The Straits Times reported today that the National University of Singapore (NUS) will be introducing compulsory writing modules for freshmen from August next year. The modules will focus on topics like press freedom, information and technology, or the environment. Students are expected to pick up skills ranging from taking good notes, effective presentations, analyzing texts and constructing coherent arguments.

The university’s provost, Professor Tan Eng Chye explained that the university needed to introduce such modules because NUS students have been found wanting in presentation skills, or are inarticulate or unable to write succinctly.

Professor Tan was reported to have said that he had attended presentations where students would read from their notes rather than make eye contact with the audience. He also was reported to have said that:

“I have also read minutes of meetings written by university students that are not clear at all.”

The report reminded me of a book by a Harvard education professor, Tony Wagner, who had argued that secondary students in the US are not “jury ready”. By this, he meant that students leave school without acquiring the skills to be able to analyze an argument, weigh evidence, and detect bias. In his book, “The Global Achievement Gap”, Professor Wagner defines his “Seven Survival Skills” for students to succeed at the university and at the workplace, and in life in general. The Seven Survival Skills are includes problem solving and critical thinking, collaboration across networks, adaptability, initiative, effective oral and written communication, analyzing information, and developing curiosity and imagination.

It seems that Professor Wagner’s view about this inability to produce “jury ready” students is not only true for the US, but also for Singapore, an island lauded for its rigorous education system. One wonders what our students are learning in their English Language classes in our schools?

Why are our students still unable to master these skills by the time they finish their secondary or junior college education? Is the format of the GCE O levels English Language paper to be blamed? Most teachers in Singapore will tell their students to avoid the expository essays for the examinations and concentrate on writing descriptive or narrative essays. This is their “pragmatic” strategy that they teach their students in order to get better grades in the high stakes examinations.

Should the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore seriously reconsider how English Language for the GCE O levels is designed? To be sure, students in Singapore, at the Junior College level are required to sit for General Paper, where they are required to write expository essays  and analyze text more critically, as part of their GCE A Levels high stakes examinations. Many have found this subject “tough”. They are also required to do a Project Work module. In addition, they have also been taught thinking skills in the other Humanities subjects like History and Geography even at the O levels. So why are our students still not “jury ready” that NUS now has to consider compulsory modules to instruct its students in these skills?

I suspect that despite thinking skills being officially incorporated in the secondary and junior college syllabuses, teachers in Singapore have found a way to work around these to prepare students for their high stakes examinations in a very mechanical way. What is supposed to be  the teaching and learning of critical thinking skills has been reduced to rote learning and mechanical operations only.

This is made worse by the lack of interdisciplinary connections across subjects. Students, therefore, think that the skills they have learned are only for use within the specific subject matter. Little transfer of knowledge or skills is emphasized perhaps by the teachers and MOE. A silo mentality is created where little of what has been learned in school is used for anything else. This is despite MOE’s “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) and “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM) drive. Teachers and students still think that what matters most are the grades students obtain for the high stakes examinations that mainly encouraged rote learning and mechanical operations.

The new NUS initiative, while laudable in its aims, is in my view, too little, too late. Our students should be “jury ready” at an earlier stage of their education. All our students should be “jury ready” irregardless of whether they finally attained a university education or otherwise. After the secondary education, our students will be channeled to the university track or the polytechnic track or the technical education institutes. To think that such skills are only required of those in the universities will be folly. We cannot afford to be so wasteful in the face of the challenges of globalization in the 21st century.

In my last post on the education systems of Singapore and Finland, I have highlighted the differences between the two with regards to the area of student ranking and streaming, and high stakes examinations or testing. I have also indicated the difference in the two systems’ approach to assessment with Finland paying more emphasis on formative assessment. In this post, I will look at the difference in teacher quality and their approach to teaching in the classrooms.

In Finland, all teachers are required to have a Masters degree while those in Singapore varies. In Singapore usually for those teaching in the secondary schools and above they are required to have a degree and are usually chosen from the top one-third of the university cohort each year. Even then there are exceptions with some new Mother Tongue teachers having only GCE AO levels. In the lower levels, there are still many with just A levels and a growing number with university degrees. At the preschool levels, in child care centers and kindergartens, a minimum GCE O levels is the norm with certification in early childhood.

In Finland as has been mentioned in an earlier post, teaching is a highly regarded profession which is given as much status as even professionals like lawyers. In Singapore, while parents still in general defer to teachers and expects their school-going children to be respectful towards teachers, teaching does not enjoy the same position as other professionals. It is for this reason the Singapore government’s approach to attracting and retaining teachers has been through a quick succession of pay increases. No doubt the Ministry of Education (MOE) has also introduced different tracks for teacher mobility and career satisfaction within the teaching service but without a doubt it is the relatively high pay that has attracted and retained most of the teachers. In contrast in Finland, the Finnish National Board of Education has consistently sought to make good working conditions as the attraction of the teaching profession.

The difference in teacher quality is also seen in the approaches to teaching that is employed in the two countries. In Singapore because of the heavy emphasis on high stakes testing or examinations, the approach used has generally been a very traditional teacher-centered one where the teacher does most of the talking while the students listen. In other words, it is very much the factory assembly line approach to teaching. This is made necessary as the high stakes examinations has always been the tail that wags the dog. The focus on examinations means that a lot is to be covered for students to do well in the examinations. There is an emphasis on width as opposed to depth. Speed becomes a necessity in the “coverage” of the examinations-centered syllabus. This in turn necessitates for the traditional teacher-centered approach generally carried out in schools as student-centered discovery and exploratory approaches will require time. A recent study on science teachers in Singapore supports this contention (see here). This is despite all official policy claims of the MOE like “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM), “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) and others. As a result, while Singapore teachers are highly professional with regards to fulfilling the goals of schools, which is to do well in the national examinations, they are a lot less skillful at honing the “new” skills that students need to acquire for the 21st century.

In Finland, an exploratory and student-centered approach are the fundamental approaches to teaching done in schools. The absence of high stakes examinations also means that much curriculum time is freed for deep learning rather than spent in examination preparation.What this means is that the usual stress, anxiety and demoralization that occurs in an examination-centric systems do not happen in Finland’s schools.

This approach does not seem to have negatively affected the quality of learning that is done in Finnish schools as Finnish students to do well in international educational surveys. More importantly perhaps is that the Finnish system reduces the human costs in terms of quality of life in schools for the students and teachers.

(End of series)

If you are looking for easy and fast certification then join testking BH0-006 online training and pass your exam using self paced testking JN0-522 study material and testking 642-611 exam dumps.

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.