I’"

I,»

  

  
 

  

#0.... I

33395.:

 

    

    

.4 "I‘ (f.
IJII/ I ' ' II'I \‘uq,’ 1‘1. “0:! "NJ,
' " 3-H I'IA

IIIIJ'IIII

 

.~
.
Irwg—Igf
£5225; pr

«1’. . v.1 .
‘IJ‘I mgfifl
L

 
      
 
 
  

   
     
 

1, ‘IIIII W
I‘IIIH III.“ . Ii“.
”IN" I I1 I .
‘ ‘ I a! H ‘..J
I A n. ”I (9..” h ‘ '
J' I " (II
. '1' 7' III Ir" ii'h’ ‘ .

 
  
  
  
    
  
        

‘I ,

"i

- a'4 '
"3:??- '5.

-. t
-
‘.-
‘4
a -

 
  
 
 

 
 

IIII"'I.'

    
    
   
 
  

,. I' I
"l" Vzfirf:
I

-
a
l. {.-

 
 

-:$ 'I.-I'

‘ ..‘ . I'I"I' 7‘-
II" I'I. -. I I I , I
.I'-I.-~"' ...I ”5 . ' ad" “M .,
; .' (DH. :4"
I l .
I 9

.39
«ACE:
.5:

' £9.23:

 
 
 
 

 
 
  

        
     
  

 

    

  

. .’- I'II .” l‘
"I. " 1.". ‘- ”I" I ‘ ‘I‘IU' I a???" I 'v‘: I"“¢q‘\'.c "fin I
H. I ' M II J ' *V-‘ I I. I“I‘|'.'>‘I" ":_ .‘ I‘M“. 'V
I 4.. II .III ,II. -II.IIII:I I EH" ., ,Ix; ' IIEIII.‘.III‘I . fink)??? #1 i
.I"'1"'c' ‘Isw'uf‘ . .I' " III-II"?
I . ' ‘I--‘f,:".._“- 'IIII I“ IIIIIEII... I31“? I :II 1?.“ 3.1 , _ .. *3 :3“
b . I ‘ "u". 1%}

{In}?

."J
.IIIII
I‘IIJ: 32x4;
. I‘M-J

v...

  
 

        
     
  

 

          
         
    

 

   

 

    
 

: ‘. '" '.I‘7'I',I' II‘II'.‘ .
‘ ’.‘ 3““! '(l ’0‘1‘I'I'III'K

':E It ..II' I I I
‘ I... . , .3}. mm mm

’ I'I "15' IILI..I' .~,I' ‘
I'I'II'I'II‘ .‘.-:I .1 W‘I} t:“IIzI'IO 'I'I’III,\W"‘III‘.I I),
r ‘11.“. I I II IIII' I I I7r~‘\:\-;T"I‘1"CI I'. ‘KI-I'IE IEJJOfJ'NU
I ".III-iII '
filly” '."II‘ "(V I
“4', .‘II ,'I 'IIIIII III‘I‘I; .' I.’ ib..£ IInvIn$S .
.I. ;"..I\IIIIII‘,II".-,UI I ”I‘m/{I I I!" I “if.”
. . f .II .4qu If“? ”fir p I I
'III II'.-II‘II fl": l‘I'I|I.'I.II{:IIII‘Ib:Ifl| “It, V's? flu-III I.IIII. I It
I ’ . ‘ | "Ill IIIIII‘ I"! “d". [5104 suffix.“ kl . '3
, ,. IIATI‘IIlmzsz'fi I»; If? in". w. :.
‘ .‘ I IIIII In}. G. {V I I. gr
: ".m‘I'JL-IIIJ'JH 1‘5”" . .I |
i '#'IC!III'I I7‘... 1“'\Fflf“l|?"" III‘I%:II :{vJ'TIaII III - 4‘:
J. ;\L' ':'$.If ”'If' 5“ IJW afilizm;T 'I'II
I -"“’"J.H"I.‘SII. (:1. ._ I I
j; -.. [FI‘II‘EIELL'ofli I'III . ‘1 “i: QII' II ,-
- . w I. - III.' .0; I . t: .u.

:- ‘fi 5 I I hl‘III-I ’fi‘~‘t[h I. ”‘RTEII: ::‘:.::
i. I- {E3 l"'. V '.‘IIV<I'IPI,1JI‘:.:.II'fi:.I"- ‘
I . {31.7.1T" IIEI -

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
A STUDY OF TEACHER/STUDENT ROLE & ROLE RELATIONSHIPS
IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
LOWER SECONDARY SCIENCE PROGRAM
IN SINGAPORT SCHOOLS

 

presented by

Margaret Susan Gremli

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Education

degree in

 

 

' Major professor

@144»ch (IiilM—anr/

October 15, 1986
Date

 

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

   
 

MSU

LlBRARlES

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

your record. FINES will

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

A STUDY OF TEACHER/STUDENT ROLE & ROLE RELATIONSHIPS
IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
LOWER SECONDARY SCIENCE PROGRAM
IN SINGAPORE SCHOOLS

 

By

Margaret Susan Gremli

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1986

fi‘ifié

1986

ri ht b
AR T SU AN GREMLI

ii

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF TEACHER/STUDENT ROLE AND ROLE RELATIONSHIPS
IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
LOWER SECONDARY SCIENCE PROGRAM
IN THE SINGAPORE SCHOOLS.
By

Margaret Susan Gremli

The study examined ways in which a new, inquiry-based, guided-
discovery science curriculum implied change in teacher/student role and
role relationships and evidence of change during the first year the
program was implemented. Concomitantly, the study identified parameters
in the research setting and of the implementation process that con-
strained implementation of the program.

A long—term, case study approach was used involving extensive
observations in classrooms of five cooperating teachers during the year
prior to and the first year of implementation of the new program. An
analysis of the curriculum materials package and an indepth study of the
inservice program orienting teachers to the new program were included in
the data sources. Focused and informal interviews with key informants
(Ministry of Education officials, inservice trainers and curriculum
writers) provided additional data. Patterns of teacher/student role and
role relationships emerged phenomenologically within the broader
conceptual framework of a cultural model.

The research findings indicated that although change in role and
role relationships was axiomatic to the implementation of the new science

mnriculum, there was little evidence of such changes during the first

Margaret Susan Gremli

year the program was implemented. Lack of role change appeared to be
linked with teacher perceived constraints through which they rationalized
their teaching roles: the large class sizes, students' limited command of
English, and the meritocratic nature of the education system as a whole.
Potential for change was further constrained by the fact that the
curriculum materials were not entirely consistent with the purported
goals of the program. Moreover, inquiry teaching behaviors were neither
adequately explained nor appropriately modelled in the teacher inservice
experience.

The research findings further indicated that cultural norms pre-
vailing in the broader sociocultural context of Singapore were
essentially in conflict with the teacher/student roles axiomatic to
inquiry-based, discovery learning. The assertion was made that since
these established patterns of role relationships were indigenous to the
research setting and were unaltered by the implementation of the new
program, they served to maintain existing patterns of role and role
relationships rendering the kinds of changes anticipated by the

curriculum developers very difficult to achieve.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For their guidance during my doctoral program and in the preparation of
this dissertation, I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of:

— my advisor, Dr. Bruce Cheney,
- my dissertation director, Dr. Charles Anderson,
- my committee members: Dr. Ben Bohnhorst and Dr. Perry Lanier.

For orienting me to the Singapore education system and sharing their
knowledge and expertise, I wish to thank:

Dr. S. Gopinathan, Mrs. Ang Wye Hoong, Mr. Cheah Chye Kiat, Ms
Tan Teng Wah, Mrs Lim Chye Tin, Mrs Kam Kum Wone, and Mr. Nicolas
Tang.

For tolerating my presence and sharing their experience and intuitive
knowledge, I thank the five cooperating teachers whose identity I cannot
reveal but whose contribution to this study I deeply appreciate.

For the much needed moral support and for his patience and love, I offer
my fondest gratitude to my husband, Robert Gremli.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

The Research Problem

Introduction

Planned Educational Change - The Problem in the Singapore Context
Role and Role Relationships as 3 Focus of the Study

The Research Questions

Summary

CHAPTER II

Review of Related Literature

Introduction

Theorizing Educational Change

Role Theory and its Implications for this Study
Schools and Classrooms as Social Systems
Singapore - A Pluralistic Society

Applying a Cultural Model

Summary

 

CHAPTER III
The Research Methodogy
A Rationale
The Ethnographic Research Paradigm
Data Sources
The Case Studies
Selection of Schools
Selection of Teachers
Selection of Student Groups
Classroom Observations
Supplementary Data
The Curriculum Materials
The Teacher Inservice Experience
Miscellaneous Data
Data Reduction and Analysis
Summary

 

CHAPTER IV
The Research Findings
Section I - Research Question 1
Introduction
The Learning Environment
Classroom Routines
Organizational and Instructional Strategies
Teacher as Mediator
Teacher Interactional Style
Student Autonomy
Patterns of Classroom Discourse

iv

6
10
12
13

15
16
20
25
27
30
31

33
34

36
37
39
39
41

42
42
43
43
49

51
52
54
55
57
58
6O
61

Questions and Answers .
Chorus Responses
Peer Interaction
Controlling Processes
Purposes of Science Learning
Student Record Keeping
Reward Systems
Student/Teacher Interaction
Sources and Expressions of Authority
Summary

Section II - Research Question 2
L33: Some Background Information
Intentions of Curriculum Developers
Teacher Roles
Student Change
Evaluation of Students

Summary

Section III - Research Question 3
Origins of the LSS Program
Dissemination and Implementation of LSS
The Teacher Inservice Course
Scheduling and Organization
Objectives and Projected Outcomes
Course Requirements
Course Instructors
Management of the Course
Laboratory Sessions
Course Evaluation

The Program Materials
The Teachers Guide
Student Materials

Informal Channels of Communication

Summary

Section IV - Research Question 4
Evidence of Change
Classroom Routines
Organizational & Instructional Strategies
Teacher as Mediator
Teacher Interactional Style
Student Autonomy
Patterns of Classroom Discourse
Questions and Answers
Chorus Responses
Peer Interaction
Controlling Processes
Purposes of Science Learning
Long-term purposes
Short-term purposes

61
62
63
65
66
67
69
70
71
74

77
78
83
84
85
87

90
91
92
93
94
94
96
97
98
100
102
104
105
106
107
110

112
115
115
117
118
118
120
120
122
123
123
123
123
125

Reward Systems 127

 

Sources and Expressions of Authority 129
Sources of Authority Outside the Class 131
Disconfirming Evidence 131
Summary 135
Section V — Research Question 5 137
Dissemination and Implementation Process 137
The Teacher Inservice Course 137
Congruence Between Theory & Practice 138
Expressions of Authority in the Inservice Course 140
The LSS Teachers Guide 144
Teachers Concerns 146
Large Class Sizes 147
Language Competency of Students 147
Tests and Examinations 149
Summary 151
CHAPTER V
Review, Interpretations & Implications of the Research Findings
Introduction 154
The Research Findings - A Synopsis 155
Sources and Expressions of Authority 157
Teachers' Concerns 158
Channels of Communication 159
Social Values Pertaining to Teacher/Student Role Relationships 159
The Implementation Process in Retrospect 165
Areas for Further Study 167
Significance of the Study 169
Implications for Practice 170
APPENDICES
Appendix A - List of parents occupations A1
Appendix B - Chart to show accumulated time and topics A2
observed for each teacher in each phase of
the study.
Appendix C — Diagram to show plan of the science laboratory A3
Appendix D — Examples of students tests A4
Appendix E - Examples of owl cartoons A5
Figures: 4a; 4b; & 4c.
Appendix F — Questionnaire administered to 'shadow' group A6

of teachers.

FOOTNOTES ' 171
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 77
GENERAL REFERENCES 186

vi

Figure

4a.

4b.

4c.

LIST OF FIGURES

A chart to show the relationship between
the research questions, the data collected
and the data analysis process

A chart to show the accumulated amount of
time and topics observed for each teacher
in each phase of the study.

Plan of the science laboratory

Cartoons that reinforce teacher—as-
information-provider roles.

Cartoons that reinforce teacher-as—
disciplinarian roles.

Cartoons that models a questioning technique
which is more appropriate to inquiry teaching.

vii

Page
44

A2

A3

A4.1

A4.2

A4.3

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & CODES

 

Acronmyms

CDIS Curriculum Development of Singapore

LSS Lower Secondary Science Project

MOE Ministry of Education

STAS Science Teachers Association of Singapore

Abbreviations used in connection with the data sources

 

AM Anecdotal Memo

FN Field Notes

FN TI Field Notes, Teacher Inservice
ISTQ Inservice Teacher Questionnaire
TG Teachers Guide

TQ Teacher Questionnaire

Codes used for the five schools involved in the study

 

du; es; nd; ss; & yq

viii

CHAPTER I

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM

Introduction

 

Should we give up or try harder?(1) This is a question which
must have haunted a legion of curriculum developers and policy makers
as they have repeatedly witnessed even their most modest expectations
of curriculum innovations amount to precious little. In fact, as the
literature has accumulated over time, reports from virtually every
country in which the products of curriculum innovations have been
subjected to serious evaluation (Brown, 1983; Bruckheimer, 1978;
Brugelmann, 1975; Connelly, 1972; Dalin, 1978; Fullan, 1972; Fullan &
Pomfret, 1977; Harding, 1975; Massey, 1980; Shulman & Tamir, 1978;
Swetz & Tamby, 1981; Waring, 1979) seem to reverberate a sense of
frustration on the part of educators who are committed to seeing the
products of centrally developed curriculum innovations transformed
into classroom realities. Moreover, considering the input of money
and manpower into the development of innovative science curricula over
the past two decades, this sense of frustration might well have lapsed
into a state of embarrassment on the part of science educators whose
responsibilities lie in the development and implementation of these
new science programs.

In light of these experiences and given that the science curric—

lflum development movement has, like other sources of knowledge within

the dependency paradigm (2), tended to flow from the center to the
periphery (see Crossley, 1984; Maddock, 1981; Walters, 1981) science
curriculum renewal efforts in countries at the periphery might well
seem thwarted before even getting off the ground.

For, having to a certain extent satisfied the need to expand
their education systems to provide basic education for all children,
many countries at the periphery, especially in Asia, have recently
begun to establish a firmer infrastructure to promote improved in—
structional methods through innovative curriculum development projects
(3). And, for reasons that will be touched upon only briefly here,
improvement in science instruction has been given particular attention
in Third World countries in Asia, as witnessed by the recent UNESCO
'Science for All' movement (4).

It is understandable that science education, along with technical
education, has been and will continue to be a nationally acknowledged
priority in Third World countries that set their sights on economic
progress through industrialization. In the minds of bureaucrats,
science education is firmly linked with national development and long-
term manpower planning strategies aimed at building up an indigenous
scientific manpower reserve (Lim, 1983; Pang, 1975, 1979; Shekleton,
1975; Skolnik, 1976). In spite of a relatively fragile infrastruc-
ture, then, it is reported that science curriculum development has
stood at the forefront of national curriculum reform efforts in
several Asian nations for more than two decades (Alsmeyer & Atkins,

1979; Nielson, 1984).

In the early stages of this movement, science education in Third
World countries was apt to take on a rigorous approach wherein the
student was mainly preoccupied with the accumulation of facts through
rote learning. This approach to science learning has been reinforced
over time by the character of the national examination system which
was inherited from the colonialists and has been retained as an inte-
gral part of the meritocratic post-independence education systems.

More recently, science curriculum innovations in several Asian
countries have mirrored science curriculum reform efforts in the
center, often adopting those associated with the countries of their
colonial heritage (Blum, 1979). As a result, there has been a policy
shift away from an expository approach to science teaching in favor of
a 'discovery', 'inquiry-approach' in which the processes and methods
of science are emphasized. Typically, the trend has been for
curriculum developers to adopt programs developed in the center and
adapt them to their local situation at the periphery (Lewin, 1981;
Lillis, 1980; Sim, 1971; Watson, 1973).

So, while most often these new curricula were adapted and diss-
eminated by change agents appointed by centralized education Minis-
tries, their implementation has proved less smooth and less successful
than anticipated. For one thing, the new programs have tended to
follow a rather rapid cycle of implementation (Havelock & Huberman,
1978) and to be disseminated by means of a top-down approach. In

addition, and this is particularly true of changes implicit in new

science curricula, the kinds of changes prescribed by the new curric—
ula have been ideologically in conflict with currently prevailing
institutionalized teacher practice.

Furthermore, judging by global reports of science curriculum
reform reported over time (Brown, 1979; Brown & McIntyre, 1982; Harris
& Taylor, 1983; Shulman & Tamir, 1978; Welch, 1979; Welch et al.,
1981) implementation of 'discovery'/'inquiry-based' science programs
has more far-reaching implications for the teacher than simply using
new teaching materials.' The discovery/inquiry-based programs have
required teachers to alter behaviors that are basic to their role
enactments in the classroom, especially role behaviors that govern
ways they commonly interact with students and that dictate their
instructional strategies and classroom organization.

This mismatch between the way science teachers are used to be—
having in their classes and the way they are expected to behave in
implementing innovative discovery/inquiry based science curricula
amounts to a dilemma wherein one group (curriculum developers along
with centralized Ministries in the countries concerned) sets out to
impose an ideology and notions about what is appropriate for a
particular group of students on another group (teachers) who will
eventually be responsible for putting the new curriculum into
practice. The fact that there is a discrepancy between what curric—
ulum developers advocate and what is established institutionalized

teacher behavior is a phenomenon that lies at the core of any radical

curriculum change which is intended to have impact in classrooms. As
such, it is a dilemma which has repeatedly manifested itself over time
as an inevitable and inherent part of curriculum reform, regardless of
context or world location.

Added to this, a consensus has emerged from the literature on
curriculum change (Brown & McIntyre 1982; DeRose, Lockard, & Paldy
1979; Ponder & Doyle, 1977; Dynan et al., 1978, 1981; Harding, 1975;
Stake and Easley et al., 1978) that in effecting top-down change
efforts, it is the individual teacher that determines whether or not
the intended change ever takes place. Neither the quality of curr-
iculum materials developed, nor the effectiveness of the particular
implementation strategies that are utilized detract from the reality
that it is the teacher in the classroom upon whose shoulders it falls
to deliver the curriculum innovation into the arena of the learner;
therefore it is the teacher who controls whether or not the intended
change ever reaches the classroom level.

The present study, then, explores the problem of teacher change
in the implementation of a selected science curriculum reform effort
(known as the Lower Secondary Science [or LSS] project) at the junior
high school level in the Singapore school system. The study attends
to the conventional wisdom that change at a broader national level
even in a small and highly centralized education system such as in
Singapore, is differently felt and realised at the individual level.

In so doing, the study investigates the impact of a science curriculum

reform effort on the teaching and learning that takes place in the
classes of a group of cooperating teachers. The study is also
concerned with placing the curriculum reform effort into long-term
historical and contemporary sociocultural contexts. For, only by
attempting to understand the dynamics of the total system can insight
be gained into the ways in which factors extraneous to the classroom
influence the extent to which curriculum is implemented faithful to
the intentions of the curriculum developers. For, as Dalin (1978)
claims:

The interplay between schools and their environments, and
between the education system and society, is the crucial energy
mobilizer in educational reform. Without this comprehensive
understanding of the forces at work in these relationships, and
the application of that understanding as the basis of educational
changes, there is little chance that any real change can take
place. (p. 1)

Planned Educational Change - The Problem in the Singapore Context

Being a minute city state with no natural resources and little to
depend on for survival other than manpower, Singapore has been more
fervent than her oil-rich Asean neighbors in pursuing educational
policies which subscribe to the goal of national development through
industrial and technological advancement(5). In fact, Singapore's
commitment to upgrade science and mathematics education began more than
twenty-five years ago when the fledgling leaders of Singapore's newly

elected People's Action Party spelled out their education policy. The

Annual Report of the Ministry of Education published in 1959 contained

a pledge to what seemed imperative to the development of an econom-

ically viable industrial city state:
The economy of the state can no longer be sustained by entrepot
trade alone. In the reorientation of the economic policy of the
State, industrialization is vital. Industrialization is the key
to survival. To increase industrial productivity, potential skill
must be trained. So a start in developing the latent skills must
be made in the schools. The new education policy would ensure
that students have increased facilities for training as craftsmen,
technicians, scientists and engineers. (p. 1)

Even so, commitment to upgrade science and technology education
with the long-term goal of national development in mind is an ideal
that is more easily expressed as a national policy and subsequently
incorporated into public rhetoric than it is realised as visible
changes in the learning experiences of students in classrom settings.
Certainly, in the sixties and early seventies, legislation and adequate
funding brought impressive expansion and reform to Singapore's
technical education under the directorship of the Economic Development
Board. But, as has become increasingly apparent, significant changes
in science teaching and learning in primary and secondary schools
proceeded at a far slower pace.

So, in spite of Singapore's continued attempts at reform by the
introduction of improved science curricula into primary and secondary
schools (6), little change appears to have been made at the classroom
level. Several reasons have been suggested for this. At the admin-
istrative level, the Report on the Ministry of Education, (1978) cited

cumbersome bureaucratic procedures as problematic. Criticism was also

levied at teachers for their poor response to change. "Entrenched

beliefs, the stronghold of unrelieved and monotonous experience,
bureaucratic resistance and fear" are but few of the criticisms made
of teachers by one Ministry administrator (Wong, l974,p. 35) when
reviewing curriculum innovation in Singapore. "Insecurity", Wong
contended, "keeps practitioners from taking the plunge". Apathy on the
part of teachers was also implied by Wong who remarked that teachers
declined to provide formative feedback on a new syllabus they were
asked to try out.

But just what was involved in bringing about changes of the
magnitude envisioned by policy makers as they implemented innovative
science curricula over the years is portended in a much earlier report:
A Commission of Inquiry into Education which was carried out in 1964:

Some teachers insist on covering "so many pages" of the textbook
per session and force pupils to do experiments of a "verifying"
nature. The possibility of finding a solution (or a number of
solutions) to a given problem is lost sight of. Beautiful dia—
grams and formulae are drawn on the blackboard and are studiously
copied by the pupils into their notebooks. ’Occasionally, class
demonstrations are arranged by the teacher but here again it is
often to show "proof" 'of a statement, and not to discover the
underlying principles through first hand observations by the
pupils themselves. The result is that the pupils think of the
laboratory session as a necessary chore, not of great value to be
"dodged" or "palmed off" to.one's partner whenever possible....
Often the more vigorous or keener pupils monopolise the practical
work and the weaker pupils who need it most find themselves
learning off "by heart" results from experiments for the purpose
of passing examinations. The end of these efforts even when the
pupil somehow gets through, is a permanent distaste for the
subject and what is worse a permanent "idee fixe" that 'science'
is just a catalogue of unrelated facts, just like dates in
history. (p.61 — quoted from Tang, 1984.)

Likewise, Cheah's (1978) remarks referring to the reorientation
of teachers towards the new inquiry—based Lower Secondary Science
(LSS) program, which was at that time in its formative stages,
indicate that science teaching practices at the lower secondary level
had not changed even in the time span of fourteen years:

...very often the main objective of a teacher preparation course
demands a reorientation of attitudes on the part of the partic-
ipants. This is by no means an easy matter as in many cases it
amounts to a 'mental revolution'. For instance, some teachers who
have previously become 'text-book bound', teaching in very con—
vergent situations (where there is a right answer somewhere!)
have now to grapple with open ended situations, problems of
design, problems of controversial human issues and the like.
Usually the first few initial sessions of the LSS in-service are
the most crucial — if the participants did not react favourably,
they 'dropped out' there and then. (Cheah et a1. 1978, p. 5)

And more recently, drawing on his personal experiences of
observing classes in his role as a Specialist Inspector of Schools,
Tang (1984) reported that the statement quoted earlier from the 1964

Commission of InQuiry into Education was enduring even to date:

 

The (above) quotation may have been taken from a 1964
document, but most educators in Singapore would agree that it
decribes very accurately what is still happening in a typical
science lesson. (p. 8)

It seems apparent then, that in spite of continuing good intent-
ions and some positive moves towards science curriculum reform over two
and a half decades, attempts to implement innovative curricula in
Singapore are just as problematic as in countries where the tradition
of curriculum development has a firmer infrastructure. In fact, the
prospect of change in science teaching resulting from the introduction

of new science curricula seems to have been viewed by a number of

informed observers with some scepticism.

10

Nevertheless, a renewed surge of hope in science curriculum
reform occurred in the wake of the findings of a Report on the
Ministry of Education prepared in 1978 (commonly referred to as the.
Goh Keng Swee Report) when a special institute - the Curriculum
Development Institute of Singapore (CDIS) was set up to assume res-
ponsibility for curriculum materials development. For although the
centralized Ministry of Education retained -control over the curric—
ulum content (or syllabus, as it is called) the CDIS was given the
responsibility for developing all the necessary support materials such
as student textbooks and workbooks, teachers guides and a range of
audiovisual materials. The new Lower Secondary Science curriculum
(the program that forms the focus of this study) then came under the
auspices of the CDIS which took over from the combined Ministry of
Education and the Science Teachers Association of Singapore committee
(MESTAS) that had nurtured the program through its earlier stages of
development and try-out in the trial schools.

The question that now emerges is whether the Lower Secondary
Science curriculum, which has probably been through a more rigorous
development and trial process than former science curricula, can
realise the kind of success that is hoped for at the classroom level.

Role and Role Relationships as 3 Focus of the Study

There are several ways in which a focused research of the imple-
lnentation of an innovative science program of the type undertaken in
‘this study could be tackled. The study could be approached from the

ruarspective of student outcomes, from indicators of teacher attitude

11

change or from a detailed appraisal of teacher/student interaction, to
name but a few. However, given the purported nature of the new LSS
program and characteristics of the user system in which the new
program will be implemented, the perspective of teacher/student role
and role relationships was selected as a theoretical focus of the
study for three important reasons. First of all, according to the
limited information available on science teaching prior to imple-
mentation of the new LSS curriculum (Gremli, 1982; Morris & Thompson,
1979; Tang, 1984; Wong, 1974; Yeoh, 1980) institutionalized teacher/
student role perceptions and concomitant role behaviors in science
classes appeared to be a prevailing governing factor in the conduct of
classroom events. Yet, significantly, role behaviors emerged as
crucial to the types of changes implied in the introduction of the new
Lower Secondary Science program which purportedly embodies a 'guided-
discovery', 'inquiry-based' approach.

Secondly, on a global level, very few studies have focused spec-
ifically on the issue of role and role relationships and its signif—
icance for understanding teacher change in the implementation of a new
curriculum - even though the problem of role change has been ident—
ified as an important factor the change process:

The source of difficulty in bringing about changes at the class-
room level does not appear to reside in actual development of
materials... the main problem appears to be that curriculum change
usually necessitates certain organizational changes, particularly
changes in the roles and role relationships of those members most

directly involved in putting the innovation into practice.
(Fullan and Pomfret, 1977, p. 337)

12

Thirdly, a perusal of the change literature reveals that even
fewer studies have been conducted on a long-term basis so that changes
in role behaviors of any sort intended and/or accomplished as a result
of the introduction of a new curriculum could be determined by
comparisons of preimplementation and post implementation data.

Thus, by examining role phenomena implicit in the faithful imple—

mentation of a selected curriculum innovation relative to the instit-

 

utionalized role behaviors identified within the research setting
prior to implementation, the possibility arises for ascertaining the
extent to which role behaviors of cooperating change participants
(teachers and their students) are successfully changed in the dir-
ection intended by the curriculum developers.
The Research Questions

The intention of this study, therefore, is to investigate the
extent to which evidence of change in teacher/student role and role
relationships implied in the introduction of the new Lower Secondary
Science curriculum is evident during the first year that the program
is put into practice in classrooms in Singapore. The study addresses
the problem by asking:

- What are teacher and student role and role relationships
in science classrooms prior to implementation of the Lower
Secondary Science program ?

— How do classroom events and classroom discourse prior to
implementation compare with those advocated in the new
curriculum and what changes do teachers and students need
to make in their role behaviors in order to implement the

program faithful to the intentions of the curriculum
developers?

13

— What channels of communication (program information, in-
service experiences etc.) inform teachers what is ex-
pected of them as they implement the new program?

— What evidence of change could be discerned during the
first year of implementation?

- How does evidence of change or lack of evidence of change
link with channels of communication and key events in the
implementation process and/or with other parameters in the
research setting?

As a means of examining these questions, the researcher invest-
igated the role behaviors of five cooperating teachers and their
students in five different schools in Singapore. Classroom obser—
vations extended over a period of two school years and monitored
teacher/student role behaviors involved in teaching at least four
topics in the lower secondary science syllabus. Observations of in—
service training sessions designed to prepare teachers to teach the
new program, interviews and informal communication with key informants
(members of the curriculum writing team and Ministry of Education
personnel) as well as a detailed examination of the LS3 program
materials provided an additional data base.

Summary

As evidenced by the foregoing discussion, science education,
along with technical education, has been acknowledged as a national
priority in Singapore and has therefore been heavily politicized as
important to national development. The development of a new inquiry

based, guided-discovery Lower Secondary Science program by the

recently established Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore is

14

one of many visible signs that this commitment to science education is
more than just rhetoric.

0n the other hand, the introduction of a new guided—discovery,
inquiry-based science program has far-reaching implications for in—
stitutionalized teacher/student role relationships. According to
earlier reports of the nature of classroom activity in science classes
in Singapore schools, the types of teacher/student role behaviors
implicit in the new Lower Secondary Science program most probably mean
a significant departure from present practices. At the same time,
experiences gained worldwide and in Singapore, strongly indicate that
teacher behavior is predictably difficult to change.

The problem, then, is one that is set within a conflict of ideo-
logies concerning established current practice and what is intended
in a national curriculum reform effort in science teaching at the
lower secondary level. By examining the meaning of role change for
individuals most central to the faithful implementation Of the
curriculum under study (teachers and their students in the classroom
setting) the research will both extend and refine models of change
appropriate to Singapore, to other Third World countries and to
countries in which researches on curriculum change have, to date,
neglected consideration of change from the perspective of teacher/

student role and role relationships.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Human behavior in changing social systems is the broad conceptual
framework within which literature relating to this study is discussed;
teacher and student role/role relationships in the user system of the
new Lower Secondary Science program is the specific aspect of human
behavior in changing social systems that will be developed during the
course of the discussion.

A review of selected literature pertaining to the research
problem is presented in three parts. First, the scope of literature

on educational change is surveyed in so far as it can more accurately

 

shed light on the nature of the research problem. Next, germaine

aspects of role theory, are discussed in light of the ways in which

 

role concepts interpret the impact of change implied by introduction
of the new Lower Secondary Science program on the role behaviors of
the target group of teachers. Finally, a cultural model is proposed
as a conceptual framework within which change in student/teacher role
and role relationships in the implementation of the new Lower
Secondary Science curriculum in the Singapore schools can be usefully

analyzed and understood.

15

16

Theorizing Educational Change

 

Although literature on educational change in some countries is
voluminous (notably the UK, the USA, Canada and Israel) case study
literature on the nature of planned educational change in Third World
countries (7) has been reported as scarce (Huberman, 1975, Havelock &
Huberman, 1978). With some notable exceptions (Hamilton, 1975;
Shipman, 1974) the scope of change literature that exists worldwide
has been overwhelmingly preoccupied with the formulation and testing
of theoretical propositions aimed at seeking more successful ways of
effecting change, principally through what has become known as a 'top-
down' approach. The result of this line of research has been the
theorization of the change process through the development and
refinement of models of change focusing primarily on implementation
processes (Zaltman, Florio, & Sikorski, 1977, chap. 3).

An important outcome of the emergence of these models of change,
however, is that they can be applied both descriptively and pres-
criptively. Descriptively, such change models offer principles and
generalizations about how change can be construed, which, when applied
prescriptively, give indications as to how change efforts introduced
into existing social systems can be optimally managed.

