Children's Lifeworlds in A Global City - Singapore

Global Childhoods in the Asia-Pacific 2
Li Mei Johannah Soo ·

Nanthini Karthikeyan · Kam Ming Lim ·
Clare Bartholomaeus · Nicola Yelland
Children’s
Lifeworlds in a
Global City:
Singapore
Global Childhoods in the Asia-Pacific
Volume 2
Series Editors
Nicola Yelland , Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of
Melbourne, Carlton, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Clare Bartholomaeus , Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of
Melbourne, Carlton, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
The Global Childhoods in the Asia-Pacific series provides an in-depth analysis of
children’s lifeworlds in different locations in the Asia-Pacific. The volumes in the
series explore connections between policy contexts, school experiences and everyday
activities of children growing up in global cities in the Asian Century.
This Series draws on the concept of lifeworlds to consider all aspects of primary
school-age children’s lived experiences at school, at home, and in the commu-
nity, where they are growing up in conditions of rapid globalisation, technological
advancement and social transformation. Children’s lifeworlds are particularly impor-
tant to consider in the current global educational landscape that is focused on what
has become known as international high-stakes testing. This Series provides a picture
of children’s lifeworlds which takes into account the broader context of children’s
educational experiences and outcomes. The Series explores areas such as the broader
policy context, pedagogical strategies, curriculum, timetables, assessment, wellbeing
and belonging, homework and tutoring, and out-of-school activities.
This Series focuses its attention on the Asia-Pacific region, and allows for a
broader consideration of the impacts of location at the local, regional, and global
levels. Alongside an edited overview book, each volume in the Series dedicates a
book-length focus to one global city and draws on the same research methodology
and methods. Each volume thus presents a thorough-going exploration of children’s
lifeworlds in the location, including a consideration of complexities and diversity.
By drawing on an interdisciplinary approach which utilises educational, sociological
and cultural studies research design, methods and theories, this Series brings new
and innovative interdisciplinary insights into dialogue with educational research.
Please contact Grace Ma at grace.ma@springer.com if you wish to discuss a book
proposal.
Li Mei Johannah Soo · Nanthini Karthikeyan ·
Kam Ming Lim · Clare Bartholomaeus ·
Nicola Yelland
Children’s Lifeworlds
in a Global City: Singapore
Li Mei Johannah Soo Nanthini Karthikeyan
National Institute of Education Singapore Institute of Technology
Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore
Singapore, Singapore
Clare Bartholomaeus
Kam Ming Lim Melbourne Graduate School of Education
National Institute of Education University of Melbourne
Nanyang Technological University Carlton, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Singapore, Singapore
Nicola Yelland
Melbourne Graduate School of Education
University of Melbourne
Carlton, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
ISSN 2730-7816 ISSN 2730-7824 (electronic)

Global Childhoods in the Asia-Pacific
ISBN 978-981-19-6644-6 ISBN 978-981-19-6645-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all of the students, teachers, principals and schools who were involved
in the research.
We also thank Grace Liyan Ma, Kavitha Sathish and Nick Melchior at Springer
for their work in bringing about this book.
The Australian Research Council (ARC) provided funding for the project
Global childhoods: Lifeworlds and educational success in Australia and Asia
(DP180100325), and additional funding was provided by the National Institute of
Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (project reference number
RS 4/18 LKM).
We thank the Ministry of Education (Singapore) and the Nanyang Technological
University for granting ethics approval for the project, and the Ministry of Education
(Singapore) for giving us permission to reprint Fig. 2.2.
As this book is part of the large Global Childhoods project, we acknowledge the
rest of the project team in Australia and Hong Kong. We thank Dr. Sandy Muspratt
for his earlier statistical analyses, some of which we have drawn on and added to in
this book.
Finally, we acknowledge and thank Dr. Catherine Chua for the initial work
conducted and Fiona Richards from Expert Writing Services for her editorial work
on the book.
v
Contents
1 Introduction: Children’s Lifeworlds in the Global City

of Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The Global Childhoods Project: Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 The Context: Globalisation and Global Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Considering Children’s Lifeworlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.1 Children in Schools: Policy and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4.1 Online Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4.2 Ethnographic Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4.3 Learning Dialogues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4.4 Re-enactments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5 Case Study Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.5.1 School Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5.2 School Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.6 Outline of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Children in the Singapore Education System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1 Brief History of Education in Pre-independent Singapore . . . . . . . 18
2.2 Education Policies and Changes in Post-independent
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1 The Four Phases of Educational Development
in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3 Current Education Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3.1 The Need for Leisure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4 Looking Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.1 Holistic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.2 Revision to Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4.3 Streaming to Subject-Based Banding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4.4 Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.4.5 Education for Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
vii
viii Contents
2.4.6 Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3 Timetabling and Routines in Singapore Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1 Timetables: Structures for Achieving Educational Policies
and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2 Timetables in Primary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.1 Difference in Time Allocation for the Two Schools . . . . . . 38
3.2.2 Autonomy to Timetable Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.3 Teacher and Classroom Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.4 Examination Versus Non-examination Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.5 Recess Time and Snack Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3 School and Classroom Routines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.1 Lesson Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.2 Classroom Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.3 Volume and Noise Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.4 Classroom Logistical Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.5 Group Work Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3.6 Silent Reading Routine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3.7 Home-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4 Pedagogical Encounters: Analysing Teaching and Learning
in Singapore Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.1 Learning by Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.1.1 Experiencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.1.2 Conceptualising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1.3 Analysing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1.4 Applying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2 Pedagogical Encounters in Two Singapore Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.2.1 Knowledge Processes Utilised in an English Lesson
at School Equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2.2 Knowledge Processes Utilised in a Mathematics
Lesson at School Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2.3 Knowledge Processes Utilised in an Art Lesson
at School Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
at School Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5 Engagement and Orientations to Success in Singapore Schools . . . . . 77
5.1 What Did the Students Look Forward to at School? . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.1.1 Academic Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Contents ix
5.1.2 Physical Education (PE) and Co-curricular Activities

(CCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.1.3 Social Activities and Interactions with Friends . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2 What Did the Students Learn in School? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.3 How Did the Students Feel About How They Were Doing
at School? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.4 What Did the Students Want to Do When They Left School? . . . . 96
5.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6 School Belonging and Wellbeing in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.1 Theorising School Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.1.1 Microsystem Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.1.2 Mesosystem Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.1.3 Exosystem, Macrosystem and Chronosystem Levels . . . . . 112
6.2 Students’ Self-perceptions and Their Schoolwork and Grades . . . . 113
6.2.1 Hardworking and Serious Students? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.2.2 Students’ Descriptions of Their Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6.2.3 Students’ Happiness with Their Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.2.4 Relationships Between Grades and Happiness . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.2.5 A Focus on Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3 Relationships Between Teachers and Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.4 Relationships Between Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.5 Students’ Enjoyment of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7 Activities Outside of School in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.1 Overview of Activities Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.2 Time Spent on Homework Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.3 Time Spent on Academic Enrichment Outside of School . . . . . . . . 142
7.4 Time Spent on Non-academic Enrichment Classes Outside
of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
7.5 Time Spent on Leisure Activities Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.6 Re-enactment: The Out-of-School Life of a 10-Year-Old
Child in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
7.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
8 Lifeworlds of 9 and 10-Year-Old Children Living and Learning
in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
8.1 Being a School Student in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
8.2 Timetables and Routines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
8.3 Pedagogical Encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
8.4 Engagement and Orientations to Educational Success . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.5 Wellbeing and Sense of Belonging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
x Contents
8.6 Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

8.7 Where to Next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.8 Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8.9 Values-Based Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.10 Connecting School and Out-of-School Lifeworlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
8.11 Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
About the Authors
Dr. Li Mei Johannah Soo lectures in Consumer Food Sciences at the National Insti-
tute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. She has more than 25 years
of teaching experience from secondary to tertiary levels, specialising in the field
of sustainable consumption, nutrition and food science education. Her training in
psychological assessment and measurement from her MEd also brings expertise in
attitude scale and questionnaire design. Johannah’s research interest includes exam-
ining food-related behaviours and attitudes of consumers, especially in measuring
societal resilience in the event of food shortage crisis, Global Childhood, and
integration of STEM education into Family and Consumer Sciences curriculum.
Nanthini Karthikeyan is an Assistant Manager at the Singapore Institute of Tech-

nology (SIT). She is currently undertaking research on Workplace Learning and
Competency-based Education. She previously worked as a Research Assistant in
the National Institute of Education at the Nanyang Technological University, Singa-
pore. She has varied working experience in research projects like Financial Literacy,
Standard Spoken Tamil and Student Perceptions. Her research interests include
student engagement, student-teacher interaction, classroom language and workplace
learning.
Associate Professor Kam Ming Lim is the Registrar and an Associate Professor
at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University in
Singapore. In his previous position as Associate Dean, he led the development and
revamp of NIE Teacher Education programmes. His research grants were worth more
than two million Singapore dollars. His research expertise includes teacher educa-
tion, prosocial behaviour, and help-seeking behaviour. He was the (1) President,
Asia-Pacific Educational Research Association (2018–2021), (2) Council member,
World Education Research Association (2015–2019), and (3) President, Educa-
tional Research Association of Singapore (2015–2019). The Singapore government
conferred him the Public Administration Medal in 2015.
xi
xii About the Authors
Dr. Clare Bartholomaeus is a Research Fellow in the Melbourne Graduate School

of Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her key research interests
include gender, diversity and children/young people. She has published widely in the
areas of education, gender studies, health and family studies. This includes the books
Transgender people and education (with Damien Riggs, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017)
and Home and away: Mothers and babies in institutional spaces (with Kathleen
Connellan, Clemence Due, and Damien Riggs, Lexington Books, 2021).
Professor Nicola Yelland is the Professor of Early Childhood Studies in

the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne,
Australia. Her teaching and research interests are related to transformative peda-
gogies and the use of new technologies in school and community contexts. She
has worked in East Asia and examined the culture and curriculum of school
settings. Nicola’s work engages with educational issues with regard to varying
social, economic and political conditions and thus requires multidisciplinary perspec-
tives. Nicola effectively links research with practice so that her audience is able to
critically explore the nexus of theory and practice.
Chapter 1
Introduction: Children’s Lifeworlds
in the Global City of Singapore
Abstract This chapter introduces the Singapore book for the Global Childhoods
project. The book provides a comprehensive overview of how the lifeworlds of
Primary 4 children (9–10 years old) are shaped in Singapore and the various factors
that intertwine in their lives. The chapter gives a brief background to Singapore and
the project before outlining the concepts of global cities and lifeworlds. The chapter
also provides details of the research methods and participating schools, as well as a
brief summary of the chapters in the book.
Keywords Global childhoods · Children’s lifeworlds · Global cities · International

high-stakes testing · Children in Singapore
Singapore is a small island city. From early historical records circa AD 1298, the
island was known as “Temasek” which means a “sea town”. As it is south of Malaysia,
it is strategically located along the important maritime routes of Southeast Asia. In
the fourteenth century, it was renamed Singapura, or Lion City, by Prince Sang
Nila Utama, a Palembang prince. Even though the island lacks natural resources, its
location was attractive to traders who wanted to obtain spices from the region. The
British colonised the island and renamed it Singapore in 1819. As a trading post,
many people migrated to the island, creating a culturally diverse society. From 1942
to 1945, Singapore was occupied by the Japanese during World War II. Until then,
the country remained largely a fishing and farming village. After that, Singapore
remained a British colony. In 1963, Singapore became part of Malaysia and then, in
1965, obtained its independence. Singapore has since entered an age of modernisa-
tion through industrialisation. Modern Singapore is a global city and a melting pot
of ethnicities and cultures. With an area of only about 700 km2 , the island has a
population of 5.45 million people, comprising 74.2% Chinese, 13.7% Malay, 8.9%
Indian and 3.2% from other groups (Department of Statistics Singapore, 2021). Over
97% of the population aged 15 years and over are literate (Department of Statistics
Singapore, 2021). The official languages of Singapore are English, Malay, Chinese
and Tamil. These are regarded as the Mother Tongue languages to reflect the ethnic
diversity of the main population groups of the country. Singapore has adopted a
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 1
L. M. J. Soo et al., Children’s Lifeworlds in a Global City: Singapore,
Global Childhoods in the Asia-Pacific 2,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_1
2 1 Introduction: Children’s Lifeworlds in the Global City …
bilingual policy in which English is regarded as the first language and is used as the
main medium of instruction in schools, with the Mother Tongue forming the second
language for each of the three main groups (Lee & Phua, 2020). The average house-
hold size in Singapore is quite small—3.22 persons per household (Department of
Statistics Singapore, 2021). Most Singapore families have only one or two children,
predominantly in two couple families, and the fertility rate is continuing to decline
(Department of Statistics Singapore, 2021).
In Singapore, discourses of children are often based on education and their role
as students, with a particular focus on academic achievement. Although school is
an inevitable part of children’s lives, it is also important to explore the lifeworlds
of children more broadly and consider the context of their surroundings. In this
project, we used the concept of “lifeworlds” to holistically examine children’s lives
at school, at home and in the community (Yelland et al., 2012, 2017). This book
provides a glimpse of the lives of primary school students in Singapore and the
different elements that make up their lifeworlds.
In this first chapter, we describe the aim of the Global Childhoods: Lifeworlds
and Educational Success in Australia and Asia project (funded by the Australian
Research Council) and the contents of this book. This research project investigated
the lifeworlds of 9- and 10-year-old children in Singapore, Melbourne and Hong
Kong, i.e. the everyday experiences of these children inside and outside of school.
In this book, we focus on Singapore, which is known for having a well-developed
education system where students perform highly in both local and international high-
stakes tests, but which is also slowly evolving to incorporate a more holistic education
system which does not only focus on academic performance. The Singapore educa-
tion system is generally well known for its effectiveness in the development of the
country’s only resource—human capital. Students in Singapore have achieved high
academic test scores in international assessment measures, such as the Trends in Inter-
national Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Progress in International Reading
Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA). Students’ academic success is likely to be a result of more than the formal
school curriculum, as it also relates to the environment provided by the society and
the family at home. Hence, this research holistically examined the lifeworlds of
Singapore primary school students, both at school and outside of school. Such a
holistic approach to children’s lives is unusual for Singapore; therefore, this book
contributes to a greater understanding of the totality of children’s everyday lives in
the city.
Major empirical research on schooling in Singapore has been conducted by the
National Institute of Education’s (NIE) Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice
(CRPP), established in 2002. The CRPP research programme was described in detail
in a paper published by Luke et al. (2005). The areas of research led by Luke and over
100 researchers considered: (1) student background and achievement; (2) student and
teacher attitudes, beliefs, motivations, strategies and practices; (3) classifications and
framing of knowledge in classrooms; (4) linguistic, interactional and activity struc-
ture of classroom phases, lessons and units; (5) knowledge and intellectual arte-
facts; and (6) life pathways, destinations and educationally acquired capital. More
1.1 The Global Childhoods Project: Singapore 3
recently, the research centre has directed its focus on five areas under the NIE Educa-
tion Research Funding Programme (2018–2022): (1) schools, leadership and system
studies; (2) cognitive, emotional and social development; (3) teacher professionalism
and learning; (4) learning sciences and innovation; and (5) lifelong learning, cogni-
tion and wellbeing (CRPP, n.d.). Since the establishment of CRPP, there have been
numerous research projects, mainly focusing on one of the above-mentioned areas
and/or centred on subject area and assessment.
We believe that this book is unique in focusing on multiple aspects of the lifeworlds
of children in Singapore. A search on EBSCOhost database showed a dearth of
research on children’s lifeworlds in Singapore. Search results for “out of school,
outside school, after school” yielded one paper by Ellis (2014) regarding the cultural
trait of being afraid of losing out, that focused on Singapore practitioners, but not
on students. This book goes beyond past research, providing empirical data on the
activities of 9- and 10-year-old Singapore students and considering how these help
them to orient themselves to achieve educational success.
In this chapter, we describe the background to this research, and in the following
chapter, focus on the broader Singapore education system. The book then dedicates
a chapter to each of the following topics: timetables and routines in primary schools;
pedagogical approaches in the Singapore curriculum and as enacted in classrooms;
students’ engagement in school and orientations to educational success; and students’
sense of belonging and wellbeing at school. After this in-depth analysis of children’s
lifeworlds in school, we examine children’s activities outside of school, reflecting on
their home and family lives. In the final chapter, we provide a synthesis of findings,
with a focus on a deeper understanding of the lifeworlds of Singapore children.
1.1 The Global Childhoods Project: Singapore
In examining the everyday lifeworlds of children in Singapore, we consider the inter-

twining of their educational and cultural backgrounds, family structure and general
perception towards life. We based this study on theoretical concepts of global cities
(Sassen, 2001) and lifeworlds, which are outlined in more detail below. Throughout
this book, we offer an insight into the everyday activities of children’s lives inside and
outside of school. The Global Childhoods project explored the lifeworlds of Primary
4 (Year 4) students (9–10 years old) in Melbourne, Hong Kong and Singapore (for
further details, see Lee et al., forthcoming). Primary 4 students are the focus of the
project as this is the age students are included in international high-stakes testing
(e.g. TIMSS and PIRLS). We use the phrase Primary 4 as this is most relevant to the
Singapore context. The current project builds on a previous project called Millennial
Kids Learning (e.g. Yelland & Muspratt, 2018; Yelland et al., 2012, 2013, 2017).
1.2 The Context: Globalisation and Global Cities
Rapid globalisation coupled with unprecedented growth in technology has had a

significant impact on economic structures, knowledge transfer, migration, family
living patterns, new markets and more (Sassen, 2001). Watson noted that globalisa-
tion can be regarded as the process whereby geographical constraints on economic,
cultural and societal organisation progressively recede (Watson, 1995, as cited
in Thompson, 2012). The worldwide distribution of economic activities calls for
strategic control which is operated from global cities. Sassen’s (2001) global city
model and her conceptualisation explain the characteristics of a global city. For
Sassen, the four key functions of the global city include: (1) serving as the headquar-
ters for vital economic activities; (2) being a key location for finances and specialised
service firms providing professional and corporate services to international firms; (3)
being the main centre of research and production and serving as headquarters for the
producer services; and (4) being the key markets for the products and innovations
produced in those cities (Robinson, 2009; Sassen, 2001). However, it is important
to note that there is no one framework that provides the requirements for a global
city as there are different pathways for determining what is classed as a global city
(Olds & Yeung, 2004).
This book focuses on Singapore, which can be considered as a global city that
continues to attract global enterprises due to its high-quality governance and work-
force, communication and technology, transportation, strategic global location and
state-of-the-art infrastructure (Austin, 2015). Multiple factors have contributed to
Singapore’s evolution as a global city, despite it being a country no larger than many
other large cities in the world, coupled with no natural resources or multilateral aid.
In fact, Singapore has multiple niche areas which have transformed it into an impor-
tant global city. Firstly, Singapore has restructured and re-engineered its landscape to
make space for state-of-the-art infrastructure, healthcare, education, legal and finan-
cial systems, which are continuously maintained and remodelled. Secondly, from a
country which originated as a repository for foreign investments, it has been trans-
formed into an active exporter of developmental capital to various countries in the
world, making it a crucial economic hub. Finally, the governance in Singapore has
formulated policies, programmes and projects that enables a seamless flow of mate-
rial and services (Olds & Yeung, 2004). The Kearney (2021) Global Cities Report
has consistently ranked Singapore as one of the top ten global cities in the world.
1.3 Considering Children’s Lifeworlds
This book focuses on the lifeworlds of children by considering their activities,

lifestyles and interactions with the community, all of which take place as they grow
up in a global city impacted by globalisation (Yelland et al., 2012, 2017). The term
lifeworld pays attention to the everyday experiences that make up children’s lives. In
1.3 Considering Children’s Lifeworlds 5
this book, we refer to the term “lifeworlds” to understand the children’s lives holis-
tically—at school, at home and in the community (Yelland et al., 2012, 2017)—and
their understandings of their everyday life.
With much focus on education on a global scale, certain aspects of children’s
everyday lifeworlds are often overlooked. Taking children’s lifeworlds as a unit of
analysis, in this book we focus on the interrelationship between education policies,
classroom experiences and interactions outside of school by closely examining data
collected from two primary schools. These case studies are not meant to be a repre-
sentative or definitive view of Singapore children, but rather an attempt to illustrate
some of the aspects of their lifeworlds in a specific cohort. Alongside these case
studies, we offer an analysis of policy and curriculum in Singapore.
1.3.1 Children in Schools: Policy and Practices
This study is based on data which had various components to explore the perceptions
of children in terms of their understanding towards life in general, including details
on how they approach school life, and their voluntary and non-voluntary activities
inside and outside of school. In addition, we particularly draw on our ethnographies
of primary school life in Singapore. We also consider the various factors influencing
and affecting the children’s lives such as governance and policies, globalisation and
other factors that impact the lives of children in Singapore.
Changes to education and its related policies are an important influence on chil-
dren’s lives, and it is imperative to understand how the current generation of students
are experiencing and adapting to the education policies that are increasingly influ-
enced by global ideas. In the face of an increasingly “VUCA” (Volatile, Uncer-
tain, Complex, Ambiguous) world (Bennis & Burt, 1985), the OECD (2018) offers
the “OECD Learning Framework 2030” with underpinning principles for future
education that will empower students to be future-ready. It advocates that curricula
should evolve in a radical manner to face the latest scientific developments and an
augmenting array of societal problems. While the OECD envisions students to be
empowered with “a broad set of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values in action”
(OECD, 2018, p. 4), the current education system in Singapore is still heavily focused
on tests and examinations. For locations like Singapore, the framework goes a step
further by requiring students to undertake international high-stakes testing (TIMSS,
PIRLS and PISA). The education system is perceived in terms so that a student’s
“success” is often determined, or defined, by how they perform in these tests as well
as in local examinations. Chapter 5 discusses this in detail in relation to orientations
to educational success specifically in Singapore.
Where international high-stakes testing regimes are concerned, schooling systems
in East Asia are considered exemplars of high levels of performance, and there are
many sources exploring Singapore’s high academic test results among academic
researchers (e.g. Deng & Gopinathan, 2016; Dimmock & Tan, 2016; Soh, 2017; Tan,
2019) and in the media (e.g. Morrison, 2020; Petersen, 2019). International assess-
ments such as TIMSS, which are completed by students in Primary 4 and Secondary
2 (Year 8), provide performance data on mathematics and science achievements
of students across the globe. PIRLS, which is completed by students in Primary
4, monitors reading and comprehension achievement across nations. The OECD’s
PISA tests 15-year-olds on their reading, mathematics and science knowledge and
skills. Singapore takes pride in the stellar performance of their students in these inter-
national tests in which they continue to demonstrate a strong mastery of numeracy,
linguistic and scientific literacy (Ministry of Education, MOE, 2020) as identified
by items in the tests. However, with added pressure to maintain and enhance the
excellent performance of the students in such tests, critics often argue that there has
been too much emphasis on academic performance which has increased the stress
level of students. For example, the report from PISA 2015 shows that 86% of Singa-
pore students reported that they were worried about poor grades at school, while the
OECD average was 66% (OECD, 2017). In addition, 74% of Singapore students were
often worried that taking a test would be difficult (compared to the OECD average
of 59%) and 76% of Singapore students reported feeling anxious about a test, even
when they were well prepared (compared to the OECD average of 55%) (OECD,
2017). These findings could be the unintended consequence of the high performance
in tests and the competitive Singaporean mentality to outperform others (Davie,
2017; Ng, 2020). Meanwhile, the OECD has also stressed that metacognitive skills,
lifelong learning and understanding culture, are much needed dispositions to adapt
to a changing environment (OECD, 2018) and that it is an opportune time to focus
on the holistic development of students in Singapore rather than purely on academic
achievement. Further details about the Singapore education system are provided in
Chap. 2.
1.4 Research Methods
This project was conducted in two Singapore primary schools, renamed as School
Equality and School Harmony, to ensure anonymity. Students from a total of 10
classes completed our project survey, while for the rest of the study, one classroom
from each of the two schools was observed and field notes recorded. While gathering
new data about the children’s lifeworlds, the project also examines the educational
policy context of Singapore, in order to locate the findings.
We undertook the Singapore component of the project as part of our work
at The National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NIE,
NTU). Ethics approval was obtained from NTU Institutional Review Board (NTU
IRB-2018-04-033) on 31 May 2018, and approval to collect data at the respective
schools was obtained from MOE Singapore (RQ95-18(10)) on 9 October 2018. The
broader Global Childhoods project received approval from Flinders University and
the University of Melbourne in Australia (Project no. 7926 and Ethics ID 1,853,465/1,
respectively). The Singapore schools were approached via professional networks, and
1.4 Research Methods 7
the principals of both schools gave permission to conduct the study with the consent
of the respective teachers involved. The consent of students’ parents/guardians was
collected by providing them with a detailed information sheet and consent form.
The data was only collected from students whose parents/guardians had consented.
Later in the chapter, we provide some background information about the participating
schools.
This study comprises both qualitative and quantitative research methods in addi-
tion to an analysis of the country’s education and curriculum policies, thus providing
a context to the case studies from the two schools. To enable an in-depth analysis,
we used four different data collection methods to understand the lifeworlds of the
children from different perspectives:
(1) Online survey,

