Abstract
Within the overarching educational objective in Singapore of developing youth for life as confident individuals who are self-directed learners, active contributors and concerned citizens, the specialised purpose of polytechnics is training para-professional manpower for the local economy. Recognising that the broad transformation envisaged here necessarily entails a physical modification of each individual, when designing the pedagogical scheme for Republic Polytechnic, education was conceptualised as a synergistic phenomenon of co-evolutionary enculturation in a human collective in order to make better sense of reality. This was envisioned to be achievable through active engagement of learners in peer groups under the guidance of development-oriented caring individuals who have a reasonable understanding of the realities of the world in general and at least one relevant specialised economic sector in particular. The main classroom strategy is nurturing by deliberate intervention for promoting co-evolution of groups in desirable directions. The overall purpose is to enable the graduates to become adaptable to changing circumstances and remain as active participants of economic and other spheres of life, as procedural knowledge becomes obsolete over time at an ever increasing pace. Rejected are the notions that each individual has a predetermined fixed potential, mind and body are separate, and knowledge is a collection external to humans. A learning work-cycle of 1 day duration was chosen in view of the diversity of knowledge facets expected to be addressed in a diploma programme, that many human work routines follow a day-based cycle, and that it allows for focussing on a single academic activity on a given day. A problem-based learning approach was adopted for structuring the daily routine. For student assessment, significant weighting was allocated to the engagement components of the pedagogy, along with testing for subject understanding, in view of the substantial role played by interaction among individuals in their educational transformation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum: A summary of the development concerning the theory of the curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex world. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1966). In R. D. Archambault (ed.), Lectures in the philosophy of education 1899., R. D. (Ed.). New York: Random House Inc.
Egan, K., & Gajdamaschko, N. (2001). Some cognitive tools of literacy . Retrieved April 23, 2011, from http://www.educ.sfu.ca/kegan/Vygotskycogandlit.pdf
Entwistle, N. (1998). Styles of learning and teaching. London: David Fulton.
Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. New York: Oxford.
Kelly, G. (1970). A brief introduction to personal construct theory. In D. Bannister (Ed.), Perspectives in personal construct theory (pp. 1–29). London: Academic.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Woburn: Butterwirth-Heinemann.
Kozulin, A. (1998). Psychological tools: A sociocultural approach to education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Laurillard, D. (1979). The process of student learning. Higher Education, 8, 395–410.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I – Outcome and process. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.
Ministry of Education (2009). Desired outcomes of education, Singapore. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/desired-outcomes/
Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128–148.
Rorty, R. (1997). Philosophy and social hope. London: Penguin.
Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from http://hdl.handle.net/1807/2733.
Shaull, R., in Foreword of: Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
Vygotsky, L. V. (1962). Thought and language (trans: Hamfnann, E., & Vakar, G.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and Wiley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alwis, W.A.M. (2012). Pedagogical Philosophy Underpinning One-Day, One-Problem. In: O'Grady, G., Yew, E., Goh, K., Schmidt, H. (eds) One-Day, One-Problem. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-75-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4021-75-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-4021-74-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-4021-75-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)