A perusal of exemplary models of educational change reveals that
they comprise a common set of variables that are afforded different
degrees of emphasis in different models. Each model takes into
account: (a) the intrinsic qualities of the innovation (e.g. at the

classroom level this may involve change in program materials or

17

proposed changes in organizational and/or instructional procedures);
(b) a series of key events to facilitate various channels of comm—
unication that comprise the intervention strategy; and (c) a set of
outcomes often in the form of prescribed behaviors anticipated of
change participants in their respective roles in the user system. The
set of prescribed behaviors may be explicitly defined and/or implic-
itly communicated through the content of the program materials or
through channels of communication incorporated into the implementat-
ion process (such as through the teacher inservice experience).

Collectively over time, models of change reported in the liter-
ature can be characterized as progressively precise attempts to
theorize dimensions of human behavior within changing social systems.
Endemic to these existing social systems about to confront change are,
of course, both institutional and individual biases all of which have
impact upon potential for change, irrespective of the model of change
utilized by the change agents. More recent change models (Becher &
Maclure, 1978; Fensham, 1978; Kogan, 1978) show an increasing tendency
to extrapolate beyond the immediate user system taking into account
institutional biases as well as the broader overriding sociological,
economic or political factors that might interfere with the inter—
vention strategies or to which intervention strategies might have to
be accommodated.

Conversely, other change theorists have gravitated towards
examining the perspective of the individual, looking at change in

institutions as the cumulative effect of behavioral change Of

18

individuals. In line with this perspective, progressive levels of
change in individuals have been identified (Hall et al., 1973, 1975,

1979; Louks & Hall, 1977; Louks & Pratt, 1979). In spite of these
differing orientations, the idea that change in institutions involves
common and cumulative behavioral changes of individuals within them
110w appears to be universally accepted. Gross, Giaquinta and
I3ernstein (1971) for example, contend that "the degree of
jimplementation refers to the extent to which organizational members
kLave changed their behavior so that it is congruent with the behavior
patterns prescribed by the innovation".

Regardless of orientation, prescriptive application of the
theorization of change processes has brought into focus some inter—
€esming ideas about relationships between educational change efforts
éalnd cultural, moral and ethical values prevalent in the society at
iléarge (Berman & Pauly, 1975; Berman & McLaughlin, 1976). Assertions
llaave been made that change planners would optimally benefit from
lltzilizing sources of influence in the polity at large (House, 1974,
].§979; Levin, 1974) and that educational change efforts cannot occur in
i.s;olation from polity issues. Schwab (1970), for instance, says:

Changes must be so planned and so articulated with what remains

unchanged that the functioning of the whole remains coherent and

unimpaired. (p. 183)

Viewed collectively and over time, approaches to studying educ-

ational change discussed so far appear to have progressively moved

beYond a strictly 'systems approach' towards a perspective that is

19

more sociocultural, humanistic and individualistic in nature. Al-
though both of these perspectives can make their respective contrib-
utions to understanding change, it would appear that there is still a
gap in the change literature, namely that little is known about what
occurs at the interface of these two perspectives. To be more pre-
cise, it would seem that few attempts have been made to look at the

influences and constraints that have bearing -on role behaviors of

 

individuals in the user system in light of the intrinsic qualities of

 

the innovation about to be introduced with respect to immediate and
broader sociocultural contexts, so that a more composite picture of
change processes might be obtained.

Where current change literature is lacking, then, is in the con-
fluence or integration of change theory with other human behavior
theories so that a holistic level of insight into the success or
failure of educational innovations at the individual level can be
achieved. In the present study, the principles of role theory are
applied to gain a better understanding of the influences and con-
straints of the individual teacher in the change effort under study,
for, as asserted in the previous chapter, change in teacher/student
role and role relationships in the conduct of science classes is
critical to the implementation of the new Lower Secondary Science
curriculum.

In the next section of the literature review, therefore, germane

principles of role theory will be discussed to assist in understanding

20

the behavior of individuals involved in the user system of the new LSS
science curriculum. In particular, role theory will be applied to
gain an understanding of how the individuals concerned experience and
respond to the specific kinds of changes that are imminent in the
implementation of the new Lower Secondary Science curriculum which is
the focus of the present research.

Role Theoryiand Its Implications for this Study.

Having explored ways in which change theory can be informative
to the study, as well as some of its shortcomings, we shall now attend
to the conventional wisdom that change imposed at the system level may
indeed be differently felt and experienced at the level of individuals
in the user system. In the case of the particular change effort upon
which this study will focus, the individual most affected in the user
system will be the lower secondary science teacher whose
responsibility it will be to implement the new curriculum.

Although role theorists such as Biddle and Thomas (1966) and
later, Biddle (1979) have done much to operationalize role concepts
and apply them to contemporary settings, early role theorists such as
Ralph Linton and Talcott Parsons provided the essential seminal work
upon which contemporary role theory is based. Ralph Linton (1945)
describes role as follows:

Role ... the sum total of the culture patterns associated with a

particular status. It thus includes the attitudes, values and be-

havior ascribed by the society to any and all persons occupying

this status... In so far as it manifests overt behavior: what a

person has to do in order to validate his occupation of the
status. (p. 77)

21

Parson's (1951) description of role was rather similar but he con—
cerned himself with discerning levels of organization within social
systems. He characterized social systems as being stable, patterned
sets of role relationships in which the individual functions and which
are largely governed by the normative expectations of its group members.

Parson's notion of role function captures the essence of individual
behavior at micro as well as macro levels. For, within immediate and
wider contemporary social contexts, individuals are involved in the en—
actment of mutually reinforcing behaviors which constitute the main-
tenance of institutionalized normative behavior. As Parsons explains:

...the essential aspect of social structure lies in a system of
patterned expectations defining the proper behavior of persons
playing certain roles, enforced both by the incumbents own
positive motives or conformity and by the sanctions of others.
Such systems of patterned expectations seen in the perspective of
their place in a total social system and sufficiently thoroughly
established in action to be taken as legitimate are conveniently
called 'institutions'. (Parsons, 1949,p. 35)

By the same token, Parsons emphasized a link between the forces
that maintain equilibrium within institutionalized patterns of role
behaviors and the forces that create resistance to change. He used the
term 'vested interests' to explain the integrated nature of need dis-
positions and concomitant value orientations of role incumbents. With
regard to the necessity of understanding these forces,Parsons says:

The phenomenon of vested interests then, may be treated as
always lying in the background of the problem of social change.
... change in the social system is possible only by the operation
of mechanisms which overcome the resistence of vested interests.

It is, therefore, always essential explicitly to analyze the
structure of the relevant vested interest complex before coming to

22

any judgment of the probable outcome of the incidence of forces
making for change. These considerations will often yield the
answer to the questions of why processes of change either fail to
occur altogether or fail to have the outcomes which would be pre—
dicted on a common-sense basis. (pp. 492—493)

Although the work of Linton and Parsons did much to sensitize the
social scientist to the importance of role in understanding the social
nature of human behavior, it was one of Parson's students, Robert
Merton, who further clarified the interrelated nature of roles by in—
troducing the notion of role set. Merton (1957) defined role set as
that complement of role relations which persons acquire or assume by
virtue of occupying a particular status in a social system.

Merton further subdivided individual roles within simple and
complex role sets. He defined a simple role set as being a group of
individuals that is few in number, remains fairly stable, and whose
role inCumbents do not differ significantly in status, as with
teachers and their colleagues. In contrast, he described a complex
role set as a set of individuals within which the role partners occupy
a different status. For example, teachers and their students form one
type of complex role set, teachers and their administrators another,
and teachers and their inservice instructors yet another.

The value of identifying different types of role sets in a social
system is in recognizing a major difference in the way that role
incumbents in the two types of role sets interact. Merton acknow-
ledged that individuals in a complex role set are more likely to

experience differing expectations in their interrelationships than

23

individuals in a simple role set. In turn, differing expectations can
generate potential sources of conflict between role incumbents.

If this concept is applied to role and role relationships of
teachers, then potential conflict within the variety of complex role
sets in which a teacher is a role incumbent seems inevitable.
Teachers are expected to behave in a way that meets student expect—
ations and that complies with expectations set by administrators and
the broader society. Aside from this, parents' expectations and
expectations teachers have of themselves impinge upon the teacher to a
lesser or greater extent and with differing degrees of intensity at
any given time. Furthermore, in the context of the problem addressed
in this study, teachers are charged with the responsibility of imple-
menting a new science curriculum in which expectations (at least in
the early stages) may be unfamiliar, unclear or contrary to the vested
interests of teachers. Worse still, the role expectations imposed on
teachers as they teach a new inquiry-based/guided-discovery curriculum
may seem 'impractical' in the teacher's eyes (Ponder & Doyle, 1977).

But critical to reaching an understanding of the nature of
teacher/student role relationships in the problem identified in this
study is the potential conflict that arises if and when teachers
attempt to implement the new program in accordance with the role
prescriptions implicit in the new curriculum. Clearly, the likelihood
is high that teachers could experience conflict as they place them—

selves at risk by opening up their classrooms to the ambiguity of a

24

repertoire of behaviors and role relationships with which both they
and their students are unfamiliar. For, what has previously existed
as commonly accepted institutionalized reciprocal role expectations in
the teacher/student role set, now becomes an arena that is rife with
ambiguity and unforeseen consequences for the teacher.

Finally, in seeking to locate the behavior of individuals on an
on—going basis in a matrix of conditions and events, role theorists
underscore the contextual and interrelated nature of roles. And, when
applying role theory to the functioning of established social systems,
role theorists acknowledge the inseparability of position or status
and role. As Linton (1945) puts it: "A role represents the dynamic
aspect of status... There are no roles without statuses or statuses
without roles" (pp. 113-114). Status, according to Linton's definit-
ion, is distinct from the individual who may occupy it. Linton recon-
ciles the close association of role and status by linking them with
rites and duties which are assumed and enacted.

The notion of individual role enactment as an expression of

 

status is Of particular relevance for this study since: the social
system which forms the cultural matrix of this study; viz: the
Singapore eduCation system, is deeply rooted in the high profile of
status within an established hierarchy. This hierarchy is repeatedly
made explicit in the sources and expressions of authority in all
facets of the system (See Perceptions and Practice: An STU Report,

1981; and Gopinathan & Gremli, 1984).

25

Schools and Classrooms as Social Systems
Viewing schools and classrooms as microcosmic social systems in
which there exists a uniquely embedded culture which is continually
subject to renewal is by no means a new orientation. Waller (1932)
for example, vividly depicted the world of schools as follows:

... the world of the school is a social world. The human beings
who live together in the school, though deeply severed in one
sense, nevertheless spin a tangled web of interrelationships; that
web and the people in it make up the social world of the school.
It is not a wide world but for those who know it, it is a world
compact with meaning. It is a unique world... (preface ).

Berliner and Tikunoff (1977) Delamont (1976) Mehan, (1975, 1979)

Stenhouse (1978, 1980) and Walker (1972) are among the league of
educational sociologists and educational researchers on both sides of
the Atlantic that has attempted to portray the richness and complexity
of the social structure that makes up life in schools and classrooms.
These researchers and others have made concerted efforts to understand
some of the tacit qualities of school culture that emerged from
studies which focused, for instance, on educational inequality and on
the predicament of culturally disadvantaged students. Many of these
early studies addressed socio—linguistic aspects of the classroom
(Cazden, John & Hymes, 1972; Barnes et al., 1971; Barnes, 1976).
Later, studies focusing on issues such as teacher effectiveness and
school socialization further expanded this research base.

The growing popularity of ethnographic research methods has

prcwdded a suitable research paradigm through which such holistic

portrayals of classroom culture can be investigated. Connected with

26

this trend has been the emergence of models and paradigms which have
been used as interpretive tools or as means by which the specific
aspects of teacher and student behavior can be located in the broader
question of effects in classrooms.

Bransford and Franks (1976) describe such models as "theories and
tools that set the stage for clarifying and understanding situat-
ions". With this in mind, it was concluded that a cultural model
would be most highly suited to obtaining a holistic insight into
understanding the implications and outcomes of the introduction of an
inquiry-based/guided discovery science program into the Singapore
school system. Using a cultural orientation facilitates a course of
research which takes into account the functional and the interactive
nature of human relationships both in the classrooms themselves and in
the society as a whole.

Applying a cultural model to understand change is a practice
which, according to House (1975), has undergone recent revitalization
due to the model's ability to explain diversity rather than uniform-
ity of user systems. House cites Smith and Geoffrey, 1968; Sarason,
1971; Smith & Keith, 1977; Lortie, 1975; Wolcott, 1973; and Ruddock,
1977 as researchers who have used a cultural approach to investigate
change in schools. These researchers and others like them tend to
take the view that schools should be viewed as cultural entities in
which a delicate balance of mutually reinforcing values, attitudes and
behaviors exist. Once this has been recognised, it is easy to see

that changes imposed by outside change agents might tend to disrupt or

27

disorient the role incumbents concerned causing the intended change
effort very difficult to bring into effect. On the other hand,
understanding user systems according to a cultural orientation can,
according to Romberg and Price (1983), consolidate the close-knit
relationships between curriculum implementation, staff development and
cultural change.

Before elaborating in detail on the ways in which a cultural
model can be applied in the study and the potential the model has for
interpreting the research problem addressed in the study, it will be
pertinent to take into account the broader sociocultural context of
Singapore and the genre of its education system so that the research
problem can be addressed in context.

Singapore — A Pluralistic Society

The fact that Singapore is most commonly described as a plural—
istic society and is indeed made up of a number of ethnic, racial,
religious as well as socioeconomic subcultures makes any attempt to
characterize a 'Singapore culture' infinitely problematic. Yet, during
the twenty-five years since Singapore became an independent nation,
there has been an undeniable and affirmative attempt on the part of
the government to mold the nation's citizenry into patterns of
behavior which bear distinct cultural overtones.

With few exceptions (8), the kinds of attitudes, values and
behaviors that the government of Singapore has attempted to instill in
the population via this 'social engineering' process are in harmony
with accepted norms of Singapore's constituent Asian cultures (9). As

such, they have been avidly communicated to the adult population

28

through the mass media by means of national campaigns, community
action and economic incentives (10).

In addition, cultural values have also been openly and
unreservedly reinforced through the education system. Quoting Prime

Minister Lee Kuan Yew in his open letter responding to the Report on

 

the Ministry of Education (1978): 'No child should leave school after.

 

9 years without the 'software' of his culture programmed into his
subconscious' - a clear indication that the government holds the
education system responsible for a good part of the enculturation of
school-age Singaporeans.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Lee even suggests that a Singaporean
identity can combine cultural values axiomatic to Singapore's constit—
uent racial subcultures and those associated with the scientific and
technological advancements that are part of Singapore's contemporary
image. For instance, in the same letter, the Prime Minister argues:

The best of the East and of the West must be blended to advantage
in the Singaporean. Confucianist ethics, Malay traditions, and
the Hindu ethos must be combined with sceptical Western methods of
scientific inquiry, open discursive methods in the search for
truth. (p. v.)

The Prime Minister goes on to describe the kind of citizen the
Singapore education system should aspire to produce:

What kind of man or woman does a child grow up to be after 10—12
years of schooling? Is he a worthy citizen, guided by decent
precepts? Have his teachers and principal set him good examples?
Imparting knowledge to pass examinations, these are important.
However, the litmus test of a good education is whether it
nurtures citizens who can live, work, contend and cooperate in a
civilized way. Is he loyal and patriotic? Is be, when the need

arises, a good soldier ready to defend his wife and children, and
his fellow citizens? Is he filial, respectful to elders, law

29

abiding, humane and responsible? Does he take care of his wife and
children, and his parents? Is he a good neighbour and a trust—
worthy friend? Is be clean, neat, punctual and well mannered?

We have a mix of immigrants from different parts of China,
India and the Malay world. We have to give our young the basic
common norms of social behavior, social values and moral precepts
which can make up the rounded Singaporean of tomorrow. (p. iv—v)

So, no matter how tenuous and problematic references to a
'Singapore culture' may seem to be, it is both evident in the
foregoing statement by the Prime Minister and vital to the thesis of
this study to acknowledge that there are certain identifiable,
distinctive cultural patterns already existing, or in the process of
being integrated into the fabric of contemporary Singapore life.
Moreover, there are certain attitudes, values and beliefs that are
officially endorsed by the government through the national education
system.

What is equally important to this study though, is that not only
are such preferred patterns of behavior explicitly transmitted
through the official school curriculum in the moral education and
religious studies programs, but they are also predictably reinforced
through the 'hidden curriculum' by the ways in which day to day
events are conducted in schools and in classrooms. Manifestations of
this hidden curriculum exist within the institutionalized patterns of
social relationships permeating the education system; being both ex—
plicitly and implicitly defined in role expectations, role relation-

ships and role enactments. Such institutionalized patterns of

‘behavior are also likely to be brought more sharply into focus in

30

circumstances that are being investigated in this study; namely:
where one group in the system intends to impose certain changes on
another group in the system.

Applying7a Cultural Model

 

Applying a cultural model to understand change in a school
setting is based on the assumption that schools are social systems
characterized by sets of behavioral configurations which are held
together by beliefs, values and rituals. In turn, these institution-
alized norms are influenced by prevailing sources and expressions
of authority. The cultural model is therefore concerned with looking

at the basis for interconnectedness of cultural forms within the

 

system under study in order to discover those which appear to be
stable and those which appear to be dynamic.

The maintenance of social systems and schools as defined by the
cultural model, then, is dependent upon people, their basis for mut—
ual interaction and their spheres of influence and control. Under-
standing change within the context of a cultural model is adopting a
perspective that would have to be assumed through channels that
influence or control the dynamic aspects of the culture or by means
of channels that mutually reinforce it. What renders this as an
appropriate analytical model for the present study is that unlike
other models which are grounded in structural dimensions, activities
of individuals in this model are viewed in terms of their role within

the structure.

31

In the cultural model, schools are viewed as subcultures of a
wider culture. Administrators, teachers and students are role part-
icipants in the culture and their actions and transactions have
mutually symbolic meanings. These meanings may be highly specific
and different from meanings that an outsider may attach to the same
events when viewing them in context. Also implicit in this model is
that each situation has a high degree of uniqueness that needs to be
investigated in detail before any kind of prescriptive move towards
change can be made.

What further distinguishes the cultural model is its potential
for understanding organizations by way of the activities of the
participants, i.e.: viewing the structure of the organization through
the activities of those who are role participants in it. This
approach is consistent with a phenomenological perspective and, as
such, is more concerned with the mutual interaction of participants
than with individualistic attributes with regard to the broader
organizational structure.

Summary

In this literature review, an attempt has been made to give an
(Jverview of trends in the literature on educational change and to
iJndicate ways in which its orientation has progressed over time. It
wuss argued that in further extending change theory, researches could
benefit from drawing upon related paradigms within human behavior
theory so that a more holistic understanding of implications for

iJutividuals in the user system could be achieved.

32

The major constructs of role theory were explored in so far as
they furnish a conceptual framework within which to look at behav-
ioral changes of individuals most intimately involved in the change
process being studied viz: the cooperating teachers who would imple—
ment the new LSS program. The dynamics of the various role sets in
which these teachers function was also discussed. It was asserted
that role perceptions and role enactments within the teacher/student
role set were axiomatic to the kinds of changes anticipated in the
introduction of the Lower Secondary Science curriculum.

An additional thread in the literature that informed the present
research is the body of research that has looked at schools as micro-
cosms of the broader social milieu. In the study, each of the target
classrooms, together with their respective schools, came to be
regarded as cultural microcosms of the highly centralized education
system. Likewise and in turn, the educational system, as an integral
and dynamic consequence of Singapore's sociopolitical and eConomic
circumstances, emerged as a microcosm of predominating sociocultural
patterns that permeate contemporary Singapore life. It was within
this frame of reference that this research attempted to understand
change in teacher/student role and role relationships resulting from

the implementation of the new Lower Secondary Science program.

CHAPTER III

THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A Rationale

A phenomenological approach to the investigation of role and role
relationships of teachers and students in the implementation of the
new Lower Secondary Science curriculum was selected for this study.
This approach is grounded in an ideology which takes into account that
the world exists as it is but that different people construe it in
different ways. Thus, the theoretical framework of the study is
essentially ideographic in that it serves the purpose of extracting

the sets of meaningsgthrough which individuals interpret their world

 

and with which individual role enactments are inextricably linked.
Within this frame of reference, researches become a search for mean-

ingful relationships and the discovery of their causes and conse—

 

quences. Research approaches that can achieve this end focus on g_ygy
of findinggthe means by which these varying views of reality can be
portrayed for the purposes of analysis, understanding and appropriate
action.

The research approach that has the greatest potential for yield-
ing this kind of holistic view of varying constructions of reality and

yet, by the same token, is most appropriate to the research problem

33

34

addressed in this study, is an ethnographic research approach in which
one or more case studies are investigated from an ideographic stand—
point.

The Ethnographic Research Paradigm

 

Assumptions underlying the ethnographic research paradigm (11)
that are particularly pertinent to this study have to do with under-
standings about human behavior in social settings. A key assumption
for the ethnographer, for example, is that human behavior is context—
ual in nature, being irrevocably linked to the specific environment
and the particular moment in time in which it occurs. Furthermore,
the ethnographer recognises the interrelated nature of human behavior
in terms of roles, role relationships, social groupings and cultural
norms. These assumptions are, of course, consistent with the precepts
of role theory and therein lies their potential for guiding interpret-
ations of the sets of meanings that govern role and role relationships
within the context of this study.

Another assumption underpinning the ethnographic research para-
digm relates to the way in which ethnographers go about their work.
It is assumed that a well trained ethnographer will become a sensitive
instrument of research and, as such, will uncover meanings that part-
icipants within the setting attach to events and happenings. These
meanings may or may not be explicitly expressed or even acknowledged
by the role participants but they are discernible in a tacit sense
from one or more of the many perspectives that the researcher is able

to investigate during the course of the research.

35

The antecedents as well as the apparent intentions and motivat—
tions linked with the role behavior of the participants may thus be
inferred by the ethnographer as their meanings become more acute, more
penetrating over time. The responsibilities of the ethnographer,
therefore, evolve into seeking to become more and more immersed in the
complexity of the research setting as the study progresses and in so
doing becoming more and more conversant with the intricacies of the
interactions of the respective role incumbents in their social groups.

In integrating the axioms of ethnographic research methods within
the framework of a cultural model, it was assumed that the teacher's
professional sphere of relationships comprises various simple and com—
plex role sets within which they function as role incumbents. It was
hypothesized that of all of the role sets in which the teacher acts as
a role incumbent (teacher/students, teacher/colleagues, teacher/school
administration, teacher/parents, teacher/centralized education system
etc.) the role set in which the teacher has the most clearly defined
vested interests and that would therefore have the most intense and
enduring impact on the teacher is the complex role set comprised of
teacher and students interacting in the classroom setting (12).

Patterns of teacher and student behaviors observed in target
classrooms were therefore treated as stable, institutionalized systems
of role enactments that were mutually reinforced in the context of the
immediate classroom and school setting as well as in the broader soc-
iety. It was further assumed that within the range of role sets in

which each teacher is a role incumbent, a hierarchy of roles is well

36

established and this hierarchy is an important controlling factor in
the events that transpired during the two—year time span of the study.
It was further proposed that when introducing change through the
implementation of the new Lower Secondary Science Curriculum, the con-
ditions governing the majority of role sets in which the teacher is a
role incumbent will remain constant, but that within the teacher/
student role set, role definitions and role relationships are expected
to change - and therein lies potential for role conflict. The nature
of these potential role conflicts as well as their causes and their
consequences formed an important line of inquiry in this study.

Data Sources

 

The Case Studies

Five science teachers and one of their respective lower secondary
I science classes for each year of the study were regarded as case
studies comprising the broader study. The research design included a
total of four sets of observations undertaken in each case study (13),
two during the year prior to and two during the year of implementation
of the new program. Observations took place at prespecified intervals

over a two year period so that a longitudinal perspective could be

 

obtained:
Timeline
Phase Research Strategy, Dates
I A Schools were selected. Rapport was Jan-Mar 1982

established with school personnel.

A series of observations was under-
taken on one topic of learning in the
existing science program.

37

I B Contact with schools re—established. Aug—Oct 1982
A second series of observations was
undertaken on a second topic of
learning in the existing program.
Questionaires given to a shadow
group of teachers.(14)

IIA A series of observations was undertaken Jan-Apr 1983
involving one topic of learning in the
new Lower Secondary Science program
(this topic, where possible, corresponded
to one of the topics observed in the
baseline study). Every class meeting
utilized for the topic was observed.
II B Contact was re-established with schools July 1983
and cooperating teachers involved in the
baseline study and in Phase I of 1983
study.
A second series of observations was
undertaken of a topic of learning Sept/Oct 1983
in the new LSS program.

Comparisons were subsequently made between the two sets of obser—
vations within each case study. That is, for each teacher, data
collected during the two sets of observations conducted prior to
implementation of the new program was considered as baseline data and
the two sets of observations conducted during the first year of
implementation were compared with the baseline data by applying pre-
determined analysis procedures.

Selection of Schools. Entry to the schools selected for this
study was gained through application to the Research and Monitoring

Branch of the Singapore's centralized education department - the

.Ministry of Education. Selection of schools was made on the basis of

38

consultation with personnel from the Research and Monitoring Branch and
the Curriculum Branch of the Ministry. The schools were chosen from a
group of schools listed by the Ministry of Education as having the
same range of results in the school leaving examinations taken by
fourth year secondary students (average of 1978 and 1979). Al—
together, six different criteria were applied in the selection of the
five target schools:

(1) All schools averaged 60-70 per cent General Certificate of Edu-

cation '0' level passes (average for 1978-79). (15)

(2) All were government schools (as opposed to government-aided,
missionary schools).

(3) All were coeducational schools.

(4) All had approximately the same number of students enrolled.

(5) All have a similar intake of students in terms of socioeconomic
status. (According to information available in school records,
the majority of students live in nearby high—rise housing
estates and their parents are employed in unskilled or semi-
skilled occupations.) (Appendix A)

(6) All schools followed the same science program up to the end of
the 1982 school year (i.e. none had piloted the new Lower
Secondary Science program during its development phase).

A total of sixteen schools comprised the category of schools from
which the five target schools were selected. It should be noted that
this group of schools fell close to, but slightly above the national
mean of 59% GCE '0' level passes quoted in The Report on the Ministry
of Education (1978). In order to obtain the best possibility of suit-

able representative teacher and student groups, schools were selected

from different districts in Singapore.

39

Selection of Teachers. After receiving the necessary permission
from the Research and Monitoring Branch of the MOE, the principals of
the schools were contacted and appointments were made to meet the five
principals concerned. The principals then introduced the researcher
to teachers who were teaching at the grade level selected for the
study. Subsequently, one teacher from each school agreed to become a
cooperating teacher in the study. Of the five cooperating teachers,
two were males and three were females; three were Chinese and two were
Indian and their years of experience ranged from two years to 'twenty
over' years (16).

Selection of Student Groups. In the selection of student groups,
the researcher chose to observe groups of students that were, as far
as possible, representative of the mid-range student population. To
achieve this, it was necessary to take into consideration the national
streaming policy in Singapore. Three streams exist in Singapore sec-
ondary schools: the Special stream for students with high ability (the
top 10 percent), the Express stream for students with average and
high—average ability and the Normal stream for students with average
and below average ability which are assigned 50% and 40% respectively
of students who reach secondary school. However, not all students
attend secondary school. Some students (about 5% of the original
cohort) are streamed into the lowest stream in the Primary school (the
Monolingual stream) and from there they go on to vocational schools.
Streaming of students occurs as early as the third year of primary

school” Phrther categorization of students takes place after they

40

have taken the nationally administered Primary School Leaving Exam—
ination (or PSLE) at the end of the sixth or eighth (17) year of
primary school. But it should be mentioned that because of the
emphasis placed on performance in the language component of the PSLE,
some students are placed in a normal stream merely because they happen
to score poorly in their second language.

Target classes were selected in consultation with the cooperat-
ing teacher. For obvious reasons, it was not possible to observe
teachers working with carefully matched student groups. It soon
became apparent that scheduling procedures in each individual school
predetermined student groupings, making matching groups for the
purpose of this study impossible. For instance, even though all of
the cooperating schools were coeducational, some classes were com-
prised only of males or females and the cooperating teacher taught
only classes separated according to gender. This meant that an all-
girls class or an all-boys class was the only possibility for observa-
tion at the Secondary I level. In some schools, grouping depended on
students' choice of elective subjects such as second language
(Mandarin, Malay or Tamil) and in other schools grouping depended on
options in vocational classes (technical studies versus home econ-
omics). The selection of classes for the 1982 (Phase I) and 1983

(Phase II) stages of the study are listed as follows:

Pre—implementation Total 5 classes
Phases IA & IB
(1982) 2 Express (mixed boys and girls)

1 Normal (mixed boys and girls)
1 Normal (all boys)
1 Normal (all girls)

41

During implementation Total 5 classes

Phases IIA & IIB

(1983) 1 Express (mixed boys and girls)
2 Normal (mixed boys and girls)
1 Normal (all boys)
1 Normal (all girls)

It should be mentioned that the student groups observed were
self—contained in the sense that they all had the same form or home—
room teacher and that during each day, they all‘ proceeded through
their daily schedule as a unit, meeting with subject specialist
teachers either in their own classrooms or in the subject classrooms
of their teachers.

Classroom Observations. While engaged in observations in classes,
the researcher remained as unobtrusive as possible observing the class
proceedings from various locations in the laboratory, focusing attent—
ion either alternately or simultaneously on teacher and student behav-
ior. On occasions when the teacher was making a presentation to the
class or addressing the class as a total group, the researcher re-
mained in one location but when students were doing laboratory work,
the researcher circulated to mingle with student groups, sometimes
attempting to discuss the experiment with the students and sometimes
remaining as a detached listener. In each case study, notes were
organized into lesson units and assembled in chronological sequence
together with documentation of informal exchanges with teachers and

their students. Details of the amount of time and the topics observed

in the two phases of the study are outlined in Appendix B.

42

Physical features of the laboratories and classrooms in which
‘classes were conducted and the ways in which these features appeared
to influence classroom activity were assessed. The physical layout of
the room and its furnishings, the proxemics of the classroom, and the
ambient noise level and/or interference from adjacent areas of the
school were all considered as important parameters of the research
setting and therefore were carefully documented as part of the class-
room observation data.

Supplementary Data

 

The Curriculum Materials. Another source of data arose from an
investigation of the curriculum materials themselves. This included
examination of the student workbooks and textbooks, the teachers guide
and other related materials including audio—visual aids. Examination
of the student materials was guided by a series of questions aimed at
investigating the extrinsic and intrinsic qualities of the materials
including their general presentation and coverage of certain topics.
The way in which the materials communicated to the student about the
nature of science and science learning and the way in which the cur—
riculum writers explicitly or implicitly defined student and teacher
roles also formed an important part of the curriculum materials
analysis.

The Teacher Inservice Experience. As part of the implementation
process, the Ministry of Education, in conjunction with the curriculum

developers, conducted a thirty-—hour inservice course to orientate

43

lower secondary teachers to the new LSS program. The researcher took
part in the first inservice course acting as a participant observer in
all inservice sessions with the first batch of ninety teachers. The
researcher collaborated with the course organizers in preparing a
questionaire which solicited teachers' views on various aspects of
the course.

Miscellaneous Data. To supplement the classroom observations,

 

teacher inservice observations and analysis of curriculum materials,
additional data were derived through informal conversations, question—
aires and focused interviews with teachers and key informants from the
Ministry of Education and the curriculum writing team. Data from
secondary sources such as documentation of historical perspectives of
science teaching in the Singapore school system, the history of the
LSS program and its stages of implementation as well as documentation
of the inservice course furnished an additional data base.

