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.

Recently there was a suggestion from the political leaders to introduce political education to Singapore schools. Law Minister K. Shanmugam proposed that schools teach comparative political systems in the hope improving the Government’s effectiveness in reaching out to younger Singaporeans. The goal is that Singaporeans be better informed about their political choices.

I will not discuss what others have already pointed out or alluded to by others like the issue of “objectiveness” in such an undertaking (see for example here and here). Nor will I discuss whether it is a new thing to introduce political education in schools in Singapore. It has been done for years. I will instead suggest an alternative to political education in schools.

What is most needed for citizens of Singapore to be “better informed about their political choices” is to teach them to think. Yes, I know we have the grand “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) slogan dished out by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore which runs most of the schools in Singapore. Yes, I know the MOE has also rolled out thinking skills programs in the past and invited thinking skills gurus from all over. But ask any parent or student or teacher in Singapore, and they will tell you teaching thinking skills is not at the forefront of education in Singapore despite all all the hype and international conferences on thinking organized by MOE. It is still Trivial Pursuit-style written examinations that is central to the education system currently.

I am calling for a renewed effort to teach thinking seriously in schools. I am calling for the thinking agenda to be at the forefront of all educational endeavor in Singapore schools. I am calling for the teaching of thinking to be done not just because there are “thinking skills questions” in the high-stakes examination papers. I am calling for a change in the assessment of learning in Singapore schools to reflect this emphasis on thinking.

You can only get people who can make informed choices only when you have produced students who can think and reason. It is only when students are seriously taught to be inculcated with good habits of mind that they will become good decision makers. It is when they can display curiosity, and an investigative mind.  It is when they can do systems analysis. It is when students can check assumptions, do deductive and inductive reasoning, classify, compare, analyze for errors and analyze for multiple perspectives that they can be making good decisions about their lives, including decisions about politics.

This are the skills that Singapore students need to be able to do well. These are the skills that will help them not only make better informed political decisions but also in other spheres of their lives. Teaching political education is a only a half-baked solution and invites cynicism about its very existence.

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.