(2) School ethnographies,
(3) Learning dialogues activity,
(4) After-school re-enactments.
The methods of data collection are described below, and further details of the data
analysis relating to different methods and aspects of the research are provided in the
relevant chapters in this book.
1.4.1 Online Survey
The project utilised an online survey devised by the researchers exploring children’s
lifeworlds inside and outside of school (see also Yelland et al, 2021). This was
based on a previous survey used in the Millennial Kids Learning project (Yelland &
Muspratt, 2018; Yelland et al., 2012, 2013, 2017). The survey was comprised of
closed questions where the students chose from the multiple options given. In this
book, we focus in depth on the Singapore student responses.
The survey was conducted with Primary 4 students at two Singapore schools in
November 2018. All three Singapore-based researchers—Johannah, Kam Ming and
Nanthini—conducted the surveys in both schools. The students completed the survey
in computer laboratories together as a class, taking approximately 30 min to finish.
While we administered the survey, a class teacher was also present in the laboratory.
The survey was introduced to the students using a “script” developed for use by the
researchers in all three locations to ensure the research was explained in a similar
way. A total of 165 students completed the survey across the two schools in Singapore
comprising of 77 girls (47%) and 88 (53%) boys with a mean age of 10.33 years.
The data analysis was conducted by Dr Sandy Muspratt, a statistics consultant on
the project. Further details about the analysis are provided in chapters drawing on
the survey data.
1.4.2 Ethnographic Observations
Ethnographic observations were conducted in one class from each school in 2019.
The observation focused on classroom teaching, learning practices and the students’
everyday experiences at their school. Nanthini and Johannah conducted the ethno-
graphic observations, and Kam Ming joined them for some of the observations. This
included taking extensive notes (using a laptop), taking photographs of the class-
rooms and spaces and having informal talks with the students and the teachers.
We also collected the timetables of the two classes being observed and some work
samples. The observations took place at both schools for one full week in the first
half of the year and another full week in the second half of the year (Terms 2 and
4, respectively). School Equality began at 7.30 am, while School Harmony started
at 7.45 am, and both schools ended at 1.30 pm. As outlined in the next chapter, in
most primary schools in Singapore, students stay within their designated classroom.
Form and subject teachers will usually go to the class according to their timetable.
Students spend most of their time in their designated classroom, but they move to
another venue for special classes, such as Music or Physical Education, and when
using computer or science laboratories. For Mother Tongue and Character and Citi-
zenship Education (CCE) lessons, they split and moved to the respective classrooms.
Personal learning devices, such as laptops, iPads or Chromebooks, were usually
located at the side or the back of the classroom, in a locked cabinet that also served
as a charging point.
When observing the classes, we sat at the back of the classroom so that we would
not distract the students or teachers. When students were doing their work assigned
by the teachers, the researchers went around the classroom to observe their work
and interact with them. The students were briefed that they would be observed as a
whole class, and we did not intend to focus on individual students, which put them
at ease. Although the students were initially excited about the researchers observing
them, they soon became used to it, and they appeared to be happy that their class
was “selected” for observation. When we returned to the schools for the second
observation periods during Semester 2, the students were more familiar with the
process (and us) and the observations continued without much distraction.
These ethnographies gave us an insight into the classrooms and provided an oppor-
tunity for us to understand the methods of teaching deployed, students’ reactions
and behaviours to teachers’ instructions, the students’ outlook on the topics being
discussed and the interactions within the classroom settings. Throughout the book, the
analysis of the ethnographies has been used to provide insights to aid understanding
of the lifeworlds of the Primary 4 students as we observed them at school.
1.4 Research Methods 9
Table 1.1 Learning dialogues activity, all questions

Data collection Monday Thursday or Friday
Round 1 (Semester 1) a. What are you looking forward to a. What did you learn at school this
at school this week? week? Was it hard to learn and did
b. Did you do any schoolwork this you enjoy it?
weekend? And if you did, can you b. What was a good thing that
say what it was? happened at school this week?
c. What did you do on the c. Do you have homework set for
weekend? you to do on the weekend? What is
d. What was the most fun you had it?
this weekend? d. What are you looking forward to
doing most on the weekend?
Round 2 (Semester 2) a. How do you feel about how you a. What job do you want to do
are doing at school? when you leave school?
1.4.3 Learning Dialogues
On the first and last day of one school week (Monday and Thursday/Friday) during the
ethnographies, students were asked to complete an activity called learning dialogues
(see Yelland & Bartholomaeus, 2021). As one of the weeks had a public holiday on
a Friday, the students at one of the schools completed the Friday’s learning dialogue
on Thursday. These learning dialogues provided an opportunity for the students to
articulate their thoughts about school, at the beginning and the end of the week. The
students were given the learning dialogue questions in a printed format on A4 sized
paper and were encouraged to write and/or draw their thoughts. The students were
asked several questions and were encouraged to express their thoughts in a detailed
manner (see Table 1.1).
The teachers allocated 15–30 min for the students to complete the learning
dialogues for each session. Teachers reminded the students that they could be as
detailed as possible and encouraged students to draw in addition to any written
responses they had. The students who did not have parent/guardian consent to take
part in the study were also given the learning dialogues so that they did not feel left
out, but we did consider their responses in the data analysis.
1.4.4 Re-enactments
The study also sought to understand the activities students were involved in outside
of school, such as their everyday routines at home, hobbies and other activities. Pink
conceptualised the innovative re-enactments methodology which allows people to
reflect on their everyday activities and routines (e.g. Pink, 2012a, b; Pink & Mackley,
2014). Usually, participants are filmed as they “re-enact” an aspect of their everyday
life, allowing them to recall and reflect more deeply on the small but important details
of everyday life that could possibly be missed in other forms of data collection (see
for example, Pink, 2012a, b).
The researchers hoped to conduct re-enactments with students in their homes
with a parent(s)/guardian(s) present. Initially, we planned to conduct re-enactments
with two students from both schools (i.e. four students in total). However, most
parents/guardians of the students were still at work when the students returned
home after school and indicated that they were not comfortable with being observed.
Hence, only one student from School Equality had permission to be involved in a
re-enactment. We have given the student the pseudonym of Ashley. Ashley’s parents
preferred us not to video her undertaking the re-enactment due to privacy concerns;
therefore, we took photographs instead, which were taken from an angle such so that
her identity was not revealed. Nanthini accompanied Ashley to her house. Once at
home, she was asked to detail her everyday routines from the time school ended until
bedtime on each of the weekdays from Monday to Friday, as well as at the weekend.
Details of the conversations were typed on a laptop as she re-enacted the details,
and her mother also added in information to fill the gaps. During the re-enactment,
Ashley’s mother also provided details as to why she did various things in a certain
manner as Ashley was initially a little shy talking to Nanthini. The re-enactment
took approximately one hour. The photographs taken were shown to Ashley and
her mother, and any photographs that they were not comfortable with were deleted
immediately. This re-enactment gave a brief yet overarching picture of one child’s
everyday activities which was crucial to understanding her perceptions towards her
everyday life and the reasoning behind her activities. We explore the re-enactment
further in Chap. 7.
1.5 Case Study Schools
As mentioned, the data for this project was collected from two primary schools in
Singapore: School Equality and School Harmony. While it is unusual to give schools
pseudonyms in research in Singapore, we thought it was important for this book for
readers to get a feel for the two different contexts. We have chosen the pseudonym
School Equality as this represents one of Singapore’s values as reflected in its national
pledge. School Harmony was chosen to reflect the diversity of the school population
and relates to the ethos of Singapore and harmonising society.
Most government primary schools, including School Equality and School
Harmony, require a monthly school fee of $6.50 to $13 for Singapore citizens,
$205 to $218 if they are permanent residents, $465 to $478 for ASEAN interna-
tional students and $775 to $788 for all Non-ASEAN international students (MOE,
2021a). Therefore, for all government and government-aided schools, the school fee
for Singapore students is kept at an affordable rate. Merit-based awards and schol-
arships are awarded to eligible Singapore students, and MOE and school-specific
financial assistance are given to those students who may struggle financially. Below,
1.5 Case Study Schools 11
we detail the two case study schools in the project. We provide more details on the
Singapore education system in the next chapter and on school timetables in Chap. 3.
1.5.1 School Equality
School Equality was a government-aided co-educational primary school situated in

the west region of Singapore. Government-aided schools are established by various
community and religious organisations to cater to the varied educational needs of the
different organisations (MOE, 2021a). Like most other primary schools in Singapore,
School Equality was a preparatory to Primary 6 school, when the students sit for their
first national examination, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), in the
final year. School Equality was one of 15 Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools in
Singapore. Since 1979, primary and secondary schools that focus on Mandarin as
the Mother Tongue offer SAP status. These schools are often referred to as Chinese
schools. The SAP schools were established to develop bilingual students who are
academically strong and well-versed in both English and Mandarin. SAP schools
benefit from government support and funding to contribute to the efforts of preserving
the Chinese culture and language, with Chinese ethnicity being about three quarters
of the Singapore population, as outlined earlier in this chapter. School Equality has
mostly Chinese students which is different to most other primary schools in Singa-
pore which comprise students from the four major ethnic groups, proportionately to
the population in Singapore. Generally, the students who attended School Equality
were from families with a higher-than-average socioeconomic status. Consequently,
these students spent more time on organised activities outside of school compared to
Singapore students on average; for example, more tuition and other extracurricular
activities such as learning a musical instrument, art or a sport, all of which can be
expensive in Singapore.
The Primary 4 class that was the focus for the study was randomly chosen by
the principal. The class had 39 students, made up of 18 female students and 21
male students. Of the 39 students, 30 students (77%) had parent/guardian consent
to participate in the ethnographies and learning dialogues. All the students in the
class were Chinese. The students studied subjects including English, Mathematics,
Higher Chinese for Mother Tongue, Science, Art, Character and Citizenship Educa-
tion (CCE; taught in Mandarin), Social Studies, Music and Physical Education.
Mother Tongue is the native language or the language of the primary caregivers
who are often the parents. In Singapore, Mother Tongue is offered in three languages
as the second language in schools. Chinese, Malay and Tamil are the official Mother
Tongue Languages (MTL). Students of Chinese, Malay and Indian ethnicities study
their respective MTL, and students who are Eurasians or mixed ethnicity can request
to study one of the offered MTL (MOE, 2021b).
As School Equality gave more emphasis to Chinese language, most of the students
studied Higher Chinese which is a levelled-up subject as compared to a general
Chinese language. Students were split into different classes for the Mother Tongue
lessons. Due to language and staffing constraints among the researchers, the subjects
CCE (taught in Mandarin) and Higher Chinese were not observed in this study. PE
was also not observed as it was outside the classroom and the researchers only had
permission from the principal to observe within the classroom settings.
1.5.2 School Harmony
School Harmony was a preparatory to Primary 6 government co-educational primary

school located in the northeastern region of Singapore. This type of government
school is the most common found in Singapore compared with SAP or international
schools. Like most other government primary schools, School Harmony followed
the national syllabus and offered the three different languages, Malay, Chinese and
Tamil, as Mother Tongue with English being the first language.
The Primary 4 class which was chosen by the principal to be observed had 42
students comprising of Chinese and Malay students. There were no Indian or students
from other ethnicities. The class had 16 female and 26 male students. Of the 42
students, 11 did not have parent/guardian consent for the study, while the rest had
consent (74%). The students from the chosen class studied subjects such as English,
Mathematics, Mother Tongue, Science, Art, Character and Citizenship Education
(CCE; taught in the Mother Tongue languages), Social Studies, Music and Physical
Education.
1.6 Outline of the Book
In this book, we offer a comprehensive exploration of children’s lifeworlds in Singa-

pore. The various modes of data collected (from the survey, ethnographies, learning
dialogues and re-enactment) are drawn on where relevant throughout the book,
alongside policy and curriculum analyses. This provides an in-depth perspective
on Primary 4 children’s lifeworlds in Singapore.
Chapter 2 focuses on children and the education system in Singapore. The chapter
introduces the education history, changing policies and future plans of the nation.
It also provides some additional information about children in Singapore with a
particular focus on their leisure time.
Chapter 3 provides an in-depth analysis of the timetable and routines at the primary
schools. It draws upon the timetables followed in the two primary schools selected
and provides an analysis of the time allocation for the various subjects, which subjects
were prioritised, and the school start and end times. It explains the structure of the
timetable as a tool for achieving educational policies and goals. It also gives an
analysis of everyday routines of the students. Ethnographic data is used as a basis
for the analysis to provide an in-depth overview.
References 13
Chapter 4 focuses on the pedagogical encounters in teaching and learning, based

on the analysis of the ethnographies in two classrooms. It provides details on the
pedagogical practices in the Singapore curriculum and MOE directives and uses the
Learning by Design framework (Yelland, 2015; Yelland et al., 2008) to explore the
pedagogical repertoires of teachers as they implement learning experiences for the
students.
Singapore students continue to score highly in international high-stakes testing.
Chapter 5 explores children’s orientations to educational success in Singapore and
how it relates to the planning of educational policies. This chapter analyses the
learning dialogues activity completed by students in detail, focusing on student
engagement in terms of several interrelated factors: (1) affection for school; (2)
learning in school; (3) performance in school; and (4) career after school.
Chapter 6 analyses students’ sense of school belonging and wellbeing. This
is important considering Singapore students’ high performances in the academic
aspects of international high-stakes testing, yet their lower scores on questions
relating to wellbeing and belonging. This chapter uses Bronfenbrenner’s (1994)
ecological framework to consider different aspects of belonging. Survey results, such
as whether students felt that they were liked by their peers and teachers, and class-
room ethnographies were analysed in detail to explore children’s self-perceptions of
their schoolwork and grades, relationships between teachers and students, relation-
ships between students and students’ enjoyment of school. This allows for a deeper
analysis of the data rather than relying on findings derived from one source of data.
Chapter 7 considers the various types of activities Singapore children are involved
in outside of school. We bring together four sources of data (survey, learning
dialogues, ethnographic fieldnotes and re-enactment) to explore the large array
of activities Singapore children undertake outside of school, both academic and
non-academic. These provide a multidimensional view of children’s out-of-school
lifeworlds, a topic which is little researched in Singapore.
To provide a comprehensive conclusion, Chapter 8 brings together the key themes
discussed in this book. It reflects on the children’s lifeworlds and their involve-
ment with the school and community. The chapter discusses the implications of
the findings, addresses gaps in the research and provides considerations for future
research.
References
Austin, I. P. (2015). Singapore as a ‘global city’: Governance in a challenging international envi-

ronment. In H. G. Djajadikerta & Z. Zhang (Eds.), A new paradigm for international business
(pp. 171–192). Springer.
Bennis, W. G. & Burt, N. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Harper & Row.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia
of Education, 3, 1643–1647.
Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice (CRPP). (n.d.). Centre for research in pedagogy and
practice—About us. National Institute of Education. https://nie.edu.sg/research/research-offices/
office-of-education-research/centre-for-research-in-pedagogy-and-practice-crpp.
Davie, S. (2017, August 20). Singapore students suffer from high levels of anxiety:
study. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/spore-students-suf
fer-from-high-levels-of-anxiety-study.
Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). PISA and high-performing education systems: Explaining
Singapore’s education success. Comparative Education, 52(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03050068.2016.1219535.
Department of Statistics Singapore. (2021). Population trends 2021. Retrieved February 16, 2022,
from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2021.pdf.
Dimmock, C., & Tan, C. Y. (2016). Explaining the success of the world’s leading education systems:
The case of Singapore. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00071005.2015.1116682.
Ellis, N. J. (2014). Afraid to lose out: the impact of Kiasuism on practitioner research in Singapore
schools. Educational Action Research, 22(2), 235–250. https://doi-org.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/10.
1080/09650792.2013.859088.
Kearney. (2021). Global cities: Divergent prospects and new imperatives in the global recovery:
2021 Global Cities Report. Kearney. https://www.kearney.com/global-cities/2021.
Lee, I. -F., Saltmarsh, S., & Yelland, N. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Childhood, learning & everyday life
in three Asia-Pacific cities: Experiences from Melbourne, Hong Kong and Singapore. Springer
Nature.
Lee, C. L., & Phua, C. P. (2020). Singapore bilingual education: One policy, many interpreta-
tions. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 30(1–2), 90–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.
00046.lee.
Luke, A., Freebody, P., Lau, S., & Gopinathan, S. (2005). Towards research-based innovation and
reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 5–28. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02188790500032467.
MOE. (2020, December 8). TIMSS 2019: Singapore students continue to excel in mathematics
and science. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/202
01208-timss-2019-singapore-students-continue-to-excel-in-mathematics-and-science.
MOE. (2021a). Education in sg: Our schools: Types of school. Ministry of Education Singapore.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/our-schools/types-of-schools.
MOE. (2021b). MOE: Primary: Curriculum and subjects: Mother Tongue Languages. Ministry
of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/primary/curriculum/mother-tongue-languages/
learning-in-school.
Morrison, N. (2020, December 8). Forbes: East Asia aces global math, science tests as West strug-
gles to keep up. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2020/12/08/east-asia-aces-
global-math-science-tests-as-west-struggles-to-keep-up/?sh=78c3a59c39a6.
Ng, P. T. (2020). The paradoxes of student well-being in Singapore. ENCU Review of Education,
3(3), 437–451.
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students’ well-being. PISA, OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-iii_978926
4273856-en.
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20P
aper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.
Olds, K., & Yeung, H. (2004). Pathways to global city formation: A view from the developmental
city-state of Singapore. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 489–521.
Petersen, J. (2019). Inside the world’s most elite education system. Dateline. https://www.sbs.com.
au/news/dateline/inside-the-world-s-most-elite-education-system.
Pink, S. (2012a). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Sage.
References 15
Pink, S. (2012b). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/978
1446250679.
Pink, S., & Mackley, K. L. (2014). Re-enactment methodologies for everyday life research: Art
therapy insights for video ethnography. Visual Studies, 29(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1472586X.2014.887266.
Robinson, W. I. (2009). Saskia Sassen and the sociology of globalization: A critical appraisal. UC
Santa Barbara: Global and International Studies. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/44j854qc.
Sassen, S. (2001). The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. (2nd ed.). Princeton Press.
Soh, K. (2017). PISA ranking: Issues and effects in Singapore, East Asia and the World. https://
www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/10299.
Tan, C. (2019). Comparing high-performing education systems: Understanding Singapore,
Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351238724.
Thompson, R. A. (2012). Changing societies, changing childhood: Studying the impact of
globalization on child development. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 187–192.
Watson, M. (1995). Globalization. Routledge.
Yelland, N. (2015). Pedagogical prompts: Designing experiences to promote deep learning. In B.
Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by Design (pp. 288–304).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Yelland, N., & Bartholomaeus, C. (2021). Towards learning dialogues as data: Researching chil-
dren’s lifeworlds in global cities. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(4), 394–407. https://doi.org/
10.1108/QRJ-10-2020-0141.
Yelland, N., & Muspratt, S. (2018). Behind the high-stakes testing results: Hong Kong children
report on the aspects of their schooling experiences. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary
Global Studies, 12(4), 1–14.
Yelland, N., Cope, W., & Kalantzis, M. (2008). Learning by Design: Creating pedagogical frame-
works for knowledge building in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
36(3), 197–213.
Yelland, N., Muspratt, S., Chan, Y. O., & Gilbert, C. (2012). Asian childhoods: Exploring the
lifeworlds of students in contemporary Hong Kong. Global Studies of Childhood, 2(4), 286–301.
https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2012.2.4.286.
Yelland, N., Muspratt, S., & Gilbert, C. (2013). Global childhoods, Asian lifeworlds: After school
time in Hong Kong. Bank Occational Papers, 23–35.
Yelland, N. J., Muspratt, S., & Gilbert. (2017). Exploring the lifeworlds of children in Hong Kong:
Parents’ report on after school time use. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(14), 677–687.
Yelland, N., Muspratt, S., Bartholomaeus, C., Karthikeyan, N., Chan, A. K., Leung, V. W., Lee,
I. F., Soo, L. M. J., Lim, K. M., & Saltmarsh, S. (2021). Lifeworlds of nine- and ten-year-old
children: Out-of-school activities in three global cities. Globalisation, Societies and Education,
19(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2020.1816921.
Chapter 2
Children in the Singapore Education
System
Abstract Singapore places great emphasis on its education, and the Ministry of
Education (MOE) has constantly strived to provide high-quality education. The
nation has continually refashioned its education policies to suit Singapore’s current
and future needs. This chapter provides an overview of the Singapore education
system, including a history of education pre- and post-independent Singapore. This
education system has been lauded for its forward-thinking nature and for producing
a highly skilled workforce. Singapore’s exceptional performance in international
tests reflects the quality education the nation offers. However, the education system
is often criticised for placing too much emphasis on examination and grades which
causes added stress for the students. This has created pressure for the nation to revamp
its educational policies to focus on holistic education rather than just on academic
achievements.
Keywords Singapore education system · Singapore education history · Thinking

Schools · Learning Nation · Assessments and examinations · Holistic education ·
Children’s leisure activities
Since its independence in 1965, Singapore, having no natural resources, has always
placed strong emphasis on its education system for socioeconomic development
and to build on its only resource, human capital. Singapore has one of the lowest
fertility rates in the world at 1.2 children per woman, and its ageing population has
added pressure to hone the skills of its workforce for the nation to thrive amid the
volatile environment (World Population Review, 2022). As most families have only
one or two children, parents can allocate more time and resources to assist their
children in their academic pursuits and also to focus on their wellbeing. Clearly,
the importance of education to the nation cannot be over-emphasised. With two of
its six public universities placed in the top 15 in the world, and given the nation’s
exceptional performance in the academic components of international high-stakes
tests, Singapore is placed among the world’s high-performing education systems (QS,
2021). Despite this, leaders and experts put forth the notion that it is an opportune time
for Singapore to reconsider its focus on formal assessments and grades (Lee et al.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_2
18 2 Children in the Singapore Education System
2013; OECD, 2018; Ong, 2018). This has involved radical changes within school
curricula and forced Singapore to refine its educational focus to better prepare for
the “VUCA” (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous) future ahead (Bennis &
Burt, 1985; Rajah, 2018).
The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore has deemed that there are three
areas of 21st Century Competencies essential for the “VUCA” future that lies ahead
for Singapore—“Civic Literacy, Global Awareness and Cross-Cultural Skills”; “Crit-
ical and Inventive Thinking”; and “Communication, Collaboration and Information
Skills” (MOE, 2014). In Singapore, the learning needs of students are geared towards
equipping them with the skills, understanding and dispositions to be “a confident
person”, “a self-directed learner”, “an active contributor” and “a concerned citizen”
(MOE, 2020a, p. 1).
The MOE’s Education Statistics Digest provides useful background information
on the size and shape of primary education in Singapore. In 2019 (the main year of
the Global Childhoods project), there were 179 primary schools in Singapore (MOE,
2020b). These were mainly government schools (138), with a number of government-
aided schools (41) (MOE, 2020b). At the primary school level, there were a total
of 228,060 student enrolments, 15,436 teachers, 297 vice principals, 186 principals
and 3,317 education partners (MOE, 2020b). In terms of Primary 4 specifically, there
were 39,180 student enrolments across 1096 classes, with an average class size of
35.7. The majority of students in Primary 4 were 9 years old at the start of the school
year.
2.1 Brief History of Education in Pre-independent

Singapore
When Singapore was under British rule before attaining self-governance in 1959,
Christian missionary groups established English-medium government schools. With
the help of the colonial government, the Malay community set up Malay vernacular
government schools (MOE, 2019). Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools were set up
by immigrants who came from China and India, respectively. Schools were founded
and funded by the various community groups, and the curriculum was determined
by the founding communities. When Singapore became a separate crown colony
after World War II, it was faced with a large number of school dropouts, meaning a
significant number of school-aged children were not provided with formal education
as one of the consequences of the war. The British government introduced a 10-year
plan in 1947 which aimed to give equal educational opportunities to all children
(Tan et al., 2008), as well as offering free primary education to encourage students
to continue with their studies. While previously only the free government schools
and a handful of non-government Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools received
funding from the government, the 10-year plan extended its funding to make primary
education free for all students. However, at the end of the 10 years, the mission of
2.2 Education Policies and Changes in Post-independent Singapore 19
converting the Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools to government schools had not
been accomplished to the extent the govenrment had planned (MOE, 2019).
2.2 Education Policies and Changes in Post-independent

Singapore
When Mr Lee Kuan Yew became the first Prime Minister of Singapore in 1959, he
pointed out that the diverse privately run school and varied education systems in
Singapore had created a divided society. The education system was barely integrated
and instead produced four different groups with varying standards and ideologies. To
combat this problem, the government, led by Mr Lee, offered to pay for all teachers’
salaries as a way of controlling the quality of the teachers, rather than salaries being
privately funded (MOE, 2019). During the early 1960s, the government embarked on
building schools throughout the nation, with the aim of providing ample opportunities
for students to enrol in them. The government also introduced the bilingual policy
which is considered a cornerstone of the nation’s language policy. Through this,
English was emphasised as the working language and the Mother Tongue languages
of the three main ethnic groups (Mandarin, Malay and Tamil) were used to foster
values and a sense of cultural belonging (Sim, 2016). The government strongly
believed that only through education could the infant country progress. Since then, by
altering the education policies, the nation has geared its growth towards the desired
path as it strongly believes that the nation needs an educated and well-informed
population for economic growth.
In Singapore, students’ performance at the primary level has a great impact on their
future academic progression. Under the Compulsory Education Act 2000, primary
school education is mandatory for Singapore citizen children who are born after
1996, above 6 years old and below 15 years old and are residing in Singapore. The
act also applies for children with special educational needs born after 1 January 2012,
where they are expected to attend the government-funded special education (SPED)
schools (MOE, 2021a).
Students are required to complete six years of compulsory primary school educa-
tion and four or five years of secondary education (see Fig. 2.1). At present, primary
school students learn the following subjects: English Language, Mother Tongue
Language, Mathematics, Science, Art, Music, Physical Education, Social Studies and
Character and Citizenship Education (CCE). The four subjects that will be assessed
in the final year of primary school in the PSLE are English, Mathematics, Science
and Mother Tongue. Based on their scores, students will be placed into Integrated
Programme (secondary and then direct to pre-tertiary education), Express, Normal
(Academic) and Normal (Technical) streams in their secondary schools. In addition,
there are Arts schools (secondary) for the artistically inclined students and Sports
schools for the students who excel in sports. Moreover, apart from academic scores,
Fig. 2.1 Education pathway in Singapore
secondary and tertiary institutions also accept students who have other talents, such
as in music or sports, based on the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme.
2.2.1 The Four Phases of Educational Development

in Singapore
The public education system in Singapore, led by MOE, is carefully and systemat-
ically planned, deliberated and implemented via a centralised approach, to support
the central purpose of the public education system within the larger context of Singa-
pore’s national priorities at the time (Dimmock & Tan, 2013; Goodwin et al., 2017;
Gopinathan, 1996; Hardy et al., 2021; Tan, 2010; Tan & Dimmock, 2014; Wilson,
1977). Thus, it is critical for the nation to constantly redefine its educational goals
to stay ahead in the ever-changing environment.
The MOE has made conscious efforts to refashion the education system to keep
up with current changes and prepare for future needs. Every year, MOE conducts the
Work Plan Seminar with teachers and educators to strengthen the culture of learning
and, in the process, nurture the teachers. MOE introduced a series of initiatives to
work towards on a cumulative basis. For example, in 2011, the “student-centric,
values-driven” education phase began, which emphasises Character and Citizenship
Education (CCE). In 2012, the focus was on “Every School, a Good School”; “Every
student an Engaged Learner” was introduced in 2013; “Every Teacher a Caring
Educator” in 2014; and “Learn for Life” in 2020 (MOE, 2015, 2020a). The prominent
changes in the education system the nation has undergone can be classified into four
phases—“survival-driven” (1965–1978), “efficiency-driven” (1979–1997), “ability-
based, aspirations-driven” (1997–2011) and “student-centric, values-driven” (2011-
present) (Dornan, 2008; Goh & Gopinathan, 2008; Ho & Koh, 2018; Wang, 2021).
The initial period after independence was the “survival-driven” phase (1965–
1978) in which the focus of the education system was to create literate citizens. It
was during this period that numerous schools were built and teachers were recruited
at a rapid rate. In the earliest phase of Singapore’s post-independence years, the
education system was centrally controlled to achieve the purpose of raising the basic
literacy and numeracy skills among the population quickly and efficiently, so that
an adequately skilled workforce could start the country’s economic growth (Goh &
2.2 Education Policies and Changes in Post-independent Singapore 21
Gopinathan, 2008). During this “survival-driven” phase, the number of students

enrolled in government-funded schools increased significantly, and correspondingly
so did the number of trained teachers. Goh and Gopinathan (2008) stated that this
phase of the Singapore education system lasted from 1960s (Singapore’s indepen-
dence) to 1978. The number of teachers rose from 10,500 in 1959 to over 19,000 by
1968 (Woon, 2012). By providing mass education for the people, the nation managed
to produce a literate and skilled workforce to meet the demand of the shift in the
economy. It is also notable that by introducing a bilingual policy, the nation aimed
to produce citizens who could be well-versed in two languages. In the late 1960s
and early 1970s, Singapore made structural changes to its economy by shifting its
focus to industrialisation, relatively low-value products in the 1960s/1970s, which
demanded skilled workers for an export-oriented economy. By the end of this phase,
Singapore was able to create a single national educational system for the people,
providing foundation studies for vocational and technical learning (Dornan, 2008).
The second phase of the Singapore education system was termed “efficiency-
driven” and lasted from 1979 to 1997 (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008). The key tenets of
the “efficiency-driven” phase were the rapid transition to a “more sophisticated tech-
nological base, and thereby taking it out of competition with the lower-wage coun-
tries and lessening its reliance on labour expansion for economic growth” (Goh &
Gopinathan, 2008, p. 91). The focus of the education system shifted from one of rapid
growth of a minimally skilled workforce to one which placed more emphasis on the
quality of the education system, with the aim of developing the system to produce
skilled workers in accordance with the demands of the economy. The “New Education
System” provided more pathways for students to continue their education, instead of
dropping out very early during their schooling years. The successful implementation
of the key features of the “efficiency-driven” phase included “a national curriculum
with a stress on bilingualism, moral education, and civics; an emphasis on science,
mathematics; and technical education; regular student assessment …; differentiated
curriculum materials …; and clear lines of progression to the university, polytechnics,
and vocational institutes” (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008, p. 93).
The conversion of Mother Tongue stream schools to English-medium schools
had resulted in students struggling to cope with the change (Goh & Gopinathan,
2008). Similarly, the introduction of bilingual policy in 1966 was not well received
by the students; more than 60% of the students who sat for the Primary School
Leaving Examination (PSLE) and the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of
Education (GCE) “O” level examination, failed in one or both languages (Goh, 1979).
Primary school students were also automatically promoted to the next level until they
sat for the PSLE, and this caused poor performance in the national examinations.
Hence, the automatic promotion to the next year level was stopped at Primary 2 level,
and students who had repeated failures in the PSLE were channelled to vocational
courses (Goh, 1979). The secondary school students with lower academic abilities as
determined in testing were made to complete an additional year at school. Students
were primarily assessed on their languages and mathematics and were streamed into
various courses according to their ability to study (Tan & Choy, 2016). Therefore,
during this period, the education policies concentrated on academic tracking and
promotion, and educational institutes underwent major restructuring and expansion.