Data Reduction and Analysis

 

Erickson (1978) advised that in the data reduction and analysis
process: "whatever rules of analysis the ethnographer chooses, he
[sic] should make them, live by them, and make it clear to the audi—
ence what they were and how they affected the course of the re—
searcher". The data accumulated during the two year time frame over
which this study was undertaken were drawn from a variety of sources
and each phase of the study addressed one or more of the research

questions directly or indirectly. Figure 1 (page 44) illustrates the

44

.3323 2:452 <25 “:2. 0.2 85348 <20 5: £235.50 :omfimmm m5. zumzmm auzwonQdm m5. noxm o» 55.6 < "m NEE:

 

Egg»: rug 3:) Saran—€108 45.2002” a 4530... 3:402” O... a; as 3.3 j< 8 3:538:53.

.0530.

5.0000. 0... a. 0.0.0.0300

.050 a»... .0\ue0 00000.0 c030»

...-8.0: 2. 3 3:26 .3. 33

8300...; .0 0.00020 ......

00: 00:05 .0 00:03.0 .0 :00.
.0 09.050 .0 00:03.5 0000 00: .n

 

a. a 3 0000f 0. 00.00200
0.00 5.0 a: 0:0 <2 0000....
... 00.00200 0.00 .0 003.0080

0: 000:0 <3 «00....
000.000.0000 000.0008

.823

.833... 0:838 :33!
.00» 0.... «5.00 02.000...

8 3:8 .22» .0 8.33.6 .22 ..

 

0.3.0.00 00.8.0
and .0 0.05.0.2

3.35.0305
8030326 .2000...
.0 3000.. 3.05000...
.0 0008.098 00.).00
can .0 0030:0000

2.0.00.0 000 0... 2.00030. .05
00 I0... .0 00.0093 0. .0...- .0
0.00000. 30.... now. 00003.00...
001C000. 38300.2... 0200.0.
003030.108 .0 30:09.0 «0:: .n

 

0.0.0.00 00.00....
9.3 .0 0.0.30.2

 

 

(030.0 mm.— ..0: 000 00 000.000
00.0.0.0. .3030. 000 .000. 0030.300 .0 8.000.096

0.3.0.00 .0...
.0 8221.30

«0.0080000
0300.....0 0... .0 0:03:30. 05
0. 1.22.. 0:02. .... ...-003...
00 .00.0 ... .3023 0—0.
.30... 5 0x00 0. 0000 8:00:00
0:0 0.2000. 00 .0220 .2: 0:0
. 0303....» 00.. 0... c. 00.000000
0005 5... 0.00000 00.03.000.03
.00 .030 00.00030 000.0003

9.0 02.00 000.0030 00 no: .N

 

«no. 0. .030 0.0000...» ... 09.0.00
00 .0200} 09.0.0.0. .0 00305093

an 000:0 3 000:1
000. 30.030 000.0008

900.3000
0000.0» fax—80¢ .003 00.. 0... .0
0030200030. 3 .3... 00020030
88.3 .... 82083:: :2 20
0.0. 000030 000 .0500. 0.0 .23 .-

 

30. p.529: >9.

80. .0252.

32 5025..

 

002 5.532.

 

«02 3.5..

gag gnu:

 

 

r525 8:35.38 #81

 

Sun:

 

«mug

 

 

 

45

relationship between the research questions, the research strategies
and the type of data collected in each phase of the study.

A relevant assumption in this research is that: "What teachers do
is affected by what they think." (Clark and Yinger 1979). But an even
more compelling assumption is that teacher role behaviors in the
classroom is equally likely to be inextricably linked with unconscious
as with conscious 'thinking'. As Waller (1932) puts it:

... roles may be conscious or unconscious. Long established
roles are moved from the center of consciousness by mechanisms
of habit formation; such roles tend to be accepted as a matter of
course while attention is transferred to the newly elaborated
details or to newer roles in accordance with the long-established
one. A difficulty in the introspective interpretation of behavior
often arises from the following out of roles which have been so
long established and have sunk so deeply into the foundations of
the personality that it is no longer possible for consciousness to
take account of them. (p. 324)

With this in mind, the classroom data were reduced and analysed
according to two distinct but interrelated dimensions of the ways in
which teachers acted out their roles within the classroom culture viz:
(a) the routines and rituals of the class, and (b) the controlling
processes that enabled the functioning of the social systems in the
classrooms observed. These two interrelated dimensions provided a
means of structuring the data from the perspective of the role

incumbents in the research setting.

Within the observable routines and rituals dimension of the

 

«classroom culture, three constituent components or perspectives were

selected for analysis. These three perspectives, which were derived

46

from predominating themes in the data collected in Phase I of the study,

can be operationalized as follows :

1.

a)

b)

A profile of organizational and instructional strategies for

 

class periods observed was obtained:

Organizational strategies referred to the amount of time

 

spent on each type of activity within class periods, the way
in which these activities were sequenced and methods of
grouping for instruction.

Instructional strategies referred to the mode of instruct-

 

ion eg. teacher led discussion, A/V presentation, demon-
stration by teacher or student, experiments carried out
by students, procedures for student record keeping.

Teachers' procedures for mediating classroom events were ascer-
tained. This involved scrutiny of teachers' classroom
management behaviors including the way they motivated students
towards the class activites, the way the teacher maintained
pupil attention, structured teaching episodes, made trans-
itions from one activity to the next and achieved momentum
throughout the class. Idiosyncrasies of the teacher inter-
actional style were also incorporated into this aspect of the
data analysis.

The nature of classroom discourse was analysed in terms of who

 

spoke and what kinds of statements/sanctions were made, by
whom and to whom and who initiated the discourse. Under this

category, teachers' questioning techniques and their verbal and

47

non-verbal reactions to students' responses were taken into
consideration. The ways in which teacher/student and student/
student interactions (verbally and non-verbally) communicated
their expectations were noted.

The first perspective (and to a certain extent, the second pers-
pective) indicated above provided a vehicle through which the re—
searcher could infer antecedents of classroom events (eg. teacher
planning) while the second and third dimensions revealed aspects of
the teachers' intuitive responses to classroom events arising from
implementation of these plans ie. by the messages or statements
communicated to the class and the resultant classroom activity and
discourse.

Complementary to the three perspectives of classroom activity
falling within the first dimension of classroom culture, the three
derived from the second dimension dealt with those qualities of class—
room activities which were tacit as opposed to explicit expressions of
the classroom culture. These perspectives were derived from manif—
estations or expressions of beliefs, values, and codes of behavior
that more often than not conveyed hidden meanings. These meanings
‘werta often communicated through statements that were initially
intended to communicate something other than the meaning extracted by
the researcher.

'These controlling processes were identified within situational

frames (Hall, 1977) or analytical units of classroom proceedings (18).

Inevfijuably though, these meanings often interfaced across one or more

48

of the perspectives they could be ascribed to and they formed an
interface across perspectives within the first dimension (routines
and rituals of the classroom). In the context of this study then,
situational frames reflecting controlling processes that were active
in the classroom and which were extracted for analysis pertained to:

1. Indications of teachers beliefs about the purposes of science

 

learning and the way in which these beliefs were communicated
to students; including ways in which teachers appeared to
view their roles with regard to the curriculum and the broader
field of science. The ways in which teachers linked current
with past learning or with the out-of—school environment.

2. Evidences of the reward systems operating in classrooms were
examined to discover when and how teachers gave positive
reinforcement to their students, how they evaluated students'
work, conduct, and/or class participation. The types of
rewards were examined such as teacher praise, peer recognition
special priviledges, grades on report cards, or recognition
at the school level such as promotion to a higher class.

3. Evidence of sources and expressions of authority in the
classroom and the school were examined at two levels: (a) with
reference to teacher perceptions of science as a discipline
and the nature of science knowledge; and (b) with reference to
the status and concomitant spheres of influence and control
accorded the range of role incumbents (as individuals and as

groups) included in the study.

49

By examining patterns of teacher/student interactions within the
dimensions of the classroom culture descibed above, the basis for
teacher role perception and role enactment in the various role sets in
which they were involved could be ascertained. The value of structur-
ing the data around these two dimensions in the data analysis process
lies in their respective contributions to understanding teacher/
student role behaviors together with their contextual meanings in the
classroom culture. Clearly, whilst the value of the first dimension
is that it draws on pedagogical and linguistic frameworks from an etic
standpoint, the second perspective is directed at psychosocial and
sociocultural dimensions of the classroom culture which fall within an
emic frame of reference (19).

Relationships between events and behaviors thus evolved as the
'corpus' of the data was explored at different levels during the data
reduction and analysis process. The researcher subsequently sought
patterns and associations in the data in order to derive naturalistic
generalizations about the meanings behind what was occuring in the
setting. Linkages were constructed between people, behaviors and
events and through these linkages, hypotheses were formulated, re-
formulated and tested by means of examining and re-examining data
present in the 'corpus' of the data. (Erickson, 1978; Florio, 1976)

Summary

In summarizing this chapter it is important to reiterate that the

Iconcern of the researcher in this study was the discovery and present-

aation of multiple views of reality. This concern is quite different

50

from that of a researcher engaged in a quantitative research study
whose research effort is directed towards uncovering a single reality
in the form of a causal relationship.

Since the intention of this study was to make a phenomenological
inquiry into science curriculum change in Singapore schools, it was
not concerned with examining predetermined change indicators quan-
tifiable in terms of a discrete measurable scale. Neither did the
study seek to establish single causal relationships between indep-
endent and dependent variables inherent in the change process.
Rather, the study was concerned with presenting a holistic, exist—
ential picture of teacher/student role and role relationships that
emerged as the events in the change process unfolded to the researcher
through the progressive stages of development of the five different
case studies.

Furthermore, the purposes of the study did not incorporate eval-
uation of the quality of the LSS science program - nor the quality of
the teacher inservice experience provided to prepare teachers for
teaching the new program. Neither was its purpose to evaluate the
cooperating teachers' performance or effectiveness. Rather, the
thrust of the study was directed towards discovering what types of
changes were intended by introducing a new program at this level, how
these purposes were communicated, how the participants in the change
process perceived and acted upon these changes and whether, from the
researcher's perspective, change of any type occurred. Moreover, the
intention of the research was directed towards uncovering parameters

that appeared to influence observed changes or lack thereof.

CHAPTER IV

THE RESEARCH FINDINGS

SECTION I : Research Question I

 

Introduction

 

The first research question was intended to furnish baseline data
for the study by investigating the nature of the teacher/student roles
and role relationships in science classes prior to implementation of
the new Lower Secondary Science curriculum. Two sets of classroom
observations constituting Phase I (Parts A and B) of the study pro—
vided the necessary preimplementation data to address the research
question.

Before proceeding with a presentation of the research findings,
some important assumptions which emerged, evolved, and eventually
became central to the conceptual framework of the study should be
reiterated and elaborated upon in light of the phenomenological pers—
pective from which the research problem was addressed.

In the study, each of the target classrooms served as units of
analysis, and the classrooms, together with their respective schools,
came to be regarded as cultural microcosms of the highly centralized
national education system. Likewise and in turn, the educational sys-

tem, as an integral and dynamic consequence of Singapore's historical

51

52

sociopolitical and economic circumstances, emerged as a microcosm of
predominating sociocultural patterns that permeate contemporary
Singapore life.

Whilst the primary thrust of the present research was to discover
what was occurring in the target classrooms, the long-term nature of
the study and the kind of the data that were collected as the study
progressed, made it necessary to interpolate within and extrapolate
beyond the data obtained in classrooms. Hence the data analysis pro-
cess took into consideration successive layers of subculture influence
so that the research findings could be tested from a multivariate,
phenomenological perspective.

A description of the research findings will begin with a perusal
of the physical features of the learning environment in which the
science classes took place. Some inferences will be made about the
impact that this environment appears to have on the learning environ-
ment of the classes observed in the study.

The Learning Environment

The majority of science classes observed in Phase I of the study
were conducted in spacious science laboratories. Each laboratory
contained ten large fixed student laboratory benches arranged in
paired, parallel fashion. A teacher demonstration bench was located
immediately in front of the blackboard and raised above the level of
the student benches. Most laboratories had one bulletin board that

extended the length of the back wall of the laboratory. One of the

53

six laboratories used by the classes observed in Phase I of the study
displayed four small-sized poster photographs illustrating cell
structure; otherwise, the boards in the other laboratories were empty.
No student work was displayed on any of the laboratory bulletin boards
observed during Phase I of the study.

When science classes were in session, the doors and windows of
the laboratories were left open and therefore the learning environment
was susceptible to noise from outside. This high ambient noise factor
was greater in schools where the walls of the laboratories did not
completely separate one lab from another. Noise from road traffic,
from conversation and activity in areas adjacent to the laboratories,
(including bottle stacking from the nearby cafeteria) and from
intermittent heavy rainstorms resulted in an environment that was not
conducive to class discussion. Under these circumstances, it was
difficult, on occasions, for students sitting at the rear benches to
hear teachers' instructions.

Although most of the double-period class sessions took place in
laboratories, single class periods were conducted in regular class-
rooms. Likewise, when the mock and actual GCE '0' level practical
examinations were taking place (in June and October each year) all
students, except examinees, were barred from using certain labor-
aatories Hence, unless another laboratory was available, lower
secondary science classes were held in regular classrooms for the

duration of the examinations.

54

Classroom Routines
Data collected during Phase I of the study indicated a high
degree of uniformity both across settings and over time regarding the
ways in which the five cooperating teachers and their students appear-
ed to perceive and act out their roles in science classes.
In general, student role behaviors reflected courtesy, uniformity
and conformity. Around the schools, students conducted themselves in a
courteous and orderly fashion, walking in lines from class to class.
Students began their classes by lining up in pairs outside the
laboratory. Usually there was a class member who had been assigned
responsibility as class 'chairman' or class 'monitor' who saw that
this was accomplished in a satisfactory manner. Some classes lined up
with the shortest students at the front of the line and the tallest
ones at the rear. Upon entering the class, students would most often
prepare their books and other materials and remain standing.
A formal exchange of greetings would then occur:
T : Good afternoon, Class!
S's: Good afternoon, Sir!

[After this greeting the class would greet the researcher and the
class would proceed.] [FN es 9/2/82.]

As more and more classes were observed during Phase I of the
study, it became evident that the five cooperating teachers demon-
strated similar organizational and instructional strategies, similar
mediating (managerial) behaviors and they maintained similar patterns

of classroom discourse.

55

Organizational and Instructional Strategies. Whilst some 'theory'

 

classes were organized in such a way that the teacher spent the entire
time giving information verbally or in the form of notes from the
blackboard or overhead projector, other 'practical' lessons in which
the students performed experiments were planned and carried out
according to a preplanned four-part format which could be described as
(a) teacher instruction, (b) teacher demonstration, followed by (c)
student experimentation, and (d) guided student record keeping.

Typically, the teacher referred to above and the other four
cooperating teachers began their class periods with the following type
of scenario:

T: Sit down and take out your practical book.
Did you finish the exercise from yesterday?

S'szYES [Students respond in chorus.]

T: Before the end of the class, I want you to pass
up your book to the center of the bench.
[Teacher pauses slightly before continuing.]
Take out today's experiment sheets.
Any questions from yesterday?
Yesterday we learned that if you take an ice cube
and heat it, you get a liquid - this type of change
is a ..........change? [Teacher gives a verbal blank.]

S's:PHYSICAL CHANGE! [Students respond in chorus.]

T: Yes - it's a reversible change.
Look at today's experiment.
Have you pasted it in your book?
[Students mutter to each other as they look over
at each others notebook.]
T: There are three experiments, we are going to do
them in order! [FN nd 2/9/82]

 

Four students were seated at each laboratory bench and students

worked on experiments in groups of four or, less frequently, in groups

56

of two. Students were expected to cooperate with their assigned group
to set up, carry out, and clean up after an experiment and to wait
quietly whilst slower groups completed their work. One of the four
students assigned to each lab bench was designated as group leader and
this student was *responsible for distribution and management of
equipment for their lab bench at appropriate times. Students were
usually grouped in homogenous sex groupings and, in one class, the
teacher alternated rows of boys and girls.

As the class proceeded, teachers spent the majority of the
allocated class time engaged in whole—group or class instruction. But
in classes where their students engaged in experimental work, teachers
would circulate among the student groups, talking to them, acting as
trouble shooters and intervening in any situation students were unsure
of. Although this teacher/small group interaction had the greatest
potential for teachers to converse with students in ways that would
stimulate student thinking, it was observed that teacher time in such
instances was most often taken up with verifying instructions given
previously regarding the set-up of equipment and/or procedures for
carrying out experiments.

Electric bells signalled the ending of each class period but
usually teachers prepared students to leave a few minutes before the
end of the lesson period, especially if time was needed for clean-up
of equipment. To mark the end of the lesson, there was a formal

exchange of greetings between students and their teachers. In some

57

schools, students politely recited "Thankyou, Sir" or "Thankyou, Miss
after they had said goodbye to the teacher.

Teacher as Mediator. The role enactments of the five cooperating

 

teachers appeared, therefore, to be realised in terms of imparting
information to their students, describing and demonstrating specific
tasks to be accomplished during lessons, and pacing and monitoring
students through the sequence of activities scheduled for completion
within allocated time periods.

With the exception of one teacher who, on the first occasion she
was observed, introduced her lesson with a discrepant event, the data
revealed that teachers did not normally incorporate motivating activ-
ities into their lessons, thereby indicating that they did not assume
ownership for motivating students toward the topic of study or the
activities planned for the class.

During class, student territory was closely defined and student
behavior closely regulated. Students were expected to listen attent-
ively to all information and direction given by the teacher. State—
ments and sanctions by teachers cued students as to when to copy from
the blackboard, textbook or overhead projector, when to proceed with
experiment work and within what time constraints. When students were
not carrying out experimental work, instructional settings were
usually whole group. The teacher controlled when students would
speak, such as in response to questions posed by the teacher (written
and/or verbal) and when students would answer questions from the

textbook, workbook or from the blackboard.

58

Students stood up whenever the teacher addressed them, whenever
they asked the teacher a question (which was the exception rather than
the rule) and whenever they raised their hands and were called upon by
the teacher to answer questions in class. The outcomes of all student
activities (such as the results of experimentation) were anticipated
by the teacher before the lesson, were uniform for all students, and
were characteristically confirmatory in nature.

Teacher Interactional Style.

 

In spite of the overwhelming similarities across the classes
observed, there were some differences in teacher interactional style
that affected the ways in which individual teachers mediated class—
room events. Although all teachers accepted total responsibility for
directing classroom activities, there were some differences in degree
of directiveness. One teacher was particularly directive, prefacing
many of her statements with "I want you to" or "I told you to" or
other "I" statements. During the 70 minutes that comprised one double
period observation with this teacher, the following "I" statements
were recorded:

"Now I want to give you a reminder.
"I want you to do the problems on your own.
"I want you to do them in your exercise book.

"Now I told you to see me before twelve o'clock if you could not
hand in your book.

"Now, I'll go over these answers as soon as the books are in.
"I'm going to give you one of these so that you can try.

"I want the leader to come and get two beakers and a pipette.

59

"I told you to look at the mark first.
"I told you there's a mark there!

"I said release the water.

"I want you to look at the beaker.

"I want you to put the spring in so that it comes as close as
possible to the end of the tube.

"I want everyone...

"I want to explain to you.

"I'm still waiting for silence.

"I want you to use this and measure accurately 50ml of liquid.
"I will come around and look.

"I want everyone to do this because in the next few lessons
you'll be using the measuring cylinder."

"I want the leaders to go over there and get a big measuring
cylinder." [FN da 22/2/82]

Fewer "I" statements were made by the other four teachers but

"don't" statements were used frequently by another teacher:

"Don't touch the apparatus in front of you.

"Do not pour on the label side.

"Don't move!

"Don't put it on the table; put it on the stand.

"Don't carry it like that!

"I don't want to see a drop of water when you have finished!

"Don't use the word 'pour' - this is a solid, you use 'put'.

"Now - don't forget how to pronounce these words!" [FN yq 4/2/82]

60

The same two teachers tended to use statements that were
reproachful and undermined the ability and dignity of class members:

" How many times do I have to tell you the same thing!"
[FN du 22/2/82]

" After six years in school, I would have thought that you could

spell brilliant." [FN yq 11/2/82]

" Alright, make sure you don't make this mistake again."

[FN du 17/2/82]

" Now, I'm sure there are some of you who are weak in math — am I

right? No - not some of you, mg§£_of you! [FN du 17/2/82]

In the same two classes sarcasm was sometimes used:

"I can't hear you - move your jaws and your lips." [FN yq 4/2/82]

"I think some of you don't know how to count." [FN du 15/2/82]

Paradoxically, alongside what, at times, appeared to be a
pejorative disposition, one of the same teachers quoted above was
often humorous and the students appreciated his sense of humor. For
instance, when some students accidently got sprayed with water during
a demonstration on water pressure, he joked:

T: Don't be afraid of water...

I never heard of water melting you!
You're getting wet are you? [FN yq 26/8/82]

Student Autonomy. The reciprocal effect of such close control by

 

the teacher over their students' classroom activity was the reduction
of student autonomy in the classroom setting. As might be anticip-

ated, a variety of student role behaviors reflected this. With some

61

notable exceptions students were passive listeners, dependent upon the
teacher for instruction and direction. The majority of students showed
a reluctance to participate in classroom discussions. Hence, classroom
discourse was dominated by teacher talk and answers to questions asked
by teachers solicited primarily one-word or short-answer responses
from students.

Patterns of Classroom Discourse. Although some variance in

 

teacher interactional style among the cooperating teachers has been
acknowledged, it should be mentioned that these variations did not

manifest themselves to the extent that they substantially altered

 

behaviors intrinsic in teachers' role perceptions and role

enactments as operationalized in chapter two of this research report.

 

Such differences did, however, appear to affect certain aspects of the
learning climate that prevailed in the respective classes and the
extent of verbal participation by students.

Questions and Answers. Only one of the five student groups ob—

 

served (a class of 32 normal stream girls) in Phase I of the study was
responsive or eager to answer questions in class. Most commonly, out
of the thirty—seven or so students in class, only three or four stud-
ents would raise their hands in response to teachers' questions. In
spite of this, it seemed that students often gid_know answers because
they frequently verbalized responses to each other within earshot of
the researcher. In this regard, it seemed more important for students
to demonstrate to their immediate peer group (rather than to their

teacher or the class) that they knew the answers to questions.

62

When students failed to volunteer an answer, teachers would most
often answer their own questions, allowing very little wait time:
T: Leaders come and take one burette.
[Teacher waits until all leaders are back at their benches.]
T: Can you see the zero there?
Between the zero and the one mark — how many divisions?
[No response by students.]
Do all of you say ten?
Ten little divisions?
One milliliter each? [FN da 22/2/82]
Chorus responses. Chorus responses were used to a lesser or
greater extent by the five teachers observed in the study and they
were used for various purposes. In one classroom, immediate recitative
chorus responses of the following type constituted a fair proportion
of the classroom discourse, especially in the early part of the year.
T: The water I gave you is lime water... is what water?

S's: LIME WATER!

T: Another name is Calcium hydroxide.
Its other name is CALCIUM...?

S's: HYDROXIDE! [FN yq 4/2/82]
In other classes, chorus responses were expected when teachers
surveyed the class for a consensus:

T: If you want to measure 500 ml (of a liquid) would you use
this one?

[The teacher surveyed the class for a response.]
S's: NO! [Students respond in chorus.]

T: That's right, you would use a bigger one. [FN 33 16/2/82]

63

Other instances of teachers soliciting a chorus response
occurred when they wanted to ensure that students had the necessary
entry behaviors for a concept to be presented:

T: Do you know what is a cube?
S: YES! [The students answered in chorus] [FN ss 19/1/82]

Peer Interaction. Interaction among students was observed at
various levels. On occasions, students conversed surreptitiously among
themselves at times when they were supposed to be listening to the
teacher or writing in their notebooks. At these times, and also when
they were conversing 'legally' about an experiment, a number of
languages were spoken. Although class rules strictly forbade
communication in their dialect language and teachers reproached their
students when they heard them doing so, much verbal interaction was in
Hokkien or Cantonese dialect. Some Mandarin was spoken among Chinese
students and Malay among the Malays, and, not surprisingly, English
was the language spoken most often in classes where there was a
mixture of ethnic groups.

Further data on peer interaction in class reveal that it was not
unusual for students who finished early to pass their notebook to
someone else to share answers. It also became apparent that some of
the students' textbooks were hand—downs from previous generations of
Secondary I students and, in these cases, the answers were often
already written in the blanks of the questions at the end of each
chapter. Therefore it appeared to the researcher that it was entirely
feasible that some students might copy down answers without ever

understanding the question.

64

A pattern emerged regarding the ways in which the peer group
reacted to teacher/student interaction and this had an effect on the
learning climate in all of the classes observed in Phase I of the
study. If students gave incorrect answers or if they mispronounced
words they elicited laughter from their peers. Embarrassed laughter
' or restrained amusement was predictably exhibited when a student was
asked to write an answer or draw a diagram on the blackboard. (One
teacher used this strategy). The same reaction was elicited when a
teacher reproached a student for misconduct, except when the reproach
was in such a strong tone that the entire class was shaken by it.

Apart from the exceptional class mentioned earlier which, as it
happened, was taught by the least experienced of the five cooperating
teachers, both normal and express stream students seemed equally
reticent to obtain visibility through answering questions in class. A
set of competing and/or associative explanations for this finding was
inferred by the researcher and tested against remarks and explanations
offered by key informants:

a) Students were self conscious about their inadequate command
of the English language; both in terms of pronunciation and
in terms of adequate vocabulary.

b) Students were afraid of receiving negative feedback, or worse
still, being ridiculed by the teacher and 'losing face' in

front of the teacher if they happened to give the wrong answer.

c) Students are afraid of being accused by their peers as 'show-
offs' if they were over-eager to give answers.

d) Students jealously guarded their knowledge and did not want
other students to realise how 'smart' they are (perhaps other
students may want to depend on their help?).

65

Whilst the first two explanations were most often referred to by
key informants in connection with the normal stream, the second were
most often associated with the express stream. But, in any event, the
effect was the same. In the majority of class sessions observed,
students manifested a reluctance to participate in classroom discourse
thereby rendering the teachers' task of maintaining a balance between
teacher talk and student talk exceedingly difficult. And, though it
may appear to the casual observer that teachers dominate classroom
discourse as a matter of preference or habit, the normative role
enactments of students tended to be such that teachers seem to have
little choice but to reciprocate students' role expectations and fall
back on didactive instruction.

ControllingrProcesses
As explained in the previous chapter, three predominating themes

in the data which reflected recurring controlling processes were

 

selected for analysis. These controlling processes were effectively
institutionalized mechanisms which directed or governed classroom
events through expressions of values, beliefs and attitudes of role
incumbents. These were identified in the form of contextual situat-
ional frames (Hall, 1977) and could be collectively described as (3)
those in which teachers made direct or indirect references to the
purposes of science learning, (b) those in which teachers communicated
explicitly or implicitly to the students or to the researcher about

reward systems that were operant in their classes or in the school

66

system as a whole, and (c) those which revealed sources and express—

ions of authority within the research setting.

 

Purposes of Science Learning. Attitudes and beliefs commun—
icated by teachers to their students and to the researcher regarding
the purposes of science learning could best be discussed within the
framework of long-term as opposed to short-term purposes.

Long-term purposes: Preparing students for more advanced studies
in science was the most pervasively emphasised long-term purpose of
science teaching and learning communicated explicitly and implicitly
by teachers. This was made evident in statements made by teachers
when they provided a rationale as to why a particular topic should be
covered or a skill learned.

Very rarely, though, did teachers extend their allusions to long-
term perspectives to incorporate discussion of possible career pros—
pects or the importance of scientific literacy on the part of their
students. Rather, their long—term perspective was confined to school-
based learning and was largely associated with expectations purported
to be held by future teachers as expressed in this episode:

T: Now later on when you go to your chemistry classes...
[Teacher pauses to gain the full attention of the class.]
T: You will be using a lot of catalysts... and you will be
expected to remember what they are and what they do!
[FN du 2/2/82]

Short term purposes: As has become evident in the vignettes

presented in connection with routines and rituals of the classroom,

immediate short—term purposes were expressed by teachers in terms of

67

verifying known facts or confirming already established principles
that are present in the textbook:
T: All of you look at the transparency.
Can you see it? I'm sure it is quite clear!

[Teacher pauses for the attention of the class.]

T: Actually, it is taken from the textbook so afterwards when
you draw this you can refer to your textbook. [FN du 26/8/82]

Student Record Keeping. The fact that teachers devoted so much
time and energy to ensuring that students accrued neat, identical
records of the 'theory' covered in the class communicated to students
that it was an important purpose of science learning. This assumption
became even more apparent to extremes in situations where teachers
required students to copy notes and diagrams directly from the
textbook or from an overhead projector.

The record keeping procedures expected of students were, as might
be expected, highly demanding. Students in most classes were expected
to keep regular exercise books in which they wrote neat copies of
their notes and another in which they wrote rough notes during class
sessions. Three of the teachers required their students to keep yet
another exercise book in which they wrote 'exercises' viz: their
answers to fill-the—blank or multiple choice or other exercises from
the textbook or blackboard. This meant that, apart from their text-
books, some students were responsible for upkeep of three different
types of exercise or notebooks all of which had to be organized and
maintained according to guidelines given by the teacher. The following
scenario was typical of the record keeping portion of the lesson:

T: Take out your lab notebook and copy the experiments.

68

[Students began to look in their school bags and take out
their books.]
[The teacher reproached them.]

T: Some of you have not started at all!

[Some students are flipping through their notebook, some
appear to be preparing to draw diagrams, taking out their
rulers and pencil etc.]

T: Look, there are two diagrams, I want you to draw one of them
on the upper page... divide the page in two halves and draw
the other diagram at the bottom.

Don't forget that when you write a title, it should be
underlined with a double line! [FN du 24/2/82]

To a lesser or greater extent, teachers related students class~
room experiences with events in their everyday lives and to the world
around them but, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it was the
teacher who made the connection rather than the teacher leading the
way for students to do so. The following is an example of this pattern
of behavior when the class was about to begin their work on measure-
ment:

T: We are going to be talking about measurement. Measurement
is very important - for instance when we go to the market —
we ask for a certain amount of something, fish, meat, veg-
etables. We are going to start by looking at our rulers.

All of you have got rulers, now take them out... we'll
be using the METRIC system... Now! I want you to measure
your exercise book... [FN da 22/2/82].

As teachers related present activity to past learning they often
did so from the standpoint of reproaching students for not having
remembered certain things from previous years, saying they had "better
go back to primary school". In looking to the future, teachers
did so sometimes with foreboding:

T: When are you going to start studying? If you cannot study one

chapter, what will happen when you have to study ten chap-
ters - or ten subjects for that matter?! [FN da 28/8/82]

69

Reward Systems. As teachers managed classroom discourse and
engaged in interaction with individual students, they would nod,
point or look in the student's direction saying "yes" to the indiv-
idual to solicit responses to their questions. Students who raised
their hands and/or were called upon by the teacher often appeared
embarrassed or uncomfortable even if their answers were correct. An
incorrect answer was typically responded to by the teacher with "no"
or "wrong". Two teachers tended also to respond to wrong answers with
comments such as: "Are you sure?" or "Does anyone else have a
different answer?!"

In all of the classes observed, only one of the cooperating
teachers offered positive feedback to students as they responded
appropriately to teacher questions:

T: Yes, did everyone hear that? Explain again, Siew May!
[FN ss 16/12/82]

T: Very good! She got it! Say again, Elizabeth!
[FN 38 16/2/82]

But most of the time teachers would abruptly brush aside answers,
especially if they were incorrect. This meant that more often than
not students received negative feedback ranging from mild to extreme.
Students were not, as a general rule, asked to qualify their answers
with supportive evidence, neither were they encouraged to modify
answers that were close to, but not exactly what the teacher was
expecting. Only once was a teacher observed asking a student to
explain an answer:

T : Kee Leong told us earlier that liquids could be compressed.
Can you explain that?

7O

[Kee Leong responds from the back row but the teacher cannot
hear him.]

T: Repeat your answer louder so that the entire class can hear.
[In this instance, since the student was unsuccessful in
speaking loud enough so that the class could hear, the teacher
gave her own explanation.]

