Please write your article directly into this template.

Section PRIMARY EDUCATION

Article topic CURRICULUM

Country SINGAPORE

Author 1 Yew-Jin Lee

Author 1 affiliation Yew-Jin Lee is Associate Professor at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore

Author 2 --

Author 2 affiliation --

Date created /2018

Length 1529 words

Keywords [not included in total word count]

Primary Education; Singapore; Teachers; Curriculum

Glossary terms [not included in total word count]

21st century competencies: A widely-desired set of outcomes of contemporary schooling although

consensus on its components has never been achieved. In Singapore, these competencies are
defined as encompassing a variety of social and emotional elements (e.g., self-management,
responsible decision-making, relationship management) as well as a number of skills (e.g., critical
thinking, collaboration, communication & information skills). Together, they are believed to enable
youth to work and flourish in an increasingly globalized and uncertain world.

Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST): Master teachers are located at the AST, which is the
branch of the Ministry of Education concerned with raising teacher professionalism and providing
professional development for all government teachers in Singapore.

Master Teachers: A select group (< 150 in the country) of experienced subject specialists who
demonstrate high-quality teaching and leadership in mentoring others in pedagogy. They are at the
pinnacle of their profession as classroom teachers.
Curriculum Making & Resources
Research on the curriculum in primary education.
The primary curriculum in Singapore has been relatively insulated from the scrutiny
of research (see Fang, [2002] for social studies; Kesevamoorthy (2011) for world
music; Lee et al. [2017] and Tay [1993] for science); much of what we know has to
be inferred from studies of system-wide reforms and educational initiatives in the
country (Chan, 2011; Deng, Gopinathan & Lee, 2013). In 1997, the radically
transformative Thinking Schools, Learning Nation policies justified cultivating a
genuine passion for learning by moving away from a fixation on exam scores. This
paved the way for Teach Less, Learn More in 2004 inaugurated by no less than the
Prime Minister himself. Rather than rote learning and memorization as default
pedagogies, student inquiry, risk-taking, and engaged learning were their
replacements. Stressful assessment methods and teacher-centered classrooms
were to make way for more collaborative student projects, open-book tests, and
critical or creative thinking skills in every subject. These broad reforms also
coincided with another ambitious blueprint for change by the Ministry of Education
(MOE) at the beginning of this century––Ability-Driven Education (ADE)––that tried
to mass customise learning to meet the needs of diverse learners: Every
Singaporean counted, every talent was valued was the mantra. There were other
reforms in the last two decades, but these descriptions give a flavour of the sea
change in educational policies that have impacted the primary curriculum here.
Of significance was the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) in
2009 that recommended changing mindsets concerning curriculum and pedagogies
as well as promoting student agency and out-of-class learning. Apart from lessening
the emphasis on formal assessments at lower primary levels, PERI advocated
holistic assessment practices that could paint a more meaningful profile of the quality
of learning for both parents and students. Moreover, it argued for the importance of
balancing knowledge with skills and values in a whole-school curriculum that was
facilitated by a high-quality teaching force.
Other influences. Koh (2004) labelled the above changes as tactical responses to
globalization for at their heart, they were attempts to develop people who could think
out of the box as well as educate competent citizen-workers fully at ease with living
and working in the new economy. In primary schools, formative assessment or
Assessment for Learning (AfL) has taken off massively with the close support of the
MOE who provided workshop materials and new staff appointments such as AfL
facilitators in each primary school. This enthusiasm to make routine assessment
practices bolster learning to build student autonomy has resonated with many other
educational systems since the 2000s (Sinnema & Aitkin, 2013).
Curriculum structure. The structure of the local curriculum falls into three domains
to ensure students obtain a well-rounded education (MOE, 2018a):
 Subject disciplines––the typical school subject areas of the languages,
mathematics, sciences, humanities and the arts
 Knowledge skills––various thinking and communication skills taught/infused
through schools subjects, often through project-work that are assessed or
demonstrated individually or collaboratively in groups
 Life skills––facilitated in daily social interactions informally (e.g., with
teachers/classmates during the Form Teacher Guidance Periods) and formally
(Character and Citizenship Education, Co-curricular Activities [CCA], Physical
Education, National Education etc.) to build the right values and civic
responsibility.
While English is studied as a first language, all students must attend Mother Tongue
(Chinese, Malay or Tamil languages) lessons as part of a longstanding policy of
bilingualism. Even though English is increasingly the lingua franca in households,
teaching the second languages remains a priority with differentiated instructional
approaches in place and a greater emphasis now on listening and speaking skills for
everyday fluency. Furthermore, there has been a move towards helping students
actively explore the relevance of what they learn in school with the real world (the
Applied Learning and Learning for Life Programmes), which also heightens the
personal meaningfulness of abstract school subjects (e.g., using makerspaces to
solve community issues, growing and harvesting rice/vegetables to share with the
less fortunate). The buzzword heard often in Singapore schools is “the joy of
learning” that few would disagree is so critical in primary education and indeed to all
levels.
Curriculum process. The MOE plans and revises the national curricula in a year-
long and careful process of consultation with school leaders, classroom teachers,
subject specialists, Master Teachers from the Academy of Singapore Teachers
(AST), teacher trainers from the National Institute of Education, staff from the
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB), Singapore Science Center,
government statutory boards and sometimes even representatives from industry.
These revision cycles occur once every five to six years and the intent is to keep the
curriculum updated with changes in the discipline as well as ensuring that students
are equipped with appropriate skills. The local primary curriculum is an indigenous
one although incorporating a number of the best elements from all over the world.
This partnership approach in curriculum reviewing has been described in the context
of primary science by Chin and Poon (2014). They list three main stages:
● Scanning the educational landscape - Tracking curriculum developments and
associated research studies across the world for evidence-based decision-
making
● Seeking feedback from classroom practitioners – A sample of teachers are
interviewed or surveyed regarding the teaching and assessment of the subject
in their schools. Questions asked include verifying if the content is accurate or
outdated in any way, or if something should be removed or added or perhaps
expressed poorly
● Forming an expert review panel – various representatives as mentioned
previously might be invited to deliberate all aspects of the revised curriculum.
While contributions from everyone are welcomed and respected, the MOE
has the final say
In terms of implementation, new changes in curricula are usually staggered over a
few years especially if these involve major changes to pedagogy or assessment.
This is to allow schools that adopt reforms in later phases to learn from the
successes as well as failures of the schools participating in the initial phases. Little is
left to chance in curriculum planning or implementation in Singapore and all schools
enjoy frequent, timely, and easy access to help from the MOE.