The focus of this phase of educational reform was to create multiple pathways for
students to better cater for the learning abilities in order to produce highly skilled
employees (Dornan, 2008). Singapore shifted from “one size fits all” to a system that
catered to individual capabilities and capacity in order to better satisfy the learning
needs of pupils.
In the mid-1990s, the government attempted to fine-tune the streaming policies by
introducing the Normal (Technical) stream for secondary school students with lower
academic ability in addition to the Express, Special and Normal (Academic) streams
already present. While the majority of students went to the Express stream, the
academically inclined students were part of the special stream and the comparatively
lower ability students enrolled in the Normal (Academic) stream. The students of
the Normal (Technical) stream received a specialised, simplified curriculum and
were trained to be enrolled in the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) in order to
learn technical skills and knowledge. Thus, by having these streams, the government
ensured that the students had at least 10 years of primary and secondary education
before they went on to pursue higher education in polytechnics, universities and
Institute of Technical Education (ITE).
As Singapore entered a rapid globalisation period, again it called for a refocus of
the educational objectives for the nation. Known as the “ability-based, aspirations-
driven” phase, it focused on creating employees for the knowledge-based economy,
from 1997 to 2011 (Dornan, 2008; Goh & Gopinathan, 2008; Ho & Koh, 2018).
The major shift in the educational paradigm for Singapore during this phase, starting
with the “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TLSN) vision that was articulated
in 1997, highlighted the importance of a knowledge-based economy. As stated by
MOE (2021b), the TSLN vision is as follows:
This vision describes a nation of thinking and committed citizens capable of seizing future
opportunities, and an education system ready to ride the waves of change in the 21st century.
Thinking Schools will be learning organisations in every sense, constantly challenging
assumptions, and seeking better ways of doing things through participation, creativity and
innovation. Thinking Schools will be the cradle of thinking students as well as thinking
adults. This spirit of learning should accompany our students throughout their lives, even
after they have graduated from the system. A Learning Nation envisions a national culture
and social environment that promotes lifelong learning in our people. The capacity of Singa-
poreans to continually learn, both for professional development and for personal enrichment,
will determine our collective success as a society and nation. (MOE, 2021b).
The policies in place paved the way for students to develop their learning ability
and, under the concept of TSLN, schools concentrated on inquiry-based activities that
nurtured creative thinking and learning skills for the future (Ho, 2006; Rajah, 2018).
The then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong launched the TSLN vision in 1997
with the aim of encouraging young Singaporeans to perceive learning as a lifelong
process, to develop critical thinking and to cultivate a lifelong desire for learning
(Norruddin, 2018). The concept of “Thinking Schools” meant that citizens who
possessed critical thinking skills would be well equipped to face future challenges
2.3 Current Education Challenges 23
confidently and ensure the continued success of the nation. “Learning Nation” envi-
sioned a national culture of continuous learning for both professional development
and personal enrichment. The “ability-based, aspirations-driven” phase provided
schools with greater autonomy in designing and planning the school curriculum,
including offering elective programmes such as music and art (Goh & Gopinathan,
2008).
Apart from these prominent phases, the government has introduced further initia-
tives (MOE, 2009; Soo & Chua, 2014) designed to revamp the education system
in order to cater to the needs of the changing economy and for the students to
stay relevant to the demands of the working world. The following initiatives were
implemented:
a. National Education (introduced in 1996): This was initiated to foster national
cohesion and a sense of national identity among young Singaporeans.
b. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Masterplan: Laid out in
three phases: the first ICT masterplan (1997–2002) built a base for the use of
ICT in schools, including the provision of basic ICT infrastructure and teacher
training in basic ICT skills. The second ICT masterplan (2003–2008) aimed to
use ICT as a way of customising education and meeting the learning demands
of pupils. The ICT masterplan was rolled out to support the TSLN initiative.
The third masterplan (2009–2014) built on the former two masterplans to further
develop the use of ICT in creating engaging learning environments for students
(ICTconnection, n.d.).
c. Innovation & Enterprise (I&E): In line with TSLN policy, this initiative was
launched to create a cutting edge for the nation amid the robust economic compe-
tition. The I&E initiative aims to create an intellectual curiosity by developing
the appropriate mindset and attitude, as well as the willingness among students
to think originally and differently (Ng, 2004).
d. Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM): Introduced in 2006, TLLM’s goal was to
streamline the syllabus, reduce the “spoon-feeding” style of teaching and adopt
teaching methods that would better cater to students’ needs. Hence, students
would be able to learn more due to the customisations in the curriculum.
The current phase “student-centric, values-driven” builds on the previous phases
and initiatives and is explored further in see Sect. 2.4.1.
2.3 Current Education Challenges
Singapore’s impressive performance in the academic components of international

high-stakes testing such as TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA has been used to demonstrate
the high competency level of Singapore students and the “success” of the educational
system (Tan, 2019). However, as we mentioned in Chap. 1, the nation that has long
relied on academic grades as a benchmark to gauge pupils’ ability and capabilities is
now shifting its focus and moving towards a holistic approach. The push for change
was part of a response to ease the high levels of anxiety faced by Singapore students
due to the obsession with performing well academically (Davie, 2017). Parents felt
obligated to ensure that their children were performing above average so that they
would have a better future. Education is seen a key priority, and families devote a
significant proportion of their household budget to education for their children (Ng
et al., 2021). PISA 2012 found that 15-year-old Singapore students were ranked third
globally on the time spent on homework (Teng, 2014a). PISA 2018 also indicated that
the need to succeed in school created anxiety among young Singaporeans (OECD,
2019).
Despite doing exceptionally well at formal assessments, whether the nation’s
innovation skills are as good as its academic skills is still questionable as Singapore
companies rarely make it to the list of top innovative companies in the world (Forbes,
2018; Sinnakaruppan, 2017). Critics have also opined that streaming students at an
early age based on their academic performance has hindered the growth of late
bloomers (Lee, 2017). The Education 2030 report from the OECD (2018) further
reinforced the notion that it would be an ideal time to consider revisiting educational
policies in order to embrace the skills needed for the near future. The report stated that
students need to be “responsible and empowered, placing collaboration above divi-
sion, and sustainability above short-term gain” (OECD, 2018, p. 3). With reference
to the report in her parliament debate, the second minister for education Ms Indranee
Rajah mentioned that students need broader knowledge and practical skills such as
“the ability to utilise new technology… and even this is not enough… The ability
to learn, un-learn and re-learn will be key” (Rajah, 2018). Hence, relying purely on
academic skills might not be sufficient to face the complex and uncertain future. As
Singapore progresses into the next phase of its education system, it aims to “create
a more equitable society, build a stronger social compact among its people while at
the same time develop capabilities for the new digital economy” (Lim, 2017).
2.3.1 The Need for Leisure Time
There is concern in Singapore that children do not have enough leisure time.
One possible reason for this concern may be the increasing time spent in school
by students. In recent years, Singapore has added more hours to the curriculum
time as part of the initiative of shifting to a single-session school for primary
schools (National Library Board, n.d.). After-school programmes such as the Applied
Learning Programme (ALP) where students get to do hands-on activities and occa-
sional supplementary lessons often result in later finishing times for the students (Ng,
2016). These activities are in addition to the already time-consuming Co-curricular
Activities (CCA), such as orchestra, choir, band, dance or drama. These are optional
but common in primary school and compulsory in secondary school. At the secondary
school level, students can spend around 12 h per week engaged in these activities, with
the duration potentially increasing ahead of any upcoming events or performances
(Teng, 2014b).
2.3 Current Education Challenges 25
Spending time on academic activities does not stop at school for Singapore
students who also spend large amounts of time doing their homework. According to
PISA 2015, Singapore students spend the third highest amount of time globally on
homework, with 15-year-olds spending an average of 1 to 2 h a day (9.4 h a week)
on their homework (OECD, 2017). Similarly, a study at the primary school level
indicated that Singapore children spend 1 to 2 h a day on homework on average
(Quah et al., 1995). Furthermore, nearly seven out of ten parents send their children
for tuition classes in Singapore (Davie, 2015). On average, primary and secondary
school students spend three hours per week on tuition classes (Choo, 2012; Davie,
2015). The importance placed on tuition may, at least in part, relate to peer pressure
where parents send their children to tuition as a safety net regardless of whether or not
it produces significant results. Hence, this billion-dollar industry attracts all students:
those who are struggling academically, those who are average performers and aim
to better their grades and those who are top performers who want to maintain their
standards. Singaporeans have spent more than one billion dollars per year on tuition,
which shows the intensity of the drive Singaporeans have towards these activities
(Yang, 2016).
Children in Singapore may also take part in non-academic enrichment activities,
such as performing arts or sports, either as CCAs, as mentioned above, or additional
classes external to their schools. For instance, it is a common practice among Singa-
pore parents to send their children for enrichment classes during weekends. These
classes could take many forms from creative arts class, which allows the children to
express themselves, to early preparatory classes that prepare children in advance for
lessons, to broad-based lessons that develop the children’s motor and social skills
(Karrupiah, 2017). Many parents often wish for their children to start these classes
as early as possible, and some even send their children to pre-school enrichment
classes as they are anxious about giving their children a head start to stay ahead in
the competition (Philomin, 2014). However, in addition to the pressure and stress
caused by school felt by children, parents also reported a perceived lack of balance
between wage work and care responsibilities (Teo, 2022). School schedules, after-
school programmes and homework are often cited as causes of stress for parents
(Teo, 2022).
While Singapore children dedicate a significant amount of time to homework,
tuition classes, and non-academic enrichment classes, there is also some data on
their participation in leisure activities. Research has particularly indicated the use
of electronic devices among young Singaporeans. For example, data.gov.sg statis-
tics show that 7- to 10-year-old children’s indoor entertainment mainly consists of
watching television (about 3 h of Free-to-air TV and 1.6 h Pay TV daily) and playing
video games (1.7 h) (Infocomm Media Development Authority, 2016). Similarly, a
survey conducted with 8- to 12-year-olds in Singapore found that they used screens
for entertainment for an average of 35 h per week, which was three hours higher
than the global average, and did not include time spent using screens for homework
(DQ Institute, 2018). Children in Singapore were most likely to use the internet
for watching videos (78%) or playing video games (61%) (DQ Institute, 2018).
According to the World Economic Forum report, Singapore ranks first in the world
for technology usage (Baller et al., 2016), suggesting that this focus on screen time is
not limited to children. However, other studies have indicated a wider range of leisure
activities engaged in by Singapore children, such as playing and reading for leisure
(Majid, 2018). We explore children’s out-of-school activities further in Chap. 7.
2.4 Looking Forward
2.4.1 Holistic Development
The current phase of the evolution of the Singapore education system is the “student-
centric, values-driven” phase that started in 2011 (Ho & Koh, 2018; Wang, 2021).
The key objectives in the current phase are to help every child in Singapore to achieve
their maximum potential and develop holistically. The MOE has planned for multiple
changes in the school curriculum to accommodate the future-ready skills for students
that go beyond academic skills. In order to help students in their preparation for the
future, MOE has worked to create a set of core values and competencies. These help to
contribute towards MOE’s goal of holistic education which better prepares students
for the future and are reflected in the Framework for 21st Century Competencies
and Student Outcomes (MOE, 2014, see Fig. 2.2). With these competencies in mind,
MOE has rolled out key changes to the education system, so it is better equipped to
cope with the changing environment.
2.4.2 Revision to Assessment
Some of the key changes the MOE has announced are in relation to removing some
examinations. The MOE has already removed all examinations for Primary 1 and
2 and mid-year exams for Primary 3 and 5 and Secondary 1 and 3 (Teng, 2018a).
By 2023, all mid-year examinations will be removed for all primary and secondary
schools (Teng, 2022). By eliminating these examinations, the MOE believes that it
gives time for teachers and students to pause and catch up instead of rushing through
the curriculum. This would enable teachers to explore new ways of making learning
more enjoyable as well as provide ample time for students to adapt during their
transition years (Davie, 2018). In addition, neither a student’s class ranking nor the
minimum and maximum score across the class and cohort will be reflected in the
report card. Furthermore, prior to 2021, Primary 6 national PSLE result slips did not
reflect the actual scores for each subject, but they reflected the alphabetical grades, as
well as the students’ T-scores. From 2021, the PSLE result slips no longer reflected
the score (T-score) of the students, instead wider scoring bands were used (MOE,
2021c). For example, the student’s score was reflected as Achievement Level 5 which
indicated that the student has achieved a score between 65 and 74, without revealing
2.4 Looking Forward 27
Fig. 2.2 Framework for 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes (MOE, 2014).
Reprinted with permission from the Ministry of Education
the actual marks. By scoring the examinations in this manner, it aimed to eradicate
fine distinctions among students.
Changes in the examination grading system were put in place with the aim of
alleviating extensive comparisons and allowing students to focus on their individual
learning progress (Teng, 2018a). Singapore’s then Education Minister Mr Ong Ye
Kung stated that “learning is not a competition, but a self-discipline you need to
master for life” (Teng, 2018b). However, these changes have drawn mixed reactions
from parents who have applauded the efforts in reducing the stress level by removing
examinations, but at the same time have voiced their concerns about not knowing
how their child fares in comparison with other students if ranking is removed (Ang,
2018). Parents have stated that without a benchmark, students’ academic rigour might
be compromised, leading to indifference (Kuah, 2018). If comparisons are removed,
parents worry that there is a risk of developing students who are under motivated
and struggle to cope with stress. Moreover, it is also questionable to what extent
the above measures necessarily translate into reduced stress among students and
what alternate ways to evaluate students are possible if examinations are removed
(Kuah, 2018). Government leaders have acknowledged the fact that it would be a
challenge to change the mindset of parents who live in a culture which views that
success can only be acquired through a narrow academic pathway (Yang & Teng,
2016). Thus, MOE has urged schools to use bite-sized weighted assessments instead
of examinations for those levels where examinations have been removed (The Straits
Times, 2018). Teachers can regularly assess students’ performance via other modes
of assessments and focus on building students’ confidence and intrinsic motivation
to learn.
2.4.3 Streaming to Subject-Based Banding
Streaming in schools, which was introduced during the “efficiency-driven” phase

to cut down on the student dropout rates by categorising the students into different
streams based on their educational competencies, will no longer occur by 2024. In
place of streaming, MOE will be introducing Full Subject-Based Banding (Full SBB)
for secondary schools (MOE, 2021d). Through Full SBB, introduction to schools
over two years starting 2022, students will be able to take subjects such as English,
Mathematics, Science and Mother Tongue at a level based on their performance
in PSLE (MOE, 2021e). The students with different strengths in various subjects
will be placed in the same class. For subjects such the Arts, Music, Character and
Citizenship Education, Design and Technology, Food and Consumer Education and
Physical Education, the students will be learning the subjects together as a class. For
subjects such as Mathematics, Science, English and Mother Tongue, students will
split into different groups based on subject banding. Differentiated instruction will
be employed which allows students with different learning abilities to mingle with
one another hopefully to alleviate the distinction placed on the students, such as those
who are in the Express stream being viewed as “smarter” compared with students
in a “Normal Technical” stream. Students in primary schools will also be offered
SBB at Primary 5 and 6, as they would have a choice between studying a subject at
the standard level, or at the foundational level if they need more support for certain
subjects (MOE, 2021e). Such choices would enable students to be challenged in
subjects in which they are already strong, as well as focus on learning fundamentals
of subjects in which they may be struggling or need more support.
2.4.4 Professional Development
Changing the educational landscape is vital, and various policies have been put in
place to expound a wider definition of success beyond grades. One such initiative is
the ALP for primary schools which engages students in hands-on learning activities
and encourages them to explore new ideas and try out new skills such as coding (Teng,
2018c). Students are encouraged to develop different skills as academic advancement
is not purely based on academic performance. For example, Junior Sports Academy
(JSA) is a programme which provides a free sports development programme and
does not scout for high-performing athletes but rather those who show great potential
(NYSI, 2020).
2.4 Looking Forward 29
Despite being a young nation, Singapore has evolved through multiple educational
phases. The nation’s foresight begins with refining its educational goals. Singapore
had implemented various policies in accordance with what it foresaw the future would
demand. Similarly, it is now time for the nation to step into the next educational phase.
However, unlike the past where there was a clearer vision of what the future called for,
it is now a challenging phase as the future is rather complex to predict accurately.
According to an OECD report, “soft skills” such as empowerment, collaboration
and sustainability are needed for the nation’s wellbeing in future (OECD, 2018).
Yet, such skills are not given priority in the current education system in Singapore
which gives more importance to formal assessments and grades. This, in fact, was
criticised by parents and others for creating the illusion that it is only possible to
succeed by performing well in academics, resulting in immense pressure being put
on the students (OECD, 2018).
Thus, government leaders have stated that it is an opportune time to revamp the
education system to focus less on grades and provide more opportunities for holistic
and lifelong learning. The government has made multiple changes, such as reducing
the number of formal assessments during transitional levels in schools, giving more
importance to non-academic fields, allowing acceptance into universities based on
aptitude tests and providing monetary credits for its citizens to upgrade their skills
for lifelong learning. With such policies in place, it seems promising that Singapore
is preparing well to face the volatile future ahead. The nation faces the challenge
of nurturing its young people to prepare for jobs that might not yet exist. Hence,
continuous skills upgrading and learning are paramount to the nation to cope with
the rapid changes. Therefore, the Singapore government introduced the Skills Future
credit which gives $500 to all Singaporeans aged 25 and above to learn new skills and
stay relevant for the demands of the workforce at different times (Skills Future, 2016).
These policies will place more emphasis on holistic development and encourage
lifelong learning to be well prepared to face the dynamic future.
2.4.5 Education for Sustainable Development
One of the components of the 21st Century Competencies is to cultivate “Global

Awareness and Cross-Cultural Skills”. The notion of sustainable living has been
in the limelight in recent years with global issues such as climate change, envi-
ronmental degradation, equality, poverty and hunger, needing to be addressed. The
United Nations proposed the Millennium Goals in 2000 and the 17 Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDG) in 2015 to urge nations to collaborate to fight climate change
and pursue sustainable living (United Nations, n.d.). Soo and Chua (2014) highlighted
that various aspects of SDG need to be in the current school curriculum to provide
the knowledge and create a behavioural change among the people in Singapore. The
concepts of sustainability and environmental conservation have been included mainly
in the Science (Primary/Secondary), Social Studies (Primary/Secondary) and Geog-
raphy (Secondary) syllabus. In the last five years, schools are taking up the topic
of sustainability in their cross-discipline ALPs to create awareness and find solu-

tions. However, sustainability is generally regarded as an ad hoc topic in school, and
hence, more effort is required to gear students to embrace this concept and commit
to behavioural changes in order to create a globally aware and culturally sensitive
population.
2.4.6 Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
The data for this study was collected from October 2018 to September 2019. At the
end of 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic began. Many countries locked down their
cities or the entire country to curb the spread of the virus. Schools were closed,
and lessons had to be moved from the face-to-face mode to online teaching. Online
teaching proved to be quite a challenge for the teachers and students. In Singapore,
the blended learning approach called for students to be independent learners and
not just mimic the classroom setting through online mode of teaching and learning
(Ng, 2021). In this fast-paced technology age, those who were less tech-savvy had a
sudden steep learning curve to catch up with the use of digital devices to function as
“normal”. Large group activities that required the person to be physically there, such
as concerts and sports, were cancelled. Sedentary activities, such as mass lectures,
religious worship and conferences, were converted to online or hybrid mode. Outside
school activities, particularly the non-sports activities, continue in the online format.
The main difference before and during the pandemic has been fewer interactions with
friends to ensure social distancing. While the pandemic will have lasting changes,
including to schooling, these more extreme changes at the height of the pandemic will
not remain as they are. Hence, in Singapore, the data we collected remains relevant
to children’s lives now and in future, as students continued school with a mixture of
face-to-face lessons and home-based learning.
References
Ang, J. (2018, September 28). Move to remove exams at primary 2 level draws mixed reactions. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/move-to-remove-exams-at-p2-
level-draws-mixed-reactions.
Baller, S., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (2016). The global information technology report 2016. Geneva:
World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.
pdf.
Bennis, W.G. & Burt, N. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Harper & Row.
Choo, D. (2012). 1 in 2 who engage tuition teachers spend more than $500 per month:
survey. Yahoo! News. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/1-in-2-who-engage-tuition-teachers-spend-
more-than--500-month--survey.html.
Davie, S. (2015, July 4). 7 in 10 parents send their children for tuition: ST poll. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/7-in-10-parents-send-their-chi
ldren-for-tuition-st-poll.
References 31
Davie, S. (2017, August 20). Singapore students suffer from high levels of anxiety:
Study. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/spore-students-suf
fer-from-high-levels-of-anxiety-study.
Davie, S. (2018, September 29). Fewer exams for students, less emphasis on grades. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/fewer-exams-for-students-less-
emphasis-on-grades.
Dimmock, C., & Tan, C. Y. (2013). Educational leadership in Singapore: Tight coupling, sustain-
ability, scalability, and succession. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 320–340.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311492.
Dornan, J. (2008). Learning from Singapore: the findings of a delegation of North Carolinians that
examined education and the economy. The Center for International Understanding.
DQ Institute. (2018). 2018 national DQ impact report: Singapore. https://www.singtel.com/
content/dam/singtel/sustainability/Sustainability_reports_PDF%27s/2018_DQ_Singapore_Nat
ional_Report.pdf.
Forbes. (2018). The World’s most innovative companies. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/innova
tive-companies/list/.
Goh, C. B., & Gopinathan, S. (2008). Education in Singapore: Development since 1965. In B.
Fredriksen & J. P. Tan (Eds.), An African exploration of the East Asian education (pp. 80–108).
The World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/15599.
Goh, K. S. (1979). Report on the Ministry of Education 1978. Ministry of Culture. https://www.
nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-details/7b01f369-115d-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad.
Goodwin, A. L., Low, E. L., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Empowered educators in Singapore:
How high-performing systems shape teaching quality. John Wiley & Sons.
Gopinathan, S. (1996). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 16, 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188799608542612.
Hardy, I., Hamid, M. O., & Reyes, V. (2021). The pragmatic perfectionism of educational policy:
Reflections on/from Singapore. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 19, 355–370.
Ho, J. M., & Koh, T. S. (2018). Historical development of educational leadership in Singapore. In T.
S. Koh & D. Hung (Eds.), Leadership for change: The Singapore schools’ experience (pp. 29–83).
World Scientific.
Ho, W. K. (2006). Education in Singapore: focusing on quality and choice in learning: a country
report (2006). Singapore Teachers’ Union.
ICTconnection. (n.d.). ICT connection: Masterplan 4: our ICT journey. https://ictconnection.moe.
edu.sg/masterplan-4/our-ict-journey.
Infocomm Media Development Authority. (2016). Children’s daily time spent on media
activities. https://data.gov.sg/dataset/children-s-daily-time-spent-on-media-activities?resource_
id=606fea8c-462b-4a98-bfa1-f6f01073dc5a.
Karrupiah, N. (2017, July 30). Commentary: Do our young really need expensive enrichment
classes?—by Dr Nirmala Karrupiah (ECSE). https://www.nie.edu.sg/news-detail/commentary-
do-our-young-really-need-expensive-enrichment-classes---by-dr-nirmala-karrupiah.
Kuah, A. W. (2018, October 1). Global-is-Asian: Society and social policy. Lee Kuan Yew School of
Public Policy. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/why-move-to-reduce-examinations-and-emp
hasis-on-grades-is-disconcerting-but-necessary.
Lee, S. -S., Hung, D., & Teh, L. W. (2013). Moving Singapore from great to excellent: How
educational research informs this shift. KEDÍ Journal of Educational Policy, 267–291.
Lee, Y. N. (2017, February 16). Rethinking Singapore’s education: from emphasis on grades to
constant retraining of workers. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/rethinking-singapore-
education-from-emphasis-on-grades-to-constant-retraining-of-wokers.html.
Lim, L. C. (2017, March 8). BBC News. BBC News Business. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-
39142030.
Majid, S. (2018). Leisure reading behavior of young children in Singapore. Reading Horizons: A
Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 57(2), 56–81. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_h
orizons/vol57/iss2/5/.
MOE. (2014). 21st century competencies. Ministry of Education.