One teacher seemed aware that students' reluctance to answer

questions was linked with the fact that they were afraid of being

scolded:

T: Have you drawn up your conclusions from yesterday's
experiment?

S's NO! [Chorus response accompanied by laughter.]
T Well you were supposed to!
We'll discuss it now!
You say... in this experiment...
What is a catalyst?
What do catalysts do?
What does a catalyst do?!
Come on ... put up your hand!
It doesn't matter if you are wrong!
I'm not going to punish you... I'm not going to scold you
if your answer is wrong... just try! [FN du 25/8/82]
Student/Teacher Interaction. Two of the five cooperating teach—
ers addressed students by name, making use of a seating chart. The
remaining teachers did not use students names when addressing indiv-
iduals in front of the group. Although some teachers seemed to know
the names of the few students who took on extra responsibilities in
the class, one teacher even addressed the class chairman not by his
personal name but simply as 'Chairman'.
This does not, of course, rule out the possibility that teachers

used student's personal names when addressing them individually, out

of earshot of the researcher. Nevertheless, the researcher gained the

71

impression that at least three of the five cooperating teachers did
not, as a regular practice, use students' names. One teacher was
observed handing back student test papers by calling out 'index'
numbers which students were required to write on their test paper.

Given this set of circumstances, it was inferred by the re-
searcher that a close, personalized teacher/student relationship was
not part of the role perception of the teachers involved in the study.

Sources and Expressions of Authority. The teacher and the text-
book were the most frequently cited sources of authority as far as
verification and acquisition of science knowledge is concerned. Hence,
the textbook was often quoted verbatim even in oral recitation exer—
cises. In some instances where teachers allowed students to look in
their books to obtain responses to questions, students would read
answers (very often definitions) verbatim from the textbook. In such
cases, it often transpired that the student concerned could not
pronounce the words they were trying to read:

T: Suppose I ask you to measure the external diameter of a
measuring cylinder - what will you use?
[No response from students.]

T: Come on, what will you use?
[Teacher signals to one student.]

S A tape...
T: What else besides?
[Teacher calls on a student who tries to read her answer from
the book. The student becomes embarrassed and gives up

trying to pronounce the word. The teacher reacts:]

T: Not vernier sleeding caliper... vernier sliding caliper!

72

The fact that students anticipated that they would obtain ident—
ical results in their laboratory work and that each activity would
result in a 'right' answer is highlighted in the following episode
which took place shortly after students began an experiment in which
they were required to take readings for the weight of pendulum bobs:

T: Don't be alarmed if you get different answers.
All your pendulum bobs are not the same.

[Shortly afterwards, as students continued to weigh additional
pendulum bobs, the teacher surveyed the class.]

T: What is the weight of your pendulum bob?

Who gets 70?

Who gets 72?

Who gets 80? [FN es 26/2/82]
Then, after a similar procedure with a different pendulum bob,

the teacher said:

T: How many of you got the right answer?
See if you got the right answer!

Then, instead of allowing students to reason for themselves why
some readings were vastly different, the teacher offered a suggestion:
T: Did you minus the weight of your pan?! [FN es 26/2/82]
Incidentally, in this class, the students were expected to repeat
the experiment if they did not obtain the 'right answer' (meaning an
accurate reading for an experiment).
The textbook was often used as an approved authority for the
source of answers to the teachers' questions:
T: Can you tell me: What is mass?

[No response from students.]
[Teacher observes one boy looking in his textbook.]

73

T: Don't look it up in your book!
Can you tell me what is weight?
You tell me!
[Teacher points to one boy who stands up. The boy is visibly
embarrassed as he is unable to answer the question. The
teacher rescinds his previous statement.]

T: Alright! Look in your book if you do not know!
[FN es 26/2/82]

Both teachers and students seemed to be more comfortable with
questions that were lower order, recall questions. On one occasion
when a teacher asked students to explain why results of a displacement
experiment were discrepant, she got no response from the students so
she answered her own question:

T: Why do you think your answers are different?
[No response from students.]

T: Chee Fong?
Edwina?
[Still no response from students.]

T: Is it some of you have bubbles? [FN 33 23/2/82]
It is significant that in the instance cited above, other poss—
ible sources of discrepancy such as: (a) parallax error, or (b) in-
correct reading on the curve of the meniscus, were not considered.
Yet, both of these concepts were introduced by the teacher prior to
the experiment being performed. The fact that a cork (which had to be
held underwater using a piece of wire) is not manufactured to the
degree of precision needed to differentiate between volume readings of

within one milliliter tolerance (using a measuring cylinder) was not

alluded to either.

74

Summary

Most of what could be discerned by the researcher about teacher
and student role and role relationships prior to implementation of
the new LSS curriculum is implicit in the descriptions given of events
in science classrooms in the preceding pages of this chapter. Re—
search findings in the preimplementation phase (Phase I) of the study
indicate that a similar pattern of organizational and instructional
strategies was discerned across teachers prior to implementation of
the new LSS curriculum. These strategies were oriented toward
didactic instruction, recitative discourse and neat, accurate record
keeping by students. Instructional strategies also appeared to
address short-term goals linked with providing answers to specific,
factual recall questions typical of questions that may be set in tests
or examinations.

From the ten sets of observations (two for each of the cooper-
ating teachers) conducted during Phase I of the study (20), it was
therefore inferred that recurrent teacher _behaviors indicated that
teachers viewed their role as exclusive planners, mediators and
controllers of classroom events. All decisions concerning organ—
ization, instruction and course of events in classroom proceedings
rested with the teacher. Classroom events were highly structured in
the sense that little or no ambiguity existed in the outcomes of such
events and their resulting classroom discourse. For example, in none
of the classes observed did the teacher allow students leadership

roles beyond those of acquiring and distributing equipment on behalf

75

of their group. No class activity was structured so that students
would have an opportunity to discuss their work, to lead or part—
icipate in a group or a class project of which the outcome was not
predetermined. Neither did students participate in a decision-making
process about content and conduct of future classes.

Long-term goals such as developing student competence in the
methods of science or in scientific literacy were not in evidence as
teachers interacted with their students. Neither was there any
emphasis placed on learning opportunities involving problem—solving
activities which could be pursued through individual student init-
iative or collaborative planning and hypothesis testing. Student
roles in class were characterized as being consistent with order—
liness, group cooperation, and diligent record keeping in accordance
with directions given by the teacher. Students were also described as
polite, deferent to teacher authority, and reticent to speak out in
front of their peers.

There further appeared to be an implicit belief operating in the
classrooms concerned that all classroom activities should result in a
'right' answer. Instances in which results of experiments, some of
which involved measurements, were discussed in terms of 'right' or
'wrong' 'answers' exemplified this tendency.

In all of the instructional sequences observed, both teachers and
students appeared to be more comfortable in situations where learning
experiences were presented and realised as discrete, finite entities
resulting in some kind of closure. Without exception, it fell within

the teachers role definition to provide such closure. Teacher and

76

student role and role relationships prior to implementation of the new
Lower Secondary Science program therefore can be broadly characterized
as clearly defined, inflexible and mutually exclusive. Moreover, the
data revealed that the rules that governed student/teacher role and

role relationships were mutually reinforcing and reciprocal in nature.

77

SECTION II: Research Question 2

 

In the previous section of this chapter, an attempt was made to
characterize student/teacher role relationships in the user system of
the Lower Secondary Science program prior to its implementation in
schools. Inferences drawn from extensive observations in the classes
of the five cooperating teachers provided the necessary data to
formulate such a characterization. By addressing the first research
question in this manner, it was possible to compare existing role
behaviors with those intended by the curriculum writers. With this
data in hand, it then became possible to ascertain changes that
teachers would have to undergo if they were to implement the program
according to the intentions of the curriculum developers. This, in
essence, is the substance of the second research question.

LSS: Some Background Information

An essential strand of this line of inquiry was to locate the
origin of the new LSS curriculum in the chronology of worldwide
movements in science curriculum development and to examine the history
and development of the program. For, even though the Lower Secondary
Science program was first implemented on a national scale in January
1983, its history and development spans more than a decade. The
actual beginning of LSS can be traced back to 1970 when interested
members of the Science Teachers Association of Singapore (STAS)

presented a curriculum proposal entitled: Science Program Development

 

Project to the Ministry of Education. As a result of this proposal, a

combined committee of interested STAS members and Ministry of

78

Education personnel (called MESTAS) was established to develop
science curricula at the primary and at the lower secondary levels.

The new program developed for the first two years of secondary
school (known in the Singapore system as lower secondary I and II) was
appropriately called the Lower Secondary Science or LSS project. The
LSS project began as an adaptation of the Scottish Integrated Science
program - the program also selected for adaptation at the same level
in Malaysia (see Watson, 1973 and Lewin, 1981). After a series of re-
visions that rendered it more suited to the Singapore situation, the
program was approved by the Ministry of Education for piloting in
nineteen different trial schools, beginning in 1976. As a result of
teacher feedback on the second version of the program, further revis-
ions took place and a school-based evaluation was undertaken (Cheah et
a1. 1978). Following the school-wide reforms precipitated by the New
Education System introduced in 1980, the principles of the LSS project
were officially incorporated into the revised lower secondary science
syllabus issued by the Ministry of Education and thereafter brought
under the auspices of the Curriculum Development Institute of
Singapore for its subsequent and most recent phase of development.
Intentions of Curriculum Developers

In order to define as precisely as possible the intentions of the
curriculum developers with regard to teacher/student roles and role
relationships, all available sources of documentation on the LSS

program were examined. Aside from the program materials themselves,

79

local sources of documentation of the LSS program included those of
local agencies, viz: the Ministry of Education and the Curriculum
Development Institute of Singapore, and the local English media
newspaper. Documentation at the regional level such as contributions
to regional publications and journals was also examined.

Interestingly enough, the most recent description of the LSS
program is recorded in a regional publication: The Twenty—fifth
Bulletin of the UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the
Pacific, published in June 1984. In this publication, the goals of the
Lower Secondary Science program are recorded as intending to:

a) Provide pupils with the essential scientific knowledge and
itiiii that will meet their educational and vocational

b) Develop science concepts and an understanding of our physical
and biological environment;

c) Develop students ability to use the methods of science;

d) Provide a science course which is both relevant and meaning—
ful in the technological environment of today;

e) Enable students to appreciate the humanistic aspects of
science. (p. 297)

The text of the bulletin then goes on to explain the ideology of
the program:

The emphasis is on an inquiring mind by which pupils are guided to

discover things for themselves, analyse data collected and draw

inferences which they may apply to new situations logically and

creatively. (p. 298)

While all of these statements convey implicit messages about

teacher/student role expectations in the LSS program, the statement

80

about pupils being 'guided to discover things for themselves' portends
the greatest implications for change in the modus operandi of science
teaching in the user system. As mentioned earlier, the new Lower Sec—
ondary Science program is purportedly an 'inquiry-based', 'discovery'
program. Both of these terms have been used repeatedly to describe
curricula emphasizing the 'methods of science' developed in the United
Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere (during the sixties and
seventies. But, like much of the well worn rhetoric associated with
this curriculum development era, the terms 'inquiry—based' and
'discovery' have been variously used and misused and are therefore
fraught with ambiguity (See Atkinson and Delamont, 1977; Brown, 1981;
Brown & McIntyre, 1982).

But to discover exactly what the terms 'inquiry—based', and
'discovery' mean in the context of the new LSS program, it is
important to examine the meaning that LSS curriculum writers ascribe
to these terms. In the opening statement of the LSS Teachers Guide
for level I of the LSS program, the Project Director refers to the
terms as follows:

Although many curriculum developers including those in the LSS
team have advocated 'discovery or enquiry based' teaching, one has
to proceed with care and caution. Enquiry based discovery science
does not imply that students can learn everything by themselves,
not the vast majority anyway. Teacher guidance is still of utmost
importance. In fact, in a discovery/enquiry-based science teach-
ing situation the teacher has to play the rather onerous and
tricky role of a manager in the classroom. He/she has to provide
the environment (physical/material support and resources) and

psychological support or encouragement so that pupils can 'find
things out for themselves'. (p. v.)

81

It is interesting that in this communication from the Project
Director, the notion of 'discovery or enquiry-based' approach is
introduced in a somewhat tentative fashion. It appears, in fact, as
if the tone of the statement is sensitive to the fact that teachers
need assurance that they do, indeed, have a role to play in the teach-
ing of the new LSS program - hence the statement: 'Teacher guidance is
of utmost importance'. In fact, in other descriptions of the program,
this idea of teacher guidance is reinforced by the term most often
used to describe the approach used in LSS: 'guided discovery'.

In the introductory section of the LSS student textbook entitled
Exploring Science, there are further indications of the curriculum
writers' intentions of teacher/student roles. In his reference to the
differences between the new LSS program and the former general science
syllabus, the Project Director writes:

The most significant change from the general science syllabus is
the new approach: a move from purely fact-centered to an inquiry
based science teaching. This means 'discovery teaching-learning
situations' with pupil participation and appropriate teacher
guidance. A guiding principal of this course therefore is the
leading of the pupil towards finding out things and thereby
gathering knowledge.' (p. v.)

Examination of specific aspects of the student textbook reveals
further insights into the intentions of the curriculum writers with
regard to student roles. The way in which the language of the text
addresses the student clearly signifies the intention of the program
to incorporate a student-centered approach. For example, the opening

statement of the introduction to the student workbook reads: 'You are

now studying a subject called science'(p. v). In the introductory

82

chapter of the textbook, the authors join forces with the student,
using the second person plural for much of the communication: 'when
we study science... we are going to discover many things... we will
also try to apply what we discover to our daily life...’ (p. 2). The
communication continues in such a way that the text places the student
as the subject of the sentence (and by implication the focus of the
teaching/learning experience). It should be stressed that this way of
addressing students as active participants of their own learning
contrasts sharply with the impersonal and indirect way in which the
language of previous lower secondary science textbooks addresses
students (Gremli, 19838).

An indication of the intention of the authors of the LSS program
that student users of the text should have some control over their
learning is revealed in the statements following the introduction to
the student workbook: 'remember that there is more than one way to
conduct an experiment or investigate a problem. If you think you
have new and better ways of doing things, do not hesitate to tell your
teacher about it' (p. v).

The authors also refer to arousing both long-term and short-term
interest of the student beyond the classroom, inspiring students to
'appreciate our world' and helping them to develop 'lifelong hobbies
and careers'(p. v). The authors also refer to the fact that they hope
the study of science will be 'enjoyable' and 'relevant' along with the
overall goal of intending to 'inculcate' in students the 'basic

concepts and techniques involved in laboratory and field work'(p. v).

83

Explicit and implicit messages communicated by the authors of the
LSS program therefore reflect a philosophy in which teacher role
prescriptions are less directive, less controlling and less didactic
than those that were observed in classes during Phase I of the study.
There also appears to be an intention on the part of the curriculum
writers to encourage a collaboration between teachers and students
through which a link between the learners world and the activity of
science is achieved.

As far as student roles are concerned, the curriculum writers
infer that greater independence of action, a higher level of inquiring
behavior, and more active participation in class is prescribed. This
is a critical factor to attend to in this study because prior to
implementation of the new LSS curriculum, student participation which
involved students asking questions, exploring competing explanations,
or posing alternative ways of solving problems was notably absent from
the classrooms observed.

Teacher Roles

 

Considering the assertions outlined above, the teacher/student
role and role relationships implied in the faithful implementation of
the new LSS program were contrasted with those that emerged as pre-
valent in the user sytem prior to implementation of the LSS curriculum
i.e.: those ascertained in Phase I of the study. Based on this com-
parison, it was asserted that the kinds of changes to be expected if

the five lower secondary science teachers observed in Phase I of the

84

study were to teach the program according to the axioms of 'guided-

discovery' or 'inquiry' learning within the definitions ascribed by

LSS curriculum developers, would be as follows:

1. From acting as a major source of information in the classroom to
acting in a way that arouses inquiring behavior on the part of
students.

2. From highly structured organizational and instructional strategies
in which most decisions rest with the teacher to more flexible
teaching strategies in which the pupils also participate in the

decision making process.

3. From offering confirmatory laboratory experiences to offering
exploratory laboratory experiences.

4. From tolerating minimum ambiguity in the classroom to accepting
greater ambiguity in the classroom.

5. From being primarily concerned with deductive thinking to also
being concerned with developing inductive thinking in pupils.

6. From presenting a definitive view of science knowledge to
presenting a broader view of knowledge related to science.

7. From assuming total leadership in classroom events to allowing
students a degree of participative leadership in classroom events.

Student Change

Along with changes in the role behaviors of teachers, cor-
responding changes would also be required of students. Based on the
weight of evidence in the baseline data, the following list of changes
in student roles were generated:

1. From being a passive receiver of information to actively seeking
knowledge through a variety of experiences.

2. From minimal or no verbal participation in lessons to greater
verbal participation in lessons, in spite of self consciousness
about pronunciation of unfamiliar words.

85

2. From dependence on the teacher for information and direction to
more self-reliant behavior.

4. From an unwillingness to risk offering a wrong answer in class to a
willingness to test incorrect ideas or alternative perceptions as a
means of arriving at a satisfactory solution to a problem.

5. From the type of peer behavior that elicits laughter at students'
wrong answers or requests for clarification on tasks to one which
is more supportive of peers who are willing to speak out in class.

6. From the acceptance of information on face value to scepticism
about information that is not based on-fact. (See Teachers Guide
for Exploring Science, page 4).

7. From viewing science learning as a purely school-based experience
to viewing science learning as being related to humanistic issues
and everyday events.

Clearly, from the data presented so far, the most problematic
area for student change would be greater verbal participation in
class. For, any attempts to arrive at a level of classroom discourse
more consistent with an inquiry learning situation would inevitably be
hampered by two major constraining factors in the user system which
emerged as central issues to the findings in Phase I of the study:
students' difficulties in pronouncing words and an acute reluctance on
the part of students to draw attention to themselves and speak out in
front of their peers. Such reluctance appeared to be associated with
a variety of possible reasons ranging from fear of being thought of as
a 'show off' to the high risk state assumed when students gave a

'wrong answer' and became the focus of laughter by their peers.

Evaluation of Students

 

Also of importance to impending change upon introduction of the

new Lower Secondary Science curriculum is the means of assessing

86

student progress. In Phase I of the study, student progress and
achievement in science classes was ascertained by performance in
written class and homework assignments and in class—based and school-
wide 'common tests'. Such assessment practices are inconsistent with
an inquiry philosophy in the sense that the exams were based primarily
on factual recall questions (See Appendix D). Responses to this type
of test question are obtainable by extracting literal information from
the textbook.

Furthermore, the research evidence suggests that there may be
some need for teachers to reorientate themselves to the purposes of
testing students. Prior to implementation of the new program
students' test scores were looked upon by teachers as indicators of
student ability and assiduousness rather than indicators of approp—
riateness and effectiveness of instruction. Teachers associated poor
test performance with the fact that students did not study or with
their limited command of the English language. This was the con-
clusion of the teacher of one student who obtained a score of only 5%
in his first term test.

Associated with this issue of student assessment is the general
nature of reward systems operating in classrooms. The preimplement—
ation data indicated that student progress and achievement in science
was based solely on student performance in class-based or school-based
tests to the exclusion of student participation. This factor, along

with the observation that at least three teachers habitually neglected

87

to use students' personal names in class suggests little or no incent—
ive for students to change their participatory role behaviors.
Summary

As indicated in Section I of this chapter, organizational and
instructional strategies and patterns of classroom discourse observed
in classes conducted by the five cooperating teachers prior to imple-
mentation of the new LSS program were strongly consistent with a did-
actic approach to instruction and a recitative approach to learning.

It was therefore inferred that if the five cooperating
teachers in this study were to faithfully implement the new Lower
Secondary Science program (purported by its developers to be a
student-centered, discovery approach to science teaching and learning)
they would have to undergo a number of changes with regard to their
role enactments as science teachers. In this section of the chapter,
an attempt was made to define very precisely the types of changes the
five cooperating teachers would have to undergo if they were to
implement the program faithful to the intentions of the curriculum
developers. At the same time, it was understood that as role
incumbents in the same role set, students would be expected to undergo
corresponding and complementary role changes.

Two sets of propositions were therefore formulated to specify the
types of changes desirable of teacher/student role and role relation—
ships as they interact in the classroom setting in implementing the
new LSS program. The sets of propositions were arrived at by exam-

ining all available literature on LSS from national and regional

88

sources, and by carefully examining the classroom culture as char-
acterized in the pre—implementation data, including data from
secondary as well as from primary sources.

By examining the apparent intentions of the curriculum developers
and the teacher/student roles they prescribed both explicitly and imp—
licitly in their portrayal of the program, it was found that role
changes pertaining to the role incumbent in the research setting
clustered to a lesser or greater extent around certain interrelated
components of the classroom culture: namely the routine activities
that constituted the day to day events for the classes concerned, the
ways in which the teacher mediated these events, and the richness of
discourse associated with these events. Secondly, and perhaps more
importantly, change is implied in the underlying conrolling mechanisms
or processes governing these routine events.

As far as organizational and instructional strategies and teacher
mediating behaviors were concerned, the new program stipulates a far
greater degree of flexibility in classroom activity and a far greater
ambiguity of outcomes of these activities. Further, a greater degree
of autonomy (students of their teachers and teachers of the broader
educational system) is strongly implied. And, with regard to class—
room discourse, teacher/student interactions would have to improve
both in their quantity and their quality.

With regard to the underlying controlling processes of classroom
events, it is apparent that teachers would have to change their

orientation with regard to the purposes of science learning, that

89

these purposes need to become more balanced between long-term and
short-term outcomes. Furthermore, teacher feedback and student peer
relationships should become more supportive to allow greater risk
taking in verbal responses. Finally, it would seem that if the LSS
program is to be implemented faithful to the intentions of the
curriculum writers, sources and expressions of authority in classrooms
would have to be more closely associated with empirical and
experimental evidence in preference to confirmation of principles
expounded in the textbook. This would mean that knowledge acquisition
on the part of students would take on an exploratory rather than a
confirmatory orientation.

Hence, in light of these propositions, the impending role changes
to be incurred by teachers and their students such that their behav-
iors would become consistent with an inquiry teaching/learning sit—
uation are fairly extensive. Similarly, the role conflicts that are
likely to emerge as a result of attempting to make such changes are
indeed both extreme and complex. These role conflicts and their
implications for the successful implementation of the new LSS curric-
ulum will be elaborated upon in more detail in the succeeding sections

of this chapter.

90

SECTION III: Research Question 3

 

In the preceding section of this chapter it was asserted that if
the new guided—discovery/inquiry based Lower Secondary Science program
were to be implemented faithful to the intentions of the curriculum
developers, considerable changes in role behaviors of teachers and
their students would have to occur. Further, it was predicted that
role changes of such proportions could result in role conflicts that
would have far reaching effects on the role incumbents (teachers and
their students) as they continue to interact in the classroom setting.

In the research, it was considered important to look specifically
at the ways in which teachers were informed about the new kinds of role
behaviors implicit in an inquiry approach to teaching. The third
research question therefore investigated channels of communication
that enabled lower secondary science teachers to learn about the roles
that were expected of them as they implemented the new LSS program.
Both formal and informal channels of communication were investigated.
The formal channels of communication consisted of: (a) the preparatory
teacher inservice course in which the researcher took part as a
participant observer, and (b) all available documentation relating to
LSS available to the teacher, including the program materials
themselves. Informal channels of communication pertinent to this
research question included incidental reports on LSS in the national
press and informal self-report by teachers about how they first

learned about the program.

91

Origins of the LSS Program

Before the key events and channels of communication in the
dissemination process are discussed in more detail, it will be rel-
evant to once again examine pertinent information on the origins and
development of the LSS program in light of how events in its course
of development over time may have had prior effect on the decisions of
the change agents and on the response of the cooperating teachers and
their students. As it happens, the Project Director of LSS was not
only one of the early writers and enthusiasts of the LSS program, but
he was also Head of Science in the Institute of Education (the sole
teacher training institution in Singapore). Consequently, over time,
the Project Director had both the opportunity and the cause to
actively promote 'inquiry, guided-discovery' approaches to science
teaching in the preservice and inservice courses conducted at the
Institute.

Aside from this, an informal network of support for an inquiry
approach to science teaching was realized through the activities of
the Science Teachers Association of Singapore (STAS) which, through
its regular seminars and workshops, promoted innovative approaches to
science teaching and learning. Considering that these two channels
worked both informally and formally to transmit the philosophy of the
LSS program it is not surprising that two of the cooperating teachers
in the study reported that they had first heard about the project even
before it was officially brought under the auspices of the Curriculum

Development Institute of Singapore.

92

Dissemination and Implementation of LSS

 

Disregarding any incidental knowledge that teachers may have had
about the LSS program prior to the study, the first official stage of
dissemination and implementation of the LSS project beyond the trial
schools occurred in mid-1982 with a meeting of Senior Science Teachers
and officials of the Curriculum Branch of the Ministry of Education.
The post of Senior Science Teacher is usually assigned to teachers
of the 'upper' two levels of secondary schools (Secondary III & IV)
who, apart from their teaching duties, have additional respons-
ibilities including overseeing the implementation of the Ministry of
Education syllabii.

It may be useful to clarify the role of the Ministry of Edn-
cation and the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore with
regard to the preparation of syllabii and curriculum materials for the
Singapore school system. Since the implementation of the New Education
System in 1979, the Ministry of Education has retained its former
responsibility for preparation and revision of existing syllabii but
has done so in collaboration with key personnel in the Curriculum
Development Institute where the necessary materials packages that
correspond to the syllabii are developed.

The revised lower secondary science syllabus that was intro-
duced for the first time by the MOE at the above mentioned meeting was
officially documented in the form of a booklet which included a state-
ment of goals and objectives and a list of science content to be

covered. Since the revised version of the lower secondary syllabus

93

presented at the meeting involved a substantial change of content, all
but one of the textbooks available at that time for use in schools
became obsolete. This meant, of course, that the new LSS Exploring
Science materials fit the lower secondary science syllabus (newly
prepared by the Ministry) closer than any other approved textbook.

Sample materials used in the trial schools, brochures and hand-
outs describing LSS project materials were distributed at the meeting
and it was expected that the Senior Science Teachers would share this
information with their colleagues who would event— ually teach the new
LSS program. There appeared to be no doubt among teachers at that
time that the majority schools would use LSS project materials to
fulfill the requirements of the new lower secondary science syllabus -
in spite of the fact that the Deputy Director of CDIS had stated his
preference that schools be allowed to choose whether or not they use
LSS, or indeed, any of the other CDIS packages (21).

Later the same year, further publicity was given to the CDIS
sponsored LSS program package through a nationally organized book fair
in which copies of the new program materials were put on display.
The LSS package was also highlighted in the two English medium

national newspapers, the Straits Times, and the New Nation where both

 

 

the materials themselves and details of the teacher inservice courses
designed to orientate teachers to the new program were featured (22).
The Teacher Inservice Course.

The first teacher inservice course for LSS entitled 'A Refresher

Course for Lower Secondary Science Teachers', organized jointly by the

94

CDIS and the MOE, took place in mid 1982. Based on teacher feedback
from this first course, a second course was planned for later the same
year. Approximately 180 teachers had attended these two courses prior
to the implementation of the first level of LSS in January 1983.
Scheduling and Organization. The LSS inservice courses were
scheduled outside regular school time for a total of 35 hours on ten
consecutive Saturday mornings. The course comprised two 'mass
lectures' and two 'workshops' which took place at a centrally located
junior college, and six 'practical' sessions for which participants
were divided into three groups rotating to three different laboratory
locations. The six laboratory sessions were organized according to
the three traditional science disciplines. The physical science
component consisted of physics and chemistry sections and was
conducted in two different laboratories in the Institute of Education
campus. The biological science component, focusing on ecology, was
conducted in the laboratories and outdoor ecology facility at the
Singapore Science Center. Altogether, the ten sessions comprising the
course were spread over three different locations in Singapore.
Objectives and Projected Outcomes. The objective of the course,as
stated in literature sent to schools, was twofold: (a) to familiarize
teachers with the Lower Secondary Science (LSS) syllabus, and (b) to
familiarize teachers with science content and methodology in Lower
Secondary Science teaching. The first part of the second objective
was considered necessary by the inservice planners because most lower

secondary science teachers have been trained as generalists rather

95

than specialists i.e.: they do not have a specialized degree in science.
The course organizers therefore deemed it necessary to teach the newly
introduced content areas (such as energy and ecology) with which
teachers may not be familiar.

Seven expected participant outcomes for the course were listed in
the course description; viz: that the participants would:

" (a) Identify the differences between existing and the new LSS
syllabus.

(b) Compare and comment on these syllabuses.

(c) Organize and conduct new approaches in Biology, Chemistry and
Physics practicals.

(d) List ways of managing science practicals effectively.
(e) Write specific instructional objectives for lesson/topic.
(f) Identify strategies for teaching slow learners.

(g) List enrichment assignments for the teaching and learning
of science."

The objectives of the course were described in the course liter-

 

ature as 'action oriented' involving the participants in:

"(a) studying the new syllabus, comparing the new syllabus with
the existing Sec 1—2 General Science syllabus.

(b) thinking about the Philosophy of LSS and Enquiry-Based
Approaches to Science Teaching.

(c) carrying out actual experimental/practical work involved in
Lower Secondary Science learning.

(d) reading and discussing on the methods of effective management
of science practicals.

(e) reading about and learning how to write specific instruc-
tional objectives."

96

(f) reading and discussing on strategies to teach slower learners
in science.

(g) reading and discussing about enrichment assignments for fast
learners as well as slow ones."

Of the course objectives listed above, the area that received by
far the most attention was objective 'c' for, as described earlier,
six sessions were allocated for this activity (but, as will be des—
cribed later, some of this time was taken up by pre and post tests).
One of the workshop sessions was devoted to objective 'e' and the
remainder of the objectives were addressed in the remaining three
course sessions with objectives 'a','b' and 'j' receiving higher
priority (or more time) than objectives 'd' and 'f'.

Objective 'f' received only scant attention, and the issue of
slow learners seemed to be confused with that of students having diff-
iculty with learning science due to limited competency in English.

Course Requirements. Apart from meeting a 90% attendance re—
quirement, each course participant was expected to complete and submit
a number of written assignments to the Specialist Inspectors of the
MOE who were the principal organizers of the course. The assignments
were listed as 'course requirements' and they were specified in the
course literature as follows:

"1. To make a comparison of LSS syllabus and existing syllabus.

2. To conduct an enquiry-based experiment in one of the sections
(Biology/Chemistry/Physics) and to indicate problems faced

and to propose possible solutions to the problems.

3. To write out specific instructional objectives for one
lesson.

4. Write out enrichment assignments for five topics in science."

97

As far as the reseacher is aware, none of the teacher products of
the four assignments listed above were shared by the participating
teachers with others in the wider group of participants. Discussion
that took place on assignment #1, for example, merely involved one of
the teacher instructors making the comparison of differences in the
physical sciences (even before the assignment was due) and one of
the Specialist Inspectors commenting at a later date on the assign-
ments that had been turned in. As far as the researcher is aware, none
of the products of assignment #2 were shared among the group, whilst
assignment #3 was completed during class time. One of the workshop
sessions in which student project work was discussed by a Specialist
Inspector was all that was shared publicly on assignment #4.

Course Instructors. It is significant to mention at this point
that although a report in The New Nation [June 2nd 1982] attributed
the organization of the teacher inservice course to a joint effort by
the Science Teachers Association of Singapore (STAS) and the Singapore
Science Center, it transpired that the Science Department of the
Curriculum Branch of the Ministry of Education was, in fact, the
primary organizer of the course. One member of the Curriculum Branch
of the Ministry confided in the researcher that it was preferable for
teachers to think that the course was organized by bodies other than
the Ministry because then teachers would be more willing to attend.
Whereas, in fact, many of the office holders of STAS are Specialist

Inspectors at the Ministry.