Textbooks. Although local and international commercial publishers (e.g., Hodder

Education, Marshall Cavendish Education, Star Publishing) are currently writing and
selling textbooks, final textbook approval rests with the MOE. Textbook authors have
to conform to MOE expectations and ensure full coverage of the learning outcomes.
Other criteria to be strictly respected include appropriate reading difficulty,
affordability, accuracy of content knowledge, clear representations, logical
sequencing of concepts/paragraphs, having sufficient locally relevant examples, and
other important pedagogical considerations. An increasing number of textbooks are
now being written by MOE writers as it was felt that they are better placed to
understand the new spirit of active and engaged learning such as those relating to
the learning of 21st century competencies (MOE, 2018b). Students must buy their
own textbooks or workbooks, but there are adequate provisions for obtaining free
materials if they are in want.

Teaching Resources. Teachers in mainstream schools are adequately resourced;

the MOE supplies teaching guides that are updated regularly for all subjects as well
as provides training in appreciating their philosophy (e.g., intent, goals) and the
practicalities of enactment (e.g., sequencing, pacing, pitching, facilitation skills etc).
Many teachers frequently customise and devise teaching resources to cater to their
students. From 2018, an e-learning portal (Student Learning Space) hosted by the
MOE has been available to all students. This protected virtual space contains a vast
array of activity suggestions, short videos, web pages, animations, quizzes, and
other resources to help students become more autonomous learners as well as
complement school instruction.