MOE. (2015, September 22). Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, minister for education, at
the ministry of education work plan seminar 2015, on Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 9:15am
at Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. Ministry of Education. https://www.moe.gov.sg/
news/speeches/20150922-keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat-minister-for-education-at-
the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar-2015-on-tuesday-22-september-2015-at-9-15am-
at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre.
MOE. (2019, May 14). MOE 50 years of sg education. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://
www.moe.gov.sg/about/publications/50-years-of-sg-education/building-a-nation.
MOE. (2020a). Primary school education booklet. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.
moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/2021/curriculum-booklets/primary-school-education-booklet-
2021.pdf.
MOE. (2020b). Education statistics digest 2020b. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.
moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/about-us/education-statistics-digest-2020b.pdf.
MOE (2021a). Overview of compulsory education. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.
moe.gov.sg/primary/compulsory-education/overview.
MOE. (2021b). Our mission and vision. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.
sg/about-us/our-mission-and-vision.
MOE. (2021c). Why is MOE changing the PSLE scoring system? Ministry of Education Singapore.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/microsites/psle-fsbb/psle/changing-psle-scoring-system.html.
MOE. (2021d) Full subject based banding. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.
gov.sg/microsites/psle-fsbb/full-subject-based-banding/main.html.
MOE. (2021e). Subject-based banding for primary school. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://
www.moe.gov.sg/primary/curriculum/subject-based-banding.
National Library Board. (n.d.). Introduction of single session system in schools. https://eresources.
nlb.gov.sg/history/events/53f31349-1918-493d-9c05-74017f98b9cb.
Ng, K. H., Teo, Y. Y., Neo, Y. W., Maulod, A., Chok, S., & Wong, Y. L. (2021). What people need
in Singapore: A household budgets study. https://whatsenough.sg/key-findings-mis2021/.
Ng, J. (2016, October 3). Are supplementary classes after school really necessary? The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/are-supplementary-classes-after-school-
really-necessary.
Ng. (2021). Timely change and timeless constants: COVID-19 and educational change in Singapore.
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 20, 19–27. https://link.springer.com/article/10.
1007/s10671-020-09285-3.
Norruddin, N. (2018, May). Thinking schools, learning nation. e-resources NLB. https://eresources.
nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2018-06-04_154236.html.
NYSI (National Youth Sports Insititute). 2020. JSA. https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/our-
programmes/junior-sports-academy
OECD. (2017). Schoolwork-related anxiety, in PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-
Being, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-8-en.
aper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives, PISA.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777.
Ong, Y. K. (2018, July 11). Speeches/Interviews. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.
moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/parliamentary-motion-education-for-our-future--response-by-min
ister-for-education--mr-ong-ye-kung.
Philomin, L. (2014, September 29). More parents enrolling children in pre-school enrichment
classes. Todayonline.com. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/more-parents-enrolling-chi
ldren-pre-school-enrichment-classes.
QS Top Universities. (2021). Study in Singapore. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-ran
kings-articles/qs-best-student-cities/singapore.
References 33
Quah, M. L., Sharpe, P., Lim, A. S. E., & Heng, M. A. (1995). Home and parental influences on
the achievement of lower primary school children in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Education,
15(2), 12–32.
Rajah, I. (2018, July 11). Education for our future. https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?rep
ortid=motion-188.
Sim, C. (2016, September 1). Singapore Infopedia: Education bilingual policy. Singapore Infopedia.
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2016-09-01_093402.html.
Sinnakaruppan, R. (2017, March 27). Why Singapore’s education system needs an over-
haul. TodayOnline. https://www.todayonline.com/daily-focus/education/why-spores-education-
system-needs-overhaul.
Skills Future. (2016). Skills future credit. My Skills Future. http://www.skillsfuture.sg/Credit.
Soo, L. M. J., & Chua, S. K. C. (2014). The 21st century approach in teaching home economics, A
Singapore perspective. International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum., 20(2), 61–75. https://
doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v20i02/48959.
Tan, C. Y., & Dimmock, C. (2014). How a ‘top-performing’ Asian school system formulates
and implements policy: The case of Singapore. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 42, 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213510507.
Tan, Y. K., Chow, H. K., & Goh, C. (2008). Examinations in Singapore: Change and continuity
(1891–2007). World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.
Tan, C. K., & Choy, W. (2016). The education system in Singapore. Asian Education Systems,
129–148.
Tan, C. (2010). Educational policy trajectories in an era of globalisation: Singapore and Cambodia.
Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 40, 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11125-010-9170-6.
Tan, C. (2019). Comparing high-performing education systems: Understanding Singapore,
Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Routledge.
Teng, A. (2014a). Singapore ranks third globally in time spent on homework. The Straits
Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/singapore-ranks-third-globally-in-
time-spent-on-homework.
Teng, A. (2014b). Are students spending too much time on CCAs? March 31. The Straits Times.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/are-students-spending-too-much-time-on-ccas.
Teng, A. (2018a, September 28). 5 key changes to exams and assessments in schools.
The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/5-key-changes-to-examin
ations-and-assessments-in-schools.
Teng, A. (2018b, September 29). Report books: No class and cohort positions. The Straits Times.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/report-books-no-class-and-cohort-positions.
Teng, A. (2018c, March 5). Parliament: All primary schools to have applied, hands-on learning
programmes by 2023. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-all-
primary-schools-to-have-applied-hands-on-learning-programmes-by-2023.
Teng, A. (2022, March 7). Budget debate: No more mid-year exams for all primary and secondary
schools from 2023. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/budget-
debate-no-more-mid-year-exams-for-all-primary-and-secondary-school-students-from-next-
year.
Teo, Y. (2022). Education as care labor: Expanding our lens on the work-life balance problem.
Current Sociology, 00113921211072577.
The Straits Times. (2018, September 28). Changes to school assessment: What you need to know. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/changes-to-school-assessment-
what-you-need-to-know.
United Nations. (n.d.). The 17 Goals. United Nations department of economic and social affairs.
Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
Wang, L. Y. (2021). Levelling up academically low-performing students in student-centric education
in Singapore: Global trend, local policies and future directions. Educational Review, 73, 374–390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1642304.
Wilson, H. E. (1977). Education as an instrument of policy in Southeast Asia: The Singapore

example. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 8, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00224634000
15654.
Woon, C. L. (2012). World’s educational issues, policies and research in the 21st century: The
Singapore’s Perspective. Journal of All India Association for Educational Research, 24(1).
World Population Review. (2022). Singapore population 2022 (Live). World Population Review.
Retrieved January 11, 2022, from https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/singapore-pop
ulation.
Yang, C., & Teng, A. (2016, April 17). Going beyond grades: Evolving the Singapore education
system. AsiaOne. http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/going-beyond-grades-evolving-singapore-
education-system.
Yang, C. (2016, October 3). Tuition race hots up as big players up their game. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/tuition-race-hots-up-as-big-pla
yers-up-their-gam.
Chapter 3
Timetabling and Routines in Singapore
Schools
Abstract This chapter describes the school timetables and routines in Singapore
schools. School timetables are used as the main strategy to implement many of the
key initiatives such as the “Thinking School, Learning Nation (TSLN)” vision and
the “Teach Less, Learn More” initiative. The time allocated for school subjects is
calibrated to support the implementation of key educational initiatives. This chapter
explores timetabling and routines as part of children’s everyday lifeworlds at school
in Singapore. Timetables and routines allow the students to prepare in advance and
anticipate upcoming events. Students are well-aware of the expectations from the
teachers, and this reduces unnecessary logistical and operational process.
Keywords School timetables · Class routines · School subjects · Lesson

structure · Singapore curriculum
Class timetables are an important aspect of the education system. Timetables were
part of the strategies that were used to support the implementation of the central
purpose of the education system (Low et al., 2017). Many of the successful initiatives
in the Singapore education system were in part attributed to a clear and systematic
rollout of class timetables. For example, the implementation of the “ability-based,
aspirations-driven” phase (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008; Ho & Koh, 2018; Ministry
of Education (MOE, 2021a) that operationalised the “Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation” (TSLN) vision articulated in 1997 was facilitated by a systematic and holistic
revamp of the class timetables in schools. Schools had some degree of freedom to
structure their school timetables to facilitate the successful implementation of the
expanded school curriculum.
A systematic review of the class timetables was also critical in the implementation
of the current “student-centric, values-driven” phase that began in 2011 (Ho & Koh,
2018; Wang, 2021). The Framework for 21st Century Competencies and Student
Outcomes articulates the values and competencies emphasised by the “student-
centric, values-driven” phase (MOE, 2014). School timetables and routines are both
a consequence and a cause of educational policies and objectives. Timetables are
used to facilitate the successful rollout of new educational policies and initiatives
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_3
36 3 Timetabling and Routines in Singapore Schools
(e.g. elective art and music programmes) and also to facilitate certain changes in the
behaviour and mindset of students and teachers (e.g. TSLN).
3.1 Timetables: Structures for Achieving Educational

Policies and Goals
As outlined in Chap. 2, primary school education is compulsory for all Singapore

citizens born after 1 January 1996, between the ages of 6–15, and living in Singapore
(MOE, 2021b). The purpose of primary school education is to provide: (1) “a firm
foundation for further education” and (2) “common school experiences that will help
build national identity and encourage social cohesion” (MOE, 2021b). The objectives
of the primary school curriculum are to provide students a strong foundation that
helps them to develop: (1) nurturing sound values; (2) positive social-emotional
competency and citizenship dispositions; and (3) sound literacy and numeracy skills
(MOE, 2021c).
The curriculum offered in primary schools is centred around three components
that provide students the foundation for future success: (1) subject disciplines; (2)
knowledge skills; and (3) character development (MOE, 2021c). These three key
aspects of primary school curriculum are specifically described as:
• Subject disciplines: These are languages (English as first language, Mother
Tongue/Higher Mother Tongue and a third language (optional)), humanities and
the arts and mathematics and sciences.
• Knowledge skills: Embedded in various subjects, these skills help students to
develop their thinking and communication skills. A common approach is the use
of project work.
• Character development: Facilitated through a variety of approaches such as Char-
acter and Citizenship Education lessons, everyday interactions and key Student
Development Experiences, students learn and explore issues and questions about
core values, social-emotional competence and citizenship dispositions (MOE,
2021c).
Timetables are used to ensure that adequate time is set aside in a structured manner
for the different subjects, activities and programmes (MOE, 2020a). For example,
many primary schools allocate at least 30 min per week within the English Language
lessons for students to read silently (MOE, 2020a). A minimum number of hours
are also allocated within the timetables for Mathematics and Science in the primary
schools (MOE, 2020a). One quarter of the curriculum time in lower primary school
is allocated for art and sport education (MOE, 2019).
The Ministry of Education (MOE) has specifically stated the format and minimum
amount of curriculum time that must be allocated for the Character and Citizenship
Education (CCE) lessons, in the curriculum in place at the time of the ethnographies:
3.1 Timetables: Structures for Achieving Educational Policies and Goals 37
Social Emotional Learning (SEL) is explicitly taught during Form Teacher Guidance Period
(FTGP). In addition, form teachers bond with students through interaction activities within
the period. Lessons on Cyber Wellness (CW), Education and Career Guidance (ECG) and
protection from abuse (Primary 1 to Primary 4) have been incorporated in FTGP lessons to
address specific issues, reinforce the core values and social and emotional competencies to
enable students to apply them to the specific contexts (MOE, 2012, p. 6).
CCE is made up of three components: CCE lessons (one hour for lower primary
and 90 min for upper primary each week), FTGP (30 min) and Assembly (30 min).
The total curriculum time for CCE for the lower and upper primary levels is 60
and 75 h, respectively (MOE, 2012, p. 6). CCE lessons are conducted in the official
Mother Tongue Languages as the topics will be taught through cultural stories, songs,
idioms and proverbs that are unique to the respective cultural setting and are better
expressed in the students’ Mother Tongue. Students who are exempted from taking
Mother Tongue as a subject are taught in English.
In addition to the school curriculum, timetables are also used to facilitate teacher
professional development initiatives and programmes. For example, specific times-
lots are timetabled into the teacher work schedule to provide space for teachers to
participate in professional learning communities (Hairon & Tan, 2017). These exam-
ples illustrate how class timetables are used to facilitate and ensure the success of
key educational initiatives, in particular subjects that are often perceived to be of less
importance as they are not included in the national Primary School Leaving Exami-
nation (PSLE) at the end of Primary 6 (e.g. CCE). School timetables are discussed
as topics of interest by the Singapore news media (e.g. Chiang, 2019; Lingen, 2018;
Channel NewsAsia, 2019, 2021) and by parents in online forums such as Kiasu
Parents (https://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/).
In Singapore, there have been frequent complaints by parents and children that
schools start too early (Chiang, 2019; Lingen, 2018; Channel NewsAsia, 2021). Most
of the primary schools start between 7.30 am and 8 am. This means that the students
must be in school before the start time. This is earlier than the primary school start
time in many other locations, such as Hong Kong and Australia. Researchers have
found significant benefits to having a later school start time in terms of students’
subjective perception of wellbeing (Lo et al., 2018). Parents and teachers surveyed
by Lo et al. (2018) agreed that a later school start time is beneficial for students’
wellbeing. The school they studied delayed the school start time by 45 min but
maintained its existing school dismissal time.
School timetables and curriculum time are of such importance that these issues
have even been the topics for debate and questioning in the Singapore Parliament (e.g.
MOE, 2017, 2019, 2020a, 2020b, 2021d, 2021e). The MOE (2021d) has articulated
a set of guidelines for schools regarding their school start time. The MOE guidelines
state that school start time cannot be earlier than 7.30 am. Schools should consider
factors such as traffic conditions, availability and convenience of modes of transport,
parents’ feedback, impact on after school and inter-school programmes and school
timetable if they want to set a later school start time. In a parliamentary reply dated 4
July 2022, the Minister for Education has reiterated that schools have the autonomy
to set a later school start time (MOE, 2022a). The MOE also provided data on the
number of schools that have a later school start time (i.e. later than the default 7.30 am
school start time) (Choo, 2022; MOE, 2022b). Around 14% of primary schools, about
50% of secondary schools and almost all junior colleges have school start times that
are later than 7.30 am on at least three days a week (Choo, 2022; MOE, 2022b).
Schools must consider the factors stated in the said guidelines when setting a later
school start time. In addition, schools need to consider other potential implications
of a later start time, such as how this may impact parents’ ability to start work on
time. While schools may set a later school starting time, the schools will ensure
that timetables for curriculum and co-curriculum programmes provide for optimal
coverage and sufficient time for student success.
3.2 Timetables in Primary Schools
School timetables are planned to optimise the time allocated for both the formal and
informal curriculum (MOE, 2020a). As described in Chap. 2, the subjects in primary
schools are English Language, Mother Tongue Language, Mathematics, Science,
Art, Music, Physical Education (PE), Social Studies and CCE.
The weekly timetables for the two Primary 4 (9–10 years old) classes that partic-
ipated in our study are shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. The starting time for School
Equality was 7.30 am, while School Harmony started at 7.45 am. Both schools ended
the school day at 1.30 pm. English Language, Mathematics, Mother Tongue and
Science subjects are allocated significantly more curriculum time as they are consid-
ered important main subjects (Chong, 1993) (see Table 3.3). Collectively, these four
examinable subjects took up about 65% of the available curriculum time per week at
these two schools. This is likely to be the norm in all primary schools in Singapore
as schools follow a standard policy in this respect.
3.2.1 Difference in Time Allocation for the Two Schools
Table 3.3 shows the total amount of time and the percentage of curriculum time
allocated for different subjects in School Equality and School Harmony, respectively.
In general, the amount of time allocated for each subject in the two schools was quite
similar. However, School Equality spent 90 min more in teaching Mother Tongue
compared with School Harmony. This may be due to School Equality being one
of the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools in Singapore. As outlined in Chap. 1,
SAP schools in Singapore help their students to be immersed in a school environment
that emphasises Chinese language and culture, in order to develop students who are
proficient in both English and Chinese languages.
Although SAP schools offer only Chinese Language for the Mother Tongue
subject, all SAP schools offer Conversational Malay Language Programmes (MOE,
2021f). As School Equality is a SAP school, they offer Higher Mother Tongue to their
Table 3.1 Weekly timetable for Primary 4 at School Equality
Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3.2 Timetables in Primary Schools
Time 0730–0800 0800–0830 0830–0900 0900–0930 0930–1000 1000–1030 1030–1100 1100–1130 1130–1200 1200–1230 1230–1300 1300–1330
Mon EL MA RE HCL SC AHM4
Tue MA EL RE SCLAB CCE AC HCL
Wed SC 4PE1 EL RE HCL MA SS NANO
Thu 4PE2 MA RE SS EL EL/TK (Odd) HCL
Fri EL MU RE HCL MA HCL CCE NANO
Note EL English language, EL/TK (Odd) English language /thinking lesson, MA Mathematics, HCL higher Chinese language, SC science, SCLAB science lab, CCE character and citizenship education,
AC art/craft*, AHM4 Mass Physical Education+ , 4PE1/4PE2 physical education, SS social studies, NANO Form teacher guidance period, MU music, RE recess
* Art/Craft is currently known as “Art” syllabus, but the school still used the phrase Art & Craft from a previous version of the syllabus
+ Mass Physical Education lessons enable the entire cohort of students to participate in physical education activities at the same time. For example, the entire school may participate in a mass run or dance
(AsiaOne, 2008; Schoolbag, 2010, 2018). Regular physical education lessons are conducted one class at a time
39
40
Table 3.2 Weekly timetable for Primary 4 at School Harmony

Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Time 0745–0830 0830–0900 0900–0930 0930–1000 1000–1030 1030–1100 1100–1130 1130–1200 1200–1230 1230–1300 1300–1330
Mon FTGP FTGP MT PE/HE PE/HE EL RE MA MA SC SC
Tue MA MA EL EL AC AC RE MT MT SS MA
Wed MA MT MT SC PE/HE EL RE EL EL EL CCE
Thu MA MA PE/HE PE/HE EL EL RE MU MU MT MT
(Spelling)
Fri MA EL EL SC MT MT RE CCE EL (Library) EL (Library) SS
Note FTGP form teacher guidance period, MT mother tongue, PE/HE physical education /health education, EL English language, MA mathematics, SC science,
AC art/craft*, SS social studies, CCE character and citizenship education, MU music, RE recess
* Art/Craft is currently known as “Art” syllabus, but the school still used the phrase Art & Craft from a previous version of the syllabus
3 Timetabling and Routines in Singapore Schools
3.2 Timetables in Primary Schools 41
Table 3.3 Total amount of time spent per week and % of curriculum time allocated for different
subjects in School Equality and School Harmony
Subject Time spent per week
School Equality School Harmony
min % of curriculum time min % of curriculum time
English 360 20.0 390 22.6
Maths 330 18.3 330 19.1
Mother tongue (MT) 360 20.0 270 15.6
Character and citizenship 60 3.3 60 3.5
education (CCE) (taught in
MT)
Science 150 8.3 120 7.0
Physical education (PE) 90 5 150 8.7
Mass physical education 60 3.3 – –
Art 60 3.3 60 3.5
Music 60 3.3 60 3.5
Social studies 60 3.3 60 3.5
Form teacher guidance 60 3.3 75 4.3
period
Recess 150 8.3 150 8.7
Total 1800 99.7 1725 100
Note Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding
students. Higher Mother Tongue has a more demanding syllabus than the common
Mother Tongue; hence, more time is allocated.
3.2.2 Autonomy to Timetable Planning
Schools have some degree of flexibility in planning their class timetables (MOE,
2021d). Schools may decide to set different start and end times for the school days.
Although the difference may be as little as 15 min or as much as 45 min, the impact
on the class timetable can be significant. The main consideration, however, for most
schools is the allocation of sufficient curriculum time for the different subjects
without having to delay the school dismissal time. A later school dismissal time
is discouraged by the MOE (2020b).
School Harmony started 15 min later than School Equality, but both schools ended
at the same time; therefore, School Harmony had 75 min less time per week. School
Harmony spent 30 min longer in teaching English language per week compared with
School Equality. The extra time given to English may be due to School Harmony
being considered more of a “neighbourhood” school1 than School Equality, and

the English proficiency of the students was generally lower. Both schools spent
the same amount of time in teaching Mathematics. It was interesting to note that
School Harmony scheduled Mathematics during the first lesson on all days except
for Monday, possibly to place emphasis on Mathematics as the first subject for the
day.
Teachers almost always followed the timetable except on certain occasions where
the same teacher taught two subjects consecutively. For example, School Equality had
a “Thinking Lesson” during which students learned about things that were beyond
the formal curriculum. This “Thinking Lesson” was considered as part of the English
Language subject, but the teacher decided that they would continue with their usual
English Language lesson as it was close to the examination week.
Both schools allocated a maximum of one hour for subjects such as English
Language, Mathematics and Mother Tongue for each lesson. However, during the
observation period, the lessons occasionally lasted up to 90 min. Most of the Primary
4 students in the observed classes found it difficult to concentrate for this length of
time, and many were seen fidgeting and not paying attention towards the end of the
90-min lessons.
3.2.3 Teacher and Classroom Allocation
In Singapore, teachers are currently trained for teaching two subjects in primary
or secondary schools. Teachers trained to teach specialised subjects such as Art,
Music, PE and Mother Tongue Languages will teach only their specialised subject
in schools. Teachers working in the junior colleges are also trained to teach one
specialised subject (NIE, 2000, 2021a, 2021b). As such, the way that teachers are
deployed to teach one or two subjects in the first instance will influence the school
timetables.
In almost all the observed lessons, one teacher was present during the lesson time.
The exceptions were when a student teacher was working with the teacher during the
lesson, or when external instructors worked with the teacher on special topics (e.g.
a lesson in ceramics).
The students in both schools stayed in the same form classroom for most of their
lessons except for Mother Tongue, Music, Science Lab lessons, PE and CCE where
the students had to move to other classrooms. Art lessons were sometimes taught in
the form classrooms and sometimes in the Art rooms at both schools. Students were
only left unattended during transition from one lesson to another. If a teacher was
1 “Neighbourhood” schools generally refer to any government primary and secondary schools that
are not separately classified as Special Assistance Plan schools (SAP), autonomous schools, inde-
pendent schools, specialised schools or independent specialised schools (MOE, 2022c). The term
“neighbourhood school” is not an official term used by the government but rather is a colloquial
term used in Singapore to refer to a typical government primary or secondary school. The definition
of SAP school was explained elsewhere in this chapter.
3.2 Timetables in Primary Schools 43
absent, a relief teacher would be arranged to take the class. Assignments would be
set beforehand by the teacher for the relief teacher to administer.
3.2.4 Examination Versus Non-examination Subjects
Time per subject was allocated based on their perceived importance. For example,
Social Studies, a non-examinable subject, was only allocated 1 h per week, whereas
Mathematics, English Language, Science and Mother Tongue Languages (i.e. exam-
inable subjects) were assigned significantly more hours per week. Subjects such as
Science and PE were given 120–150 min per week. By having differing time alloca-
tions per subject, the schools were helping their students to prepare for the Primary
School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) which the students complete at the end of
Primary 6. Students are assessed on English Language, Mathematics, Science and
Mother Tongue for the PSLE (SEAB, 2021). Hence, more importance is given to
these subjects.
3.2.5 Recess Time and Snack Time
School Equality scheduled its recess break from 9.30 am to 10 am each day. Recess
time was spent in the school canteen. Students could bring home-packed food or buy
food from the school canteen and eat in the canteen area. The students were given
their snack break around 12 pm where the students could eat some light snacks while
they remained in the classroom. On the other hand, School Harmony scheduled its
recess break from 11.00 am to 11.30 am and scheduled the snack break earlier at
about 9 am every day. As with subject timetables, schools have the autonomy to
decide on matters such as recess time, provided that they observe the overall subject
requirements set by the MOE. Students brought a variety of snacks to class, which
mostly the parents packed for them from home. Some students purchased their snacks
from the school canteen during recess time.
The school canteens sold a variety of food. The common vendors were the
beverage stall that sold hot and cold drinks, rice and/or noodle stall, fruit stall and
snack stall. The rice stall sold cooked brown rice with a variety of meat and vegetable
dishes which the students could choose as sides in a bento box or a plate, and the
rice set had to be served with a slice of fruit. In accordance with the Health Promo-
tion Board “Healthy Meals in School Programme” (Health Promotion Board, 2021),
proportionately half of the rice bento box should contain vegetables and fruit, a
quarter meat and alternatives and a quarter of rice. Drinks and food sold in school
must be those labelled with the Healthier Food Choice symbols, i.e. low sugar and
low fat. There are usually halal, non-halal and vegetarian options available to cater for
cultural and religious differences. Some schools introduced other cuisines, such as
Western, Japanese, Korean and/or fusion dishes. To be environmentally sustainable,

the canteen vendors do not use any single-use plastic and straws unless necessary.
3.3 School and Classroom Routines
Establishing routine is an essential part of learning and teaching as routines can

help to ensure that the lessons are delivered smoothly, saving time on instructions
and explanations, hence creating a norm or culture for the specific class. In classic
classroom management theory, making sure certain routines are in place became a
crucial feature in teaching and learning. Routines can be very general behavioural
expectations that the school may have designated for the whole cohort, as well as
specific routines, depending on the style of the teacher and dynamic of the individual
class. For example, timetabling provides the students with the general weekly routine,
and the students are very clear which subjects they will be attending. In each class,
some teachers have their own preference, such as ensuring the students do not have
any items other than those meant for the subject, and a system of distributing and
collecting materials. When the first classroom ethnographies were conducted in April
at both schools, several routines had been established since the start of the year.
The classroom ethnographies provided in-depth descriptions of the routines in the
classroom, some of which are further elaborated below.
3.3.1 Lesson Structure
In the morning, the students gathered at the school hall or assembly area for the flag
raising ceremony. They then sang the national anthem, recited the national pledge
and sang the school song. Sometimes, the school leader and/or teachers would give
some general instructions. The students would then be dismissed to their respective
classrooms to wait for their teacher. The teacher would start with a greeting “Good
morning/afternoon class”, and the students would return the greeting. Most teachers
would then complete some administrative tasks. Next, the teacher would recap the
previous lesson, then conduct the lesson proper. At the end of the lesson, the teacher
would carry out some reinforcement activities on the topic just taught. They would
provide some instructions for the next lesson and end the lesson with an exchange
of greetings or thanks.
This lesson routine has been taught and practised for decades and has become the
norm. Trainee teachers are also assessed on the way they introduce and conclude
lessons, for classroom management and for setting expectations and routines
(National Institute of Education (NIE, 2022). In both schools, a bell or music would
sound about five minutes before the end of a lesson as a reminder for the teachers
to end the lesson. A routine observed in all lessons was the teachers reminding the
3.3 School and Classroom Routines 45
students about the amount of time remaining for them to complete their task before
the end of the lesson. We further explore the structure of lessons in the next chapter.
3.3.2 Classroom Management
In School Equality and School Harmony, the teachers shared a few common ways of
maintaining classroom order. To gain the attention of the students when they became
rowdy, teachers commonly tried the following strategies as listed in Table 3.4. From
our observation, on average, most of the teachers would carry out a few of actions
in the table once in each lesson. For example, in School Harmony, the Mathematics
teacher had already established a set routine with the class. Her instructions were
to put everything away before the start of her lesson. This was clearly understood
by most students. For example, a student took out a notebook to take notes, and the
student next to him told him to put the book away because the teacher had instructed
them to “clear the table”. The routine in place had created an “auto-pilot” system,
and students knew what to do.
The teachers in both schools worked to ensure the students were on task and
lessons were conducted with activities to occupy the students. Students were expected
to be focused when the teacher was teaching. For example, a student was playing
with his erasers when the English teacher was teaching, and the teacher told him to
put away the erasers. During one of the Kahoot! activities during Social Studies in
School Equality, a student named his user ID as “I hate (another student’s name)”,
and the teacher instructed that student to delete and rename immediately. In the lesson
the next day, the teacher questioned the class and asked the person who did that act
to own up. She instructed the student to approach her if he has an issue with his
classmate and not to repeat such behaviour. Bullying and shaming are not allowed.
Since these classroom management approaches have already been established for the
class, the students know exactly how they should behave once the teacher reminds
them.
3.3.3 Volume and Noise Control
We noticed that the students behaved differently in the presence of different teachers
and during different subjects and topics. They were very adaptive. For example,
during core classes (English, Mathematics, Mother Tongue and Science), they knew
to keep the volume down when communicating with their friends, to the point of
whispering so that it would not be disruptive. When the teacher was giving instruc-
tions, he/she expected the students to keep quiet and listen. They were encouraged
to ask questions by raising their hands first before speaking. Being children, the
students were full of energy, easily excitable and were keen to express their thoughts
Table 3.4 Ways of capturing students’ attention or countering rowdiness