98

The course instructors listed on the course description were
drawn from several institutions in Singapore and worked on a no-pay,
volunteer basis. Three of the LSS project team i.e.: the Project
Director and two of the specialist writers were listed as course
instructors. Three Specialist Inspectors from the MOE Curriculum
Branch took responsibility for running the workshops and one of the
laboratory sessions. Two lecturers from the IE and two officers from
the Science Center were also listed as instructors. The remaining
practical sessions were conducted by teacher members of the Science
Teachers Association of Singapore. With the exception of one
individual, most of these teacher/instructors appeared to be upper
secondary school level (Secondary III & IV or Junior College) teachers
who would not actually be teaching the LSS program in schools.

Management of the Course. Also important to this strand of the
research was how the course was actually conducted or managed. This
varied not just according to the nature of each session: workshop,
lecture or laboratory session, but also according to the inclinations
of the individuals responsible for that particular portion of the
course. The mass lectures took place in a tiered lecture theater with
all 90 or so participants present as listeners. In the first mass
lecture the Project Director gave an introductory lecture explaining
the history of LSS and its philosophy. This lecture stood apart from
the rest of the course in terms of the Project Director's approach.
For instance, at the outset of the lecture, he remarked: "This is not

my lecture - it's yours... you should hear what you want to hear!".

99

He then distributed pieces of paper to all participants so that they
could write down questions and concerns about the program that came to
mind as he proceeded with his presentation. The papers were collected
later in the lecture and most questions were duly responded to.

The Project Director was the only lecturer to solicit particip-
ant input in this fashion and he was the only course instructor to
make reference to teacher role. He mentioned teacher role when com-
paring teacher behavior in the former general science program with
that expected of teachers in the LSS program. Curiously enough, the
adverbs used by the Project Director in connection with the new dis-
covery approach may have had negative connotations for his listeners.
Posing the rhetorical question: "How can I tell them about hydro—
chloric acid without actually telling them about hydrochloric acid?"
he suggested: "We have to think much harder... and sometimes we have
to be indirect, insidious, cunning, crafty".

On the other hand, (depending on the inclination of the listener)
the Project Director acknowledged positive attributes of the course by
asserting that the approach used in LSS presents a "greater challenge
to the teacher".

In the same lecture, the Project Director also conceded that the
way teachers would eventually teach the course would depend on their
values and beliefs about teaching. He said, for instance, that
teachers would have to face up to the question: "Do we tell them
everything or do we let them find out for themselves?". "Either you

believe in it," he told his audience, "or you do not!"

100

Inspite of the Project Director's attempts to raise teachers
awareness of the implications of the ideology of the program for their
role behaviors, questions and concerns that were forwarded on the
pieces of paper handed out at the beginning of the session mainly
revolved around practical aspects of running a class. Questions such
as how to cope with large class sizes, difficulties with language
experienced by normal stream students, availability of equipment, and
scheduling of practical sessions seemed to be foremost in teachers'
minds. But one very poignant question which may well have been on the
minds of several of the participants as the Project Director stressed
over and over that students should be guided towards finding things
out for themselves: "What happens if students carry out the experiment
again and again but they are unable to arrive at the expected correct
answer?" proved difficult even for the Project Director to answer.

In contrast to the introductory mass lecture described above, the
other mass lectures and the two workshops involved a one-way commun-
ication offered by the course lecturer to their listeners.
Interestingly enough, the mass lectures happened to be the particular
aspect of the course most heavily criticised by the teachers in their
evaluation of the first course (see section on evaluation).

Laboratory Sessions. The 'practicals' or laboratory components of
the course seemed to be conducted according to the preferences of the
instructor involved. The physics section, which focused on energy,
was organized differently from the other two sessions. The laboratory

was set up with a number of demonstrations that illustrated energy

101

conversions (23). Alongside some of the demonstrations were questions
relating to the investigation. Teachers were given a prototype work—
sheet which was a copy of the one that would eventually be included in
the student workbook. The participants were then invited to go around
the lab and to try out the experiments and to make observations and
notes on the experiments they were interested in. They were encour-
aged to interact with each other and discuss what they observed.
Towards the end of the session, the two instructors invited teachers
to talk about the demonstrations and to critique the prototype
worksheet.

The way in which the biology and chemistry sections were con-
ducted differed from the physics section in two major ways. Whilst
the physics section had a rather open classroom arrangement as des—
cribed above, the chemistry and physics sections followed a similar
four-part format: (a) direct instruction, (b) instructor demonstration
(c) participants repeating the demonstration experiment for themselves
and, (d) further discussion on the experiment or related topics, if
time permitted.

Another distinguishing factor in the approach used by the inst—
ructors in the physics sessions was that they gave no tests of any
kind to participants. Both the biology and chemistry instructors ad—
ministered both pretests and post-tests which were collected, marked
and handed back to the teachers at the beginning of the next session
(in the case of the pretests) or returned later by mail (in the case

of the post-tests).

102

Also worthy of mention is that these pre and post-tests were
administered in much the same way that tests would be administered to
students in schools. For instance, on the cover page of the test were
typed such instructions as "DO NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD
TO DO SO" (in capital letters) and "Attempt all questions. You are
advised not to spend more than 1/2 minute on each question." Some
instructors even went so far as to circulate among the participants,
whilst they were taking the test, looking over their shoulders as they
completed the test paper.

One of the instructors concerned did, however, offer the part-
icipants a rationale for giving a post-test of this nature. Her
claim was that she chose to administer a post-test to check on the
effectiveness of her instruction. But, the fact that teachers were
required to put their names on the paper, that the tests were handed
in to be corrected and subsequently mailed to the teacher at their
school address, suggested to the participants that the motives for
administering such tests were not solely associated with assessment of
instructional effectiveness.

Course Evaluation. The researcher collaborated with the course
organizers to prepare a questionaire which was handed out to course
participants at the last session of the first inservice course. The
purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain feedback so that the second
course could be planned to more accurately meet teacher expectations.
The questionnaire was handed out by the Specialist Inspectors from the

MOE and a total of 63 questionnaires were returned.

103

The questionnaire asked general questions about the strengths and
weaknesses of the course and asked for teachers' suggestions for
conducting future courses of this nature. In general, the responses
from teachers indicated that the course was well received. The most
significant recurring comment in teachers' responses was that more
time should have been devoted to practical sessions and less time to
lectures.

Only four teacher—respondents commented on the inconvenience of
using three different venues for the course, three commented on the
fact that they would have benefited from smaller groupings with more
discussion, and three commented on the required written assignments.

One of these three stressed the inappropriateness of being given

assignments:
"Don't call them assignments - ask instead for professional
contributions to the course!!" [ISTQ 01]

A number of other respondents felt that, as experienced teachers,
their potential contribution to the course remained untapped:

"Lecturers always get to relate their experiences first before
participants can do so. In workshop sessions, I think it should
be the other way around. The response from participants would be
better then." [ISTQ 26]

Eight teachers felt strongly enough about the pretests and post
tests to comment on them:

"There were too many pre-tests and post-tests administered weekly.

They should be eliminated. If necessary, only one pretest/post

test to be given at the beginning and end of the entire
course". [ISTQ 11]

104

The teacher inservice course described above was organized
strictly for teachers of science at the lower secondary level, but a
series of school-based inservice courses organized by the MOE Curric—
ulum Branch were offered to reinforce the goals of LSS. School based
inservice courses on writing instructional objectives, on strategies
for teaching normal stream students, and on use of audiovisual aids
were aimed at reinforcing efforts to implement LSS and other newly
introduced CDIS programs.

However, given that by no means all teachers attended the two LSS
inservice courses, the remaining formal channel of communication
available for them to find out specifically about the program (aside
from obtaining information second-hand from their colleagues who did
attend the course) would be the Program materials themselves. These
materials were made available to schools during the last month of the
school year (November 1982).

The Program Materials

Sample LSS materials were distributed to schools prior to the end
of the 1982 school year. Together with student textbooks and labor-
atory workbooks, the materials package for LSS included, for the first
time in the history of science textbook publication in Singapore, a
Teachers Guide. The introductory section of the Teachers Guide con-
tained a one-page letter addressed to teachers which gave a very brief
overview of the ideology of the program, details of which have already

been given in Section II of this chapter. Most of the remainder of the

105

guide corresponded sequentially to chapters in the student text, prov—
iding information on how to conduct classes and details on materials
needed for experiments etc. Both the introductory letter and the
sequential lesson guides conveyed role expectations of teachers as
they implemented the program.

The complete LSS materials package also included other audio-
visual aids: a set of wall charts, a comprehensive set of overhead
transparencies and a series of television 'programs which were also
available as video cassettes. Thus, teachers could glean from the
availability of this eclectic assortment of support materials that
they were expected to manage the program through a multimedia app-
roach. A statement on the back cover of the Teachers Guide and
students textbook which referred to the program as a 'scheme of
integrated science' communicated some elements of teacher role with
regard to integrating traditional science disciplines.

The Teachers Guide. Contrary to expectations of an inquiry/

 

discovery program, some parts of the LSS Teachers Guide reinforced
traditional teacher-as—director/student-as-follower roles reminiscent
of classes prior to implementation of the new LSS program. Role stip—
ulation of this kind is illustrated by the way in which the manual
provides guidance to teachers in the conduct of their lessons. For
example, in the section on measurement (Lesson 4) under a heading

which deals with instruction on how to use a ruler and a measuring

106

tape, part one of the procedure focuses on measurement of length and
parallax error. Instructions to the teacher read:

"1. Ask pupils to place their pencils or ball point pens along the
edge of their rulers. Help students to take a correct reading
of length.

2. Ask pupils to draw the pens or pencils on their worksheets and
indicate by an arrow the point where the reading should be
taken. Instruct pupils to place the eye vertically above the
point to be read in order to measure a length accurately."

[TG p. 17]

In this and other examples, there is little evidence that
students are intended to engage in a 'discovery' experience. In fact,
accuracy in measurement and the phenomenon of parallax are concepts
that have strong possibilites for discovery/inquiry teaching, if the
lesson were designed appropriately.

In other parts of the text where there are instances of questions
or problems couched in a way that would have potential for students to

devise their own experiments, the curriculum writers supply modes of

inquiry. For example, under the general heading: To find out differ-

 

ences between inhaled and exhaled air, ways of finding possible
differences are supplied under four headings:
To compare the amount of oxygen in inhaled and exhaled air.
To compare the amount of carbon dioxide in inhaled and exhaled
air.
To compare the amount of water vapor in exhaled and inhaled air.
To find out whether inhaled air is warmer than exhaled air.
Student Materials. Closer examination of the student materials

reveal that they, too, communicate subtle messages about teacher roles.

One very obvious example is the stereotype characterization of

107

teachers portrayed in the student textbook's owl cartoon series. This
set of cartoons runs through the entire text and its intention is to
reinforce key concepts in a humorous and appealing manner. But, due
to the kinds of verbal transactions between the cartoon figures, they
clearly, if unintentionally, reinforce traditional teacher and student
roles.

A perusal of the sequence of cartoons reveals that the teacher
owl (complete with British-style mortar board) is portrayed as a
provider of answers and as a disciplinarian. Out of thirty examples
of teacher owl/student owl interactions identified in the text, only
three involved the teacher asking students a question. Of the three
instances, one required a recitative answer, the second seemed to be
merely rhetorical because the answer could not be derived from the
cartoon; and in the third instance (which happened to be a good model
for teacher questioning technique) the cartoon provided an example of
how teachers could generate inductive reasoning from a student's
question (See Appendix E). Most of the other interactions in the
cartoons involved the teacher owl providing answers to student owl
questions or acting as a disciplinarian checking on mischievous
behavior of student owls.
Informal Channels of Communication

It was mentioned earlier that teachers who did not attend the
inservice courses were likely to hear about the course and what was
expected of them as they implemented the new LSS program from their

colleagues who attended the course and/or from the Senior Science

108

Teachers in their schools. This strategy for informing teachers on
educational innovations was commonly used in Singapore in previous
years and is known as 'the multiplier effect'. Since the researcher
was not privy to these exchanges there was no way of finding out
the effectiveness of this channel of communication in informing
teachers about their roles in implementing the new LSS program.
Possibilities also existed for teachers to find out about the new LSS
program prior to seeing the materials through the various communiques
sent out to schools by the LSS team through the CDIS.

Other informal means of communication (meaning that it was not
distributed formally through schools) were the reports written in
Singapore's two English medium newspapers The Straits Times and the

New Nation (since renamed The Monitor). Two short reports on the LSS

 

 

inservice course (June 2nd 1982 and June 4th 1982) were published
prior to the first inservice program. Three separate reports on the

LSS program were published in The Sunday Times (the Sunday version of

 

The Straits Times) on December 26th 1982, about one week before the
program was to be introduced into schools. All of the cooperating

teachers in this study read the above mentioned report in The Sunday

 

lim§§_on the day in question.
One of the news cuttings on the teacher inservice course implic-
itly stipulates teacher role by describing the LSS program as follows:
The activity oriented syllabus emphasizes the practical aspect of
science teaching. Students are shown how experiments are carried

out and left to discover the results for themselves. [New Nation
2/6/82]

 

109

And a report on the LSS program itself inversely specifies
teacher role by decribing new roles expected of students as they
progress through the program:

The LSS program sells students a new image of themselves. They

are scientists making new discoveries. They are detectives
looking for evidence. [Sunday Times 26/12/82]

 

But every indication of the hesitance with which the curriculum
writers introduce this image of 'student-discoverer' in the Singapore
context is revealed in the way the term 'discovery' is later modified

in the report:

But while enquiry is very much the hallmark of the LSS syll-
abus, the project team is careful not to go overboard and not make
the same mistake their predecessors made... the LSS materials that
will make their way into classrooms next year are more realistic
and suitable to Singapore. They call for a discovery approach but
with a difference.

In the words of the LSS team, the approach is 'discovery with
teacher guidance'. Students will not be left to flounder on their

 

own. Neither will they be spoon fed. Instead, teachers will
guide them into making their own discoveries. [Sunday Times
26/12/82]

Thus, regardless of teacher/student role and role relationships
prior to implementation of the new LSS curriculum, it has become clear
through the preceding discussion that a variety of means existed to
expose teachers to the nature of teacher/student role expectations
implicit in the new program. Whether the teachers concerned heeded
those sources of information and whether, in fact, the sources and
channels of communication were explicit enough to provoke in teachers
a realization that role changes were imminent are issues that will be

addressed in the remaining two sections of this chapter.

110

Summary

In this section of the present chapter, formal and informal
channels of communication which were intended to define teacher/
student role and role relationships in implementing the new program
were investigated. It was found that the teacher inservice program
designed to prepare teachers to teach the new LSS program concentrated
on cognitive and manipulative aspects of the program rather than on
strategies of inquiry teaching. Furthermore, by virtue of the example
set in the organization of the inservice course, the course emphasized
a separation rather than an integration of traditional science dis-
ciplines. In spite of this, the teacher inservice course generally
appeared to meet the expectations of the teachers.

It was also noted that the curriculum materials themselves were
not completely consistent with the stated program goals. The Teachers
Guide, written expressly to assist teachers in implementing the pro-
gram as planned, both presented and modelled a didactic tone when
informing teachers on how to prepare for and conduct their classes.
The student materials (particularly some sections of the workbooks)
contained activities which were inconsistent with an inquiry approach
in the sense that avenues of inquiry into stated problems were
provided by confirmatory experiences from which the student could
infer outcomes without performing the experiment.

Both formal and informal channels of communication repeatedly
emphasized the student-centered nature of the program and the inquiry

approach to science learning. The 'discovery approach' descriptor was

111

somewhat modified to incorporate a guidance role on the part of the
teacher - hence the term 'guided-discovery'.

None of the channels of communication examined in this part of
the study seemed to adequately address teachers' concerns about the
conditions in which they were intended to implement the new LSS
program - at least in so far as these were identified by the re-
searcher in Phase I of this study. Neither did the channels of comm-
unication acknowledge other constraints in the user system such as a
learning environment in which there was a high ambient noise factor
and that was so spacious that eye contact between the teacher and 70%
of the students in the class was not possible.

The research data therefore suggested that, taken as a whole,
channels of communication or ways of teachers finding out what was
expected of them in terms of role and role relationships as they
taught the new program were ambiguous and may have appeared to the

teacher to be far removed from the realities of the classroom.

112

SECTION IV: Research Question 4

Research question 4 was posed in order to find out what types of
change in teacher/student role relationships were evident in classes
taught by the five cooperating teachers during the first year of
implementation of the new LSS curriculum. Evidence of change was
sought by comparing predetermined units of analysis in two sets of
observations undertaken in the preimplementation phase with two comp-
arable (24) sets of observations carried out in the post implement—
ation phase of the study.
Evidence of Change

As in the previous year, classes were mostly conducted in the
same kind of laboratory setting ie: in laboratories which were shared
with several other classes at different times of the day. The lab-
oratories continued to be susceptible to noise from surrounding act—
ivity and unsuited to classroom discussion.

Some changes were, however, noted on the bulletin board displays.
Two laboratories displayed energy and ecology posters published by the
Singapore Science Center. Student-made posters were displayed in
another laboratory but a close perusal of the content and condition of
these posters revealed, however, that they were projects completed by
secondary three students and that they had apparently been retrieved
from storage from previous years. Therefore, the observation that no
current student work completed by the target classes was displayed in
the laboratories they used for their science classes was consistent

with Phase I of the study.

113

For the most part, students continued to conduct themselves both
around the school and in the science classes observed in a courteous
and orderly manner. In all of the classes observed, no students
challenged the teachers' authority in an obvious or overt way, no
students questioned teacher instructions or directions and, given the
objectives of the LSS program, no student suggested to the teacher an
alternative way of carrying out an experiment (refer to page 82).

The most significant change from Phase I to Phase II of the
study, however, was noted in teachers' use of A/V materials. Whilst
only one out of five teachers had used an overhead projector in the
first year of the study, four out of five did so in the second year of
the study. This change apparently had to do not only with the
comprehensive set of A/V materials produced by the LSS media team,
but also with a concomitant inservice effort by the MOE to improve
A/V utilization in schools. However, as we shall see shortly, the ways
in which teachers used the overhead projector facility, were not
necessarily conducive to learning. The research data also revealed
that while none of the teachers used video or TV in Phase I of the
study, two did so during Phase II of the study.

As far as student roles were concerned, they remained highly con—
sistent with those described in Phase I of the study. The most sig—
nificant change was the mode of record keeping introduced with the new
program. Formerly, students recorded their experiments in their own
laboratory notebooks, whereas in the new program they recorded their

work in workbooks that were part of the curriculum package. These

114

workbooks usually contained the title, apparatus, and procedure of the
experiment along with a blank chart or some blank lines in which
students could write their evaluations. Blank lines were also
provided for students to write conclusions following each experiment.

The student workbook eliminated some of the kinds of copying that
were noted in Phase I of the study, ie: copying parts of the labor-
atory reports. However, ‘one teacher insisted that students keep a
laboratory notebook in addition to the workbook, because: "they don't
remember it if they don't write it down". Apart from workbooks (and
in one class laboratory notebooks as well) students were expected to
keep the same number of supplementary exercise books (at least two and
up to four) noted in Phase I of the study.

Apart from maintaining these books, one of the five classes in
Phase II of the study was required to complete a group project on a
well-known scientist. ‘ Students were assigned rather than being
allowed to chose the scientist they were required to work on and they
were expected to work on their projects in out-of-class time. Some
guidelines were given on what the finished product was expected to
contain but no guidance was given to students on how to go about
dividing the work and conducting the necessary library research. It
is not surprising that student response to this assignment was poor.
When the date came along to hand in the work, five groups handed in
nothing at all, four groups handed in covers with nothing inside, and

only one group handed in a set of papers that resembled a project.

115

Classroom Routines

Teachers continued similar strategies for organization and in-
struction of classes as well as remaining the sole mediators of class—
room activities and the exclusive decision makers within the teacher/
student role set. Classrooms continued to be dominated by teacher
talk and students were equally reticent in participating in classroom
discourse.

Organizational and Instructional Strategies. The five cooperating

 

teachers showed similar regimens for use of class time and sequencing
of class events to those they had in Phase I of the study. Identical
grouping procedures were used and teachers continued to devote a good
proportion of their time to whole group instruction.

Classroom data collected after implementation of the new LSS
program also indicated that teachers did not change the basic four-
part routine for conducting practical lessons. After a formal ex-
change of greetings, classes tended to proceed in much the same way as
they had before the introduction of the new LSS program:

T: Right, we are on page 49 of your textbook. Take a look!
I see there's only one absentee today. Good!
Turn to page 38.
[The teacher is flipping over pages in the Teachers Guide.]
About one minute later, he said:
T: I notice that your books are not open yet. The topic is air.
We've talked a little about air already, haven't we?
You know about air, don't you?
Alright - we're going to read ...
[The teacher paused.]
T: I think we've covered up to ...
[One student then prompted the teacher on the page number the
class worked on last.] [FN yq 23/8/83]

116

Teachers still tended to separate both verbally and by example
'practical' and 'theory' aspects of their classes. Practical sessions
typically involved the teacher demonstrating experiments for the
class, the students doing the experiment for themselves, followed by a
recitative discussion of the results and guided record keeping.

It should be mentioned that the teacher who participated in the
inservice course was aware that this was discrepant with the aims of
the program, for, after following the first two parts of this format
and allowing students to proceed with the experiment, the teacher came
to me and said: "Actually, I should have let them do that first, then
get them around the front - this is supposed to be the discovery
method!" [FN yq 6/2/83]. In spite of this remark (which he made
during my second observation in Phase II of the study) he persisted
with the usual four-part format during all of the subsequent
observations that year.

In 'theory' classes, students often spent their time reviewing
concepts through verbal recitation, or they copied notes from the
textbook, from the blackboard, or from the overhead projector. In one
class that was studying energy relationships, students copied notes
from the overhead projector for four double periods of 90 minutes each
period. By the second session of this routine, the students not only
anticipated the teachers expectations; they did so eagerly. As the

teacher moved from one part of the presentation to the next, she

117

revealed subsequent portions of the overhead transparency. As she did
this, the students responded:

S's: Copy?

T: No... don't copy yet. Listen first, then copy!

S's: Copy? Yes! We want to copy! [FN nd 28/9/83]

Teacher as Mediator. The data collected for Phase II of the
study indicated that teachers still did not incorporate motivating
activities into their instructional strategies and that they con-
tinued to be sole mediators of classroom events stipulating student
conduct, student territory and student movement around the laboratory
in very exact terms. Students were assigned permanently to seats at
the laboratory benches and one teacher insisted that her students
remain standing for experiment work (even though four students were
assigned to one set of equipment) but she did not allow them to move
around or discuss their work with adjacent groups [FN 33 25/1/83].
Another teacher, who regularly brought his students to the
demonstration bench, even specified where each student should stand as

they watched his demonstrations:

T: All right... come over and let's look at the next part.
Move into your positions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,
[The teacher indicated student positions around the

demonstration bench.]

T: If you are not in your positions from now on you are for it!
I put some of you chaps at the front so that you could see.
Some of you are dwarfs, some of you are giants!
[FN yq 8/2/83]

118

Teacher Interactional Style. Some adjustments were noted in the

 

interactional style of four of the teachers during Phase II of the
study. This appeared to be linked with what could be described as the
'collective temperament' (25) of the classes as compared to classes
assigned to their teachers in the previous year of the study. In this
regard, it was noted that although teachers did not markedly change
role enactments that are central to the thesis of this study (ie:
didactive/recitative behaviors versus inquiry/guided discovery
teaching behaviors) some adjustments in interactional style were
noted.

For example, the teacher who, during the previous year, had the
richest interaction with her class of 32 girls was assigned a class
that was much more recitent in volunteering answers. On one occasion
she became so frustrated at their lack of response that she asked
them: "Are your hands so heavy that you cannot put up your hand?". On
the other hand, the two teachers who were cited as being punitive in
Phase I of the study were observed teaching classes that were more
attentive, less talkative and less inclined to be engaged in off-task
behavior than the class observed in Phase I of the study. Hence,
these teachers adjusted their interactional style accordingly.
Conversely, a teacher who had a more restless class during Phase II of
the study appeared correspondingly more punitive in her interactions
with the class.

Student Autonomy. Teachers continued to take sole respons-

ibility for cueing students when to make transitions from one part of

119

the lesson to the next, regardless of how quickly they worked as
individuals or lab teams. Teachers continued to cue students when, as
well as precisely how, to record their work:
.T: Page 18 of your workbook.
Right! Now! ...date on the top right hand corner, and
fill up the contents page.
Now, I'll read the procedure for you...
I want you to draw the pencil... then write: 'This average
error is due to parallax'.
The length is... I want you to give your answer in
centimeters... You'll divide by what?
S: Ten [One student responds at the teacher's request.]
[The teacher acknowledged the answer and moved on.]

T: You must draw the eye. Don't draw the eye on two sides like
in the textbook, or otherwise some of you will be very
untidy.

Do you understand now what you have to do? [FN du 26/1/83]

In some classes, teachers predetermined exact responses to work—
book questions to such a degree that after the experiment was con-
ducted and a follow-up discussion attempted, they would reveal a port—
ion of the blackboard or put a transparency on the overhead projector
which already had prepared answers that had been written even before
the experiment was carried out. By this act, not only did the teach-
ers demonstrate to students that the teacher prepared answers were
preferable or superior to any that students may or may not have

contributed during the discussion, but they also communicated to

students that there was an expected outcome of the experiment

 

independent of the outcome obtained by the students. Students
therefore had no ownership over their workbook records, neither as

individuals nor as contributors to a collaborative group effort.

120

Similarly, instances were noted where students seemed to have
prepared answers prior to the lesson. In one class, a few students had
parts of their textbooks highlighted and questions answered, even
before the teacher introduced the topics. It should be mentioned here
that it is fairly common in Singapore, even for parents with modest
means, to engage tutors to assist their children with school work.
One explanation for the highlighted paragraphs and completed answers
is that students had gone over the topic and were prepared for the
lesson by their tutors. The impact of this is significant. For these
students class time meant repeating things they had already studied on
a one—to-one basis with their tutors. Certainly not the kind of
'discovery' mode of learning anticipated by the curriculum developers.

Even in Phase II of the study students continued the practice of
copying each others' work even when the work assigned allowed for
individualization. This was noted even in an express stream class
that were assigned a short essay on Galileo. Just before the class,
several students were observed kneeling on the ground outside the lab—
oratory copying work from each other as they waited for the teacher.
Patterns of Classroom Discourse

Patterns of classroom discourse after introduction of the new
curriculum also remained much as they were during Phase I of the study.

Questions and Answers. In general, discourse tended to be halt—
ing with the teacher initiating and dominating verbal discourse. When
teachers .g;g_ attempt to involve students in some kind of discussion,
students' responses seldom amounted to more than one word answers. As

in Phase I of the research, it became clear that students lacked the

121

vocabulary to participate in classroom discussions, even if they
understood the concepts:
T: Do you remember what happened when we heated the mercuric
oxide last time?
[No response from students.]
T: Do you remember?
[Still no response...]
T: How did we test it?
We used a wooden splinter... how did we test it?
We used a wooden splinter... what did we do with it?
S's: Burn it! [Two students spoke up at the same time.]
T: First we burned it. Then what did we do with it?
S's: Blow it!
T: Then, what next?

S: Splinter! [One student calls out.]

T: What do you call the little thing on the end of the
splinter?

S: Lighted... [The same boy speaks up.]
T: Lighted but not burning... what do we call that?
[No response from students.]
Glowing... isn't it?
Glowing... [Teacher pauses.]
S's GLOWING... [Students repeat in chorus.] [FN yq 2/8/83]
Because of the difficulties students experienced in expressing
themselves in English, teachers often provided answers to their own
questions. Teachers also found themselves explaining words that were
not necessarily specialized scientific words but words that the

curriculum writers had assumed that students would understand. In

other instances students used words they associated with the terms

 

122

they were being asked to explain or define and the teacher would
elaborate accordingly:

T: What precautions must you take when you are doing this kind
of measuring?
[No response from students.]
Precaution... you know what the word precaution means?
Have you heard it before?
Perhaps you have heard the word CAUTION ?

[Teacher writes the word 'caution' on the blackboard.]
S: Road.
T: You might have seen it on the road... when there is some
roadworks or something else going on.
No? But what does precaution mean?
Yes? [The teacher points to one boy.]
S: Danger.

T: No... it does not mean danger.

[The teacher points to another boy. Students are muttering to
each other.]

S: Careful.
T: Yes it means to be careful... then what does the 'pre'
mean? It means earlier... it means to follow steps
carefully. [FN yq 9/2/83]
Chorus responses: As illustrated in the vignettes cited above,
all teachers solicited chorus responses to a lesser or greater extent
and for various purposes and students seemed to be perfectly tuned to
when these responses were expected:
T: By now on your desk you should have an overflow can, a
measuring cylinder... now be careful with, the measuring
cylinder... be very, very careful - don't break it!

T: Be very, very...

S's: CAREFUL [FN es 1/3/83]

123

Peer interaction. As in the previous year, students' reluctance

 

to answer questions appeared to be most strongly linked with their
fear of 'losing face' due to their difficulties in expressing them-
selves or for fear of giving the wrong answer. Students also seemed
extremely embarrassed when they were called upon to answer a question
which was likely to include a long and complicated word they may be
unable to pronounce:

T: We mixed iron and sulfur and what happened then?

[No response from students.]
T: Yeggme on! Let's have a show of hands... Who knows?...

Next step, we added some ...

S: meth... meth... Sir! Cannot pronounce...
[The class bursts out into laughter.]

T: Say it ... methylated spirits...
[Students mutter among themselves.]

T: I've told you many times ... you must keep on saying
these words over and over so that you will pronounce them
correctly! It's methylated spirits ... say it!

S's: (in chorus) METHYLATED SPIRITS...

T: Also called alcohol... [FN yq 22/8/83]

ControllingiProcesses

Purposes of Science Learning. As in Phase I of the study,

 

attitudes and beliefs communicated by teachers to their students and
to the researcher regarding the purposes of science learning can best
be discussed within the framework of long-term and short—term
purposes.

Long-term purposes: In Phase II of the study, teachers appeared

to persist in their beliefs that the most important purpose of science

124

learning at the lower secondary level was to prepare students for
classes yet to come in their secondary schooling. This was invariably
expressed as a rationale for learning a particular topic, concept or
skill. For example, when demonstrating a simple electrical cell, a
teacher explained:

T: The core is surrounded by bubbles.
The liquid can't get to it so the reaction slows down.
The reaction slows down because of the bubbles.
This is called polarization but you will be learning more about
polarization in secondary three.
[Teacher writes the word 'polarization' on the blackboard.]
[FN du 26/8/83]

Another teacher used this rationale to encourage students to
put more effort into their work. When reproaching her students for
not 'trying' and then explaining the consequences that this may have
for them three years hence, the teacher said:

T: Some of you are not trying!
You have to try!
When you go to secondary four you will be expected to
know how to read a vernier sliding caliper and your
teacher will not show you again!... You have to try!
[FN 58 2572/83]
As far as students acquiring and developing skills in the

 

processes of science is concerned, one teacher stressed becoming a
good observer as a desirable long-term goal of science learning:

T: You must observe the experiment very, very carefully.
You must know what is going on... that's why you must
observe. You must become a good observer!
It's the most important part of chemistry... to observe the
changes that take place.
Right? O.K.!
What do we see here? [FN yq 2/8/83]

125

Short term purposes: Much more teacher attention was given,
however, to the short-term purposes of science learning. One teacher
alluded to carrying out an activity as if its purpose was to fill
blanks in the workbook:

T: Turn to page 21... 5 questions to be answered.
5 blanks to be filled up.
Fill the first few blanks of the worksheet... you can describe
what sulfur looks like... can't you? [FN yq 1/8/83]

As in the first year of the study, students who lacked confidence
in giving responses to teachers often read out their responses verb—
atim, either from the textbook or from their own workbook or notebook;
or, in the case of one student, from his test paper. In this instance,
the teacher was going over a test that had been given a few days
earlier:

T: You see, you must be alert!
You must know what the question asks...
This one was not answered very well... [Teacher referred to
one of the questions.] but then, question four...