Curriculum Standards, Assessments & Contextual Influences

Standards. Curricula in school subjects are centrally determined by the MOE
although schools might attempt some aspects of school-based curriculum
development to better satisfy and adjust to their learners’ needs. While all subjects
are never neglected, more attention is understandably paid to the four subjects
(English, Mother Tongue, Mathematics, Science) that are examined in the Primary
School Leaving Examination (PSLE). The latter is a terminal examination at the end
of Primary 6 and the scores obtained here determine the choice of secondary school
after graduation.
Content. Each school determines their own monthly or weekly schemes of work to
organize learning outcomes from the national syllabus into manageable portions.
Schools have a large amount of freedom to sequence subject matter although
ultimately the coverage of the syllabus will be identical in all schools.
Assessments. Schools assessments comprise middle- and end-of-year semestral
examinations (summative) and a number of continual assessments (formative) that
together determine academic progress and promotion to the next grade. Individual
teachers (and often as a department) design, vet, and mark all school assessments
including a steady stream of formative quizzes, drill-and-practice material, and
homework that might or might not be graded (see Toh & Leong, 2014). In recent
years, there has been a distinct trend towards higher-order thinking skills in schools,
a shift that aligns with aforementioned educational reforms and 21st century
competencies.
Stakeholders. Community, government or industry partners are often sought to
enhance or add authenticity to the learning of students through assembly talks, job
shadowing, and field trips. However, they do not influence the contents or
implementation of the formal primary curriculum directly.
Further reading and online resources [not included in total word count]

Academy of Singapore Teachers [AST]. (2018), AST Website,

https://www.academyofsingaporeteachers.moe.gov.sg/ [accessed 1 August
2018].
Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2015), ‘PISA and High Performing Education
Systems: Reflections on Preliminary Findings in the Context of Asian Knowledge
Building’,
http://www.headfoundation.org/papers/_2015_64)_PISA_and_high_performing_e
ducation_systems-.pdf [accessed 1 August 2018].
Lee, Y.-J. (2010), ‘Not if but when pedagogy collides with culture in Singapore’,
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(1), 17–26. DOI
10.1080/15544800903406274
MOE. (2018a), MOE Website, https://www.moe.gov.sg/ [accessed 27 June
2018].
MOE. (2018b), 21st century competencies,
https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/21st-century-competencies
[accessed 27 June 2018].
National Institute of Education [NIE]. (n.d.), NIE website, https://www.nie.edu.sg/
[accessed 1 August 2018].
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board [SEAB]. (2018), SEAB Website.
http://www.seab.gov.sg/ [accessed 27 June 2018].
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2016),
Country Note: Singapore, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-singapore.pdf
[accessed 1 August 2018].
Wolf, J. M., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. (2008), ‘Polices of promise and practices of
limit: Singapore’s literacy education policy landscape and its impact on one
school programme,’ Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(1), 151-
164. DOI 10.1007/s10671-008-9048-z
Wong. H. M, (2017), ‘Curricular problem solving in School-Based Curriculum
Development for high-ability learners: A case study of a teacher team’s trek
through expansive learning in practice’, Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

References [not included in total word count]

Chan, C. M. L. (2011), ‘An analysis of the 2004/05 Teach Less, Learn More
policy in Singapore’, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Western
Australia, Perth, Australia.
Chin, T.-Y., & Poon, C. L. (2014), ‘Design and implementation of the National
Primary Science Curriculum: A partnership approach in Singapore’, In Tan, A.-L. ,
Poon, C. L.. & Lim, S. S. L. (eds), Inquiry into the Singapore science classroom:
Research and practices, Dordrecht: Springer: 27-46.
Deng, Z., Gopinathan, S., & Lee, K.-E. C. (eds) (2013), ‘Globalization and the
Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom’, Singapore: Springer.
Fang, S. I. (2002), ‘A historical development of the primary social studies
curriculum in Singapore’, Unpublished Masters thesis, National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Koh, A. (2004), ‘Singapore education in “New Times”: Global/local imperatives’,
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(3), 335–349.
Kesevamoorthy, S. (2011), ‘World music in the Singapore primary school
music curriculum’, Unpublished Masters thesis, National Institute of Education,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., Jin, Q., Yoon, H.-G., & Matsubara, K. (2017), ‘East-Asian
primary science curricula: An overview using revised Bloom’s Taxonomy’,
Dordrecht: Springer.
Sinnema, C., & Aitkin, G. (2013), ‘Emerging international trends in curriculum’, In
M. Priestly & G. Biesta (eds.), Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in
curriculum policy and practice, London, Bloomsbury Academic: 141–163.
Tay, E. L. K. (1993), ‘The teaching and learning of primary science in Singapore’,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Toh, P.-G., & Leong, S.-C. (2014), ‘Assessment in Singapore: Perspectives for
classroom practice’, Singapore: Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board.