Method Teacher’s action: Students’ action
Teacher stopped teaching/activity
and …
Modelling Raised his/her voice and said, Students responded as a class
“Eyes on Me” “Eyes on me” “Eyes on you”. They would
If the whole class did not echo repeat. Usually repeating if the
back, the teacher would repeat, whole class did not chorus the
usually three times. Teacher would response
stop when the whole class replied in
unison and stop doing anything else
Modelling Raised his/her voice and said, Upon hearing the phrase
“Position 1, 2 and 3” “Position 1”, some teachers did the “Position 1, 2, and 3”, the
action, but if the routine was students did the following:
established, they just need to Position 1: Sit straight
mention the phrase. When the Position 2: Arms folded
student completed “Position 1”, the Position 3: Fingers on lips
teacher moved to “Position 2” and Variation:
“Position 3” Position 1: Raise finger in the
air
Position 2: Fingers on lips
Position 3: Cross arms
Counting down Raised his/her voice and counted Students were be alerted and
down “3, 2, 1” slowly stopped what they were doing
immediately
Gentle reminder Teacher would ask students to sit Students responded accordingly
straight and/or lower their voice
Positive reinforcement Teacher would praise students, give Students would behave in order
small prizes (stickers, snacks) or to receive praise
ask fellow classmates to clap for
those who were well behaved or did
well in their work
Teacher would allow students who
raised their hands to answer the
question. Chorus replies were
generally not encouraged to prevent
students from getting rowdy
Negative reinforcement Teacher had established certain Students were seen reminding
routines and guidelines, e.g. their friends to do what was
keeping all unnecessary items not already expected so that they
needed for the lesson, no would not be scolded
toys/games
and emotions. It was a common practice for the teacher to try to keep the volume
down.
During group work, on the other hand, children were generally excited and raised
their voice so that their friends could hear them and would speak more loudly if
necessary, to the point where the class could become quite rowdy. In one example,
3.3 School and Classroom Routines 47
the teacher was accepting of such “good” noise as the students were engaged in
discussion and completion of the task. When there was a quiz or test that would
be graded, the students kept very quiet when completing their task. Every class had
appointed a couple of students as class monitors, and their tasks were mainly to assist
the teacher, including to keep the volume down.
3.3.4 Classroom Logistical Operations
In School Harmony, the students were seated in rows. The rows were equally divided
into four groups and named after a superhero “Wonder Woman”, “Spiderman”, “Cap-
tain America” and “Flash”. When the group behaved well, such as keeping reasonably
quiet, the teacher awarded them some points. These points were accumulated, and at
the end of the semester, the group with the most points would be rewarded. Likewise,
if the group behaved poorly, points could be deducted.
When the teacher required some materials to be passed to the students or collected
from them, the students in the first row would automatically stand up to do the work.
This was done in an orderly and systematic manner, which saved time and minimised
chaos. During recess time, students were rostered to clean up the classroom, switch
off the lights, push in the chairs and pick up litter. Some of the students who were
school prefects would automatically leave the classroom five to ten minutes before
recess time to have an earlier break so that they could carry out prefect duties during
recess time. They had to ensure the students in the canteen were orderly. Students
were expected to queue for their food purchase, collect their own food and return the
plates, cups and cutlery to designated places when they finish eating. Teachers were
also rostered to monitor orderliness in the canteen during recess time. One student
was also assigned to help the teacher with setting up the computer/laptop, projection
and visualiser on the teacher’s desk.
For both primary schools, when the students needed to leave their classroom to go
to a special room or laboratory for their Science, PE or Music class, the students lined
up in two rows along the corridor outside their classroom. The teacher then ushered
them to the special rooms. They were required to sit neatly in their rows if the teacher
was late to pick them up from their classroom. The students were expected to walk
in pairs, as a whole class and not be too noisy. When students wished to leave the
room for the restrooms or elsewhere, they were required to ask for permission. The
teacher would not allow more than two students to leave the classroom at one time.
They knew they must take turns. This was to prevent students from finding excuses
to leave the room, hence causing disruption to the lesson.
3.3.5 Group Work Routine
Group work for collaborative and cooperative learning is encouraged. Students were
grouped at the start of the school year or before the start of the project. When it was
time for group work, the students were quick to form into their groups and work on
the task. Students were clear on their roles and responsibilities. For example, during
such group work in a School Harmony Music class, the teacher asked the students
to form into groups, choose their instrument and prepare for their performance. We
could see the students taking up different roles, some guiding their friends, correcting
each other, telling them to sing properly and some keeping track and making sure
they were on task. In School Equality, the students formed groups to complete their
Mathematics project work. They designed a “police and thief” game as a group to
plan an escape route for the thief and ways for the police to catch him. They took turns
to be the police and the thief to test out the game. Further information on pedagogical
approaches used in class is discussed in the next chapter.
3.3.6 Silent Reading Routine
As mentioned previously, silent reading is part of the primary school curriculum.

It was observed that, a function of silent reading was for the teachers to use this
as a tool to maintain orderliness when they noticed that the students were starting
to become restless. Some students completed their tasks more quickly than others,
and while waiting for fellow classmates to complete the task, the students could
do silent reading, thus being both academically beneficial and preventing excessive
noise. Students were to read a story book or the newspaper Little Red Dot and were
reminded that comics were not allowed, to ensure that the students read substantial
literature.
3.3.7 Home-Based Learning
Soon after data collection was completed for this study in 2019, the world was hit
with the COVID-19 pandemic, some or all the school had to be closed at short notice
to curb the spreading of the virus. Face-to-face teaching was changed to online
lessons so that teaching and learning could continue, forcing teachers, students and
parents to quickly make logisticial arrangements for virtual learning. As described
in this chapter, students need to have routines to ensure orderliness to carry out
efficient and effective teaching and learning. Virtual learning required a new set of
routines for the teachers and students and also the parents. Starting in April 2020,
MOE initiated Home-Based Learning (HBL) as a regular feature in the timetable
for Singapore schools, at least for one day of the week (MOE, 2020c, 2021g). This
was to provide students with the familiarity to HBL routine in the event that they
References 49
could not attend school when they were unwell or due to sudden school closure.
Students were guided by teachers via synchronous and asynchronous online lessons
and completed assigned work online according to a set timetable for the home-based
learning day. The HBL initiative removed all the venue and deployment constraints,
but it was meant to complement the on-site school schedule, not to replace it.
3.4 Conclusions
This chapter reviewed the key educational policies in Singapore, asserted that school
timetables are used to facilitate the successful implementation of certain educational
policies, analysed the school timetables at the two primary schools in Singapore and
reflected on some of the common routines in primary classrooms. School timetables
are of importance and interest to the MOE, members of the Singapore Parliament,
educators, parents and researchers. There has been much discussion in academic
publications, newspapers and social media about the duration of the timetables,
school starting time and time spent in school and on school-related work. While
school timetables are planned by individual schools based on their operational and
pedagogical requirements, factors such as teacher deployment, policies set by the
MOE and venue constraints place certain limits on the schools’ flexibility to truly
be creative with the timetables to optimise students’ learning. School timetables
and routines are influential on children’s lifeworlds and their everyday school expe-
riences. In this chapter, we have explored these through MOE directives, school
timetables and our observations of timetabling and routines. Students’ views of the
school timetable and activities are focused on in Chap. 5.
References
AsiaOne. (2008, February 26). HuHF, it’s not TAF to get fit. AsiaOne. https://www.asiaone.com/
News/Education/Story/A1Story20080226-51472.html
Channel NewsAsia. (2019, April 7). The challenging task of generating school timetables. Channel
NewsAsia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/school-timetables-challenging-subject-
based-banding-883366
Channel NewsAsia. (2021, August 5). Later school start times ‘make sense’ for adolescents, who
have natural tendency to fall asleep later: Experts. Channel NewsAsia. https://www.channelne
wsasia.com/singapore/later-school-start-times-better-more-sleep-students-2094276
Chiang, S. (2019, October 5). This is what a typical primary school student’s schedule looks like
today. RICE. https://www.ricemedia.co/current-affairs-opinion-typical-primary-school-students-
schedule/
Chong, T. H. (1993). Mathematics education in Singapore: Instructional excellence and challenges
ahead. Paper presented at the 14th AAMT Biennial Conference: Mini-conference, Singapore.
Choo, D. (2022, July 6). Parliament in brief: 4 things you need to know. Today. https://www.todayo
nline.com/singapore/parliament-brief-4-things-you-need-know-1936671
Fredriksen & J. P. Tan (Eds.), An African exploration of the east Asian education (pp. 80–108).
The World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/15599
Hairon, S., & Tan, C. (2017). Professional learning communities in Singapore and Shanghai:
Implications for teacher collaboration. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 47(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2016.1153408
Health Promotion Board. (2021). Healthy meals in school programme. Health Promotion Board.
https://hpb.gov.sg/schools/school-programmes/healthy-meals-in-schools-programme#:~:text=
The%20Healthy%20Meals%20in%20Schools,Education%20to%20actively%20encourage%
20participation
World Scientific.
Lingen, J. L. (2018, February 25). More primary schools could start later. Today. https://www.tod
ayonline.com/voices/more-primary-schools-could-start-classes-later
Lo, J. C., Lee, S. M., Lee, X. K., Sasmita, K., Chee, N. I., Tandi, J., Cher, W. S., Gooley, J. J., &
Chee, M. W. (2018). Sustained benefits of delaying school start time on adolescent sleep and
well-being. Sleep, 41(6), zsy052.
Low, E. L., Goodwin, A. L., & Snyder, J. (2017). Focused on learning: Student and teacher time in
a Singapore school. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
MOE. (2012). Character and citizenship education syllabus. Ministry of Education Singapore.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/characterandcitizenshipeducationprimarysyllab
usenglish.pdf?la=en&hash=07C4DBF66BCF5182FF4AEA4436679A96466DDE24
MOE. (2014). 21st century competencies. Ministry of Education.
MOE. (2017, July 3). Starting school later to allow students to sleep more. Ministry of
Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2017a0703-starting-
school-later-to-allow-students-to-sleep-more
MOE. (2019, January 14). Plans for P1 and P2 students, in view of removal of assessment. Ministry
of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/20190114-plans-
for-p1-and-p2-students-in-view-of-removal-of-assessment
MOE. (2020a, November 2). Primary school curriculum time. Ministry of Education
Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2020a1102-primary-school-cur
riculum-time
MOE. (2020b, June 1). MOE: School start times, class sizes all a matter of balance. Ministry
of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/forum-letter-replies/2020b0601-moe-sch
ool-start-times-class-sizes-all-a-matter-of-balance
MOE. (2020c, March 7). Schools to implement one day of home-based learning a week.
Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/2020c0327-schools-to-implement-
one-day-of-home-based-learning-a-week
MOE. (2021a, October 18). Our mission and vision. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.
moe.gov.sg/about-us/our-mission-and-vision
MOE. (2021b, October 18). Overview of compulsory education. Ministry of Education Singapore.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/primary/compulsory-education/overview
MOE. (2021c, May). Primary school education. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.
moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/2021c/curriculum-booklets/primary-school-education-boo
klet-2021c.pdf?la=en&hash=68C550A385523794C224408A8DC1C6A2EB1E4364
MOE. (2021d, August 3). School start time. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.
gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2021d0803-school-start-time
MOE. (2021e, October 18). Primary school subjects and syllabuses. Ministry of Education
Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/primary/curriculum/syllabus
MOE. (2021f, May 10). SAP schools. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/
news/parliamentary-replies/2021f0510-sap-schools
References 51
MOE. (2021g, March 3). MOE FY2021g committee of supply debate response by Minister for
Education Lawrence Wong. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/spe
eches/2021g0303-moe-fy2021g-committee-of-supply-debate-response-by-minister-for-educat
ion-lawrence-wong
MOE. (2022a, July 4). School start and end times. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.
moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2022a0704-school-start-and-end-times
MOE. (2022b, July 5). Schools’ autonomy to adopt a later school start time. Ministry of Education
Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/2022b0705-schools-autonomy-
to-adopt-a-later-school-start-time
MOE. (2022c). Types of schools. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/educat
ion-in-sg/our-schools/types-of-schools
NIE. (2020). Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) programme handbook. National Insti-
tute of Education. https://www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ote-documents/pgde_docs/pgde-
handbook-december-2020_23-nov-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=cbb065d1_2
NIE. (2021a). Bachelor of Arts (Education)/Bachelor of Science (Education) programme handbook.
National Institute of Education. https://www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-
library/babsc_programmes_ay2021a-2022_3-september-2021a.pdf?sfvrsn=cbb06589_0
NIE. (2021b). Diploma programmes programme handbook. National Institute of Education. https://
www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ote-documents/diploma/programme-handbook/ay2021b-
2022_jul-semester_14-sep-2021b_web-upload-(save-as-pdf).pdf?sfvrsn=cbb0652c_0
NIE. (2022). Practicum handbook. National Institute of Education. https://nie.edu.sg/te-undergrad
uate/practicum/templates-and-downloads
Schoolbag. (2010, April 6). PE everyday at Beacon Primary School. Ministry of Education
Singapore. https://www.schoolbag.edu.sg/story/pe-everyday-at-beacon-primary-school
Schoolbag. (2018, July 11). Everyone can get up and groove. Ministry of Education Singapore.
https://www.schoolbag.edu.sg/story/everyone-can-get-up-and-groove
SEAB (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board). (2021). PSLE. https://www.seab.gov.sg/
home/examinations/psle
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1642304
Chapter 4
Pedagogical Encounters: Analysing
Teaching and Learning in Singapore
Classrooms
Abstract This chapter analyses the pedagogical encounters of students in two

Primary 4 (9–10 years old) classrooms in Singapore. The chapter is based on an
ethnographic study conducted in the first and second semesters of the school year in
the classrooms, for one week at a time, focusing on how the curriculum is enacted.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore has created multiple initiatives to
ensure that pedagogical practices are relevant and current so that students are provided
with optimal learning conditions. In this chapter, we consider these initiatives and
from their broad aims continue the analyses by focusing on the specific pedago-
gies that we observed in the classrooms. We analyse the pedagogical encounters
using the Learning by Design framework (Yelland in A pedagogy of multiliteracies:
learning by design. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015; Yelland et al in Asia Pac J Teach Educ
36:197–213, 2008) which view pedagogies as knowledge processes that are enacted
in experiencing, conceptualising, analysing and applying in classroom activities. We
reflect on the teaching practices and learning scenarios that have been designed for
the students and explore the visible learning outcomes.
Keywords Pedagogy and curriculum Singapore · Teaching practices · Learning by

design · Knowledge processes · Classroom ethnographies Singapore
Pedagogy can be understood as “any conscious activity by one person designed to

enhance the learning” (Mortimore, 1999, p. 3). In the Global Childhoods study, we
collected data in “intact” classes with teachers and students. The referenced pedago-
gies are the strategies deployed by the teachers to enact curriculum and assessment in
the schools and as such can be considered as being at the core of learning (Alexander,
2004). The Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) has created multiple initiatives
to ensure that pedagogical practices are relevant and up to date to ensure that students
are knowledgeable and competent to face the changing demands of the twenty-first
century (MOE, 2021a). For example, the most recent iteration of the Singapore
Teaching Practice Model (MOE, 2021a) is customised to the Singapore context and
describes the pedagogical practices to strengthen effective teaching. The Model is
connected to the Singapore curriculum philosophy and the ability to integrate subject
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_4
54 4 Pedagogical Encounters: Analysing Teaching and Learning …
matter and goals, students and learning and teaching (MOE, 2021a). The pedagogies
used by teachers are regarded as the actions needed to guide and strengthen effective
teaching in Singapore schools. There are four core Teaching Practice components of
the pedagogical practices of the Singapore Teaching Practice Model: Assessment and
Feedback, Positive Classroom Culture, Lesson Enactment and Lesson preparation
(MOE, 2021a).
In Singapore, pre-service teachers embark on their 16-month (for Post Graduate
Diploma in Education), two-year (Diploma in Education) or four-year (Bachelor
of Arts/Science in Education) professional programme at The National Institute of
Education (NIE). The Teachers’ Training College was established in 1950, and the
Institute of Education was established in 1973, with the two merging in 1991 to create
NIE as an institute of the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) (NIE, n.d.). The
teacher preparation courses are constantly under review to ensure their relevance
in contemporary times with the goal of enhancing Singapore’s teacher education
programmes by building on existing strengths. The programme at NIE aims to create
optimal teacher education courses by keeping twenty-first century learning as its
core interest as well as drawing on the perspectives of its stakeholders—schools and
MOE (NIE, 2009).
To prepare the students to be competent learners and to thrive in the twenty-first
century, the MOE has structured the Framework for 21st Century Competencies and
Student Outcomes which is deemed to encapsulate the necessary skills needed for
the development of every student, as explained in Chap. 2. The framework consists
of “Core Values”; “Social-Emotional Competencies”; and “21st Century Competen-
cies for a globalised world” (MOE, 2014). The Curriculum and the Co-curricular
Activities (CCA) indicate where it is compulsory for each student to take up a CCA
of their choice, and they are structured in such a way that they provide a platform for
the children to acquire and apply these skills appropriately in their everyday lives.
The MOE’s goals are to provide a holistic foundation for primary school students by
crafting a curriculum that will enable well-rounded learning. Hence, the curriculum
offered focuses on three aspects of education, as outlined in Chap. 3: Subject disci-
plines—designed to give students a good foundation in the different disciplines of
study; knowledge skills—aimed to develop the child’s thinking and communica-
tion skills; and character development—facilitated by everyday interaction in school
(MOE, 2021b).
Though the MOE sets the framework for the curriculum, the locus of manage-
ment is progressively shifting from MOE to school leaders and classroom teachers
with the goal of ensuring that teaching and learning is more tailored towards the
individual school’s learning needs and capacity (Deng et al., 2013). This has paved
the way for what is known as the School-based Curriculum Development (SBCD)
in Singapore in 2005. SBCD alllows teachers and school leaders to customise the
school curricula to the local needs of their students and the local context (Hairon
et al., 2018). SBCD could be seen as resulting from the multiple changes progres-
sively brought to the education system since the mid-1990s. In 1997, when the
then Prime Minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong launched the “Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation” (TSLN) initiative, the goals of the initiative included catering to students
4.1 Learning by Design 55
with different talents, learning capacities and dispositions and fostering creativity and
initative among students (Gopinathan & Deng, 2006; Sharpe & Gopinathan, 2010).
Therefore, though the MOE structured the curricula and had a broad view of the
centrality of pedagogy, the schools and the teachers had the choice to modify strate-
gies to better suit the specific teaching and learning needs of their students in their
individual schools (Dimmock & Tan, 2015). For example, in School Equality, one of
the English lessons was dedicated as a “thinking lesson” where the students learned
about various things that might enhance their general knowledge beyond what was
being taught in schools. In School Harmony, the students customised toppings for
ice cream during one English lesson as a part of their applied learning as they were
reading a comprehension passage which was about making an ice cream.
On the other hand, Dimmock and Goh (2011) argued that even though Singapore
educational policies called for innovation and consideration of what were regarded
as 21st Century Competencies, classroom pedagogies were primarily focused on
the transmission of knowledge in highly structured learning contexts. This was also
evident from the classroom ethnographies conducted when we noticed that many
lessons were focused on the final examinations which marked the culmination of
topics in the various subjects.
In this chapter, we aim to achieve a deeper analysis of what pedagogies looked
like in the Singapore Primary 4 (9–10 years old) classrooms we studied. The MOE
documentation provides teachers with effective broad goals. While curriculum is
considered as the framework that outlines specific bodies of knowledge, pedagogy
is considered as the “conscious application of knowledge processes to the task of
learning” (Yelland et al., 2008). Hence, learning in school is deliberate and struc-
tured in ways to make the learning process as relevant and meaningful as possible.
Optimal learning is thought to occur in schools when topics are taught in classroom
environments characterised by student engagement, active learning and application
of skills and knowledge in authentic scenarios. Everyday learning outside of school,
on the other hand, is deeply embedded in an individual’s lifeworld and might happen
incidentally, haphazardly and even unconciously. As Cope and Kalantzis noted, the
distinctive feature of education is that (formal) learning happens by design (Cope &
Kalantzis, 2015; Yelland et al., 2008) and informal learning is more spontaneous.
Therefore, in order to better understand how learning takes place in classroom
contexts, and how pedagogies can act as knowledge process in action, this study
considers the pedagogical processes inherent to the Learning by Design framework.
4.1 Learning by Design
The Learning by Design research project group consisted of researchers and teachers
in Australia and was formed in 2003 to “reflect upon and create new dynamic learning
environments” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2010, p. 200). It was in part a result of attempts
by the team to design a new pedagogical framework that was more suitable for
the vastly changing educational landscape, and to cater to the twenty-first century
knowledge economy. In the original Learning by Design project, teachers noticed

significant changes after being introduced to the framework. Firstly, they noted that
the framework provided them with a professional language which supported their
pedagogical conversations (Yelland, 2015). Secondly, the framework acted as a “ped-
agogical prompt” (Yelland, 2015) to help teachers make decisions about the range
of pedagoical strategies they could use to promote optimal learning in the different
subject areas of the primary curriculum. In this way, the Learning by Design frame-
work enabled teachers to create contexts for learning in which the children were
able to work in diverse ways; experiencing, conceptualising, analysing and applying
knowledge in varying learning areas of the curriculum (Yelland, 2015). The Learning
by Design framework built on the pedagogies of Multiliteracies research to conceive
the four types of knowledge processing framework (Yelland et al., 2008). We apply
this framework in this chapter to examine the ways that teachers in Singapore schools
were able to create effective learning environments and reflect on their teaching
practices, as well as to consider how students were provided with opportunities to
maximise their potential for learning (Yelland et al., 2008). The Learning by Design
framework is particularly suited to analysing the Singapore context because it helps
to ensure that contemporary teaching practices, as outlined by the MOE documen-
tation, incorporate a coherent approach to knowledge building that resonates with
curriculum goals. Critical to Learning by Design is the application of knowledge and
skills in everyday moments. This needs to be done appropriately and creatively and
hence the analysis here provides suggestions for new directions for learning in the
lifeworlds of Singapore children to engage them in deep learning embodied in the
“Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM) Singapore policy initiative.
Learning by Design is made up of four overarching components: (1) experiencing;
(2) conceptualising; (3) analysing; and (4) applying. Each of these components is
further broken down, as described below (Yelland, 2015; Yelland et al., 2008).
4.1.1 Experiencing
Experiencing the Known: Reflects when teachers connect concepts with learners’
prior knowledge and experience, their personal interest and things that are familiar
to them. Facilitating these connections assists the students to link their previous
knowledge with the new content being taught.
Experiencing the New: The teacher can then introduce the learners to new concepts
and experiences by making them familiar with these previous connections. In
order for learning to make sense to the learners and be useful to their everyday
lives, there needs to be a link between what is being taught to them and what
they already know. This engages students with the learning process. By experi-
encing the known, students are able to use their prior knowledge and experience to
learn new concepts and experiences. Hence, it results in knowledge building being
progressively constructive.
4.1 Learning by Design 57
4.1.2 Conceptualising
Conceptualising by Naming: Applies when learners are able to label, classify, cate-
gorise and characterise their ideas so that they can then make meaning and build new
ideas and concepts.
Conceptualising in Theory: When concepts are connected to generalisations and
are synthesised by drawing them together to explore them in depth and deepen the
understanding about them, students are theorising.
Conceptualising enables learners to make meaning of their experience and use
that knowledge to understand and apply new concepts (Yelland et al., 2008). For
instance, by conceptualising by naming, the learners can use their prior knowledge
to identify and name a tree and its parts. By conceptualising in theory, they are able
to understand and build up a theory about what a tree is, its functions and its life
cycle.
4.1.3 Analysing
Analysing Functionally: When analysing functionally, a learner evaluates what an

idea could possibly mean and thinks about how it has an impact on themselves, their
surroundings and their world. The knowledge process of questions such as “What is
it for?”, “What are the functions?” and “What are the implications?” is fundamental
to analysing.
Analysing Critically: When learners analyse critically, they ask questions about
the different kinds of consequences, how the consequences might differ in diverse
situations and approach the issue from different viewpoints.
In analysing, learners need to examine a context, a piece of evidence or event and
be able to evaluate and assess the underlying assumptions and implications of its
application and function in different situations.
4.1.4 Applying
Applying Appropriately: In applying appropriately, learners need to be able to use