[The teacher paused...]

T: What is a strike back?
Who got that right?
What is a strike back?

You! [Teacher points to boy near the back of the room.]

[The student reads his answer verbatim from the test paper and
the teacher acknowledges it as correct.] [FN yq 25/2/83]

One teacher linked purposes of science learning with language
acquisition as he had in the previous year of the study:

T: For instance, you learn many new words in science - when
you come across a new word, you must first know how to
§§y_the word, you must knowpitheL_meaning, and third, you
must know the spelling and how to use the word correctly
Four things, only then is your learning complete!

126
The same teacher was also very concerned about students
speaking loudly and clearly:
T Make sure you use your mouth when you speak... use your
chin, your jaws... Don't shout though!
How do you pronounce properly?
If I speak now... look at my mouth.
Did you understand me?

S's: (in chorus) YES SIR!!

T: If you move your mouth, nothing will happen... your jaw
will not drop off! [FN yq/83]

Teachers also linked the purposes of science learning with pre-
paring for examinations, as in the following example where the lesson
was nearing an end, students were becoming inattentive, and the
teacher suddenly announced that there would be a test on Friday of the
following week:

S's: When? When? [Some students called out, acting confused.]

T: Look on the board if you want to know!

[The teacher began to write on the blackboard and at the same
time commented to the class.]

T: I'll write down the topics on the blackboard.

[The teacher began to write: What is energy ?
Potential energy
Kinetic energy]

S: Copy? Copy? [The students called out.]

T: No, these are points that you have to learn. Go home and
revise these points and go through the questions at the end
of each chapter... revise them too!

[FN nd 28/9/83]
On more than one occasion, teachers were observed to announce

upcoming tests in a more threatening tone:

T: You have plenty to do to revise for your test!
You'll have a lot of questions.

127

So make sure you know your lessons and your facts very well.

You'll have a lot of questions... If you come back from your

break late (due to bad behavior) I will not give you extra

time and you will lose marks that way.

So, go through your calculations, learn your formulae...

like how to find the area of a triangle and a trapezoid.

Your first questions will be multiple choice, then

conversion, then you label diagrams.

You have to describe an experiment and read a micrometer

reading I have drawn. You will have to say what the reading

is... and I am warning you...

I will not give you marks for nothing!! Either your answer

will be right or it will be wrong. And it will be no use

coming to me and saying your answer is 'quite' right. Well

your answer must be exactly right, not guite right! As I see

it, if you do not study you will fail the test. You'll have a

lot of questions to answer in one hour and ten minutes!
[FN du 25/2/83]

And with regard to neatness and accuracy in record keeping as one
of the purposes of science teaching the teacher said:
T: These pens have been given to you so that you can write
neatly.
I said make sure you write down the notes neatly!!
Alright those of you who talk will copy out twice!
Page 28... the summary there, copy it out.
I can still hear plenty of noise, If I hear noise I will give
you extra work to do during the (Lunar) New Year holiday!
[At this, the students soon settled down to work.] [FN du 31/1/83]
Reward Systems. As in Phase I of the study, high scores in
examinations, memorization of facts and neatness and accuracy in
record keeping appeared to be the three most highly valued student
behaviors and therefore the behaviors most rewarded in classes
conducted by the cooperating teachers. A fourth aspect of behavior -

cooperative student conduct was also valued but since such conduct

seemed to be expected, teachers were not seen to reward students for

128

this kind of appropriate behavior. However, it appeared that for many
classes, appropriate. student behavior was more likely to be that
solicited by or imposed upon the student by the teacher than self—
discipline on the part of students.

It was found that on the few occasions, when two of the teachers
brought half of the class to the demonstration bench to observe a
demonstration, the alternate group were not able to work on their own.
Even though an appropriate assignment had been given, students tended
to cluster into groups and engage in off—task behavior. [FN du 8/8/83]

As far as examinations are concerned, students in the normal
streams did not perform well. The average score for one normal stream
class was 54% for the first test they took folowing adoption of the
new LSS program. As in the year prior to use of the new program,
student failure in tests was attributed by teachers to poor study
habits and poor command of the English language rather than in-
appropriateness of instruction or testing instruments.

Students in normal classes were reminded that by obtaining good
results in examinations they could be promoted to a higher class:

T: But we must be very clear about these three things:

elements, compounds and mixtures.

Can you remember some of the compounds we had last week?
We started burning them ...

By now you should have revised (reviewed) all of this.

It is very important that you keep on doing that: revise
all the time.

129

If you do well and you get three merit points, you can go

to a higher class.

Learn it up as it comes.

Otherwise it is too much to learn when the exams come.

And the exams are coming very close and they'll be here
before you know it! [FN yq 3/8/83]

Another teacher expressed the belief that 'retaining' material
presented in class was important to science learning:
T: If the lines on the main scale and on the vernier scale make
a straight line... what does that mean?,
[No response from the class.]
T: Now I wonder why you don't know this!?
I TOLD you last lesson to observe that and you told me that
there was no zero error.
So now... why don't you know this?
Why can't you remember?
Please retain what has been learned in class!
Is that clear? [FN du 9/2/85]
Sources and Expressions of vAuthority. Much teacher attention
was directed in class to the pursuit of the 'right answer' that had
already been predetermined by the teacher. In some instances, even
though students' responses came close to the response the teacher
expected, they did not probe further or even give credit to the
student for an answer that was close to their expected response.
Instead, they persisted in their own idea of what the 'right answer'
should be:
T: The sulfur... how does it feel to you?
S's: Dust!
T: Like soil, like powder.
That's the answer, right there, like powder!
Who can spell powdery? [FN yq 23/8/83]

As in classes observed in Phase I of the study, some instances

were noted in which results of experiments were discussed in terms of

130
'right' and 'wrong' answers as in this review of an experiment that
had been carried out the previous day:
T: Yesterday we were calculating...
[The teacher walks to the right hand side of the blackboard.
There is a chart listing a set of results. The same chart can
be found in the student workbook.]
T: For instance, your answers...
Are they the same or different?
Your answers were the same.
[Student non-verbal behavior indicated agreement.]
T: One or two were different, but most were the same...
that is... equal to the clockwise moment.
So the question asks you: "What do you conclude?"
[The teacher reads the question from the workbook.]

[The teacher moves to the blackboard and begins to write on
the left hand side. He writes the following sentence:]

T: "Since the clockwise moments are the same..."
[The teacher then turned to the class and adds an aside.]

T: ...or if your group did not get the right answer put more or
less the same...

[The teacher continued to write on the blackboard and at the same
time said:]

T: "...that is the Work Principal..."
Is that clear now ?

And in similar instance a different teacher gave the conclusion
of a group of experiments as 'proof' of a scientific law:

T: Now - all of these experiments conform to a scientific law.
Do you know what is meant by conform?

[Teacher waits for an answer.]
T: They follow the law. We learned about energy changes
heat - electricity - kinetic energy... The fact that these

changes take place illustrates a law. What is the law?

[The students respond appropriately.]

131

Sources of Authority Outside the Class. As far as authorities

outside the classroom dictating what will occur inside the class, the

following vignette derived from a lesson that took place during the

early part of the year following implementation illustrates the way in

which one teacher communicated to her students how a source of author—

ity external to the classroom influenced what was to be learned:

T: Today... we'll do the exercise with the vernier sliding
caliper. I don't know if you have mastered the skill
or not, so I'll give you a brief revision.

[The teacher stands next to the overhead projector and displays
a transparency of a vernier sliding caliper.]

T: If these two lines are not level, you get an error...
- what kind of error?

[Some students raise their hands and the teacher calls upon
one of them.]

S: A zero error.

T: That's right, a zero error!
I haven't marked your exercise books yet. I don't know
whether you got the exercise correct or not.
But it's not required for you to know how to calculate
zero error... so we won't be doing that.
For the time being, in our experiments, we'll assume that
there is no zero error. [FN 33 26/1/85]

Ilisconfirming Evidence

In spite of the overwhelming evidence supporting the assertion

t:liat teachers did not change their role behaviors as a result of the

erltroduction of the new LSS program, there were two instances in which

C311€B of the cooperating teachers engaged in a problem solving dialogue

‘Wjitih.students. Both situational frames were extracted from the data

the same teacher and both indicated that if the teacher could

132

stimulate students sufficiently to the extent that they lost their
inhibitions about speaking out in class, such discourse was, in fact,
possible. Interestingly enough, neither of these episodes was
deliberately planned by the teacher - meaning that it was not the
teachers intention to structure the lesson around a problem-solving
activity. Rather, the incidents occurred by chance. One arose as an
outcome of a student's question and the other as a result of in-
adequate distribution of equipment:

T: Stop working for a minute... Here is a good question...
This boy asked me what he should do if the top number... in
other words... the mass, is smaller than the volume. What do
you think he should do?
[No response from students.]
T: Any answers?

S: Put the volume over the weight.

[Some students are calling out "Yes" and others are calling
out "No!"]

T: I do not want any calling out of the answers.
Raise your hands!
Yes? [The teacher looks at the class chairman.]

S: Put the volume over the weight.

T: I see! Any other answers?
Now, listen and think about it!
If the mass is smaller than the volume, how can you find the
density? He says put the volume on top. What do the others
say?
[The teacher points to another boy who had his hand up.]

S: Get a decimal.

T: Get a decimal? You mean ... use the small mass over the

volume and divide so that you get a decimal answer? Anybody
else?

[Some students begin writing - presumably because they seemed to
think that the teacher had elaborated on the students response
because it was correct and/or they discerned from the tone of
the teacher's voice that a correct answer had been given.]

133

T: Don't start working yet!
Do you agree with our friend over here - or do you think
he is right?

[The teacher gestured to the two boys who had given two
competing answers].

Come on... don't be scared... put your hand up!
[Some students raise their hands.]
And who agrees with his point of view?
What about those who have not put up their hands yet?

[The class laughs.]
T: You have to think about what i§_density actually.
S: Mass over weight!

T: But how do you explain density?
What we are trying to find out is how much mass is in one
cubic centimeter of the body.
We have to divide mass by volume!
It does not matter how much mass we have if we have to find
how much mass in 1 cubic centimeter.
It is how much mass...
He is right... you'll get decimals for your answer!
[FN yq 22/2/83]

Then, on a separate occasion, the following scenario was recorded:

T: Ah! here! ...here is another problem...
You notice that this spout is shorter than the height of the
measuring cylinder.
How are you going to solve that?

S: Tripod?

T: Listen, look up... it is most important when you do this that
you do not let drops flow out of the spout.

[The teacher then asks one pair of lab partners how they plan
to position the displacement can and then moves on to others
asking them what they would do. The students are visibly
excited by the discussion.]

T: You have three methods:
This one involves clamping the displacement can onto a stand.
Are you sure your can is level?

S's: YES!

134
T: Don't just say yes; look and see!
This one...
[The teacher points to one that is held in place by a clamp.]
T: If it's not level you may loose a drop of water. You've
forgotten...
You need any extra water?

Get off the stool!!

[The teacher reproaches a boy who is standing on stool staves
in order to reach the experiment.

T: Right, how are you doing? Clean up!
[Boy goes forward to get a cleaning rag.]

T: I want to ask you a few questions.
There are three different ways you can find the volume.
Straight up... the bottom of the can, was it level?
Don't just say yes... take a good look!!
Another method was at the sink
When the dripping stopped, some water was displaced
A third way was you could put it on the table... the
table won't move will it?
Alright... what about you?
Did you loose any extra drops of water? [FN yq 22/2/83]

In spite of the fact that the teacher concerned did not dem—
onstrate these teaching strategies during Phase I of the study and
that the two incidences occurred incidentally rather than by design,
they showed that this particular teacher (who happened to be the
teacher who attended the inservice course) used instructional
strategies that are critical to inquiry teaching. Firstly he dem—
onstated that he knew how to engage students in problem solving
situations, that he was willing to allow students to make decisions
concerning the set-up of equipment, and that he could tolerate an

ambiguous situation which might result from students using different

experimental set-ups. Finally the teacher recognised the importance

135

of having students evaluate which method was likely to produce the
most accurate results. The question of why the teacher did not plan
these types of activities into his science lessons for the remainder
of the year is an important one to be addressed. Some propositions
will be made about this in the remaining section of this chapter.
Summary

As cumulative discussion in the preceding sections of this
chapter has suggested, an analysis of classroom data gathered over the
two-year period of the study revealed that, with very few exceptions,
the manner in which the five cooperating teachers acted out their
roles as science teachers did not change appreciably from the pre-
implementation to the post—implementation phase of the study. In
other words, during the first year of implementation of the new Lower
Secondary Science curriculum, recurring patterns of teacher behavior
persisted. Teachers continued to view themselves as disseminators
of information, as sole initiators of student learning in the classoom
setting, and as directors and controllers of all classroom activity.
Recurring teacher behaviors consistent with 'discovery' or 'enquiry—
based' teaching roles (advocated by the LSS curriculum developers) did
not feature significantly during the nine sets of observations that
constituted the post-implementation phase (Phase II) of the study.

Classroom discourse tended to be dominated by teacher talk and
student responses to teachers' recall questions were almost all short
and recitative. Both teacher and student roles continued to be

exclusively defined, mutually reinforcing and non-interchangeable.

136

At the same time, it was recognised that at least one of the co-
operating teachers was aware of how to go about structuring a teaching
episode to incorporate a discussion of competing ideas and alternative
ways of setting up apparatus. The same teacher also recognised an
anomaly in using the usual four-part format of introducing and demon—
strating an experiment before the students were allowed to carry out
the practical work. But clearly, the teacher concerned did not place
sufficient priority on these strategies to incorporate them into his
teaching on a planned and regular basis. Apparently, the forces which
governed the way in which this teacher normally enacted his role as a
science teacher were heavily grounded in other factors in the setting
in which he taught. Some inferences pertaining to the reasons for

this are discussed in more detail in the next section of this chapter.

137

SECTION V: Research Question 5
Research question 5 asked: How does evidence of teacher change or
lack thereof link with key events and channels of communication in the
dissemination and implementation process and/or with other parameters
in the research setting? The research question was addressed by
triangulating data from the numerous and varied research sources drawn
upon as the study progressed.

The Dissemination and Implementation Process

 

Two aspects of the dissemination and implementation process were
intended to orient teachers to the new program: (a) the teacher

inservice course and (b) the LSS Exploripg, Science Teachers Guide.

 

Closer examination of the dissemination and implementation process
operating within the context of the research setting has revealed
some underlying reasons as to why they were less effective than they
might have been.

The Teacher Inservice Course.

Since only one of the cooperating teachers took part in the in—
service course prior to implementation of the new curriculum, no claim
will be made here that any change or lack of change on the part of
individual teachers could be attributed to their participation or lack
of participation in the course. Neither will any attempt be made to
compare the degree and kinds of change on the part of the one teacher

who did participate with changes in the four cooperating teachers who

138

did not. Rather, the teacher inservice course will be discussed from
the researcher's perspective as a participant observer in the course.
As it transpired, the content and conduct of the course provides two
important insights into parameters of the broader research setting.

Firstly, it furnished an avenue for examining congruence between

 

theory and practice with regard to the change agents' presentation of

 

the LSS program. Secondly, it provides a basis for inferring and/or

observing in action the sources and expressions of authority with

 

regard to the broader context of the educational system in Singapore
and the impact this may have had on teachers' attitudes and their
subsequent level of implementation of the LSS program.

Congruence Between Theory and Practice. It was mentioned earlier

 

that the introductory lecture given by the LSS Project Director was
the only occasion in the teacher inservice course on which indic—
ation of teacher role change in the implementation of an inquiry/
guided—discovery program was referred to. Other than this, the
expectation that teachers would change their role perceptions and
associated role behaviors did not feature as a priority among the
planners and instructors in the inservice course. Rather, the
inservice course focused on two other aspects of the new curriculum:

(a) dissemination of information concerning content change of the

 

syllabus issued by the Education Ministry and (b) demonstration of the

laboratory techniques which had been newly introduced into the

139

practical component of the program and therefore may have been
unfamiliar to teachers.

Interestingly enough, data obtained from the teacher evaluation
of their inservice experience indicated that the latter emphasis
(demonstration of laboratory techniques) met the needs of the majority
of the teachers who favored 'practicals' as a way of learning about
the new program. The mass lecture in which ideologies of the program
were discussed was dismissed by some teachers as being 'boring' and 'a
waste of time' [ISTQ 04/60] - perhaps due to the fact that lectures
may have seemed to teachers to be covering 'old ground'. (personal
communication, Tang, March 1985)

The research data reveal that none of the inservice instructors
modelled appropriate inquiry teaching behaviors as they conducted
their laboratory sessions. The nearest semblance to a 'discovery/
enquiry approach' were the practical sessions conducted on energy.
But even in these sessions, the participating teachers were left on
their own to carry out the investigations. When the time came around
for discussing the investigations the teachers were reluctant to do
so. It was then left to the instructor who ended up giving final
explanations and providing closure to the session.

Whilst the activity—centered nature of the inservice course
reinforced the activity-centered approach of the LSS program, no
sessions were observed in which an instructor used a strategy such as

discrepant event or a dramatic episode (26) as a means of arousing

140

teacher interest and motivation. Neither did any of the inservice
instructors model exemplary inquiry teaching through their questioning
techniques. On no occasion in the inservice course, as experienced by
the researcher, was an instructor observed drawing a group of partic-
ipating teachers through an inductive reasoning process. Thus,
teachers had neither the opportunity to observe vicariously nor the
opportunity to practice the kinds of roles intrinsic to inquiry/guided
discovery teaching.

A similar and perhaps equally significant anomaly which had
impact by omission was failure to integrate the traditional science
disciplines and organize the course around the integrated themes that
form the basis of the LSS textbook and workbook materials. As it
happened, the inservice course was compartmentalized and organized
around the traditional disciplines of physics, chemistry and biology.
The fact that the LSS program purports to be an 'integrated approach'
to science learning seems to have been ignored and, by its very
omission, the value of this approach for teaching science at this
age-level was depreciated.

Expressions of Authority in the Inservice Course. Several events
in the inservice course for teachers manifested very clear expressions
of authority within the complex role set comprised of the teachers and
their inservice instructors (which included Ministry of Education
personel, curriculum writers and subject specialists).

First, there was the fact that with the exception of one teacher—

instructor (27) all teacher-instructors involved in the course were

141

teachers of 'higher' levels of the school system, meaning that they
were either teachers of third and fourth year secondary students or
they taught at the Junior College level. Other course instructors were
lecturers at the Institute of Education, CDIS curriculum writers or
Ministry of Education personel.

Choosing instructors from these sources could have had various
effects on the participants. The most damaging effect to the intent
of the course, however, was that the teacheréparticipants may have
felt that these subject specialists are competent in carrying out the
experimental work included in the new program, but they (the partic-
ipants), as generalists, are not. Using teachers who had successfully
piloted LSS in the trial schools at the secondary 1 and 2 levels may
have been a more effective strategy. Teachers could then perhaps have
identified more closely with the instructors, feeling some commonality
in dealing with anticipated problems as they faced the prospect of
implementing the new program in their classes.

Secondly, the fact that so much of the allotted time in the bio—
logy and chemistry components of the course (at least 15%) was taken
up by test-taking communicated tacitly to teachers that testing was a
priority in the inservice course and it is conceivable that teachers
may project this priority onto their own teaching of the LSS program.
Furthermore, the fact that the tests were potentially an intimidating
experience for the course participants, and that some ambivalence was
noted with regard to their purpose, served to reinforce lines of auth-

ority in the broader educational system. Were the tests being used

142

for teacher evaluation or as a check on instructor effectiveness? The
fact that the tests were not corrected by the teachers themselves and
that the test scores might well have been made public knowledge (since
the corrected tests were mailed to schools) raised this question in
the minds of the participants.

Thirdly, on the same theme of accountability was the fact that
teachers were required to submit written assignments to the course
organizers who happened to be Ministry of Education Specialist
Inspectors. It is significant to mention that during the workshop on
specific instructional objectives, the entire group of teacher part—
icipants was reproached (albeit moderately) for the number of assign-
ments that were overdue. And, commenting on the quality of the
assignments that had been handed in, one inspector said: "I have read
through the assignments. Now, ggmg_of you really went through the
syllabus thoroughly..." (implying that some assignments were less than
adequate).

Fourthly, and this has become obvious from the anecdotes cited
above, was the tone in which some of the inservice instructors comm-
unicated with the course participants. For example, when one teacher
complained of experiencing difficulty in obtaining laboratory equip-
ment because it was being reserved for the secondary III and IV
classes, the response from one Specialist Inspector was: "I hope you
'will go back and cooperate. You must exercise care when you go back.
‘When you prove that you can take care (of the equipment) then the

Senior Science teachers will let you use the equipment you need".

143

Similarly, during one of the laboratory sessions, when the in-
structor saw that some teachers were taking more chemical than was
necessary, she said: "Hey! Don't use so much!! - you must listen to
gli_advice." On another occasion during the workshop on instructional
objectives, teachers were asked to work on their own in a programmed
learning booklet. Noticing that some teachers finished early, the
instructor said: "Go through it again and really cover up the answers
this time". And later, when the same instructor was reading over some
instructional objectives handed in by teachers, the instructor re-
marked: "One person actually got the idea of how to write instruct-
ional objectives - FULL MARKS!"

Hence it became increasingly obvious to the researcher that
sources and expressions of authority exemplified in the statements
quoted above clearly manifested themselves in the role set comprised
of the teachers and their inservice instructors. This was apparent
even among those instructors who were teachers themselves and who had
been temporarily recruited as inservice instructors for a few sessions
during the course. Even these individuals adopted an authoritative

stance in their interactions with the course participants.

One notable exception to this was the teacher-instructor who was

himself a lower secondary science teacher. This teacher was also the
only teacher-instructor observed by the researcher who made the effort
to introduce himself to the class, saying who he was and where he
taught. Later in the session, the same instructor was also quick to
acknowledge the expertise of the participants by suggesting that they

may already have their own (better) ways of teaching certain concepts.

.55"

144

The impact that these explicit expressions of status may have had
on teachers both personally and professionally is a debatable issue.
But what seems self—evident is that such experiences were neither good
for teacher morale nor conducive to favorable teacher predisposition
towards the new LSS program. Furthermore, it could be argued that
such treatment would be unlikely to encourage teachers to voluntarily
attend further inservice sessions of this nature.

The LSS Teacher's Guide
As discussed in detail in Section 3 of this chapter, it would be
expected that the LSS program materials themselves would be con—
sistent with the ideologies expressed by the program developers. In
fact, the research indicated that this proved not to be the case.
This was especially true of the way in which the Teachers Guide in-
structed teachers on how to conduct their classes and it may now be
pertinent to raise the question of whether the curriculum writers were
aware that by using a directive tone in communicating with teachers,
they were modelling authoritative roles. Moreover, the tone of the
lesson guidelines encouraged teachers to act authoritatively in their
roles in classrooms. This was particularly true of some problem—
solving and decision—making situations that had potential for
autonomous management by teachers and their students.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the curriculum writers
themselves, who are both products of and current role participants in
various subcultures of the education system (and the broader milieu of

Singapore life) are perhaps unable to divest themselves of the

145

traditionally ascribed roles of teachers and students. Furthermore,
it should be asked to what extent the final product or LSS materials
produced for use in schools were true to the ideologies of the curric-
ulum writers and to what extent they compromised their ideologies to
satisfy the expectations of role incumbents in the user system. One
indication of this possibility is inherent in the initial intention by
the curriculum developers not to provide answers to workbook questions
and thereby by—pass the tendency of teachers to focus on 'the right
answer' (Cheah, personal communication, March 1982). But whilst the
materials were being piloted in the trial schools, the curriculum
writers yielded to the pressures of the teachers who firmly requested
that answers be included in the Teachers Guide. Hence the 'right'
answers provided in the' Teachers Guide are now conceivably the
authority to which the teachers adhere in arriving at outcomes of
their instruction.

Connected with this was an indication by one teacher that part
of her role perception was a need to 'outguess' the system. She re—
marked for example that: "They seem to put more weightage on the
energy section so I shall spend more time teaching that" [AM 19/1/83].
Adherence to the syllabus as an authority for what should be taught
was communicated in a direct sense by one teacher to her students
after explaining about how to identify a zero error on a vernier
sliding caliper: "But I'm not going to teach you how to calculate the

zero error because that is not required." [FN 33 26/1/83].

146

Another source of authority that makes its presence felt at the
lower secondary level is Singapore's National examination system
administered by the Cambridge Examination Board in Britain. Even -
though secondary school students do not normally sit for their General
Certificate of Education until the end of their fourth or fifth year
of secondary school, teachers at the lower secondary level are so
attuned to the fact that they are expected to prepare students for the
next level of schooling that part of their role perception is to
'train' students to take examinations. Further, teachers are
conscious of the fact that if students have not mastered certain
concepts and do not appear to be fully prepared for the next level (in
the opinion of their next teacher) there may be repercussions which
will have impact on their self esteem - hence, the emphasis of science
learning as preparation for succeeding years.

Teachers Concerns.

Aside from the linkages examined so far which have tended to
extrapolate beyond the classroom situation, the evidence that there
seemed to be an abiding relationship between the unchanging nature of
teacher/student role relationships over the two years of the study
and teachers' concerns about the conditions prevailing in the teacher
student role set is at least, if not more, significant. As explained
earlier, the three concernes cited most often as teachers rationalized
ways in which they organized and instructed their classes were: (a)
the large number of students enrolled in classes, (b) the limited

written and spoken competency of their students in the English

147

their students in the English language and c) the importance attached
by the teachers themselves, their colleagues and others in the system
(school administrators, Ministry of Education personel and parents) to
satisfactory student performance in class-based and school—wide tests.

Large Class Sizes: All except one of the cooperating teachers
made reference to the large class sizes. Teachers expressed concern
about supervising such a large number of students in laboratory work
especially Lower Secondary 1 students who had no prior experience in
working in the laboratory. Also, the first question that was raised
to the Project Director in the introductory lecture of the inservice
course was:

I teach 42 students, this is too large a class for practical
classes. Did you take into account class sizes when planning LSS?
[FN IS 01]

Other teachers' concerns about large class sizes focussed on
how time consuming it was to correct the work of such a large number
of students. In spite of this, according to the experience of the
researcher the teachers inservice course did not adequately ack-
nowledge teachers concerns about how to conduct laboratory work with
large classes neither did it present strategies to deal with the
problem of coping with inexperienced students in the laboratory.

Language Competency of Students. Of the' three main teacher
expressed concerns cited earlier in the chapter, concern about the
language competency of the students featured most strongly. This was
particularly true of teachers of the 'normal' streams and it was

expressed consistently throughout the two years both in informal

148

communications with teachers and in comments written in teacher
questionaires given to a shadow group of teachers (28):
My students are taught in English but discussion among themselves
are conducted in Mandarin or dialects. (Scientific terms have to
be translated and this is not always possible) They have problems
in understanding descriptions in the textbook. [TQ 6]
Another teacher identified student limitations in their command
of the English language as a barrier to class discussions and as a

problem in students understanding and carrying out instructions:

Students must be proficient in the language before discussions of
any nature can take place'.[TQ 1].

Very often pupils are not able to follow the instructions given by
teachers if these instructions are not painstakingly repeated over
several times.[TQ 1].

Teachers' concerns about students' language competency was legit-
imized repeatedly by the researchers' observations throughout the
study. Students had difficulty not only in comprehending but also with
pronouncing common English words, not to mention specialized scient—
ific words that were introduced to them for the first time. Student
embarrassment about their own and their amused embarrassment of
others' difficulties in pronouncing words was a frequent occurrence in
classes in which the teacher attempted to draw students into the
classroom discussion.

On this theme, another question raised at the teacher inservice
course concerned student's language difficulties. One course part—

icipant asked: "The problem of normal stream students writing up

experiments - Can you suggest a solution?". Various solutions were

149

offered by the instructors but none of the suggestions removed the
reality of the plight of these students and their teachers as wit-
nessed first-hand by the researcher. One attempt was, however, made
to address the problem of teaching students whose first language is
not English in the form of a journal article which was photoc0pied
from an American professional journal (29) and distributed to
teachers. However, no discussion ensued from teachers' reactions to
the article, neither were specific concerns of teachers on the
language competency of their students pursued by the group. (This does
not, of course, preclude the possibility that teachers may have taken
up the matter on an individual basis with one or more of the inservice
instructors.)

Tests and Examinations. The theme of examinations came up in many

 

of the researchers informal conversations with teachers. Some
teachers expressed concern about 'common tests' that were set period—
ically in all schools for students at the same grade level. It was
drawn to the researcher's attention that student results in tests are
taken into account in their own professional evaluations. Teachers of
low-streamed students felt that they would be at a disadvantage if
results were compared from class to class. It was therefore within
the teachers' best interests to apply themselves as vigorously as
possible to prepare students for such tests. One teacher described

the situation in her school in this way:

'My principal seems to assess teachers by the number and quality
of passes' (T02)

150

Another respondent drew attention to the fact that teachers may
adjust instructional strategies to maximize students' performance in
examinations at the expense of carrying out laboratory work - thereby
undermining one of the major stated goals of the science program at
the lower secondary level even before the introduction of the new LSS
program:

The haste to complete the syllabus, the cry to produce instant
results — good results in examinations - have all added to the

anxiety of teachers and believe it, contagiously transmitted to
pupils. Many teachers therefore prefer to forgo experiments for

theory. (T0 1)

Teachers cited upcoming tests and examinations both to the
students and to the researcher as a means of justifying the way they
conducted their classes. They also used them as a means of provoking
students into paying attention in class, doing assigned homework and
developing appropriate study habits. As a general rule, this amounted
to memorization of the facts presented in class and in the textbook.

The teacher—expressed concerns cited earlier were not addressed
in the inservice course and their omission may have been perceived by
the teacher participants in a variety of ways. The most damaging
perception to the intent of the course, however, is that it may have
appeared to teachers that the inservice planners and instructors were
unaware of their problems. Regardless of how unfounded these problems
may seem to others in the change process (curriculum writers, MOE
personel etc.) the fact that the concerns were ignored signalled to
teachers that the course instructors were unrealistic in their

expectations of the LSS program.

151

The other side of the coin is, of course, that the inservice
planners and instructors were highly aware of teachers' concerns but
did not address them for their own reasons. For instance, it was ex-
ressed by one key informant that addressing teachers' concerns would
have legitimized their reluctance to change their way of teaching.
Alternatively, inservice planners held the opinion that it was more
productive to design a course that would give teachers confidence
in knowledge of new content areas and proficiency in laboratory
investigations. The inservice planners considered these two areas as
the first crucial steps to successful implementation of the program.

Summary

This section of the chapter sought to discover whether degree and
kinds of changes in teacher/student role and role relationships ex—
hibited by the cooperating teachers with regard to teacher/student
role and role relationships could be linked with particular parameters
of the research setting. The research findings revealed that although
role change was intrinsic to faithful implementation of the new
program, evidence of consistent, appreciable change in the five
cooperating teachers in this study was non-existent. It was suggested
that lack of role change could be linked with a number and variety of
parameters in the research setting.

Teacher self—report and observations of ways in which teachers
communicated with students suggested that their role enactments were
linked with understandings of sources and expressions of authority
both in their classrooms and the educational system as a whole. In

the classroom, the authority resided in what was predetermined as a

152

set of verifiable facts documented in the textbook. The pursuit of
this authority lay in the reiteration of 'right answers'. At the
school level, the tests for which teachers prepared their students
became an authority to which teachers subjected themselves and their
students for the sake of their peer (teacher) approval and profess—
ional esteem brought about when their students scored well in tests
and appeared adequately prepared for the next level of schooling.
Beginning at the Ministry level and permeating the system, the syll-
abus looms large as an authority,not just for the existing year but
for successive years when students would be preparing more directly
for the Cambridge examinations. In the society at large, prescribed
societal norms relating to teacher/student role relationships may also
be a part of the complex web of authority structures which influence
what was occurring in classrooms of the cooperating teachers .

