blindness”. Is this because school-ranking and the high stakes examinations are considered as attentionally demanding tasks by the Ministry of Education (MOE)? Those in schools have no choice but to toe the line as good civil servants. Even then it would be nice to hear from them to acknowledge at least that they are suffering from another form attention deficit disorder instead of thinking only the world of the Singapore’s education system and is defensive when criticisms are made of the system.

Both Singapore and Finland enjoy international repute for the sterling performances of their students in international surveys like PISA and TIMSS. Both countries have also been known to produce students who have done well in international Mathematics olympiads. Singapore students have been known to do well in the Cambridge GCE O and A levels too. For the lay person, these are indicators of good educational systems.

But even then, Singapore’s leaders have repeatedly said that it has to move away from the examination-focus of the country’s education system. It is interesting to note in this video of a lecture by John Seely Brown, he mentioned at the tail end of the video during the Q&A session of a lecture (see video here), that Singapore leaders have indicated to him that while they have done well in international surveys, these surveys are for 20th Century skills not 21st Century skills. In other words, they are near irrelevant.

In explaining their success in international surveys, the Finnish National Board of Education, said that among the reasons for their success is:

“Assessment of both schools’ learning outcomes and pupils is encouraging and supportive in nature. The aim is to produce information that will help schools and pupils to develop. There are no national tests of learning outcomes and no school league tables. Pupils and schools are not compared with each other. National assessments of learning outcomes are based on samples and the key function of assessment is to pinpoint areas requiring further improvement in different subjects and within the entire school system.”

and also:

“Organisation of schoolwork and teaching is guided by a conception of learning where pupils’ own active involvement and interaction with teachers, fellow pupils and the learning environment are important. Pupils process and interpret the information that they absorb on the basis of their prior knowledge structures.”

Here you see that in the Finnish system does not stress on summative assessment of its pupils unlike in Singapore where high stakes national examinations, ranking of students against one another and school league tables (we call it school ranking in Singapore) is the norm. In contrast, teaching and learning in Finland is through the “pupils’ own active involvement and interaction with teachers, fellow pupils and the learning environment are important. Pupils process and interpret the information that they absorb on the basis of their prior knowledge structures.” I will revisit this point in a subsequent post.

The other commonality between the two countries is the centralized steering albeit done in different ways. In Singapore, educational policies are laid out by the Ministry of Education (MOE). In addition to this, the fact that almost all schools in the country are required to do high stakes examinations, it means that the syllabus for almost all the subjects are defined by the University of Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) examination syndicate which works in tandem with the MOE. The MOE is beginning to allow some exceptions to this link with the CIE but such exceptions are only allowed for the more prestigious schools. The MOE does allow schools some degree of autonomy in the daily running but almost all schools must subscribe to its major policies, for example, with regards to ranking and examinations.

In Finland, according to the Finnish National Board of Education:

The education system is flexible and its administration is based on intense delegation and provision of support. Steering is based on objectives set out in the Basic Education Act and Decree and within the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Responsibility for provision of education and implementation of objectives rests with local authorities (municipalities).

This devolvement of responsibility gives the Finnish system that flexibility with regards to the running of schools. Furthermore, in the Finnish system, there is greater level of partnership building with relevant institutions and organizations with regards to the educational support that the schools receive. They sought to ensure that:

“Activities at all levels are characterised by interaction and partnership building. In order to develop the school system, there is co-operation between different levels of administration, schools and other sectors of society. Finnish school authorities also co-operate a lot with subject associations and teacher and rector organisations. This has secured strong support for development measures.”

In Singapore, little such interaction and partnership building is done. If they do exist, they are from institutionalized.

The two countries also offer comprehensive education for students. In Finland this is up to the age of sixteen. In Singapore, the Compulsory Education Act made it compulsory for all parents to enroll their children in school till they have completed primary education (twelve years old).  This measures are likely contributors for the two countries relatively good reputation in the educational arena.

So while there are similarities in the two countries’ educational systems, even in the similarities, there are, I believe, important differences that account for the markedly differing character of the two educational systems. I will be delving more about this in subsequent posts.

(to be continued)

Getting IT certification is no more a dream with testking JN0-100 online training. Download testking JN0-400 study pack with self paced testking HP0-J22 practice test and pass your exam on first try.

I would like to start off with a look at the similarities in the education system between the two countries, Singapore and Finland. I will discuss the similarities in subsequent posts. Again, please refer to the diagram that I have provided in Part 1 of this series.

If you look at the diagram, the two countries are similar in four areas, namely:

a) in the importance that is attached to education in both countries by the the government and society;

b) both systems are highly regarded around the world with their students having fared well in international surveys and olympiads;

c) both systems have centralized control albeit with some differences; and

d) both provide comprehensive education

Education is given great importance in both the Finnish and Singaporean societies. In Finland, the right to education is enshrined in the country’s constitution. The Finnish National Board of Education re-affirms this on its website. It says:

“The main objective of Finnish education policy is to offer all citizens equal opportunities to receive education, regardless of age, domicile, financial situation, sex or mother tongue. Education is considered to be one of the fundamental rights of all citizens. Firstly, provisions concerning fundamental educational rights guarantee everyone (not just Finnish citizens) the right to free basic education; the provisions also specify compulsory education. Secondly, the public authorities are also obligated to guarantee everyone an equal opportunity to obtain other education besides basic education according to their abilities and special needs, and to develop themselves without being prevented by economic hardship.”

In Finland, there is general consensus that education is important. There is broad political consensus on educational policy. The Finnish people enjoy free education that includes instruction, school materials, school meals, health care, dental care, commuting, special needs education and remedial teaching. At the tertiary level, the World Economic Forum has ranked Finland as top in terms of tertiary enrollment and quality.

Its strong emphasis on education is also seen in the quality of its teachers and the perception that the Finnish people have about teaching as a profession. One has to have a Masters degree to be a teacher in Finland. This alone shows the seriousness of education to the Finnish people. They want to attract the best talents into teaching. Teaching is a highly respected profession in Finland. It is regarded on equal terms as being a lawyer or other professionals.

In Singapore, the government has promulgated a law, the Compulsory Education Act (2000), defining that each citizen is obligated to complete a minimal of ten years of education.

In addition to this, both countries spend a large amount of the budget on education. For example Singapore’s spending on education is about 20 per cent of the country’s annual budget, making it only second to its defense spending. A huge portion of this goes to the provision of a modern infrastructure in the schools, heavily subsidized education, and the high teachers’ pay.

Singapore society also attaches great importance to educational qualifications. It is near impossible to get any decent employment without them even if one has the skills. Parents see schooling as the ticket to a better life and are willing to spend a lot on the children’s education, for example, supporting them with extra tuition classes. They also know the stigma that is attached to failure in school. The Singapore government also sees education as the “great leveler” and also at the same time the route for anyone to rise up in society that the Singapore government claims to be based on meritocracy, a corner stone of its  political philosophy.

(to be continued)

The testking 642-661 study pack includes the latest testking 650-251 dumps and testking 156-515 video tutorials to provide you guaranteed success in exam.