Abstract
The Singaporean education system has recently shifted emphasis from being highly centralised and standardised towards one that aims to promote innovation and autonomy at the school level. Yet, the concomitant move towards a more decentralised and flexible curriculum enacted and controlled at the local level has not been straightforward. Consequently, Hargreaves, Shirley, and Ng have described five paradoxes of educational and social change that characterise Singapore’s continued performance in academic achievement. One of these paradoxes is the paradox of control: How could the Ministry of Education (MOE) release classroom decision making and curriculum development to teachers and schools, while maintaining overall control across the system? They respond that the MOE maintains a fine balance characterised as bottom-up innovation with top-down support that requires further investigation. In this paper, we illustrate the implementation of an active learning curriculum in four primary schools to illustrate this approach of ‘top-down support for bottom-up’ curricular innovation in schools. In Singapore, the ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ movement has ignited school-based development of innovative curricula to bring about active learning, with the intention of developing pupil attributes such as creativity, collaboration, and self-confidence. Our case study explores how practitioners implement a curriculum that is meant to nurture a more emancipatory spirit in students that builds up their confidence and collaboration through active learning. A key premise is that such a curriculum requires practitioners’ autonomy to interpret the goals and desired outcomes and to plan their pupils’ learning experiences.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Case schools are given pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of participants.
References
Albright, J., & Kramer-Dahl, A. (2009). The legacy of instrumentality in policy and pedagogy in the teaching of English: The case of Singapore. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 201–222.
Apple, M. (2001). Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative Education, 37(4), 409–423.
Bailey, R., Collins, D., Ford, P., Macnamara, A., Toms, M., & Pearce, G. (2010). Participant development on sport: An academic review. Leeds: Sports Coach UK.
BBC News. (2010). Scottish teaching unions raise curriculum pressure. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8640844.stm.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Silver, R. E. (2012). Educational reforms, cultural clashes and classroom practices. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2), 141–161.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2013). Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times. London: Routledge.
Dainton, S. (2005). Reclaiming teachers’ voices. Forum, 47(2), 159–167.
Deng, Z., Gopinathan, S., & Lee, C. K. E. (Eds.). (2013). Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom. Singapore: Springer.
English, F. W. (2010). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and leading the curriculum (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Sage.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Columbia.
Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S. K. Lee, C. B. Goh, B. Fredriksen, & J. P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a better future. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
Gopinathan, S., & Lee, M. H. (2011). Challenging and co-opting globalisation: Singapore’s strategies in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3), 287–299.
Gopinathan, S., & Mardiana, A. B. (2013). Globalization, the state and curriculum reform. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. K.-E. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 15–32). Singapore: Springer.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hargreaves, A. & Shirley, D. (2011). The Far Side of educational change. Report commissioned by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation. Retrieved from http://www.ctffce.ca/publications/Briefs/Report_EducationReform2012_EN_web.pdf.
Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., & Ng, P. T. (2012). Singapore: Innovation, communication, and paradox. In A. Hargreaves & D. Shirley (Eds.), The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hohmann, M., & Weikart, D. (1995). Educating young children: Active learning practices for preschool and child care programs. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Koh, A. (2004). Singapore education in ‘new times’: Global/local imperatives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(3), 335–349.
Lee, H. L. (2004). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally English speech on 19 August 2004. Singapore Government Press Release. Retrieved from http://app.sprinter.gov.sg/data/pr/2007081907.htm.
Lim, L. (2013). Meritocracy, elitism, and egalitarianism: A preliminary and provisional assessment of Singapore’s primary education review. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 1–14.
Luttenberg, J., van Veen, K., & Imants, J. (2013). Looking for cohesion: The role of search for meaning in the interaction between teacher and reform. Research Papers in Education, 28(3), 289–308.
Ministry of Education. (2009). Report of the Primary Education Review and Implementation Committee. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Singapore/Singapore_PERI_2009.pdf.
Ministry of Education. (2011). Primary education: the way forward. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/primary/files/pri-education-booklet.pdf.
Ng, P. T. (2005). Students’ perception of change in the Singapore education system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 77–92.
Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—A cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763–780.
Priestley, M., & Humes, W. (2010). The development of Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Amnesia and déjà vu. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 345–361.
Ratnam-Lim, C. T. L., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large-scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination-oriented culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 61–78.
Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2002). After effectiveness: New directions in the Singapore school system? Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 151–166.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Simons, P. R. J. (1997). Definitions and theories of active learning. In D. Stern & G. L. Huber (Eds.), Active learning for students and teachers: Reports from eight countries (OECD). Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang.
Singapolitics (2013). Singapore in 20 years: A meritocracy of equals. interview with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Retrieved from http://app.mof.gov.sg/TemNewsroomDetail.aspx?pagesid=20090924508092100125&pagemode=live&type=media&cmpar_year=2013&news_sid=20130502691088829090&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1.
Sivan, A., Leung, R. W., Woon, C., & Kember, D. (2000). An implementation of active learning and its effect on the quality of student learning. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4), 381–389.
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London: Harper and Row.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stephen, C., Ellis, J., & Martlew, J. (2010). Taking active learning into the primary school: A matter of new practices? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(4), 315–329.
Stern, D., & Huber, G. L. (Eds.). (1997). Active learning for students and teachers: Reports from eight countries. Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang.
Tan, C. (2008). Tensions in an ability-driven education. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 7–18). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Decentralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 155–168.
Tan, K. H. K. (2011). Assessment for learning in Singapore: Unpacking its meanings and identifying some areas for improvement. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(2), 91–103.
Teo, C. H. (2000). Dynamic school leaders and schools- making the best use of autonomy. Speech presented by Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence, at Mandarin Hotel, Singapore. Retrieved September 10, 2015.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Singapore under Grant OER 11/10 CL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lim-Ratnam, C., Atencio, M. & Lee, C.KE. Managing the paradox of control: the case of ground-up implementation of active learning in Singapore’s primary schools. Educ Res Policy Prac 15, 231–246 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9191-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9191-x