As far as preparing teachers to teach the new LSS program, it was
asserted that the teacher inservice course did little to address
teachers' concerns about their work and yet it was through these
concerns that the five cooperating teachers rationalized their role
enactments. It was also noted that role change was not emphasized in
the teacher inservice program and that the program materials them-
selves were not completely consistent with an inquiry approach-—thus
providing the teacher with mixed messages about the intent of the
program.

Finally it was recognised that faithful implementation of the new

LSS program implied a far more expansive notion of change; change that

 

153

necessitated extrapolation beyond the classrooms and schools of the
cooperating teachers. It was asserted, for instance, that teacher
role change of the type implied in the faithful implementation of the
new LSS program, challenged acceptable norms of teacher/student re—
lationships that prevail in the broader cultural milieu of Singapore

life.

CHAPTER V

REVIEW, INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS
Introduction

The intention of the study was to discover whether the intro-
duction of a purportedly inquiry/discovery based science curriculum
into the Singapore school system resulted in changes in teacher/
student roles and role relationships during the year immediately
following implementation of the program. Furthermore, the study
investigated parameters of the research setting and of the imple—
entation process that appeared to be linked with the kinds and extent
of changes that were observed.

The research problem was addressed from a phenomenological, ideo—
graphic perspective. Role behaviors of five cooperating teachers were
documented over a two year period — two sets of observations were
carried out during the year prior to implementation and two sets
during the year following implementation of the new program. A
holistic portrayal of the role and role relationships of the five
cooperating teachers was attempted by comparing data collected prior
to and following implementation of the new program. A detailed
analysis of the program materials, an in-depth study of the teacher
inservice program and interviews with key informants (Ministry of
Education officals, inservice trainers and members of the curriculum

writing team) provided additional data sources.

154

155

At the outset of the study, it was proposed that a curriculum
change of the type intrinsic to the introduction of the new inquiry-
based, guided discovery Lower Secondary Science program would be
differently felt and realized at the individual, school and education
system levels. In this regard, it was asserted that the role set that
would have the most intense and enduring effect on the role behaviors
of the teachers concerned would be that in which the teacher has the
greatest vested interest: namely the teacher/student role set. It was
also asserted that the introduction a science curriculum in which
teachers were expected to assume more open and discursive role
behaviors would result in role conflicts for the teachers concerned
and that unless these role conflicts were resolved, teachers would be
unable to implement the curriculum in accordance with the intentions
of the curriculum developers.

The Research Findings - A Synopsis

 

The research findings presented in the various sections of
chapter four have strongly suggested that the role enactments of the
cooperating teachers in this study did not change appreciably from the
preimplementation to the post—implementation phase of the study.
Teachers persisted in exhibiting behaviors suggesting that they viewed
themselves as disseminators of information and controllers of all
student activity in the classroom - in contrast to acting as the kind
of 'facilitators' of student learning advocated by the curriculum

'writers of the Lower Secondary Science program (Cheah et al., 1982).

156

Similarly, students continued to reciprocate teacher roles by being
passive listeners, reticent to participate in classroom discussion and
dependent on the teacher for information and direction.

With regard to science knowledge, the textbook and the teacher
continued to be the recognised sources of authority in the classroom.
All class activity, including experimental work, was directed towards
obtaining 'right answers' which concurred with principles presented in
the textbook. Teachers introduced experimental work as if the out-
comes were predetermined and they both explicitly and implicitly
communicated to students that the purpose of laboratory work was to
engage in confirmatory experiences, even when the 'answers' to work-
book questions were contrary to empirical evidence obtained from
students' experimental work.

Within this frame of reference, teacher role enactments became
those of transcribing the curriculum for their students, breaking it
down into discrete, managable sets of statements which encapsulated
the major principles or factual content outlined in the syllabus.
Teacher role enactment, then, necessitated ensuring that students made
neat, accurate records of these sets of statements which amounted, in
effect, to annotated transcriptions of the curriculum. The exper-
imental work carried out by students served the purpose of providing
illustrations or examples of the major principles expounded in the
textbook.

Given this proposition, student role prescriptions became those

in which they were obliged to keep records which conformed to teacher

157

expectations and were identical to those of their peers. In effect,
the records became annotated reference sources for use in preparing
for tests and examinations. As will be explained later, both teachers
and students had a vested interest in making sure that these records
were neat, accurate and well organized.

Sources and Expressions of Authority

Teacher self report and observations of ways in which teachers
interacted with students suggested a linkage between the unchanging
nature of classroom activity and teachers'understanding about sources
and expressions of authority within and outside their classes. These
sources of authority influenced the ways in which the cooperating
teachers conceived of science as a discipline as well as the ways in
which they enacted their roles as science teachers.

As mentioned earlier, factual information presented in the text-
book and the teachers' self-professed knowledge were the established
authorities under which knowledge transactions took place in the class—
room. By the same token, acquisition of knowledge occurred within the
confines of a knowledge base dictated by a higher authority: namely
the syllabus issued by the Ministry of Education. Science learning,
as viewed by the cooperating teachers, appeared to be an obligation on
the 'part of students to memorize the body of knowledge prescribed in
the syllabus. Teachers appeared to view their role as gatekeepers of
this knowledge and as a vehicle for imparting it to students. Exam-

inations and tests were justified as a natural and necessary

158

consequence of the knowledge transactions at the classroom level.
Intermittent examinations became an authority source used by the
teacher to justify their mode of interaction with students. To this
end, students were prevailed upon to pay attention in class, keep up
with assignments and 'learn' their work.

Within their own peer group or role set, and for the sake of
their professional performance evaluation, teachers felt pressure to
demonstrate that their students were able to Vmemorize and reiterate
science concepts by performing well in class-based and school-wide
examinations. Teachers' attention to record keeping was a reflection
of their role in facilitating the 'learnability' of the syllabus with
the objective of optimizing favorable test scores on the part of their
students.

Teachers' Concerns

 

Much of the teachers' concerns about difficulties encountered in
their work revolved around students' inability to express themselves
and to write coherent English. This constraint reinforced teachers'
authoritative behaviors due to their belief that they could not
entrust students with responsibility for their own record keeping.
Moreover, students' difficulties in understanding verbal directions
given in class compounded teachers' tendencies to exhibit highly
directive behaviors. Teachers' concerns about the effect of large
class sizes on their instructional practice, justifiably or not,
rationalized their hesitancy in undertaking complicated management
procedures and in tolerating increased ambiguity involved in inquiry—

based/guided-discovery teaching.

159

Channels of Communication

 

The research findings also suggest that lack of evidence of
teacher change during the second year of the study may, to a certain
extent, have been linked with unclear channels of communication
which existed within change agent/teacher role set during the imple-
mentation process. Channels of communication, which comprised both
the inservice experience designed to prepare teachers to teach the
program and the curriculum materials themselves, communicated ambi-
guously to teachers about the goals and ideology of the program. It
therefore seemed evident that teachers did not internalize the im-
plications of the program to the extent that they were aware of the
necessity to change their roles. Hence, far from being 'defenders of
curriculum traditions' (Romberg and Price, 1983) it appeared that the
teachers in this study had neither the opportunity to observe and
reflect upon, nor the opportunity to assume and practice the kinds of
roles implied in the introduction of an inquiry-based, guided-
discovery science program.

Social Values Pertaining to Teacher/Student Role Relationships.

The research findings discussed so far suggest linkages between
the lack of evidence of teacher change, teachers concerns about their
work and the prevailing sources of authority that seemed to govern
instructional practices of the teachers concerned. These factors
and others referred to extensively in chapter four (reward systems,

teacher interactional style, peer interaction etc.) have portrayed

160

a classroom culture in which teacher/student roles and role
relationships are clearly defined, mutually exclusive and mutually
reinforcing.

These factors alone suggest that without considerable forethought
and effort, change of the nature anticipated in the introduction of an
inquiry science program would have very little chance of taking root.
But, even so, there exists an underlying question concerning the
broader cultural context of the study viz: the appropriateness of an
inquiry-based, guided—discovery program both in Singapore's merito-
cratic education system and in its sociocultural milieu. For, as
Sarason (1978) has suggested, in every culture, or indeed every
subculture, there are certain norms of teacher/student role relation—
ships that are enduring regardless of educational policy.

In line with this premise, a case was made earlier in this paper
for attempting to define a 'Singapore culture' and mention was made of
the part to be played by the educational system in this endeavor.
Statements made by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in February 1979
concerning the role of the education system in providing the young
Singaporean with the 'software of his culture' were brought forward as
evidence of the extent to which the Singapore government holds the
education system accountable for the enculturation of school-age
Singaporeans.

Six years later, after the "implementation of the New Education
System and its ensuing curriculum innovations (of which the new Lower

Secondary Science program is just one) it would appear that Mr. Lee

161

may have rethought some of his assertions about the desirability and
feasibility of attempting to combine 'sceptical Western methods of
scientific inquiry' with the 'traditional values' which jointly
constitute the sociocultural fabric of Singapore life. In a pre—
election press conference granted to five foreign correspondents in
October 1984, Mr. Lee was asked :

"Singapore's great ecomomic achievements have won great acc-
laim abroad. One of the criticisms I have heard most often made
of Singapore of the education system, and perhaps more widely, the
media or the cultural environment is that in some sense it does not
put enough emphasis on independent critical thought, that the
government errs, if you like, in favor of control.

Looking ahead to the future as you've been doing, is that
your intention for the future as well, and do you feel that it
creates the best climate in which future leaders, your successors,
can cope with the unexpected?" (Straits Times 18/10/84)

To which the Prime Minister responded:

"First let me divide your statement because I think they are
two different things, one that our education sytem does not allow
more independent thinking, more creativity and therefore, more
scientists more discoverers of the great undiscovered frontiers of
knowledge and science.

I do not think that is just a question of the system of edu-
cation. I think it has to do with culture or with norms, standard
behavior of students and teachers .

The Japanese face the same criticism and they want more
creative innovators. They are saddled with the same criticism that
they lack this questioning this debate, this ruthless pursuit of
truth even at the expense of dignity of one's teachers.

I think that we are all products of our own culture. And
Oriental cultures require pupils to be polite not obstreperous. I
mean if you know so much you should not be in the class, you
should be running your own class.

At the same, time because we have had so many foreign
teachers in our schools, definitely in our universities and many
of our teachers themselves having been educated abroad, there is
more give and take than say a typically Chinese language school in
the 1950's or 1960's.

But I am reconciled to accepting a more polite classroom
situation. I think that is part of the Oriental culture and we
can't change that." (The Straits Times 18/10/84)

162

Clearly, Mr. Lee's most recent perceptions of teacher/student
relationships reflected in the statement above differ considerably
from the ideals he expounded in January 1979. From his most recent
statement it would appear that he now seems to he resigned to the
fact that the Singaporean identity cannot, within the next several
generations at least, incorporate values that are entirely alien to
its constituent Oriental cultures - neither does he seem to think that
such changes would be desirable.

But even more pertinent is that, in his statement, Prime Minister
Lee has revealed attitudes that uncover a core of beliefs about
teacher/student relationships in the Singapore context: that question—
ing and challenging behaviors by students are undesirable attributes
of a classroom environment. Lee associates them, for instance, with
obstreperousness, with ruthlessness and with impoliteness. Further-
more, he links them with a status quo that might jeopardize teacher
dignity - which is both culturally and historically a highly valued
Asian trait. This association appears to be not only Lee's personal
viewpoint. It became increasingly apparent as the study progressed
that such beliefs are pervasively and integrally embedded in the
broader sociocultural fabric of Singapore life of which, it has been
argued in this research, the classroom is a cultural microcosm.

Mr Lee's statements are of utmost importance to this study be-
cause they bring clearly into focus the paradox that has emerged as

the nexus of the study. Namely, that although there is a clearly

163

identified need to improve science teaching in Singapore and that the
new Lower Secondary Science project was one means of pursuing this
goal at the lower secondary level, the purported ideology of the
program appears to be in conflict with pervading societal norms
concerning teacher/student relationships.

At the classroom level, the teacher acts as a role incumbent in
the teacher/student role set, and in so doing exhibits behaviors which
have not only been influenced by his or her pedagogical training,
but also by the application of this pedagogy within the Singapore
context. Similarly, students exhibit behaviors which are reinforced
through their peer groups and through their homes as appropriate to
the classroom role set. For, as Hall (1977) claims:

... no matter how hard man tries it is impossible for him to

divest himself of his own culture, for it has penetrated to the
roots of his nervous system and determines how he perceives the
world. Most of culture lies hidden and is outside voluntary
control, making up the warp and weft of human existance. Even
when small fragments of culture are elevated to awareness, they
are difficult to change, not only because they are so personally
experienced but because people cannot interact at all in any
meaningful way except through the medium of culture. (Hall

1977, pp. 188-189).

It would seem that the very nature of the new Lower Secondary
Science program in so far as it required new types of reciprocal
teacher/student role relationships in the classroom setting, may
appear not only impractical but also incompatible with teachers'
understandings of their role as science teachers. Teacher/student

roles preeempted in an inquiry approach to science teaching, for

instance, require of teachers that they assume a stance of the

164

'unknowing' in their mutual pursuit with their students in solving
problems and testing hypotheses (Atkinson &' Delamont, 1977). It
requires that teachers will pose questions rather than provide answers
and, more importantly, that instruction will be student focussed
rather than teacher directed. Clearly, this mode of instruction is
incongruous with established teacher role behaviors characterized in
Phase I of this study. Other role behaviors axiomatic to inquiry
teaching tend to increase ambiguity and disperse authority and control
within the classroom. This ambiguity would, in turn, impose increased
autonomy on the teacher and, at the same time, dislocate the authority
systems in which the teachers role perceptions are apparently
embodied.

Given teachers' perceptions of the sources and expressions of
authority explained earlier, it appeared that the purported ideology
of the new program was, in a broader sense, incongruous with the modus
operandi of the highly centralized educational system where the lines
of authority to which the teacher is subject are clearly defined and
unidirectional. Attempts to bring about change under such circum—
stances would disrupt established networks of mutually reinforcing
student/teacher and teacher/system relationships.

But any claim made here that there is a direct and exclusive link
between failure on the part of the teachers in this study to assume
Ixile behaviors consistent with inquiry—based teaching and the socio-

(niltural milieu of Singapore is made with reservation. Such a claim

165

is confounded by the fact that the_ LSS program is ideologically
similar to programs which have experienced little success even in
countries in which teacher/student role relationships are character-
istically more open and discursive. What can be said for the case of
Singapore, however, is that the task of changing teacher/student role
and role relationships in line with those advocated by the curriculum
developers of the LSS program is exacerbated by the cultural context.
Hence, without attending very carefully to the issue of role and role
relationships in the implementation process, it would be predictably

difficult and probably a very slow process to implement such a program
with visible success.

The Implementation Process in Retrospect

 

Having discussed parameters of the user system and the difficult-
ies of implementing the Lower Secondary Science program in such a
system, let us now examine the processes of curriculum implement—
ation and diffusion as they apply to the change effort that was
researched. First of all, in spite of all of the current literature
avaliable on alternative models of curriculum implementation and
diffusion, there appeared to be no clearly defined model used in the
implementation of the new LSS program. The implementation strategies
used merely involved pilot testing the materials, modifying them and
distributing the final version to schools.

Notwithstanding the time constraints imposed on the LSS curriculum

writing team, members of the team accepted some responsibility for

166

monitoring the use of the trial materials in the pilot schools; but
this was done in a very loose and informal manner. There appeared to
be no systematic evaluation procedure for the actual use of the trial
material in the instructional setting. Monitoring from the standpoint
of the writing team involved soliciting verbal feedback from teachers
on the merits of the materials and, according to one informant, the
focus of this feedback was most often that of discussing practical
problems of the experiments rather than fundamental issues concerning
the program.

In the implementation process, little attention was given to the
process by which the ideology of the new curriculum could be trans-
fused into the existing framework of the user system and what, if any,
systemic changes would need to take place to support the intended
change. Furthermore, there appeared to be little attention given to
potential barriers to the kinds of knowledge assimilation necessary

for implementing the program in light of characteristics of the user

 

system.

Alongside the earlier assertion that there was no clearly defined
implementation model is an equally important assertion with respect to
the inadequacy of resources with which the change agents prepared
teachers to teach the program. From the evidence available to the
researcher, there was clearly a large investment in the development of
curriculum materials compared to a correspondingly small investment in

providing inservice experiences to prepare teachers to teach it.

167

Due to limited time, the inservice program concentrated on cognitive
attributes of the LSS program rather than on the processes of science.
As far as inservice trainers were concerned, the program relied heavily
on volunteer instructors who were not, by profession, teacher
educators. Moreover, as argued earlier, the attitude of some of these
instructors toward the inservice participants was demeaning and
thereby detrimental to the possibility of promoting positive teacher
attitudes towards the new LSS program. What is perhaps worse,
however, the volunteer inservice instructors openly showed value
preference for cognitive learning and they neither explained nor
modelled exemplary inquiry teaching strategies.

Areas for Further Study

 

In so far as this research undertook to investigate change in
teacher/student role and role relationships from a holistic, ideo—
graphic standpoint, there were many questions which could not be
addressed through this mode of inquiry but, as an outcome of the
research findings, now present themselves as questions which deserve
attention.

The most obvious question is, of course, that of the broader
impact of the program in educational settings other than the target
schools used in this research. The schools used in the research were
from the mid-range category as far as school outputs is concerned.
The question now emerges as to whether the program is being imple-

mented more successfully with students in more prestigious schools or

168

in higher streams (30) or, in fact, in schools in which students have
fewer problems with the English language.

Another major question that emerges concerns whether and how
teachers who have become so atuned to the didactic approach to
teaching can be brought to a point that they will be ready to change
in favor of the types of teaching roles implicit in inquiry teaching.
It was argued earlier in this paper that the teachers in this study
never consciously confronted the necessity to alter their teaching
roles. Questions which emerge with regard to this premise are: what
would happen if teachers' awareness was heightened and what would be
the comparative effect of intervention techniques such as modelling of
inquiry teaching by teacher educators, critiquing of alternative
instructional approaches, or action research through videotaping and
stimulated recall (31).

But perhaps the most urgent and germane question to ask is
simply whether or not an inquiry/guided—discovery program is approp-
riate to the Singapore educational system or whether, in fact,
attmnnpting to implement this type of program is self-defeating from
time outset. This question hangs on a broader issue of national
prixxrities as far as the purposes of science education is concerned.
Over the past twenty—five years, science education in Singapore has
been heavily politicized as critical to the building of a scientif-
ically literate manpower. Science learning at the lower levels of

schooling has been commonly viewed as cumulative and preparatory for

169

higher levels. As far as the cooperating teachers in this study are
concerned, this attitude was prevalent across teachers and over time.
For, even though science curricula at the primary levels have purport—
edly adopted an inquiry philosophy, curricula at the higher levels are
still tied to an external examination system in which memorization and
reiteration of principles is valued and rewarded.

The issue of how various individuals at different levels of he
education system perceive the purposes of science learning and the
relationship between these perceptions and the way teachers act out
their roles in classrooms is one that is worth pursuing. The findings
of such research have, of course, policy-making implications for
science learning at all levels.

Significance of the Study

The present research is unique in three ways: Firstly, it is one
of very few studies of curriculum change to incorporate preimplement-
ation and post implementation data. Secondly, it is perhaps the first
long term ethnographic case study of curriculum change to be conducted
in a developing Asian nation. The study will therefore contribute to
the body of case study literature in Singapore and to the literature
on- science curriculum implementation in general. Thirdly, the study
is turique in the. sense that, through the data analysis process, it
attempts to seek a relationship between components of change theory
and.rxxle theory through ideographic inquiry. It is anticipated that

an in—depth inquiry of this nature, in the context of a specific

170

educational innovation, will inform both educators and role theorists
on the extent to which existing teacher role behaviors should be
accounted for in implementation strategies.

The study therefore has practical applications in that it can
provide new knowledge regarding potential focii of curriculum imple-
mentation strategies. The research findings suggest, for instance,

that by studying teachers' normative role behaviors both in context

 

and relative to changes expected of them as they implement a new

 

curriculum, inservice experiences and curriculum implementation
strategies can be designed prescriptively.
Implications for Practice

As evidenced by the foregoing discussion, the study has raised
germane issues relating to the planning and conduct of inservice
experiences which imply a greater diversity of teacher educator roles.
It has been argued in this report that change agents and teacher
educators act counter-productively if they ignore the realities of the
user system, particularly as they apply to the teacher/student role
set. Similarly, teacher educators who act merely as instructors to
communicate the content and methods advocated in new curricula but who
do not model teacher behaviors expected of teachers in implementing
such curricula have little chance of making any impact on teacher
behavior.

Rather, both change agents and teacher educators would benefit
from assessing and reacting to information regarding the teacher's

immediate and broader environment that influence predominating

171

practices. Likewise, it is important for change agents to become
familiar with the extent to which the innovation is consonant with
prevalent teacher role perceptions. Similarly, an in—depth analysis
of values and practices operant in the user system can begin to
provide the kind of information necessary for change agents and
teacher educators to become sufficiently familiar with dimensions of
the target population. By developing a profile of teacher concerns as
advocated in this report teacher educators may then be able to design
inservice exper— iences which address these concerns and are directed
at arousing teacher readiness for change along the lines of the
innovation in question (Gremli, 1983b).

In light of the research findings and the ensuing discussion, it
would seem appropriate for change agents and teacher educators to
develop and apply skills through which they: (a) work with teachers in
a way that will help them develop the kind of inner resources to
enable them to accept a greater degree of ambiguity and risk in their
classrooms; (b) work within social networks existing in schools to
maximize organizational health as well as peer and administrative
support; (c) provide counselling relationships which are sensitive to
teacher concerns; (d) work as equals with teachers as action
researchers, encouraging teachers to critically examine their practice
in a non-threatening environment (see Brown and McIntyre, 1981); and
(e) charge themselves with the task of becoming sufficiently skillful
in provoking and sustaining productive communication among teachers,

administrators and change agents.

172

In conclusion, attending to the dispositions and attributes of
teachers within the dynamic and static aspects of the unique sub—
cultures in which they operate professionally is an essential com-
ponent of a curriculum change process. Similarly, the curriculum
change process should be mutually regarded by change agents, teacher
educators and teachers alike as an opportunity to engage in a prof-
essional growth experience with the common goal of meeting what has
become one of the greatest and most perpetual challenges to teachers
and teacher educators alike: understanding, accepting and implementing

change.

 

FOOTNOTES

Refer to Rivlin A., & Timplane, (Eds.) Planned variation in
education: Should we give up or try harder? (In press)

The term 'dependency paradigm' is used here in the context of the
world—system theory which explains the modernization—diffusionist
perspective of knowledge transfer from developed to developing
countries. Sociologists have argued that knowledge transfer of
this nature results amounts to an intellectual dominance/depend-
ency relationship in which the 'Center' becomes the producer and
the 'periphery' the consumer. Traditionally, knowledge transfer
has been in the fields of technology, industry and agriculture. In
recent years, in the field of education the knowledge transfer has
been in education particularly in the area of curriculum.

The South East Asian Ministers Educational Organization (SEAMEO)
has pooled its resources and made joint efforts to develop
innovative curricula operating through six regional research and
development centers situated in member countries. Three of these
centers have been concerned with developing programs for elem-
entary and secondary schools: they are: Regional Education Council
in Science and Mathematics (RECSAM) in Penang, Malaysia;‘ the
Regional English Center (RELC) in Singapore; and The Regional
Center for Educational Innovation and Technology (INNOTECH) in the
Philippines.

Refer to annotated agenda for a Regional Meeting on 'Science for
All'. UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia and the
Pacific, September 1983.

ASEAN: The Association of South East Asian Nations, comprising
five member nations: Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and
the Philippines was formed on August 8th 1967 to promote, among
other things: "active collaboration and mutual assistance on
matters of common interest in the economic, social, cultural,
technical and administrative spheres" (Soliium 1974 p. 243).

Several innovative science curricula have been introduced into the
Singapore school system in the past 20 years. The Singapore Primary
Science Project was one such innovation. The goal of this project
was to achieve an integration of English language, mathematics and
science which, as a combined block of instructional time, occupied
43% of the total instructional time.

Use of the term 'Third World' countries here corresponds to that
used by Walters (1981, p. 95) which is cited in the bibliography.
Most recently, however, Singapore has been ranked among what is
called the NIC'S or Newly Industrialized Countries.

One notable exception was the 'two child family' which was
promoted by the Singapore Government through the Family Planning

173

174

Board. A small family with only two children ('boys or girls') is
a significant cultural departure from the traditional Asian value
of cherishing large families.

9. There are three major Asian constituent cultures in Singapore
namely: Chinese, Malay and Indian comprising approximately 76.7%
14.7% and 6.4% of the population respectively. The remaining 2.2%
of the population is described as coming from 'other backgrounds'.

10. Two examples of these incentives: (a) children whose parents were
sterilized after the second child become entitled to priority
enrollment in the school of their choice; (b) married couples
applying for a government Housing Development Board apartment as
an extended family (with one or more parent who would live with
their children in a three generation household) were assured
priority resulting in a much shorter wait in their new home.

11. Fred Erickson has identified the following alternative terms used
for ethnography: "naturalistic description", "field work" or
"field studies", "phenomenonological enquiry", "symbolic inter—
actionist", "ethological", "microethnographic" (Smith and Geoffrey
(1968) "constructivist studies", (Magoon 1977) and "constitutive
ethnography" (Quoted from a paper delivered at the annual general
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, March 29th 1978)

12. The proposal that the teacher/student role set has the most
enduring impact on the teacher was made because teachers have the
greatest vested interest and spend the majority of their time
interacting in this role set. Also, the teachers' success
(particularly in the Singapore system) tends to be measured by the
success of students in class and school examinations.

13. To try to obtain an objective picture of events in science
classrooms the researcher chose to undertake two sets of observ-
ations for each teacher making a total of ten in all for the
duration of Phase I of the study. These were conducted during
January to March (which is close to the beginning of the school
year) and September to November (which is close to the end of the
school year).

14. A teacher questionaire was administered during Phase I of the
study to a 'shadow group' of teachers who were colleagues of the
cooperating teachers. The cooperating teachers were excluded
because it was felt that if they read the content of the quest—
ionaire they may become sensitized to the purpose of the research
and they would no longer be suitable as cooperating teachers. The
questionaire was administered by the Senior Science Teacher in each
school. A sample of the questionaire can be found in Appendix F.

15. The Cambridge Examination Syndicate administers the basic recog—
nised qualification in Singapore, ie: the General Certificate of

16

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

175

of Education, Advanced or 'A' level and Ordinary or '0' level.
These examinations are sat by students who continue their
education to the fourth, fifth, and sixth years of secondary
school. The 'O'level serves as a screening process to select
students who will continue to pre university level. The 'A'
level exam selects students for tertiary institutions.

Use of the word 'over' in 'twenty over' is a colloquial expression
- it can refer to any number over twenty up to twenty nine!

Students who are streamed into the extended stream in the Primary
School take eight years to complete their Primary School education.

Situational frames are high context units of cultural analysis
defined by E. Hall (Beyond Culture, 1977) as ways of breaking down
cultural activity into understandable units: 'The situational
frame is the smallest viable unit of a culture that can be
analyzed, taught, transmitted or handed down as a complete entity'.

See: Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In
Pike K. (Ed.). Language in relation to a unified theory of human

behavior. (publisher?

Two sets of observations were undertaken at approximately the same
time of the year and, where possible, parallel or similar topics
were chosen.

Personal communication: Yeoh Oon Chye, then Deputy Director of the
Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore, February, 1982.

Reports of the LSS package were featured in The Straits Times on
June 2nd. 1982, in The New Nation on June 4th 1982, and in The
Sunday Times on December 26th 1982.

 

The fact that the practical sessions in energy were run differ-
ently from the other sessions made have had something to do with
influence exerted unwittingly by the researcher. Wishing to
reciprocate the cooperation shown by the members of the LSS
writing team, the researcher shared an instructional unit design
on energy relationships with the curriculum writer responsible for
the physics section of the curriculum. The format used in the
inservice course corresponded to the format used to introduce
learners to energy concepts in the design.

Since it was not possible to carefully match sessions in which
the same topic was taught in the two phases of the study (for one
thing, the topics changed somewhat with the introduction of the
new curriculum) topics that were as close as possible were selected.
Also, recognising that teacher behaviors may change somewhat over
the course of the year as he/she became more familiar with the
class, the times of the year in which the observations were con-
ducted were matched as closely as possible.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

176

The term 'collective temperament' is used here to describe the
general disposition of a class as a unit and it is mentioned
because, as explained in the test of the research, it was observed
to have an effect on teacher behavior. Attributes which seemed
to contribute to the collective temperament of the class included
general restlessness and talkativeness, tendency to engage in
tasks in an immediate and cooperative manner and to remain on
task with a moderate amount of teacher control.

Use of 'discrepant events' is an instructional strategy used to
engage students in problem solving experiences involving
scientific concepts. Students are shown a demonstration of some
sort that will be discrepant with their existing understandings

of -natural phenomena. As a result of wanting to seek an
explanation to the event, the teacher will guide a group of
students to give an explanation. A dramatic episode would have

the same effect except that instead of being shown a demon—
stration, students are presented with a written scenario.

The one exception to this observation was a teacher/instructor who
is a practicing lower secondary science teacher. This teacher has
3 educational background different from the norm for lower sec-
ondary science school teachers. He holds a B.Sc. in physics from
the former Chinese medium university. This individual happens to
be such an outstanding, highly motivated teacher that he recently
won a scholarship to continue his studies overseas.

Op. cit. Note 14.

The article was: Gonzales, P.C. (1981) Teaching Science to ESL
students, extracted from: The Science Teacher, 48(1) 19-21.

 

By the time students reach the lower secondary level they have
already been subjected to two streaming exercises. They are
streamed according to perfomance in nationally based examinations
at the end of the third and sixth years of Primary School. This
means that there is a considerable difference in academic level
of students in the various levels of streaming. This has had
an effect on the implementation of curricula.

Stimulated recall is a procedure used to enable teachers to
reflect upon and evaluate various aspects of their practice. The
procedure involves teachers listening or watching audio or video
tape replays of their teaching. The teacher will stop the tape
at certain points in the lesson and recall their thought
processes at those key points. For more details on this procedure
refer to Kagan, N., et al. (1967) Studies in human interaction:
interpersonal yprocess recall by videotape. Occasional Paper.
Michigan State University. East Lansing, Mi.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alsmeyer, D., & Atkins A. (Eds.). (1979). Guide to science and tech-
nology in the Asia and Pacific area. New York: Francis Hodgson.

Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (1977). Mock—ups and cock-ups : The stage
management of guided discovery instruction. In P. Woods & M.
Hammersley W. (Eds.), School experience: Explorations in the sociology
of education, (pp. 87-108). New York: St. Martins Press.

 

Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin
Books Ltd.

Barnes, D., Britten, J., & Rosen, H. (1971). Language, the learner and
the school (rev. ed.). London: Penguin Books.

 

Becher, T., & Maclure, S. (1978). The politics of curriculum change.
London: Huchinson.

Berliner, D. C., & Tikunoff, W. (1977). Ethnography in the classroom.
In Borich, G. D. The appraisal of teaching: Concepts and process.
Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation of educational
innovation. The Educational Forum, ԤL(3), 345-349.

Berman, P., & Pauly, E. (1975). Federal program support in educational
change, Vol. II Factors affecting change agent projects. Santa Monica,
Calif: Rand Coporation.

Blum, A. (1979). Curriculum adaptation in science education: Why and how.
Science Education, 63(5), 693-704.

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory, expectations identities and
behaviors, New York: Academic Press.

Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory, concepts and
reseach, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

IBlum, A. (1979). Curricululm adaptation in science education: Why and
110w. Science Education, 63(5), 693-704.

IBrown, S. (1979). Implementation of innovations in science education.