an object for the purpose for which it was created. For example, using a picnic mat
to sit outdoors.
Applying Creatively: This comes with the realisation that there are multiple and
flexible ways to apply and do things differently and creatively. By using innovation,
learners can transform an object or idea and use it for a different purpose altogether.
By applying creatively, an object/idea could be transformed into a brand new concept
or it could also be a hybrid of the usage of original purpose but with a twist. The same
picnic mat could be used to build a tent and the original use could be tranformed
entirely.
By being creative in the use or application of what is known to them, learners can
expand their learning from not only what they know but also how they could possibly
use it to add value.
The Learning by Design framework aims to “encourage learners to be actively and
purposefully engaged in their learning by setting them real intellectual and practical
challenges” (Kalantzis & Cope, 2010, p. 204). It provides a guidance to both teachers
and students on how a lesson might possibly be organised and sequenced in order
to maximise learning and learner engagement. The theoretical underpinnings of this
framework are based on the notion that effective pedagogy involves the process
of “weaving” (Luke et al., 2004). It occurs when the teacher refers backward and
forward to what they have done and what they will be doing in the near future
in order to accomplish the stated learning goals (Kalantzis & Cope, 2010). The
four broad categories of the pedagogies as knowledge process of the Learning by
Design framework connect with fluency in knowledge building in different diciplines
(e.g. English, Science, Music) and the acquisition of skills (e.g. numeracy, literacy,
problem solving) (Kalantzis & Cope, 2010).
In this chapter, we examine four extended vignettes of classroom lessons from our
ethnographic fieldnotes from the two primary schools, School Equality and School
Harmony, to describe and make explicit the pedagogies that were used, drawing on the
four categories of knowledge processes from the Learning by Design framework. In
the Conclusions section, we link the commentary to the relevant policies, statements
and documents made available by the MOE to connect the teachers’ actions with the
official documents that are available to them.
We were interested in whether the general teaching principles supported in the
Singapore schools could be viewed as providing a broad framework in which the
knowledge processes could provide more focus for teachers on specific designs for
teaching. This analysis makes it possible to connect with the goals of the MOE in an
independent and dynamic way to illustrate the broader relevance of the initiatives in
a global conext.
What follows are some examples of learning scenarios documented in the
classroom ethnographies discussed with reference to the knowledge processses of
Learning by Design to illustrate the range of experiencess that school children have in
Singapore in the Primary 4 classsrooms. The scenarios chosen include those related
to the foundational skills of (English) literacy and (Mathematics) numeracy as well
as considering an Art lesson. We focus these sections on the ethnographic fieldnotes
themselves, interpreting them through the Learning by Design framework.
4.2 Pedagogical Encounters in Two Singapore Schools
Before going further, it is useful to consider the physical layout of Singapore schools.
Most Singapore schools have a similar design. Schools usually consist of three or
4.2 Pedagogical Encounters in Two Singapore Schools 59
more buildings, typically ranging from two to five storeys high. Figure 4.1 shows a
photograph of one of the school classrooms we observed in this research, a common
design in Singapore schools. In this room, the projector screen is positioned at the
side of the room, while in others, it may be in the middle of the whiteboard. In most
classrooms, there will usually be windows on two sides of the room. On the ceiling,
there will be daylight tube lighting and ceiling fans. Personal learning devices such
as iPads, Chromebooks or laptops are usually stored in mobile cabinets located at
the side of the classroom or wheeled in from another location. In the front of the
classroom, there is usually a teacher’s table with a visualiser on it, and USB/VGA
cables to connect the teacher’s laptop to the projector. Each classroom will have
a projector screen and a magnetic white board. It is common practice to write the
names of the absentees of the day on the board. Usually, the assignments given by
the teachers for that day and sometimes the scoring of the various groups in the
class are also included on the whiteboard. In a regular class, there would be about
40 students. The individual tables in this school are grouped in threes for group
work. Some classrooms group their tables in pairs. The layout is basically up to
the preference of the form teacher or the school. When the different subjects are
taught, the subject teacher may choose to rearrange the classroom. In both schools,
there was a small reading corner at the back of the classroom. Most empty walls have
notices, educational posters, and some artefacts as decoration. After our ethnographic
research was conducted, on a later visit at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in
2020, the students’ tables were arranged in an “examination setting”, with each one
being a metre away from the next to ensure social distancing. More recently, tables
were arranged in groups since the students were allowed to work in groups of up to
five, with a metre between each group, as part of the safe management measures.
Fig. 4.1 Classroom design in one of the schools


at School Equality
The first example is from an English lesson at School Equality which focused on
spelling and grammar. In Table 4.1, we have provided excerpts from the ethnographic
fieldnotes, identifying which of the knowledge processes from Learning by Design
are being utilised. Initially, the students worked on completing a “Strength” work-
sheet. The worksheet was for the students to list their academic and non-academic
achievements. This activity was not to be graded but would be used for the teachers
to refer to when they wrote comments for their students’ Report Book (a summa-
tive report given to students at the middle and end of an academic year). After this
brief worksheet, the students focused on spelling and grammar, starting with making
corrections to their previous exercise. The activity required the students to iden-
tify the error made and rectify it. Results were shared with the class highlighting
some common mistakes made such as spelling a word incorrectly and incorrect
grammar. The concepts were then reinforced by relating the current lesson with
previous lessons. By asking students to identify the nouns in the passage, the teacher
presented information about the concept out of context to test the students’ concep-
tual knowledge. Students then generated a list, based on specific criteria. Finally, the
teacher recapped the sequence of the lesson.
During the course of the lesson, the range of pedagogies deployed were related to
experiencing as connecting the known with the new knowledge and also conceptu-
alising by naming as well as analysing functionally (see Table 4.2 for a summary of
the lesson viewed through the Learning by Design framework). This was very much
a present and practice designed lesson with the foundational skills of Language
(English) forming the basis of the lesson. There was no time to extend the use of
the skill of using verbs and suffixes beyond the basic definition and task orientated
use—both verbally and in the written form. The flow of the lesson also aligned
with the broad framework suggested by the MOE (2021a) in which four of the five
elements of the Teaching Practice Model were used: (1) understanding subject matter
and the goals of the lesson (experiencing); (2) understanding students and learning
(experiencing and analysing); (3) understanding teaching (conceptualising); and (4)
pedagogical practices (which includes: (a) assessment and feedback; (b) positive
classroom culture; (c) lesson enactment; and (d) lesson preparation). What became
evident was that the students in the class were very much used to working in this
format. They worked diligently and answered questions to maintain the flow of the
lesson. In terms of the four components of pedagogical practices (a–d above) (MOE,
2021a), we were able to view the lesson enactment and determined the students’
ability to work effectively on the carefully designed tasks—answering questions,
determining solutions, and recording answers—and we knew all teachers were well
prepared. We also got a sense of the move towards assessment with the recapitulation
of the aims and content of the lesson being made clear and the link back to the work
Table 4.1 Knowledge processes utilised in an English lesson at School Equality

Excerpts from ethnographic fieldnotes Knowledge process
The English teacher entered the classroom.
Housekeeping and behavioural management items
were conducted
Students completed the “Strength” worksheet. The Experiencing the known
teacher then projected the list of the leadership
positions held by the students on the screen and
asked them to check if she had missed out any
information
The teacher engaged the students to utilise their Experiencing the known—connecting to
prior knowledge regarding the leadership new
positions held/achievements made by them
The students were seated in their (random) groups
according to colour theme for English class, while
the Mathematics teacher had grouped them
according to their register numbers
Topic 1: spelling and grammar Analysing functionally
Students read out the passage in the worksheet.
The passage in the worksheet contained spelling
and grammatical errors which the students were
supposed to correct. The incorrect word was
underlined, and a blank box was given on top of
the word for the students to fill in the correct form
(spelling or grammatical error) of the word. The
teacher highlighted the common mistakes made by
the students systematically
Topic 2: “Sports Day” passage was projected on Experiencing the known—new
the screen. Without explaining what the passage
was about, the teacher began by showing four
words and asked the class what type of words they
were. The students answered correctly that they
were verbs
The teacher reminded the class that verbs were Analysing functionally
also known as action words
A question was quickly flashed on the screen. It Conceptualising by naming (knowledge
read: “How do we change these words into building)
nouns?” The teacher asked for volunteers to give
their answers. The students explained how they
would turn those words to a noun
The teacher also explained about the suffixes Experiencing the new
which were morpheme added at the end of a word.
She gave examples of suffixes such as -ation, -ing,
-fy and so on
(continued)
Table 4.1 (continued)

The teacher asked the students to take out their Conceptualising by naming (knowledge
worksheet which had a passage named “Sports building)
Day” (see Fig. 4.2). She did not go through the
passage but instructed the students to identify just
the nouns in the passage. The students did their
work quietly for about 10 min
Group work: students moved around the Conceptualising by naming (knowledge
classroom to join their groups. The group activity building)
given was to write down as many words as
possible with the suffixes -tion, -ation and -sion. A
timer for four minutes was set and projected on the
screen. The students were actively brainstorming
to came up with as many words as possible. The
teacher moved around the class to check on them
End of 4 min. Teacher said, “eyes on me” and the
students replied “eyes on you” to capture
attention. Additional 4 min of time was given
Time expires—students were called to present Conceptualising by naming (knowledge
their answers. Students’ worksheet projected on building)
the screen. Teacher went through the words given
by the students one by one. If there was an error,
she made a comment and stated the correct
answers for the words which they got incorrect
Lesson closure—advice given that the Experiencing the known to new
presentation would continue the next day. Teacher conceptualising by naming (knowledge
then wrapped up the lesson by recapping the building)
suffixes they had learned, assigned homework and
reminded them of the upcoming spelling test
Italicised phrases—evidence of knowledge process
that had been done already—and that this was all occurring at an essentially funda-
mental level in which the students were not being asked to apply it in an authentic
manner.
4.2.2 Knowledge Processes Utilised in a Mathematics Lesson

at School Harmony
The Mathematics lesson at School Harmony (detailed in Table 4.3) started with the
usual everyday routines. For this lesson, the class was learning a new topic—area and
perimeter. The teacher asked the students to review the familiar aspects of the topic
that they had already encountered. The students applied their prior knowledge to find
the area of the figure. The students were able to provide a reason why the answer was
Fig. 4.2 Students learnt to identify nouns from a passage about “Sports Day” in an English lesson
at School Equality
Table 4.2 Analysing an English lesson at School Equality through Learning by Design
Experiencing The Known: Connected with the students with regard to their personal interest
and their lifeworlds by asking them to name their individual achievements
The New: Introduced the students to new elements of English grammar
Conceptualising By Naming: Used experimental learning and drawing out a set of words of the
same category by brainstorming with peers
Analysing Functionally: Identified the type of error made before rectifying it. Discussed
the common mistakes made by students
incorrect and give the correct answer. The teacher carefully explained the correct
methods to calculate the area and perimeter. When the teacher projected an irregular
figure on the screen, she asked the students how they would measure the area. This
required the students to think beyond the usual or regular figures. The students were
taught to break down the irregular figures into parts, in order to categorise them
into regular ones. Students generated reasons if they thought the answer provided
was appropriate. Here, students were exposed to new dimensions of the topic. The
teacher gave them positive reinforcement and recognition. The students also used
logical connections to assess the information provided according to the definitions
generated and used the knowledge they had gained to apply to the questions given.
The lesson ended with some basic classroom management processes.
Again, it is evident that the broad-based principles established by the MOE are
being adhered to, but a more specific analysis is required. There was some attempt to
Table 4.3 Knowledge processes utilised in a Mathematics lesson at School Harmony

The Mathematics teacher entered the class
Housekeeping and behavioural management
processes
Students sat in groups, instructed to take out
Mathematics textbook
New topic: area and perimeter Experiencing the known
Teacher asked the students if they could recall
anything in relation to the topic as she knew
that they had learned the topic in their previous
year of school. As no one offered a response,
she asked the students to explain the term
“area” in layman terms. A student attempted to
answer by recalling what an area means in
terms of her definition of area as being found
using the length multiplied by the breadth
The teacher repeated her answer and then Experiencing the known
modified it to include her explanation as well. conceptualising by naming
Repeated process for “parameter”. Each time
the teacher added to the students’ explanations
by adding in key words to give a clearer
meaning for the term with the benefit of her
expertise
The teacher drew a figure on the board and Applying appropriately
asked the students to find the area based on Analysing functionally
what they had learned last year in Primary 3.
She selected a student to share his answer. The
student explained how he derived the answer.
The teacher asked the students to put up their
hands if they thought the answer was right. Only
a handful put up their hand while the majority
of the class shouted that the answer given was
the perimeter and not the area of the figure
The teacher further explained how to get the Experiencing the known
area of the figure and the perimeter. She
reminded the students how to calculate the
difference between the two. After explaining,
she continued—showing other figures
The teacher projected an irregular figure on the Applying creatively
screen and asked the students how they would
measure the area for it. A student answered that
he would use a ruler to measure. Another
student disagreed with his answer and said that
the measurements were already in the figure,
and it was not drawn to scale
(continued)

The teacher praised the student who corrected Conceptualising by naming
his classmate and explained what the students
were supposed to do when they saw such
questions. She reinforced that the diagrams
given were not drawn to scale and they should
try to “divide” the irregular figures into squares
and rectangles so that it was easier for them to
calculate
The teacher showed additional figures and Analysing functionally
asked the students to find out the area and show
their workings in their notebook. She randomly
selected a student to write the answer with the
correct units. The teacher then asked the rest of
the class whether the workings shown on the
board were correct (see Fig. 4.3). A few
students point outed a few steps which she had
done unnecessarily. The teacher then erased
them and explained why they were not needed
Repetition with two more students. The rest of Analysing functionally
the students wrote their workings on the board.
The teacher then assessed the strategies and
solution and explained the concept as she went
through them. She questioned the class if they
understood the concept and the workings shown
and asked if they had any questions. The class
did not respond with any suggestions
Moving on to Primary 4 syllabus of area and Experiencing the new
perimeter
The teacher selected a student to read out the Experiencing the new
question for her which was shown on the
whiteboard. When he pronounced a word
incorrectly while reading the question, the
teacher asked the class to give him one clap to
encourage him and then told the class how the
word should be pronounced. The students
corrected himself and finished reading the
question
The teacher questioned the class whether the Analysing functionally
“60 cm wire” stated in the question referred to
the area or the perimeter. When the class
provided different answers, the teacher asked
the students to discuss with their partners. The
students seemed very animated while discussing
in their pair. The teacher chose one student to
answer and when the student provided the
correct answer, the teacher carried on
explaining the concept of area and perimeter.
The class seemed very attentive and engaged
(continued)

The teacher projected more questions on the Experiencing the known—new (Knowledge
screen and asked the students what their building)
working to those questions would be. The
students shouted out the answers from their
seats. The teacher built upon the answer given
by the students and reinforced the concept
repeatedly
Once she finished going through the questions, Applying appropriately
the teacher asked the students to complete a
question in their notebook. Upon completing
the task, the class started to get very noisy. The
teacher then chided the class and asked the
students to give one clap and the students
obeyed and the noise level decreased
immediately
Lesson closure Conceptualising by naming
The teacher instructed the students to write in
their handbook any two things that they felt
they had learned in the Mathematics lesson.
After a minute or so, the teacher called on a few
students to share with the class what they had
learned that day
Routine for end of day
Students packed their bags. Music started to
play from the Public Address system from
1.25–1.30 pm indicating the end of school
The students proceeded to line up outside the
class in pairs and waited for the teacher to bring
them down. A boy switched off the lights and
fans before joining his classmates. Once
everyone lined up, the teacher brought them to
the assembly area on Level 1
apply the concept of area to real-world scenarios, but these seemed to be quite abstract
and not connected to the children’s lifeworlds. The teacher used several knowledge
process methods to scaffold the lesson, and yet rarely used “conceptualising by
theorising” or “analysing critically” (see Table 4.4). This lesson also required that
the children use their existing skills in a new scenario by trying to figure out how to
measure an irregular shape. They came up with some useful strategies, which enabled
them to analyse critically. So, while the teachers did not include all the aspects of
the Learning by Design framework, the lesson conducted by the teachers did have
scope to use all the aspects of the MOE documentation.
Fig. 4.3 Students wrote down their answers on the board when learning about area and perimeter
in a Mathematics lesson at School Harmony
Table 4.4 Analysing a Mathematics lesson at School Harmony through Learning by Design
Experiencing The Known: Drew on the students’ prior knowledge by asking the students to
recap the known elements of the topic
Built upon the knowledge of the students by connecting the students’ answers
and the explanations given by the teacher to show the big picture
The New: Introduced the new topic/elements of the topic known to them and
allowed time for them to be used so that the students could become familiar
with them
Conceptualising By Naming: Broke down irregular figures in order to classify them into
regular figures and hence making it easier for the students to do their
calculations
Analysing Functionally: Students used logical connections to gauge if the answer
provided by their classmate was correct and understood the reasons behind
their judgements
Teacher assessed the working done by the students and gave explanations for
why it was a correct or incorrect working/answer
Applying Appropriately: The teacher encouraged the students to apply the knowledge
they had of the topic, based on their prior knowledge, as well as the
explanations given in the classroom, to work out sums
Creatively: Helped the students to stretch their thinking by giving them a
complex figure and tested how they would approach such questions
4.2.3 Knowledge Processes Utilised in an Art Lesson

at School Harmony
The Art lesson at School Harmony is detailed in Table 4.5. The lesson began and
ended with classroom management issues. The students were more relaxed and
informal in their Art lesson. In this scenario, the pedagogical moves built into the
design of the lesson would seem to be more adaptable to the changing movements
around the room. The students sat in groups but worked on the assignment. The task
required them to analyse creatively, being as imaginative as they could be to solve
a problem that they had defined. They had to think critically and creatively and in
doing so a lot of constructive talk was generated as they were focused on the task.
This lesson seems to have incorporated choice closely aligned with the overall
goals of the lesson, as well as the fact that certain children just got on with their own
work by completing their task diligently. With such a project, there was more scope
for the children to work collectively and make their own decisions about where the
work would take them. They appeared to be engaged with the task and one possible
explanation might be related to the fact that they themselves defined the scope of the
work within the broad concept. There did not appear to be a lot of opportunity for this
in the four weeks when we attended the schools, and it was apparent that given the
materials and scaffolding by the teacher there was creative, effective, and practical
work being done. This was one of the limited examples of applying as a knowledge
process. The key aspects of Learning by Design in this lesson are presented in Table
4.6.

at School Harmony
Table 4.7 details the English lesson at School Harmony. The teacher started by
introducing the title of the topic—“Boring Street”—and the negative connotation of
the phrase seemed to appeal to the students. The teacher read through a fictitious
email from a boy called Jun Wei to another boy, Ryan, in the article. She went
through the key phrases that she wanted the students to take notes on and asked them
to suggest alternative phrases. The students were able to listen to all the information
and instructions and made notes on the pertinent points in their personal notebook.
The teacher provided sufficient scaffolding in the pedagogical encounter, before
allowing the students to move on to their own writing.
In this example of the lesson from School Harmony, the teacher connected known
and new knowledge for the students, followed by students creating new knowledge
when they completed the take-home assignment. Students were well-trained to take
notes. Analysis of the lesson through Learning by Design is in Table 4.8.
Table 4.5 Knowledge processes utilised in an Art lesson at School Harmony

The Art teacher entered the classroom and gave instructions to
the students about what materials they should take with them to
the Art room. She further instructed them on what was
expected of the students when they headed to the Art room in
terms of behaviour. The students then lined up outside the
classroom in pairs and made their way to the Art room
Once they entered the room, they started to move around
enthusiastically and created an aura of sustained activity in the
classroom. In order to get the attention of the students, the
teacher clapped her hands in a rhythm. The students responded
by clapping in the same rhythm and quietened down. The
teacher then reminded the students about the safety rules in the
Art room
The students were seated in their groups. Once the teacher Experiencing the known—new
asked them to start on their work, they made their way to
collect their art materials from the side of the classroom
When they had collected the materials, the students started to Analysing functionally
work on their craftwork. They were required to create an item
that would serve as a solution to a problem which they wanted
to address
One of the groups was crafting a laptop with multi power while Analysing critically
another one was making a tree. Another group said they were
making something to save the earth and reduce the use and
disposal of plastics. Another of the groups was creating
environmentally friendly products while another group was
working on apps that were suitable for young children
Most of the students were brainstorming for their project work Applying creatively
and thus the class was talking at a rapid rate and the noise
level was elevated
The teacher went around to the individual groups and
discussed what they were supposed to be doing. She gave them
ideas on how they might be able to make their work more
reflective of their goals
(The students had already started the project previously and in
this lesson, they were continuing their work on it.)
The students were using different materials such as cardboard Applying appropriately
and Styrofoam sheets to create their craft item. See Fig. 4.4
The groups continued to work on the projects until the end of
the class, and it was decided that they would use three more
sessions to complete the project work, then they would present
their idea to the class
At the end of the lesson, the students lined up outside the
classroom. The teacher dismissed the class and allowed them
to go for an early recess
Fig. 4.4 Students created an item to address a problem in an art lesson at School Harmony
Table 4.6 Analysing an art lesson at School Harmony through Learning by Design
Experiencing The known—new: The teacher asked the students to think of a challenge that
was familiar to them and built on it with a new idea
Conceptualising By naming: The students were using their prior knowledge to identify and
articulate what they regarded as a challenge
Analysing Functionally: When the students were asked to think of a solution to a
challenge that was familiar to them, they were required to think of the
issue/problem and its consequences and think of a solution to rectify them
Critically: By analysing critically, the students brainstormed various kinds of
solutions and how they could package it to come up with a craftwork that
would potentially answer the challenge
Applying Creatively: The students thought of normal things such as a laptop, a tree, and
environmentally friendly products and used them in a creative manner by
infusing their novel ideas to come up with extraordinary solutions
4.3 Conclusions
The curriculum in Singapore is structured and focused towards preparing Singapore

students to be competent, and have the relevant skills needed for twenty-first century
life (MOE, 2014). The teaching and learning practices documented by the MOE
(2021a) provide a broad context to support and elicit the stated desired curriculum
outcomes. The description of the teaching practices has been structured to be inclusive
of the necessary disciplinary knowledge and skills and is connected to the pedagogical
4.3 Conclusions 71
Table 4.7 Knowledge processes utilised in an English lesson at School Harmony

The teacher started on the new topic “Boring Street”. She asked Experiencing the known—new
the students why the PowerPoint slides shown are boring. The
students put up their hands to answer. They said that the slides
were boring to hint to them about the story which was called:
Boring Street
The teacher asked the class what Boring Street could mean.
The students give various answers as to what the street name
could possibly mean. They mentioned that it could be lacking in
entertainment facilities, it did not have a playground, there
were no “fun things” to do and it was not colourful
The teacher shared an email on the projector which was about
Boring Street. The email passage told the story of a boy named
Ryan Ang who wrote to his friend Jun Wei about the place
which he had recently moved to and he shared why it was very
boring to him. Ryan’s impression of the place changed over
time as he made new friends and discovered new things to do in
the neighbourhood. The passage was about the emails only
Ryan sent to Jun Wei
The teacher then asked why the author had called it Boring Conceptualising by Naming
Street. She highlighted the important words in the passage and
asked the students to do the same (see Fig. 4.5)
The teacher then carried on to show a few more email texts and
with the class they considered the meaning of the email
together. As she went through, she physically highlighted the
important words and wrote explanatory notes besides those
words on the white board, which the students copied in their
notebooks. She encouraged the students to make notes and
explained that it would be useful for them to better understand
the passage
The teacher asked questions along the way on why the author Analysing functionally
had used certain words and phrases and what it could possibly
mean. She gave particular importance to the change in the
feelings of the narrator of the passage. She scaffolded the
passage on how those feelings changed by highlighting the key
phrases and the meaning behind them
One student was playing with blu-tack while listening to the
teacher
The students were paying attention as the teacher was
unfolding the story, which seemed to keep the students engaged
As the teacher was summarising the meaning of the passage,
the students were fidgeting as their concentration span seemed
to decrease
The teacher asked the students to take out their notebook and Analysing critically
write an email with regard to the passage which they had just
examined
(continued)