Ifiaper presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association
Regional Conference, University of Stirling, Scotland.

177

178

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1981). Action research and curriculum
innovation in a centralized system of education. European Journal of
Science Education, 3(3), 243-258.

Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1982). Influences upon teachers attitudes to
different types of innovation: A study of Scottish Integrated Science.
Curriculum Inquiry, 1982, 12(1), 35—51.

Brown, S. (1982). Costs and rewards of innovation. In J. Olsen, (Ed.),
Innovations in science teaching (pp 108-139). London: Croom Helm.

Bruckheimer, M. (1978). Creative implementation. In P. Tamir, A. Blum
A. Hofstein, & N. Sabar (Eds.), Curriculum implemetation and its
reationship to curriculum development in science. (pp.43—50).
Jerusalem: Israel Science Teaching Center. .

Brugelman, H. (1975c). Lost in the desert of innovation theory - The
mirage of dissemination and implementation. Education for Teaching.
1975c. 28, 49—60.

Cazden, C. B., John, V. P., & Hymes, D. (Eds.). (1972). Functions of
language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cheah C. K. et al. (1978). The Lower Secondary Science Project — An
Interim Evaluation. The LSS project team, Science Teachers Association
of SingapOre, Mimeograph. '

 

Cheah, C. K. et al. (1981). The lower secondary science project.
Report to the Members of the 5th. Science Council. July 25th. 1981.

Cheah C. K. et al. (1982a) Exploring Science, Student textbook.
Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Cheah, C. K. et al. (1982b). Exploring Science, Workbooks A-D.
Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Cheah C. K. et al. (1982c). Exploring Science, Teachers Guide.
Singapore: Oxford University Press

(Ilark, C., & Yinger R. J. (1979). Teachers thinking. In P. L. Peterson
& H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: ConceptsL findings and
implications (pp 231—263), Berkeley, California.

 

Connelly, H. F. (1972). The functions of curriculum development.
iInterchange,Ԥ(2), 161-177.

179

Crossley, M. (1984). Strategies for curriculum change and the question of
international transfer. Journal of Curriculum Studies, ‘l6(l), 77-88.

Dalin, P. (1978). Limits to educational change. London: The Macmillan
Press Ltd.

Delamont, S. (1976). Interaction in the classroom. London: Methuen.

 

DeRose, J. V., & Lockard, J. D., & Paldy L. G. (1979). The teacher is
the key: A report on three NSF studies. The Science Teacher, April, 31—
37.

 

Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1975). Classroom ecology: Some concerns about
a neglected dimension of research on teaching. Contemporary Education,
XLVI (3), 183-188.

Dynan, M., Parker, L. H., & Ryan, A. S. (1979). Physical Science Eval—
uation 1978. (Cooperative Research Series, Report #3). Perth, Australia:
Western Australia Institute of Technology.

 

 

Dynan, M., & Ryan, A. S. (1981). Final Physical Science Evaluation
Report (Cooperative Research Series, Report #8). Perth, Australia:
Western Australia Institute of Technology.

Erickson, F. The cycle of situational frames. IRC Article. Michigan
State University.

Erickson, F. (1978, March). On standards of descriptive validity in
studies in classroom activity. Paper delivered in the symposium
'Realities in the Classroom', at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Fensham, P. (1978). Reflections from a "political" perspective on
curriculum implementation in Australian secondary science education.
In P. Tamir, A. Blum, A. Hofstein, & N. Sabar, (Eds.), Curriculum
implementation and its relationship to curriculum development in
science. (PP. 245-251) Jerusalem: Israel Science Teaching Center.

 

Florio, S. (1976, May) Issues in the analysis of the structure of
classroom interaction. Unpublished Paper.

 

Fullan, M. (1972). Overview of the innovative process and the user.
Interchange, 3(2), 1-46.

 

Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction
implementation. Review of Educational Research, 41, 335—397.

180

Getzels, J. W., & Thelen, H. A. (1960). The classroom group as a unique
social system. In The dynamics of instructional groups. The 59th
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gopinathan, S., & Gremli, M. S. (1984, October). The educational
research environment in Singapore. Paper presented at the Southeast
Educational Association Research and Advisory Group, Center for
Innovation and Technology (INNOTECH), Manila, Philippines.

Gremli, M. S. (1982). An ethnographic study of five science classrooms.
Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University.

Gremli, M. S. (1983a). A comparative study of three science textbooks
published in Singapore. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State
University.

Gremli, M. S. (1983b). Teacher readiness for change, In P. Tamir,

A. Hofstein, & M. Ben Peretz, (Eds.), Preservice and inservice
training of science teachers (pp. 269—280). Rehovot, Israel: Balaban
International Science Services.

Gross, N., Giacquinta, J. B., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing
organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned
educational change. New York: Basic Books.

Hall, E. (1977). Beyond culture, Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company
Inc.

 

Hall, G. E. et al. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the
adoption process within educational institutions. Research and
Development Center for Teacher Education, Universtity of Texas at
Austin.

 

Hall, G. E. et al. (1975). Levels of use of an innovation: A framework

for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1),
52-56 0

Hall, G. E. (1979). The concerns based approach to facilitating change,
Educational Horizons, (Summer), 204-208.

Hamilton, D. (1975). Handling innovation in the classroom: Two Scottish
examples. In W. A. Reid, & D. F. Walker, (Eds.), Case studies in
curriculum change : Great Britain and the United States (pp. 179—205).
London: Routledge & Kegan. '

 

181

Harding J. (1975). Communication and support for change in school
science education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Chelsea College,
London. ERIC ED 123.093.

 

Harris, D., & Taylor, M. (1983). Discovery learning in school science:
Myth or reality. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(3), 277-289.

 

Havelock R. G., & Huberman A. M. (1978). Solving educational problems:
The theory and reality of innovation in developing countries. Paris:
UNESCO.

 

House, E. R. (1974). The politics of educational innovation. Berkeley,
Ca: McCutchen Publishing Co.

 

House, E. R. (1979). Technology versus craft, A ten year perspective on
innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11(1), 1-15.

 

Huberman, A. M. (1975). Understanding change in education: An
introduction. Paris: The UNESCO Press.

 

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt Rhinehart &
Winston, Inc.

 

Kogan, M. (1978). The politics of educational change. Fontana: Collins.

 

Levin, H. M. (1981). The identity crisis of educational planning.
Harvard Educational Review, 51(1), 85-93.

Lewin, K. (1981). Curriclum renewal and examination reform: a case study
from Malaysia. University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies,
Bulletin. 11(1), 34—41.

Lillis, K. (1980). Expatriates and processes of secondary curriculum
innovation in Kenya. Development Research Digest, University of Sussex,
U.K.: Institute of Development Studies, 4-

Lim, C. Y. (Ed.). (1983). Education and national development. Singapore:
Federal Publications.

Linton, R. (1945). The cultural background of personality. New York:
Appleton Century.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher, A sociological study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

182

Louks, S. F., & Hall, G. E. (1977). Assessing and facilitating the
implementation of innovations: A new approach. Educational Technology,
February, 18—21.

Louks, S., & Pratt, H. (1979). A concerns based approach to curriculum
change. Educational Leadership, .8Z(3), 212-215.

 

Maddock, M. N. (1981). Science education: An anthrolopogical viewpoint.
Studies in Science Education, ‘8, 1-26.

 

Magoon, A. J. (1977). Constructivist approaches in educational research.
Review of Educational Research, 42(4), 651-693.

 

Massey, L. E. (1980). An analysis of curriculum change. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Aukland, New Zealand.

 

Mehan, H. (1975). The reality of ethnomethodolgy. New York: Wiley.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the
classrooms. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

 

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. (rev. ed.).
New York: Free Press.

 

Merton, R. K. (1967). On theoretical sociology: Five essays, old and
new. New York: The Free Press.

 

Morris, R., & Thompson C. (1979). Curriculum development in Singapore: A
Brief Review, Report to the Ministry of Education.

 

 

Nielson, H. D. (1984, January). Recent trends and issues in science
education in Southeast Asia. Paper presented at an International Review
Meeting of Education: Science Policy, Research and Action, International
Development Research Centre, New Dehli, India.

 

Pang, E. F. (1975, August). Universities and manpower development in an
economic perspective. International Association of Universities
Bulletin, 88(3), 164—169.

 

Pang, E. F. (1979, July) Education, earnings and occupational mobility
in Singapore, Philippine Economic Journal, 18(3), 256-288.

Parsons, T. (1949). Essays in sociological theory: Pure and applied.
Glencoe, Ill: The Free Press.

183

Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. NY: Glencoe.

Ponder G., & Doyle, W. (1977, April). Teacher practicality and
curriculum change: An ecological analysis. Paper presented at the
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York.

Problem of language. (1982, December 26). The Sunday Times. p. 14.

Romberg, T. A., & Price, G. G. (1983). Curriculum development and
staff development as curriculum change. In C. Griffin (Ed.), The
Eighty-second year book of the NSSE Part II. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 154-184.

Ruddock, J. (1977). Dissemination as encounter of cultures. Research
Intelligence, Vol 3, 3-5.

Ruddock, J. (1980). Curriculum dissemination as planned cultural
diffusion. Paper presented at the American Educational research
Association annual Meeting, Boston, Mass.

Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of
change. Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon Inc.

Schwab, J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum.
Washington, DC. National Education Association, Center for Study of
Instruction.

Science teachers to learn new methods. (1982, June 2). The New Nation.

p. 8.

Shekleton, P. (1975). Educational planning in the Republic of
Singapore. A master's thesis, Canberra College of Advanced Education,
School of Teacher Education, Canberra, Australia.

Shipman, M. D., Bolam, D., & Jenkins D. R. (1974). Inside a curriculum

 

project, London: Methuen & Co.

Shulman, L. S., & Tamir, P. (1978). Science and mathematics education:

Retrospect and prospect. Occasional paper #11. Institute for Research
on Teaching, Michigan State University.

 

Sim, W. H. (1971). New methods and techniques in Malaysian education,

 

UNESCO Bulletin, Bangkok, 21(1), 61-69.

Singapore, Ministry of Education. (1959). Annual Report of the
Ministry of Education.

 

184
Singapore, Ministry of Education. (1964). A Commission of Inquiry into
Education.

Singapore, Ministry of Education. (1978). Report on the Ministry of
Education.

 

Singapore, Ministry of Education. (1982). The Lower Secondary Science

Syllabus.

Singapore Teachers Union. (1980). Perception and practice in
education. An STU report, Singapore: STU Press.

Skolnik, R. L. (1976). The nation-wide learning system of Singapore.
Occasional Paper #42. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Smith, L. M., & Geoffrey, W. (1968). The complexities of the urban
classroom. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Smith, L. M., & Keith, P. M. (1971). Anatomy of educational
innovations. NY: John Wiley.

Stake, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Case studies in science education
Vol. I, The case reports, SE 78-74. Urbana Champaign, Ill. University
of Illinois.

Stenhouse, L. (1978). Case study and case records: Towards a
contemporary history of education. British Educational Research
Journal, 4(5) 21-39.

Stenhouse, L. (1980). The study of samples and the study of cases.
British Educational Research Journal. 8(1), 1—6.

Swetz, F. J., & Meerah, S. (1982). The reform of physics teaching in
Malysian schools: A case study of curriculum adaptation. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching. 66(2), 171-180.

 

 

Tan, J. (1982, December 26). Science without tears. The Sunday Times
p. 18.

Tang, N. T. (1984, January). Investment and over—investment in science
education. Paper presented at an International Review Meeting on
Education, Science Policy, Research and Action International
Development Center, New Dehli.

185

UNESCO. (1977). Science education in the Asian region. Bulletin of
the Regional Office for Education in Asia , #18, Bangkok: United
Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization Press.

UNESCO. (1984). Bulletin of the Unesco Regional Office for Education
in Asia, #25, Bangkok: United Nations Education and Scientific and
Cultural Organization Press.

 

Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.

 

Walters, P. B. (1981). Educational change and national economic
development. Harvard Educational Review. 81(1), 94-106.

Waring, M. (1979). Social pressures and curriculum innovation: A study
of the Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project. London: Methuen.

Watson, J. K. P. (1973). Educational development in Southeast Asia.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Reading, U.K.

Welch, W. W. et al. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education.
Science Education, 8(1), 33-50.

 

Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum: A look back.
In D.C. Berkliner (Ed.). Review of Research in Education. Vol 5.
Itasca, Ill: Peacock.

Wolcott, H. (1973). The man in the principals office. NY: Holt
Rinehart & Winston.

Wolcott, H. (1977). Teachers vs. technocrats. Eugene, Ore: Center
for Educational Policy and Management.

 

Wong, R. (1974). Educational innovation in Singapore. Paris: UNESCO
Press.

Yeoh, O. C. (1981, September). Curriculum implementation by CDIS : A
summary. Singapore: Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore.

Yeoh, Personal communication, August 1981.
Zaltman, G., Florio D., & Sikorski, L. (1977). Dynamic educational

change: Models, strategies, tactics and managemenp, New York: The Free
Press. [I

 

GENERAL REFERENCES
Barber, N. (1978). The Singapore story: From Raffles to Lee Kuan Yew.
Glasgow: Fontana/Collins.

Buchanan, I. (1972). Singapore in Southeast Asia. London: G. Bell & Sons
Ltd.

Chang, D. W. (1968). Nation building in Singapore. Asian Survey, 8(9),
761-763.

 

Charters W. W., & Pelligrin, R. (1973). Barriers to the innovation
process: Four case studies of differentiated staffing. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 2, 3—14.

 

Cheah, C. K., & Ng, S. B. (1978). Introducing ecology in the lower
secondary science (LSS) programme. In Ramasarma, et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of a seminar organized by COSTED and the University .2:
Singapore.

 

Chelliah, D. D. (1947). A history of educational policy of the Straits
Settlements with recommendations for a new system based on vernaculars.
Singapore: G. H. Liat Co. Ltd.

Chen, P. S. J., & Tai,' C. L. (1977). Social ecology of Singapore.
Singapore: Federal Publications.

 

Cornbleth, C. (1984). Beyond hidden curriculum? Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 18(1), 29-36.

 

Doraisamy, T. R. (Ed.). (1969). 150 years of education in Singapore.
Singapore: Teachers Training College Publication Board.

Doyle, W. (1979). Classroom tasks and student abilities. In P. L.
Peterson, & H. J. Walberg, (Eds.), Research on teaching (pp. 183—209).
Berkeley, Ca: McCutchen.

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York:
Rhinehardt and Winston.

 

Eersel. C. H. (1968). The language problem in education and language
teaching, methods. A paper presented at 3 Symposium (CESO). The Hague,
Holland.

Erickson, F. (1973). What makes school ethnography ethnographic? Council
on Anthropology and Education Newletter, 4(2), 10-19.

186

187

Erickson, F., Florio S., & Buschman, J. (1980). Fieldwork in educational
research. (Occasional Paper No. 36). Institute for Research on Teaching,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mi.

 

Erickson, F. (1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school-community
ethnography. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 8(2), 58—69.

Erickson, F. (1985). Qualitative research on teaching. To appear in M.
C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd. ed.). New
York: Macmillan.

 

Elliot, A. B. (1979). Science in English. Singapore Journal of Education,
1(2), 28—34.

Goodenough, W. (1969). Rethinking status and role: Towards a general
model of the cultural organization of social relationships. In R. Tyler
(Ed.). Cognitive anthropology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Gopinathan, S. (1974). Towards p__national system of education in
Singapore. 1945-1973. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

 

Gwee, Y. H. (1971). (Ed.). Education and social change: Challenge of
the seventies. Singapore: Malaysia Publishing House.

Gwee, Y. H. (1975). The changing educational scene. In C. M. Seah,
(Ed.), Trends in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

 

Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday &
Company Inc.

 

Hall, E. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday &
Company Inc.

 

Hassan, R. (1977). Families in flats. Singapore: Singapore University
Press.

 

Havelock, R. G. (1970). Guide to innovation in education. Ann Arbor,
Mi.: University of Michigan.

Havelock, R. (1979). The change agents guide to innovation in education.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

Huang, L. J. (1977). The Chinese—American family. In C.H. Mindel, & R.
Habenstein (Eds.), Patterns and variations in American life (pp. 124-
145.) New York: Elsevier Press.

188

Idhe, D. (1979). Experimental phenomenology. New York: Paragon Books.

Josey, A. (1974). Lee Kuan Yew: The struggle for Singapore. Singapore:
Asia Pacific Press.

Kelly, P. J. (1978). Diffusion of innovations in science education. In
P. Tamir, A. Blum, A. Hofstein, & N. Sabar, (Eds.), Curriculum imple—
mentation and its relationship to curriculum development in science,
(pp. 19-24). Jerusalem, Israel: Science Teaching Center, Hebrew
University.

 

Lacey, C. (1977). The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen & Co.
Ltd.

 

Linton, R. (1936). The studyyof man. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co.

Makepeace, E., Brooke, G. E., & Braddell. R. St. J. (Eds.). (1921) One
hundred years of Singapore. London: John Murray.

 

Marsh, C. et al. (1983, April). International perspectives on educat—
ional change. Papers presented at the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.

 

Miles, M. (1964). Educational innovation. New York: Teacher's College
Press.

Pang, E. F. (1976). A note on educational research. Economic Research
Center, University of Singapore.

 

Parsons, T. (1954). Essays on sociological theory. New York: Free Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1983). Methods of teacher education and cultural
codes. In P. Tamir, A. Hofstein, & M. Ben-Peretz, (Eds.), Preservice and

 

inservice education for science teachers, Rehovot, Israel: Balaban
International Science Services.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1981). The social contexts of schooling, change and
educational reseach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(3), 189—206.

Quah, J. S. T., Chan, H. C., & Seah, C. M. (1985). Government and
politics of Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

 

Reid, W. A., & Walker, D. (1975). (Eds.). Case studies in curriculum
change in Great Britain and the United States. London: Routledge and
Kegan.

189

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., & Schoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovation:
A cross cultural approach. New York: Free Press.

 

Russell, T. L. (1981). Analysing classroom discourse: Can teachers
questions distort scientific authority? Paper presented to the annual
meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching,
Grossinger, NY.

 

 

Saw, S. H., & Bhathal, R. S. (Eds.). (1981). Singapore towards the year
2000. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

 

Seah, C. M. (Ed.). (1975). Trends in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore
University Press.

 

Sinclair, J. Mc H., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of
discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Sieber, S. D. (1972). Images of the practitioner and strategies of
educational change. Sociology of Education, 48, 362-385.

 

Spindler, G. (1982). Doing the ethnography of schooling : An educational
ethnography in action. New York: Holt, Rhinehardt & Winston.

 

Suchman, J. R. (1980). Heuristic learning and science education.
Journal of research in science teaching, 14(3), 263-272.

Thomas, R. M. (1980). Schooling1_in the ASEAN region. Singapore:
Singapore University Press.

UNESCO (1962). Final Report: First Regional Conference of Ministers of
Education and Those responsible for Economic Planning in Asia and
Oceania. Tokyo.

UNESCO, (1977). Science education in the Asian region. Bulletin of the
Regional Office for Education in Asia, No. 18, United Nations Education
Scientific and Cultural Organization, Bangkok.

Walker, R. (1972). The sociology of education and life in school
classrooms. International Review of Educational Research, 18, 32-41.

Walker R., & Adelman, C. (1975). A guide to classroom observation.
London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

190

Wilson, D. (1971). East meets West: Singapore. Singapore: Times
Printers.

 

Wilson, H. E. (1983). Educationalrpolicy and performance in
Singapore, 1942-1945. Occasional paper #16. Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies.

Wilson, H. E. (1978). Social engineering in Singapore. Singapore:
University of Singapore Press.

Wong, H. K. (1973). Comparative studies in Southeast Asian education.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Heineman Books.

Yeoh, K. W. (1973). Political development in Singapore, 1945-1955.
Singapore: Singapore University Press.

APPENDIX A

APPENDICES

A1

TARGET CLASS - ss/83

PARENT'S OCCUPATION
(According to the class register)*

Housewife
Hawker

Temple medium
Housewife

. Labourer

. Housewife

. Labourer

. Technician

9. Clerk

10. Taxi Driver

11. Unemployed

12. Housewife

13. Unemployed

14. Taxi driver

15. Unemployed

16. Housewife

l7. Unemployed

18. Bus attendant
19. Housewife

20. Laundryman

21. Hawker

22. Icecream seller
23. Labourer

24. Shoemaker

25. Abattoire worker
26. Shopkeeper

27. Factory manager
28. Baker

29. Lorry driver
30. Businessman

31. Housewife

32. Housewife

33. Housewife

34. Fisherman

35. Doctor

36. Private investigator
37. Labourer

38. Electrician

39. Businessman

oowoxmbwmr—a

* Note: The occupation denoted here is that of the parent that regist-
ered the child in school. Hence: if 'housewife' is listed,
the female parent registered the child. In this case, the
occupation of the male parent (which may give the most
accurate picture of the socioeconomic group of the family) was
unavailable.

APPENDIX B

A2

NEH—h man. MO was; =0<m 2H mmmo<mh mufim

mom Qm>mmmmo mUHmOH 92¢ MZHH mo H5539. QE<ADZDUU< 303m OH .3345 "N wuswfim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

monum ecu saucepan owwuam>u< M
a“ uwnuuam afiumawma kuaaonomz moaaomaou m
mumawuwuumn Iouuumfim 32:25.8 + woman—NE m H
3 “UH-Homo hwumum hmuocm 3.33 och. mucus—mam M 8 d
3333 .384 .35: .fiaom .3fi .525 .35 £53 .35... m m
m
I
kuuflz mo M I
mofiuquoum now: + unwaws 4. H
uaoamuamwmz unmaouammuz uaoamuamwoz ucoamuammwz unwamuamwox muuv
.535 .3fi .353 .35 .552 .35.. .552 .35 m
w I!
huamaon V
+ 532.. .35 m
unannoum mumauumooum :owuomummm m.I
maowuwaaamxm oaumnamoau< Hmowamso noauooamwm hufimaoo MW.a
you Bout-mm “moouom + Havana—E Kama; menace, .mmmz W m
.auano .munm .awaow .munq .awaom .munm .caamc .munm .awama .munq 7c 3
I
mmwamnu M
Hwoaamsu huamaon fl I
unmaouamuoz + Maugham uaaaousmmmz acoamusmmmz anon—museum: W V
.588 .35 .555 .35.. .553 .35 .anm .38 .553 .33 m
m
an >- 3 E. a: E. 3. E. Kb. " 3.8

 

 

 

 

 

Hosanna

 

 

APPENDIX C

A3

3.352.: 35.3 s E: is; 2 2:2...

_ \
\
\
\
\
\

 

ax

 

32.—m

”m =3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:: «(a

mans D

 

2.5.2.3

0

 

 

 

 

 

”.5323

 

2:31

 

DUDDDUI}

 

 

 

 

.32: a...“

 

DUDUDU

DECIDED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DDDDDD

DDUDDD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DDDDDD

DECIDED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DDDDDU

=2... «Essa—ll

DECIDED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\l?
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\

 

1r

....

5,—5.— a:

5.23
:93:

 

 

1.2:.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

nu...

A4.l

UEHERAL BCIIHQI 185T
' SEC. Ollh

Date:

800“” As

’ Glass:

”-

OM

Seloo‘ 'ho most suitable answer indicated in.A. D. c,n and write the correspondinc
letter in the brackets provided.

. . \
1. A crucible containinc ‘irhted kerosene wee fleatinr on water. A can jar wan inverted
over the crucible. The mouth of the can jar was under water. The water in the res

2.

3.

Jar rose one-fifth of the way up because

A. the kerosene cooled the air in thecae Jar.

D. the kerosene eenbinod.with the water.

0. a part of the air had been removed from thorns Jar.
D. the water expanded durinc the experiment.

Questions 2 -»5 refer to the apparatus below:

  

__\~<-/ (“PMS "'P

Wllhf -
L

[W] O .
\» [\(dk

If the' sprint.- elip is closed on d the water is poured into the
above . the water will

A. not be able to enter the flash.

3. becin to boil.

06 Bhoot up like a fountain.

D. flow into the flask.

 
 

The behaviour of the water in Q. 2 is caused hy
A. the shape of the flask.

D. the air present in the flash.

0. a vacuum in the flask.

D. air dissolvinc in water.

If the slip is open, the water will
4. enter the flask.

D. turn *0 100.

0. break the funnel. ‘

D. remain in the funnel.

5.

All the above observations show that
A. air has weicht.

D. the flash is heavier than air.

0. air is a licht eubstanoe.

D. n1? oceuyioe' speech

funnel as illustrated

()
(_)
()

A4.2

(2)

6. The second 1mm" element is

7.

8.

9.

i.exubencueaide.
3. crcon

co halim.

1% hwmnmmn.

Argon istnumltbr'filltac

As “11011.0

3. electric bulbs.

C. airships.

D.iflsh'huma. '

The vast ocean'et air t t surroun
A. Cutor.spaeo. "3 9‘ tbs earth is known an

D. the solar aygtqn.
C. ‘50 atmosphere.
D. an eclipse.

A common feature of rusting and burning is that they
A. give out oxygen.

8. need oxygen.

C. lose weizht.

D. need carbon dioxide.

10. Air is regarded as a mixture because

A. We can breathe in air. _
B. Air may be separated easily into its different parts.

C. Air may be compressed.
D.Air may be liquefied.

11.

12.

13.

1h.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

A4.3

”( 3.)
Heat is a term a
A. force. ‘
8. energy.
C. electricity.
0. mass.

Geothermal energy is actually

A. heat from the decay of living matter.‘

8. solar energy trapped in the earth's crust.
C. the heat caused y the mining of coal.

D. the heat of the earth's interior.

Tidal power comes from high and low tides caused by -
A. the earth's rotation.

B. the moon's attraction.

c. the sun's energy.

Do the pull or the earths

Electricity may caused by

A. letting light fall on a thermocouple.

B. sunlight shining on an accumulator.

C. turning a coil of wire near a ma net.

D. letting a strong magnet lie stil within a coil of wire.

A turbine may be turned by

A. passing steam through it.

B. usin magnets to attract it.

C. lettIng wind to blow on it.

D. lowering it into the open sea from a boat.

A dynamo works only when

A. the sun shinessen its solar panels.

B. steam is passed into its coils.

C. electricity is passed into it to turn it.

D. its magnets are rotated within its coils of wire.

Bur greatest natural source of heat energy comes from the
A. burning of coil gas,

B. burning of weed.

C. moon.

D. sun.

A torchlight battery stores
A. electrical energy.

D. chemical-energy.

C. light energy.

D. heat energy.

Which one of the following does NOT store chemical energy?
A. a torchli ht cell.

B. clamp bul .

C. food.

D. candle wax.

)

Give the energy change that takes place when an electric motor b

switched on

A. kinetic-——+ electrical.
9. chemical ---0 heat

C. electrical-'ikinetic.

D. potential-—-+kinetic.

A4.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section B. ' h ’
Fill in each of the following blanks with the correct word.
1. _is the ability to do work. ‘- '
2. energy is the energy that is stored in a body which
is not moving.
3. ’ energy is the energy of motion.
4. Four common forms of energy are , ,
and . I
5. are the products of animal and plant

 

 

matter that decayedlmany millions of years ago.
_ Total: 18 marks, 2 each
Name the form of energy present in :

a; I ENERGY
l. a piece of rock placed on the top of a cliff

 

2. a chicken on the dinner table.

 

3. an even baking some cakes.

 

4. an iron when it irons clothes.

 

5. a stret:hed rubber band.

 

6. a bullet just shot from a gun.

 

7. the spring of a wound-up watch.

 

SectienC

1. Name the 2 rare gases present in air.

 

2. Divide the given circle into sections to show the relative composition
of air. 3 ate the h present in each case. (l0 marks)

3. Give a use for each of the following inert gases: (Lmarks)

a)_H.climn=

 

b) neon:.

 

h. a. State 2 properties of air. ( 3 marks)

b.Descihe an experiment to show that air has weight. ( 6 marks)

APPENDIX E

 

Amwofi .xoonuer oceoaum mmq .oocowom mewuonxm “mounomv
.mmqom mmoH>ommlonH<zmomzHIm<lmmmo<me momomszm 9<IH mzooem<o "as mMDOHm

 

.9. =9. 9: an
£033 :9: utmost
8:25 e «a:

flute? 9* ugsumL

 

1

A5.

 

 

 
   

9: 89.? 89.3088
...o .68 B 3633

...z a...» 3:02 a:

wave?»

:0 $030 c2
268 o; ...;

   
  

2% 9. =3.Ee t eta omn—

 

_ 7533 cafJ
385v beeucm o

 

     

 

 

the 2 page 2.55.. b.3uum

.... (05): 7.05265 P62
game at... .. sons: 89. 9.

 

  

 

A5.2

Fr

”

5959.6: mm 30m
ease 283 _

.
as so
....m.e..u.w

Amonxoonuxma acmesum 60:38 .533 xm. 39:63

 

A5I3

     

Amwofi .xoonuer ucmunum mmq .oucwwom awuoH xm "wounomv

.OzH=o<m9 meDOZH OH m9<Hmmommm< mmoz wH ZUHIS MDOHszMH UZHZOHHmMDO < mamaoz H<=H ZOOHM<O "Us mMDOHh

 

839.. 3.236
a ems 2.. So some:

 

APPENDIX F

A601

TEACHER READINESS FOR CHANGE
ASSESSMENT'INSTRUMZNT

A ACCEPTING TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
Please comment on the following opinion:

Among teachers there is a lack of general acceptance of the
changes that technology has brought to school instruction.(l)
Hand-held calculators are owned by many children but they are
seen by most teachers as an inappropriate way to learn
arithmetic.(2) Instructional telev’.ion and computer-aided
instruction are seldom considered as a potentially useful
addition to the school pregramme.(3) The largest barrier is
cost, bUt apart from this, members of the teaching‘prefession
are generally opposed 'J technological change.(4)

'* Notice that each statement in the paragraph has a number

after it. Please refer to the statements as you respond
to the following questions.

a) To what extent do you think this statement is accurate?

 

 

 

b) be you think your opinion would be typical of the
views of your colleagues? '

 

 

 

C) Do you think your opinion would correspond to that
of your school principal?

 

 

 

A6.2

ANTICIPATING A NEW PROGRAMME

Please consider this dialogue between two teachers discussing
a new program.

1.

.2.

3.

4.

5.

Mr. 'K' 3 Well it will be a lot more work in the
beginning, but I'm glad we are adopting

the new program‘l’. It should help us to

make science more lnteresting‘z’.

Miss 'Y' : But is this really a new curriculum or is
it the old one with a face lift?(3! With
the new programme a lot of the important
topics are out out and we'll have to spend
more time preparing for science experiments
Will we really have time for all that?(5)
Besides, with such large class sizes how can
we allow students to do the experiments

themselves7‘6’

(4)

Mr. 'K' 3 You're right - we should set our priorities
and spend time where it should be spent‘7’.
Even though the programme has been piloted
there's no guarantee that it will work for
“3(8). But I'm willing to give it a try
as long as they don't expect us to go to
too many training sessions and workshops‘g).
Miss 'Y' s I don't see how we can conduct those class
_discussions when the students have a language
problem‘lo’.
classes being able to pass the exams at the
end of the year‘ll). Its no good spending
the whole year playing around and at the end

of the year the whole class fails their exam

Besides I'm worried about my

Mr. 'K' x I agree with you. but we have to start somewhe

and I have to admit that my classes find their

textbook both difficult and boring‘la’.

Notice each statement has a number following it. Please
refer to the statement number as you respond to each of the
following questions.

(I '

A6.3

-3-

(a) Are any of the opinions expressed above similar to your
own?

 

 

 

(b) Do you find the concern about trying out a program for
the first time to be typical of how most teachers feel?

 

 

 

(c) Please comment on any or all of the statements above if
you feel strongly about them.

 

 

 

I would appreciate any additional czmments you would like to
add. (Please refer to statement number)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

M'TITI'MINNLISIIIMIIfllTjiIflfflfljflMifllBflRWES