The students were tasked to write a response email to the email Applying creatively
which they had gone through in the passage. Therefore, the
students had to put themselves in Jun Wei’s position and wrote
an email to respond to Ryan’s email. She asked students to start
on the work and take it home for homework as they did not
have enough time to finish it in school. She said that tomorrow
she would pick some students to share their answers and
interesting ones would get a prize. The students seemed excited
about it. As the teacher was attempting to distribute the
worksheet, students were asking questions about the email
writing regarding the length of the email
After a few minutes, the teacher left the class and thanked the
students for their attention
framework, which in turn links to everyday aspects of children’s lifeworlds. The broad
nature of the guidelines gives schools and teachers the flexibility to work with their
preferred pedagogical strategies, but as some researchers have noted (Dimmock &
Goh, 2011) there remains a preference for direct instruction with some pockets of
innovation incorporating collaborative learning, and students being able to embark on
challenges to solve problems in projects that they have generated themselves. In this
chapter, we have analysed some examples of lessons in Singapore through the lens
of the Learning by Design framework to give them a particular focus that provides
more specific commentary about acquiring knowledge, thinking conceptually, and
analysing and applying in everyday scenarios.
The usefulness of the application of the Learning by Design framework is that it
provides a clear structure to examine specific pedagogies in practice. The Learning by
Design framework provides an opportunity to consider the ways in which knowledge
is presented and considered in different and focused ways so that teachers can ensure
that all the elements have been incorporated to for optimal learning opportunities.
When utilised with teachers, the Learning by Design framework encourages teachers
to think of activities to exemplify each of the knowledge processes where appropriate,
thus making lessons richer and more engaging (Yelland, 2015). In this way, students
will be able to connect their prior and new knowledge, critically self-assess their
knowledge building and be able to reflect upon their learning (Kalantzis & Cope,
2010).
Deep learning involves students being engaged in the knowledge building process.
The TLLM policy encourages transformational pedagogies and connects them with
curriculum and assessment. The Learning by Design framework lens enables a
consideration of how children experience and connect existing and new knowledge.
The ways in which they are able to make sense of knowledge (conceptualise) in a
practical way, by naming and discussing it, and then to create theories about what they
have learnt is important. Further, students have the opportunity to critically analyse
4.3 Conclusions 73
Fig. 4.5 Students worked on an email passage in an English lesson at School Harmony
the knowledge and apply it in situations that have meaning for them. This provides
the context for building on the MOE guidelines provided to the teachers in Singapore
and has the potential for transforming pedagogical encounters in Singapore schools
to realise the goals of TLLM.
Table 4.8 Analysing an English lesson at School Harmony through Learning by Design
Experiencing The Known: The teacher asked the students to utilise their prior knowledge
about what a street named Boring Street could possibly mean and moved on to
analyse critically why the author would want to call it by this name
Analysing Functionally: The teacher analysed the passage by giving meaning to the words
and phrases used in the passage and how they added value to the feelings of the
narrator of the passage
Critically: The students needed to reflect on the nature of the email
correspondence and then created (applied) their own example in the appropriate
email genre
Applying Creatively: By asking the students to craft an email response in this task the
teacher was encouraging them to reflect and think of a response from a particular
perspective. This encouraged them to think creatively on how they could respond
using the information which they had acquired
References
Alexander, R. (2004). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary

education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7–33.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by Design. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Deng, Z., Lee, C.K.-E., & Gopinathan, S. (2013). Globalization and the Singapore curriculum:
From policy to classroom. Springer.
Dimmock, C., & Goh, J. W. P. (2011). Transformative pedagogy, leadership and school organi-
sation for the twenty-first-century knowledge-based economy: The case of Singapore. School
Leadership & Management, 31(3), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.546106
Dimmock, C., & Tan, C. Y. (2015). Explaining the success of the world’s leading education systems:
The case of Singapore. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00071005.2015.1116682
Gopinathan, S., & Deng, Z. (2006). Fostering school-based curriculum development in the context
of new educational initiatives in Singapore. Planning and Changing, 37(1&2), 93–110.
Hairon, S., Chua, C. S., & Neo, W. L. (2018). School-based curriculum development in Singapore:
A case study of a primary school. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(4), 518–532.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E–
Learning and Digital Media, 200–222.
Luke, A., Freebody, P., Cazden, C., & Lin, A. (2004). Singapore pedagogy coding scheme. Centre
for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
MOE. (2014). 21st century competencies. Ministry of Education Singapore.
MOE. (2021a). Our teachers: The Singapore teaching practice. Ministry of Education Singapore.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/our-teachers.
MOE. (2021b). Primary school education. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.
sg/-/media/files/primary/2021b/curriculum-booklets/primary-school-education-booklet-2021b.
pdf?la=en&hash=68C550A385523794C224408A8DC1C6A2EB1E4364.
Mortimore, P. (1999). Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning. Paul Chapman
Publishing Ltd.
NIE. (2009). A teacher education model for the 21st century (TE21). National Institute of Educa-
tion. https://www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/te21_docs/te21-online-version---updated.pdf?
sfvrsn=2.
NIE. (n.d.). Corporate information. National Institute of Education. https://nie.edu.sg/about-us/cor
porate-information.
References 75
Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2010). After effectiveness: new directions in the Singapore school
system? Journal of Education Policy, 151–166.
Yelland, N. (2015). Pedagogical prompts: Designing experiences to promote deep learning. In B.
Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by Design (pp. 288–304).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Yelland, N., Cope, W., & Kalantzis, M. (2008). Learning by Design: Creating pedagogical frame-
works for knowledge building in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
36(3), 197–213.
Chapter 5
Engagement and Orientations to Success
in Singapore Schools
Abstract Singapore students are regularly in the top five performing countries in
international high-stakes testing. The academic success in the high-stakes testing
regimes has been attributed to many different facets of the education system,
including the content of curricula and syllabuses, and teacher and student relation-
ships. It is generally thought that any student who is engaged in their lifeworld will
be more academically successful than one who is not. In this chapter, we consider
student engagement in terms of several interrelated factors: (1) affection for school;
(2) learning in school; (3) performance in school; and (4) career after school. We
focus on what constitutes success in terms of the schooling system in Singapore and
discuss the ways in which students engage with the schooling process. Qualitative
research was conducted with students using an activity called learning dialogues. In
this activity, students responded to questions about what they looked forward to in
school, what they had learned, how they felt they were doing in school and their career
aspirations. In general, students responded positively towards school and learning.
In addition to content knowledge, the school curricula provided opportunities to
develop teamwork and build 21st Century Competencies.
Keywords School engagement · Academic success in school · School

performance · Singapore education · Children’s career aspirations
When we consider what constitutes “success”, the traditional dictionary meaning

denotes achieving something to an acceptable standard (Cambridge). The standard
could be set by oneself, a teacher or peer, or the broader society. In the context of
Singapore, a child who is regarded as being “successful” is generally deemed to be
one who is performing well academically in school, and at the primary level, this is
aligned with scoring well in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and
progressing to a highly rated secondary school, preferably a “top” school (Integral
Learning Academy, 2020). Prior to 2021, students’ choice of their secondary school
was dependent on their aggregate score in the PSLE; the “top” schools, those which
are regarded as being the most prestigious, have higher requirements in terms of test
scores and cut-off points. Schools in Singapore that offered the Integrated Programme
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_5
78 5 Engagement and Orientations to Success in Singapore Schools
(IP), and Independent Schools (IS), have an aggregate of 250 and above (Ministry
of Education (MOE), 2020a). After 2021, scoring is less precisely defined, using
achievement levels (up to 29 points), and more schools will have similar cut-off
points, thus making less differentiation (MOE, 2021). High-ability students enrolled
in one of the secondary IP schools will take their GCE “A” Level Examinations at
the end of the sixth year and skip the GCE “O” Level Examinations in the fourth or
fifth year.
Singapore is generally considered to have a “successful” education system. For
a nation which only obtained her independence in 1965, the island city has rapidly
transformed from a developing to developed country. Moving from a nation with
low literacy levels, the national literacy rate for people aged 15 years and older
was 97.5% in 2019 (Statistics Singapore, 2020). In addition, Singapore children
have consistently produced high academic results in large-scale international high-
stakes testing, frequently ranking first or second in position in TIMSS (Years 4 and
8/Primary 4 and Secondary 2 in Singapore), PIRLS (Primary 4) and PISA (15-year-
olds), which measure reading, mathematics and science (e.g. Mullis et al., 2017,
2020; MOE, 2020b; OECD, 2019a). The excellent performance has also recognised
Singapore as one of the high-performing education systems. About 10% of the student
population is randomly selected to take these tests and is taken to be representative of
the nation (OECD, 2019a). While the high academic results suggest that the system
has produced a high degree of success in terms of learning outcomes, it is important
to note that some students in the population do not perform as well and their scores
receive little attention when such test reports focus on average scores.
While many Singapore students are already performing highly in these inter-
national tests, the test results still provide insights for the MOE in Singapore to
design policies and develop programmes to improve teaching and learning (Ng et al.,
2020). Deng and Gopinathan (2016) have explained the success of the Singapore
education systems in terms of high teacher quality (from recruiting high-standard
trainees to the rigorous initial teacher programme), school leaders (by stringent selec-
tion), systems characteristics (setting high academic expectations and standards for
students) and educational reform towards higher order thinking, creativity and inde-
pendent learning. From the point of view of teachers and parents, this success is
achieved by instituting a rigorous curriculum in the Singapore education system
(Deng & Gopinathan, 2016). Likewise, students themselves must be willing to engage
in learning to produce such high results in these tests which are lauded globally.
In Singapore, there is the concept of “Kiasu-ism”. The word Kiasu comes from
the Chinese (Hokkien) phrase which means “fear of losing”. It is a very common
phrase in Singapore and originated from speakers of colloquial Singapore English
“Singlish”. A person who is “Kiasu” will do certain things in order not to lose out. For
example, parents will send their children for tuition to support their schoolwork so as
not to fall behind and buy them more than necessary supplementary and assessment
books to prepare them for examinations. This culture resulted in the eagerness of
parents and teachers to ensure that sufficient training is provided to young people to
help them to achieve success in everything, if possible.
5 Engagement and Orientations to Success in Singapore Schools 79
It is commonly assumed that students do not like assessments, since assessment is

often regarded as being related to anxiety and unhappiness (Kivunja, 2015). Summa-
tive assessment is usually designed to provide “the main means of communicating
the nature and level of a pupil’s achievements at various points in their schooling and
at the conclusion of their studies” (Kivunja, 2015, p. 89), while formative assess-
ment provides feedback both to the teacher and students, a dual function makes
teaching and learning effective. Formative assessment should help students progress
over time and eventually do well in their summative or high-stakes leaving school
examinations.
The notion of school engagement traditionally refers to building good relation-
ships between students, teachers, families and schools (National Center on Safe
Supportive Learning Environments, 2021). Singapore schools started working on
having a close relationship between schools and families in the late 1990s to create
a positive environment to nurture students. The MOE recognised the importance of
the continuum of learning and support from school and home (Teo, 2000). Other
research has suggested that a student who likes school will have fun in school, be
more motivated to work towards good grades, have good relationships with their
peers, be unlikely to skip or drop out of school and not exhibit behaviour of at-risk
youth (Henry et al., 2012; National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2004).
In the TIMSS 2019 and PIRLS 2016 reports, there is a consistent trend in Singa-
pore and the international average that those who have a higher sense of belonging
to school, enjoyment and self-confidence, and are almost never bullied at school,
also scored more highly in the academic tests than other groups of students (Mullis
et al., 2017, 2020;). Similarly, in the PISA 2018 study by the OECD (2019b) with
15-year-olds, students with a stronger sense of belonging at school also scored higher
in reading, which remained the case when accounting for the socioeconomic back-
ground of students and schools. This implies that it is important to build a strong
school engagement culture with students to help them achieve greater academic
success. It has also been suggested that the student–teacher relationship plays a
critical role in promoting school engagement. More analysis on students’ sense of
belonging in school is discussed in the next chapter.
Adapting Reschly and Christenson’s (2006) student engagement framework is
useful for our study, as it holistically considers the various aspects of students’ school
engagement, from how the students feel, think, behave and perform in school. School
or student engagement can be considered from several interrelated factors, which
map onto the questions we asked students in the learning dialogues: (1) affection for
school—What did the students look forward to at school? (2) enjoyment of learning in
school – What did the students learn in school? (3) performance in school—How did
the students feel about how they were doing at school? and (4) career after school—
What did the students want to do when they left school? (Reschly & Christenson,
2006).
The importance of encouraging students rather than criticising them has also been
promoted as an important factor for engagement. For example, a study with Singa-
pore Secondary 2 (Year 8) students showed that a positive and supportive teacher
helped with the students’ adjustment to school (Chong et al., 2010). Another study
in Singapore showed that academic engagement was related to autonomy support

for their at-risk student sample group; that is to consider students’ views, identify
and support their needs and choice, and provide them with the autonomy to carry
out self-directed learning (Caleon et al., 2016).
Amy Chua (2011) wrote the book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother because Asian
mothers (particularly of Chinese descent) were negatively critiqued for being over-
involved in their children’s lives. Asian mothers are generally perceived to be very
authoritative when compared to their Western counterparts. Chao (1994) proposed
that such involvement is known as “training”, rather than being viewed as authori-
tarian or authoritative (Baumrind, 1991). Indeed, research has shown that parental
involvement is positively correlated to children’s academic success in Singapore and
elsewhere (Appleton et al., 2008; Fredricks et al. 2004; Yuen & Cheung, 2013). To
support their children to be successful, Chinese parents have often imposed certain
training regimes for their children at a very young age, particularly when the chil-
dren were not highly motivated. In doing this, parents believe that they provide their
children with examples of “successful traits” (a set of systematic behaviours) to
prepare them for adulthood, such as being self-motivated and hard working. A study
on parents of primary school Singapore children showed that the majority (>90%)
agreed that their child’s teachers are driven to help students achieve good grades and
about half of them were stressed by their child’s education more than once a month
(Mathews et al., 2017).
Chao’s (1994) research suggested that many Asian-American Chinese mothers
believed that children could do anything if they work hard. Mothers believed that
they were expressing their love by helping their child succeed, especially in school.
Interestingly, mothers reported that they frequently taught their children by pointing
out the good behaviour of others. A later study by Chao (2001) showed that these
results did not change much over time. These results are relevant to the Singapore
context, as nearly 75% of the population is of Chinese ethnicity (Department of
Statistics Singapore, 2021). Parents in Singapore also agreed that more importance
should be given towards character-building and moral-related curriculum in schools
(Mathews et al., 2017). This form of training is also reflected in the rigour and regimen
of the Singapore education system. It is believed that such training, which impacts
on school engagement, ultimately aims to ensure children’s success in education and
life. In Singapore, most parents discuss their children’s progress with their teachers
on a frequent basis (OECD, 2019b).
Consequently, Chinese parents are generally known to be stricter with their chil-
dren than their Western counterparts (Ng et al., 2014). Mathews et al. (2017) reported
that Singapore parents thought their children were stressed with assignments (school-
work) and assessments. They also reported that about a third of parents (36.1%) had
to discipline their child once or more times a month because of their schoolwork, and
a fifth (19.7%) indicated that their child sacrificed sleep to complete their school-
work once or more times a month. As previously noted, Singapore has frequently
been ranked in the top five in past PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS studies. In fact, when
the country was ranked second in PISA instead of the usual number one, news
headlines reported this with varying degrees of enthusiasm, “Pisa 2018: Singapore
5 Engagement and Orientations to Success in Singapore Schools 81
Table 5.1 Learning dialogues activity questions

Day administered Question asked Dimension
Monday What are you looking forward to at school this Affection for school
week?
How do you feel about how you are doing at school? Performance in school
Friday What did you learn at school this week? Was it hard Learning in school
to learn, or easy to learn? and did you enjoy it?
What was a good thing that happened at school this Affection for school
week?
What job do you want to do when you leave school? Career after school
slips to second place behind China but still chalks up high scores” (Teng, 2019);
“Singapore’s 15-olds rank second globally in reading, maths and science: Study”
(Channel NewsAsia, 2019); and “China pips Singapore to top spots in Pisa test”
(Elangovan, 2019). Such headlines reflect a culture which defines success based on
academic test results rather than one that is more holistic or encouraging of children
to “do their best”. However, results from the PISA 2018 studies also showed that
Singapore students showed high levels of fear of failure (OECD, 2019a), and this
topic of concern was also picked up by journalists and made headlines in the local
press, for example, “15-year-olds in Singapore have a greater fear of failure than
those abroad” (Teng, 2019), “Brilliant minds, anxious souls: Top students discuss
their fear-of-failure demons after Pisa findings” (Wong, 2019) and “Commentary:
The fear of failure cannot help Singapore reach our best” (Lim-Lange, 2019). Such
media coverage highlights Singapore’s focus both on high academic achievement
and a concern for students’ wellbeing.
In this chapter, we explore school engagement and orientations to educational
success of Singapore Primary 4 (9–10 years old) students by analysing data from the
students themselves about what they looked forward to at school, their perceptions of
their academic performance, how they felt about how they were doing at school and
what they wished to do in the future in terms of a career. In the Global Childhoods
study, we designed the learning dialogues to be completed by the students to explore
their engagement and feelings around school success. Thus, a list of questions was
posed on Monday and Friday for the children to complete (see Table 5.1 for the
questions discussed in this chapter). In the learning dialogues, students were asked
to draw or write their responses. They were allowed to ask questions, but researchers
were careful not to guide students in their responses. However, students who were
brief in their responses were encouraged to write or draw a bit more. School Equality
had 29 students who completed the learning dialogues while School Harmony had
27 students, for a total of 56.
To explore the children’s responses, we draw on Reschly and Christenson’s (2006)
framework as outlined above. The students’ responses were sorted, and similar
responses were grouped in order to generate themes. Common occurrences were
counted to provide a quantitative analysis of the data. Excerpts from the learning
dialogues are included below to illustrate the findings. Data on students’ level
of school engagement is scarce in Singapore, especially for those at the elemen-
tary/primary school level. Interestingly, the international high-stakes tests (TIMSS,
PIRLS and PISA) are one of the few studies which provide information about school
engagement for students in Singapore. We outline these and relevant additional
literature in each section below.
5.1 What Did the Students Look Forward to at School?
The TIMSS 2019 results reported that Singapore Primary 4 and Secondary 2 students
feel safe and like being in school, with about 90% of the students having a sense
of belonging to their school (Mullis et al., 2020. See also MOE, 2020a). In the
PIRLS 2016 assessment of Primary 4 students, 49% of the students felt a high
sense of belonging and 42% had some sense of belonging, while 9% felt little sense
of belonging (Mullis et al., 2017). Despite the regimental educational demands in
Singapore, in PISA 2012, Singapore students (aged 15) reported that they were
happier in school (87.9%) when compared to those in many other countries (79.8%
OECD average) (OECD, 2013a).
In PISA 2018, 73% of the Singapore students agreed or strongly agreed that they
liked being in school (OECD, 2019b). Students with a greater sense of belonging
at school may simply mean they like going to school. A child may like to go to
school because they are doing well academically and receive plenty of accolades
and encouragement or, perhaps, they have good relationships with their friends and
teachers which increase the sense of inclusion, or it is simply fun to learn new
things and participate in school activities. In general, when a student looks forward
to going to school, he or she will probably be happy to engage in the activities in
school, including learning. It is also important to explore in more detail what it is
specifically that children are looking forward to in school.
The children’s responses to the learning dialogues prompted some interesting
insights into students’ perception of school. In general, students indicated that
they were looking forward to attending school. The three common activities which
students were “looking forward to at school” (asked in the learning dialogue
completed on Monday), as well as “a good thing that happened in school” (asked in
the learning dialogue completed on Friday) in the week of the research were classi-
fied as: (1) academic learning, (2) sports/Physical Education (PE) and Co-curricular
Activities (CCA), and (3) social activities and interactions with friends. A summary
of the frequency of occurrence of activities is listed in Table 5.2. Only a few students
made consistent or similar comments on what they look forward at school on Monday
and what was a good thing that happened that week on Friday. For example, two out
of three students who looked forward to playing soccer on Monday mentioned that
soccer was a “good thing” that happened that week on Friday.
5.1 What Did the Students Look Forward to at School? 83
Table 5.2 Students’ engagement in school activities in relation to what they were looking forward
to and a good thing that happened at school
Monday Friday
What are you looking n School What was a good thing n School
forward to at school this that happened at school
week? this week?
Academic learning Academic learning
English 3 H Getting full marks for 2 E
spelling
Focusing on work 1 H Getting 5th position in a 1 E
sports competition
Improve my Chinese 1 E
Literature programme 3 H Doing a play 1 H
Mathematical 1 E Computer lab 1 H
Olympiad
Going to computer lab 8 E
Mathematics project 7 E Doing/completing 4 E
work in computer lab Mathematics project
Mathematics 4 H Learning fractions via 3 H
card games
Reading 1 H Reading books in the 1 H
library
STEM 1 E Building a levitation train 2 E
in STEM
Science 1 H
Science lab 1 E
Studying 1 H
Thinking Lesson 1 E Thinking Lesson 1 E
Writing composition 1 E
Writing notes 1 E Homework 1 H
Art and performance Art and performance
Art class 1 H
Art Club (CCA) 2 E Learning about creativity 1 E
Choir (CCA) 2 E
To play games and have 1 E
music lesson
Sports Sports
Physical Education (and 7 E PE 1 E
NAPFA)
Physical Education (and 10 H No NAPFA test 1 H
NAPFA)
(continued)

Monday Friday
What are you looking n School What was a good thing n School
forward to at school this that happened at school
week? this week?
Badminton 1 E
Bowling 1 E
Soccer 3 E Soccer 2 E
Sports & CCA 3 H Winning and losing 1 H
matches
Volleyball (CCA) 1 E CCA 1 H
Recess Recess
Eating at the different 1 H Got extra money for 1 H
stalls in the canteen recess
Longer recess 1 E Recess 1 E
Social activities Social activities
Making friends 1 H Getting a new friend 1 E
Making more friends 1 E Reconciled with friend 1 H
Games and playing 3 H Helping a friend 1 H
with friends
Helping others 1 E Getting $10 from a friend 1 E
Playing with friends 1 H
Others Others
No schoolwork 1 E Nothing 1 E
Nothing 1 H Nothing 3 H
Green awareness 1 H Enjoyed my whole week 1 E
activities in school
Learning more things 2 E
Learning new things 5 H Learning new 6 H
things/studying
Kahoot! 3 E
Praised by the dentist for 1 E
having good teeth
Getting cards 1 E
Making ice cream 3 H
Teacher praising 1 H
Change seat 1 H
Picking up rubbish 1 H
Note School Equality (E), n = 29; School Harmony (H), n = 26
5.1.1 Academic Learning
Out of 56 students in the study, 28 of them indicated in the learning dialogues that
they were eager to learn something that was related to their academic studies. In
one of the two schools, the students were doing their Mathematics project work
and were looking forward to completing it (mentioned seven times). The project
work was completed in the computer lab and several students reported that going
to the “computer lab” was the good thing that happened at school that week. For
example, as seen in Fig. 5.1, one student drew out the seating arrangement in the
computer room where they did their project work, and another student mentioned the
importance of teamwork when doing their project. Going to the computer lab was
something exciting for the students. At this school, the students used the computer
lab to complete their Mathematics work. Hence, this result suggests that students
enjoyed doing their schoolwork more when they worked in the computer room and/or
in groups. It also reflects that recent pedagogical approaches such as collaborative
learning and advocating digital literacy seem to be effective in promoting engagement
in learning (Tay et al., 2018).
A couple of students were excited to share what they had completed in their STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) programme in school. They
drew the levitation train in their learning dialogues (see Fig. 5.2). In the other school,
several students mentioned learning new things, fractions or studying as a good thing
that happened in school.
From the learning dialogues and classroom observations, it was evident that the
students were exposed to an array of programmes beyond their mandated curricula
provided at the school. At Primary 4, the core academic subjects are English, Math-
ematics, Mother Tongue and Science, but students are also taught beyond these
areas (see Chap. 2 for more information). The students also mentioned “Litera-
ture programme”, “Thinking programme”, “Math Olympiad”, “Green Awareness
Activities”, “Learning Journey” and “S.T.E.M programme”.
New things are often exciting. The students wrote that they looked forward to
school because they would be able to learn or do something “new” or “more”. Eager-
ness to learn new topics or having more depth in particular topics shows a sense of
motivation towards studying. The word “new” or “more” was mentioned by nine
students, for example, when they said they were looking forward to a “new topic”,
or “at least 2 new things”, and “looking forward to study and learn more”, as well as
non-academic activities such as trying new food in the school canteen (see Fig. 5.3).
A student wrote she was looking forward to “Art because we get to do something
new, and I don’t know what will we do… so I can’t wait for Art”.
Play and enjoyment was identified as being an important factor of learning for
the children. The term “Kahoot!” appeared several times in their learning dialogues
under the question “What was a good thing that happened at school this week?”.
Kahoot! is a game-based learning platform that is used commonly in the classroom
in Singapore to check students’ understanding using quizzes. The platform is fun
and interactive, and students clearly enjoyed this method. Learning through games
Fig. 5.1 Students’ drawings of students enjoying working on their project work in teams. a
Student’s drawing on “what did you look forward to this week (Monday)”. Drew the seating arrange-
ment in the computer lab. “Computer Lab Session! (Project work)”. b Student’s drawing of “what
did you learn at school this week (Friday)”. Drawing of hands stacked on top of one another to
depict teamwork. “Teamwork. No it wasn’t hard as it was quite easy to work with friends in the
class”
Fig. 5.2 Students’ drawings of STEM programme task. a “I built a maglev train which was actually
quite cool”. b “I built a levitation train in STEM”
Fig. 5.3 Student’s drawing

of looking forward to “Try
all things in the stalls” in the
canteen
seemed to bring a range of pleasant emotions to the students, especially when using
a computer. Students also expressed enjoyment when learning without computers.
For example, two drawings reflected students enjoying themselves through learning
(see Fig. 5.4).
5.1.2 Physical Education (PE) and Co-curricular Activities

(CCA)
The same number of students indicated they were looking forward to their physical
education and Co-curricular Activities (CCA) classes (mentioned 28 times). Many
students wrote about their excitement to go to their CCA, which was either a sport
or performing art club. Many took the effort to draw their CCA and PE participa-
tion instead of simply writing them down (see Fig. 5.5). The drawings reflect their
affection for these activities.
During the data collection period, which took place in both schools in consecutive
weeks, the National Physical Fitness Award (NAPFA) test examining the physical
fitness of the students was taking place. Students were awarded “Gold”, “Silver”
or “Bronze” based on their performance in a series of tests (pull-ups, sit-and-reach,
shuttle run, standing broad jump and 2.4 km run). It is commonly assumed that
students do not look forward to taking any form of assessment, but the results showed
that many students were looking forward to taking the NAPFA test, and it was the
most common event (n = 8 out 27 students from one of the schools) students were
looking forward to that week.
Fig. 5.4 Students’ drawings of their enjoyment learning. a Students enjoyed doing the composition
titled “An unforgettable trip” and drew himself tripping over and falling off the cliff. “I enjoyed
doing the compo about a[n] unforgettable trip”. b Students having fun putting on a play in Mother
Tongue, “We put on a play in Mother Tongue and all the groups were really funny”
5.1.3 Social Activities and Interactions with Friends
Social activities and making friends in school is an important feature in the students’
lives, as shown in the results. Friends are there to play with, as well as for synergy
building (teamwork), and a source of motivation and encouragement to each other.
Several students mentioned they were happy being with their friends. The students
expressed their feelings towards their friends and teachers frequently in their writing,
as well as depicting them in their drawings (see Fig. 5.6). This was in relation to
Fig. 5.5 Students’ drawings of an array of physical activities/CCA they looked forward to. a “I
look forward to choir CCA, Guzheng CCA and Physical Education”. b “Play soccer/PE”. c “Sponge
ball”, “cannon” and “drone”. d Choir/singing. e “I am looking forward to science experiments in
the lab and playing soccer during recess”
what they were looking forward to at school (first response) and a good thing that
had happened at school that week (remaining responses):
Play with my friends and learn EL and Math.
Helping my friend to know what the class had learned.
The good thing that had happen is I play card game with my friend on fraction.
The good thing that happened at school this week was playing soccer with my friends.
(Emphases added).
“Recess time” was mentioned twice in the learning dialogues. During recess, a
break after two or three hours of intensive classes, students could play and interact
with their friends, including those from other classes. A student from one school
mentioned she looked forward to playing during recess, another from the other school
looked forward to a “longer” recess. In Singapore schools, recess is about 30 min.
After queuing to buy food from the canteen, which will take about 10 min, and eating
for another 10 min, the students have very little time for interaction. After school,
Fig. 5.6 Students’ drawings of friendships built in school. a “I look forward to making more friends
and helping other people”. b “My friends”, “Learning journey”. c “Friend (name) and me”
not many students were allowed to stay back to play with their friends, and students
commented in our interaction with them that they would sometimes not dine during
recess so that they could play with their friends.
5.2 What Did the Students Learn in School?
There has been a strong emphasis placed on the importance of schooling in Singapore
since obtaining independence in 1965. A literate population is crucial for building
up the human capital for a country without any natural resources (OECD, 2013b;
Quah, 2018). Primary teachers in Singapore need to demonstrate and ensure that they
have completed the curriculum, or syllabus, in the allocated time frame to prepare
the students for the PSLE and make sure they proceed effectively in their education
journey. Hence, school engagement of students in terms of attendance, participation
in class and school activities, and preparation for school, is taken seriously. It has
been noted that teachers are often concerned with how well their students learn in
school. For those falling behind or needing to be stretched academically, they will
often intervene using appropriate strategies and formative assessment to provide the
scaffolding to ensure students can progress successfully within the system require-
ments. The TIMSS 2019 and PIRLS 2016 survey reports showed that principals in
Singapore reported that their schools placed a “high” emphasis on academic success,
and not a “very high” emphasis as commonly assumed (Mullis et al., 2017, 2020).
5.3 How Did the Students Feel About How They Were Doing at School? 91
Besides academic performance, issues of safety, school discipline and bullying can
also impact on students’ learning. Students from schools with few discipline issues
and low levels of school absence performed better in the TIMSS and PIRLS academic
tests than students who were from schools with some discipline issues and a high
absenteeism rate (Mullis et al., 2017, 2020).
When the students were asked what they learned at school that week, most referred
to topics in examinable subjects, in particular Mathematics (for example, fractions
or angles) or English (for example, composition) (see Table 5.3). Smaller numbers
of students wrote about Science and Chinese. While students primarily wrote about
academic learning, some also reported that they learned new dances and songs and
enjoyed teamwork. Unlike when reflecting on what they were looking forward to at
school that week, no students wrote about sports, recess, or social activities.
Figure 5.7 provides an illustration of some of the students’ responses about what
they had learnt at school that week and their perceptions of the difficulty level and
enjoyment. Most of the students who answered this question indicated that they felt
that the work was not difficult, and they enjoyed it (see Table 5.4), except for learning
Chinese. One of the students did not seem to like it, while another student mentioned
that Higher Chinese was not hard, but she emphasised in capital letters that she “DID
NOT” enjoy it (Fig. 5.7b).
5.3 How Did the Students Feel About How They Were
Doing at School?
As mentioned in the introduction, the PISA 2019 survey results reported that 15-
year-old students tend to be quite concerned about their schoolwork and test results.
A high number of the Singapore students (76%) stated that they are “very anxious”
about taking tests, and the majority of them (82%) wanted to be “one of the best”
students in class (OCED, 2019b; see also Wong, 2019). While PISA, TIMSS and
PIRLS results have concluded that Singapore students excel in these international
high-stakes tests, it is less clear if Singapore students themselves perceive they are
doing well at school. Although Singapore students are often ranked in first or second
position in TIMSS (mathematics and science) and PIRLS (reading and literacy), the
survey results reported that most Singapore students were only “somewhat” confident
in doing mathematics and science (Mullis et al., 2020), and reading (Mullis et al.,
2017). The level of confidence was lower than most of the countries involved in
the same tests (Mullis et al., 2017, 2020). There are occasional reports that some
Singapore students self-inflict harm for many reasons including relationship issues,
academic stress and peer pressure (Ang, 2019; Goh, 2020). One Singapore study
suggests that the number of top school students seeking psychiatric help has increased
due to school-related stresses (Cheow, 2019). In Singapore, students are exposed to
the administration of quizzes, tests and examinations from a very young age. Almost
every assignment in school is graded and exact scores are awarded. Students are
Table 5.3 Students’ views of what they learned at school that week, frequency of activities
What did you learn at school this week? n School
Academic learning
Mathematics (angles, squares and rectangles, shapes) 10 E
Mathematics (project work) 3 E
Mathematics (heuristic skills) 1 E
Mathematics (fractions and mixed numbers) 22 H
Mathematics 2 H
Mathematics total 38 E, H
English (composition) 6 E
English Thinking Lesson (water balls) 3 E
English (how to use correct sentences) 1 E
English (spelling) 1 E
English (making ice cream) 1 H
English (countable and uncountable nouns) 1 H
English (annotation) 1 H
English 1 H
English total 15 E, H
Science (heat and temperature) 3 E
Science (Kahoot!) 2 E
Science (heat, energy and temperature) 2 H
Science total 7 E, H
Chinese (new words/words) 3 E
Chinese (activity book) 1 E
Chinese 1 E
Chinese 1 H
Chinese total 6 E, H
Art and performance
Dance 2 E
Music (how to play more difficult songs) 1 E
Others
How to work as a team/teamwork 2 E
Mindfulness, box breathing 2 E
Games 1 H
All the subjects 1 H
Note Students could write about more than one thing they had learnt
Fig. 5.7 Students’ drawings depicting what they learnt at school that week. a “English → I learnt
how to use correct sentences for my essay. Math → I learnt about squares and rectangles. Chinese
→ I learnt new words. Science → I learnt about gaining heat and losing heat”. b “I learnt a new
character on “爱心无障碍”. It wasn’t hard to learn and I DID NOT enjoy it. “爱心无障碍” → one
of the HCL (Higher Chinese) chapter”. “爱心无障碍” means love without hindrance. c Drawing
of figures that did not look very happy and wrote “Imporve my Chinese”
Table 5.4 Students’ views on difficulty and enjoyment in relation to what they had learnt at school
Hard Not hard
Enjoy 4 21
Do not enjoy 0 2
Enjoy only (did not indicate difficulty level) 5
Easy (did not indicate enjoyment level) 2
No response 24
Note Some students responded in more than one category
made very conscious of their performance being regarded as “good” or “bad”, and
this often creates undue competition between peers. Severe stress-related issues are
usually built up over time. Hence, it is crucial to find out if the students are happy at a
younger age, before they reach their teenage years. In PISA 2018, it was reported that
students who did not do well in school (i.e. those who had repeated a grade in their
primary or secondary school) had a weaker sense of school engagement (OECD,
2019b).
In the learning dialogues, students were asked “how do you feel about how you are
doing in school?”, which the majority of students understood to mean their academic
performance in school, rather than a more holistic view of “doing well” at school,
as reflective of the Singapore context. Most students responded positively to this
question: 10 of them responded they felt “good”; 11 felt “happy”; six said they were
doing “great” or “well” at school; and a couple said it was fun to go to school.
Sixteen out of the 56 students felt that they performed “okay” or “fine” (which we
have translated as acceptable). The remaining few expressed that they “do not know”,
“not so well” or “could do better”. One student stated that “Learning is bad but [it]
is fine going to school”. He wrote that he liked to make friends as the friends would
help him.
Doing well academically is important to some students; for example, some
students indicated that finishing their project work, improving in their studies
(“improve my Chinese”) and getting full marks for spelling were of significance
to them. The students noted that they were also happy to receive intangible rewards.
For example, students liked to receive encouragement from their teachers about their
performance. One student was happy that the teacher praised him during the week,
making it the “good thing” that happened to him in the week. Another student was
happy that he obtained “5th position in track and field competition” in their school
sports day, while another “won one match but loss too [lost two]”.
The term “stress” appeared several times in the learning dialogues from one of the
two schools. This school is known to have students with high academic abilities. Some
students mentioned they were stressed because of examinations, and not receiving
grades which were as high as expected. One student indicated that he regulated his
stress by playing soccer.
Too stress[ed], but can play soccer.
I feel that I’m okay in school, except some exam stress. I’m nervous for Science, Chinese
and Mathematics.
I am very stressed out at exams and also panicking as if I do not get good grades, I will be
upset myself.
For the students, doing well at school seemed to be dependent on several factors,
which can be grouped into explanations about: (1) Grades; (2) Friends; (3) Regular
revision and completion of work; and (4) Staying focused (see Table 5.5).
It is also important to emphasise that several students responded positively to how
they were doing at school by referring to friends or teachers. This is interesting in
that some students interpreted this question as broader than academics:
Table 5.5 Students’ definitions of “doing well” in school

Definition Comments by students Explanation
Grades “Feel like my results have been Benchmarking of academic
worse and I think I can improve achievement
on math and mother tongue”
“I am doing okay but my grades
have been dropping and I have
been trying to improve my grades
at home”
Friends “I am quite happy but a little Support from peers to counter
stressed. I can play with my stress with play
friends”
“Feel good doing in school as I
have friend”
Regular revision and “I feel that I am doing ok, because Acknowledge that additional
completion of work I have revised a lot for my effort will produce better results
subject”
“I feel like I’m doing okay in
school because I have been
handing in my homework
punctually and have been more
serious in my work and more
participating in group activities”
“Feel good because I’m handing
up my homework to the teacher”
Staying focused “Feel good doing [sic] in school Being on task is a good trait of a
just that I need to stay more student and will lead to academic
focuse[d] during lesson times, and success
not to get distracted by my
classmates”
“Could do better in focusing and
working hard”
I am doing good at school. My friends play with me. We go recess together.
I feel happy as I get to interact with my friends.
I feel quite happy about the learning pace and when I’m able to play with my friends
I feel good in school! There are friends with me to learn what is fabulous… It is also fun
learning as there are lots of group work!
I think that school is very fun. All the teachers are very nice. Mrs H, our English teacher
is very kind. She is very specific with the worksheet and words so that we can understand
more. Mrs C, our math teacher is very funny. She will play with us the game bingo and tell
us funny stories about her. When we do not understand any questions, Mrs C will explain
the questions for us carefully. She also told us that she is very fond of durians.
(Emphases added).
As we mentioned above, social activities and friends were also important to some
students in terms of what they were looking forward to at school or something good
that had happened to them that week. We further explore relationships between
students and between teachers and students in the following chapter. However, while
students often viewed making friends one of the positive aspects of school, students
could also be quite competitive. They would compare themselves with their peers,
especially in academic matters. In Singapore, most assignments are graded, and exact
raw scores are told to the students. The students would literally be able to position their
academic standing from the first to the last in class. Hence, students will consciously
make comparisons of their academic performance among themselves.
5.4 What Did the Students Want to Do When They Left

School?
In an international study by Chambers et al. (2018), children aged 7 to 11 largely

based their career aspirations on the people that they knew. In other words, their
personal experiences were influential. At primary school level, the key people in a
child’s life will be their parents, peers, teachers and whoever else they might learn
from as well as stories or media they are exposed to. In Singapore, going to university
seems to be a common goal for many parents for their children and parents are funding
their children’s university fees, as reported in studies by HSBC on Singapore parents
(HSBC, 2014, 2018). PISA 2018 also showed that students with positive feelings
about school engagement were more likely to complete higher education, indicating
they were confident in succeeding academically and progressing to commence a
tertiary degree (OECD, 2019b). In 2020, 98.2% of students in Singapore progressed
from primary to secondary school, and 89.9% completed their secondary school
examination (achieved at least 5 GCE N-Level passes or 3 O-Level passes) and
moved on to tertiary education. Many students were admitted to full-time publicly
funded Diploma (48.5%) or Degree courses (38.4%) (MOE, 2020a, 2020b). The
5.4 What Did the Students Want to Do When They Left School? 97
number would be higher if privately funded courses and students who pursue overseas
degrees were included. The academic journey takes at least 12–13 years (starting
from Primary 1) to obtain a diploma/pre-university qualification, which increases to
15 years to achieve a degree.
In the learning dialogues, the students were asked what they wanted to do when
they left school to determine whether they had set some goals for themselves at
this age. Most students provided at least one response, although about 15% of the
students indicated they “don’t know”. Some provided a list of unrelated jobs they
wished to do in their responses. Nevertheless, it was clear that many students strived
to become a professional of some kind, such as a doctor, engineer, lawyer or police
officer (see Fig. 5.8 for examples).
In the students’ responses in our research, the careers that students chose seemed
to be mainly influenced by the following factors: (1) occupation of their parents
(similar to Chambers et al., 2018); (2) something they were good at currently; and
(3) wanting to help others. For example, five students mentioned they wished or
expected to follow in the footsteps of their parents to be a “software engineer”,
“doctor” and “bank director” (see Fig. 5.8).
I like to be a[n] engineer/water polo player in the national team when I leave school because
I am glad at spo[r]ting things and being a mechanic and my father is a[n] engineer. I want to
be a water polo player because I think it is fun and it makes me learn teamwork.
A chef. I always see my mother cook when I was young. That inspired me. Now, I can make
salad, cook egg, make instant noodles and many more!
Work at a[n] office because my dad work as [at] a shipment ship thing and I want to be just
like him.
A student highlighted that his parents wanted him to follow their footsteps, to be
a doctor. One student noted that to be a doctor, there is a need to receive a university
degree before getting that job.
Hmmm… that is a hard question. My parents want me to be a doctor like them. But I still
have not decided yet as once I leave school, I still have to go sec school [secondary school]
and JC [Junior College/High School] and university before I get a job.
I am not sure what do I want to do but I do want to go to a university
Some students wished to continue to pursue their current interest, and they were
very specific about their choice (see Fig. 5.9). For example, one student wished
to become a ballet dancer in the New York Ballet or Royal Ballet School, another
wanted to work with animals because she loved animals, one wished to be a soccer
player as it was always his dream to play for his favourite club and another wanted
to be a volleyball player and represent Singapore. One student specifically wrote
that she wished to be a music teacher because she loved music and hoped to carry
on with her dream to be a singer or piano teacher because “I am doing piano grade
8 next year and theory grades with distinction. I also participated in several piano
competitions and achieved silver, bronze, silver and many performances too. I also
attend choir (school) and SSCC (Choir, national) which I enjoyed very much”.
Fig. 5.8 Students’ drawings of their future careers. a “I don’t know. Maybe an art teacher. I like
art and craft a lot and I like to teach my friends craft. (I like painting too)”. b “I would like to be a
software engineer!! My dad is a software engineer and I am also quite good at maths. I hope I can
become one!”. c “I would want to be a bank director like my father, a doctor like my mother or a
lawyer”. d “I want to either be an Air Traffic Controller or a pilot”
5.4 What Did the Students Want to Do When They Left School? 99
Fig. 5.9 Students’ drawings of a future career that will help others in society. a “I want to become
a train engineer because from young I love trains. I can see the train map and must make sure train
rides are safe for passengers”. b “I would like to be a doctor! I can help people being a doctor. I can
also make people feel better!”
Along with naming jobs relating to the occupations of their parents or something
students thought they were good at, another reason that directed the students’ career
choices was their aspiration to do something that would help others. For example, one
student wished to become a train engineer to ensure trains are safe for passengers.
Another wanted to be a doctor to make people feel better and another wanted to be
a police officer to solve cases and catch criminals.
The contemporary terms “YouTuber” and “Gamer” also appeared several times
as responses in the learning dialogues. Among those who wished to be a YouTuber,
they indicated that they thought it would be a fun job, and they could “make children
happy” (see Fig. 5.10). Becoming a YouTuber or a gamer seemed to be a very popular
Fig. 5.10 Students’ drawings aspiring to be a YouTuber or Gamer. a “Youtuber”. Welcome back
to my channel guys. Chat: Hello you are funny make more video[es]. b “Youtuber”. (Drawing of
what looks like a bedroom). c Drawing of a person on a gaming chair with headphones on
recent trend and seems to be gaining recognition among young people and can be a
lucrative career (Borzykowski, 2016; Technisport, 2020).
In a metropolitan society such as Singapore where human capital is the main
resource, the nation needs all types of workers. There is no limit to what these
students can become in future; traditional occupations are still necessary but, as
mentioned, new jobs and modification of existing careers will also become a feature
in this ever-changing world. The Singapore SkillsFuture report introduced three
areas of growth which required workers: Digital economy, Green economy and Care
economy (Government of Singapore, 2021). Digital economy to tackle the current
technological advances that have altered our daily lives; Green economy to promote
sustainability and environmental conservation; and Care economy in view of the
ageing population and demands on healthcare and other age-dependent facilities.
Hence, schools must also start introducing students to all types of potential careers,
beyond the traditional ones, tying in the 21st Century Competencies, to provide the
ideal human capital for future Singapore.
5.5 Conclusions 101
5.5 Conclusions
The general education policy in Singapore is consistent across the country as the
education system adopted a centralised approach designed by MOE. Most schools
are relatively homogeneous, running the same syllabus, taking the same end-of-
school examinations and having similar infrastructure and facilities. Most schools
(except autonomous or special education schools) are given the same form of support,
from the physical facilities of the school to pedagogical initiatives. At the annual
workplan seminar for educators, the Minister of Education will announce the policies
or initiatives for the upcoming year. The school leaders will then work with the key
personnel to fulfil the directives. In this way, fairness is ensured to a certain extent.
Former Minister of Education, Mr Heng Swee Keat, popularised the phrase “Every
School, a Good School” to denote the approach taken by the MOE that all schools
have potential to be great in different ways (MOE, 2015).
The findings from the learning dialogues data from the children showed that they
generally enjoyed school. They could also state clearly that they wanted to learn
something from school. Individual students perceived themselves as being academ-
ically successful based on several factors, such as their test results (performance),
their ability to do regular revision, completion of their schoolwork on time and ability
to stay focused on tasks. Several students indicated that “a good thing” that happened
to them in school was about completion of assignments or doing well in tests. This
study was conducted mid-semester and not near an examination period time. If it was
immediately after their mid-year or final-year examinations, it might be assumed that
more students would comment on the specific grades they obtained. The students
were also quite self-reflective. They could identify the weak areas in their studies
that needed improvement and noted that if they could stay more focused, they should
do better.
The results indicated that students seemed to enjoy formative assessment. The
students wrote that they felt the stress of being assessed but they were also eager to
gain recognition by getting good grades and test results. For example, students looked
forward to taking the NAPFA and spelling tests and stated that they wished to do well
in them. Such small successes in formative assessment served as a form of assurance
that they were progressing well in their academic and even physical wellbeing and
implied their level of readiness for summative examinations. We explore assessments
further in the next chapter.
The frequent mention of the term “friends” indicates that the presence or support
from friends is a crucial aspect of children’s lives. The need to develop teamwork
skills is one of the 21st Century Competencies outlined by MOE (2014). We further
reflect on relationships between students in the following chapter.
The schools in the project provided an array of activities for learning beyond the
fixed curricula. From the responses, students said that they wish to have group work
which involved synergising the ideas and energy of their friends, as well as to engage
with fun computer-based activities and games. Students listed a variety of activities
in their learning dialogues, from sports to performing arts, that they were eager to
participate in. Many of these activities were conducted after school, but despite this,
the students wrote about these activities positively.
Students in the study indicated an array of potential occupations they wished to
do in the future, including some that were influenced by popular culture, such as
a YouTuber or a Gamer. These jobs are not considered as one of the “traditional”
professions; however, as times change, parents will need to rethink what they consider
as “regular” professions, because 65% of children today will be doing jobs that have
yet to be invented (World Economic Forum, 2016). The primary schools in Singapore
provide students with a rigorous education programme and the results of our study
show that most students enjoy school, are eager to learn, wish to excel academically
and want to participate in physical activities.
References
Ang, H. M. (2019, August 6). MSF ‘very concerned’ about spike in youth suicides; experts say more
support and awareness necessary. Channel NewsAsia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/
singapore/moe-msf-very-concerned-about-spike-in-youth-suicides-experts-say-11775260.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5),
369–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In R. Lerner, A. C. Peterson, &
J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), The encyclopedia on adolescence (pp. 746–758). Garland Publishing.
Borzykowski, B. (2016). Beyond fun, when being a gamer turns into a lucrative
career. Bright Sparks. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20160119-beyond-fun-when-being-
a-gamer-turns-into-a-lucrative-career.
Caleon, I. S., Tan, J.P.-L., Wui, M. G. L., Chiam, C. L., & King, R. B. (2016). Academically at-risk
adolescents in Singapore: The importance of teacher support in promoting academic engagement.
In R. B. King & A. B. I. Bernardo (Eds.), The psychology of Asian learners: A festschrift in honor
of David Watkins (pp. 519–539). Springer.
Channel NewsAsia. (2019, December 3). Singapore’s 15-olds rank second globally in reading,
maths and science: Study. Channel NewsAsia. https://news.nestia.com/detail/-/2880241.
Chambers, N., Kashefpakdel, E. T., Rehill, J., & Percy, C. (2018). Drawing the future: Exploring the
career aspirations of primary school children from around the world. Education and Employers.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding
Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1131308
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Amer-
icans and European Americans. Child Development, 72(6), 1832–1843. http://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/3654381.
Cheow, S-A. (2019, April 11). More teens in Singapore seeking help at IMH for school stress.
The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/more-teens-in-singapore-
seeking-help-for-school-stress-at-imh.
References 103
Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Quek, C. L., Yeo, L. S., & Ang, R. P. (2010). Teacher–student rela-
tionship: The influence of teacher interpersonal behaviours and perceived beliefs about teachers
on the school adjustment of low achieving students in Asian middle schools. School Psychology
International, 31(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034310366207
Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. Penguin Books.
Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). PISA and high-performing education systems: Explaining
Singapore’s education success. Comparative Education, 52(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03050068.2016.1219535
Department of Statistics Singapore. (2021). Population trends 2021. Retrieved February 16, 2022,
from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/population/population2021.pdf.
Elangovan, N. (2019, Dec 3) China pips Singapore to top spots in Pisa test. Today Online. https://
www.todayonline.com/singapore/china-pips-singapore-top-spots-pisa-test.
Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. https://doi.org/10.
3102/00346543074001059
Goh, Y. H. (2020, June 30). Youth suicides still a concern, with 94 cases last year and in 2018. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/number-of-suicides-in-2019-did-not-dec
line-compared-with-2018-youth-suicides-still-a#:~:text=This%20service%20comes%20as%
20suicide,Authority%20data%20released%20last%20week.
Government of Singapore. Skills demands for the future economy. Skills Future. https://www.ski
llsfuture.gov.sg/skillsreport.
Henry, K. L., Knight, K. E., & Thornberry, T. P. (2012). School disengagement as a predictor
of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.2030310.1007/s10
964-011-9665-3
HSBC. (2014). The Value of education: Springboard for success. HSBC Holdings plc.
HSBC. (2018). The Value of education. The price of success. HSBC Holdings plc.
Kivunja, C. (2015). Why students don’t like assessment and how to change their perceptions in 21st
century pedagogies. Creative Education, 6, 2117–2126. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.620215
Learning Intergral Academy. (2020). Top Secondary School Ranking in Singapore [2020]. https://
integrallearning.com.sg/blog/top-secondary-schools-singapore
Lim-Lange, C. (2019). Commentary: The fear of failure cannot help Singapore reach our best.
Channel NewsAsia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/pisa-singapore-fear-
of-failure-math-reasoning-oecd-12158798.
Mathews, M., Lim, L. & Teng, S., S. (2017). Parents’ perceptions of the Singapore Primary School
System. IPS Working Papers No. 27 (July 2017). Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew
School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/def
ault-source/ips/wp-27_parents’-perceptions-of-the-singapore-primary-school-system.pdf.
MOE. (2014). 21st century competencies. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
MOE. (2015). Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry
of Education work plan seminar 2015, on Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 9:15am at Ngee
Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.
sg/news/speeches/20150922-keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat-minister-for-education-at-
at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre.
MOE. (2020a, December 8). TIMSS 2019: Singapore students continue to excel in mathematics and
science. MOE Press Release. https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/2020a1208-timss-
2019-singapore-students-continue-to-excel-in-mathematics-and-science#:~:text=Singapore’s%
20Primary%204%20(P4)%20and,for%20the%20Evaluation%20of%20Educational.
MOE. (2020b). Choosing your secondary schools 2021. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://
www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/secondary/s1-posting-booklet-english-2020b.pdf?la=en&hash=
B10559E97025ABEADD67FE53890B17E8C9A0C45F.
MOE. (2021). 21st century competencies. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.

sg/education-in-sg/21st-century-competencies.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 international results in
reading. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Boston
College. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580353.pdf.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international
results in mathematics and science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA). Boston College. https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2020-12/TIMSS%202
019-International-Results-in-Mathematics-and-Science.pdf.
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. (2021). Engagement. https://safesu
pportivelearning.ed.gov/topic-research/engagement.
National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high
school students’ motivation to learn. The National Academies Press.
Ng, F. F., Pomerantz, E. M., & Deng, C. (2014). Why are Chinese mothers more controlling
than American mothers? “My child is my report card”. Child Development, 85, 355–69. PMID
23581633. https://doi.org/10.1111/Cdev.12102.
Ng, H. L., Poon, C. L., Pang, E. (2020). Using IEA studies to inform policymaking and program
development: The case of Singapore. In Wagemaker H. (eds) Reliability and validity of interna-
tional large-scale assessment. IEA research for education (A series of in-depth analyses based
on data of the international association for the evaluation of educational achievement (IEA), vol
10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53081-5_14.
OECD. (2013b). Structural policy country notes. Singapore. Southeast Asian economic outlook
2013b: with perspectives on China and India. OECD Development Centre and Asian Secretariat.
https://doi.org/10.1787/22253998.
OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 results: Ready to learn (Volume III): Students’ engagement, drive and
self-beliefs, PISA. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201170-en.
OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA. OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives, PISA.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777.
Quah, J. S. T. (2018). Why Singapore works: five secrets of Singapore’s success. Public Admin-
istration and Policy: An Asia-Pacific Journal, 21(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-06-201
8-002.
Reschly, A., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild disabili-
ties: A case for the inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special Education,
27, 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270050301
Statistics Singapore. (2020). Education, language spoken and literacy. Singapore Department of
Statistics (DOS). Retrieved from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/popula
tion./education-language-spoken-and-literacy/latest-data.
Tay, L. Y., Nair, S. S., & Lim, C. P. (2018). Old wine in new bottle? How technologies are being used
in an elementary school in Singapore. In R. A. Ellis & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Spaces of teaching
and learning: Integrating perspectives on research and practice (pp. 173–194). Springer.
Technisport. 2020. Why should you become a professional gamer in 2020. Retrieved
from https://technisportusa.com/blogs/news/why-should-you-become-a-professional-gamer-in-
2020?_pos=1&_sid=b812fe35a&_ss=r.
Teng, A. (2019, December 3). Pisa 2018: Singapore slips to second place behind China but still
chalks up high scores. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/pisa-
2018-singapore-slips-to-second-place-behind-china-but-still-chalks-up-high.
Teo, C. H. (2000). Foreword. Home, school and community partnerships. COMPASS. Psychological
and Guidance Services Branch. Ministry of Education Singapore: COMPASS Secretariat.
Wong, P. T. (2019). Brilliant minds, anxious souls: Top students discuss their fear-of-failure
demons after Pisa findings. Today. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/brilliant-minds-anx
ious-souls-top-students-discuss-their-fear-failure-demons-after-pisa.
References 105
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs. World Economic Forum.
Yuen, C. Y. M., & Cheung, A. C. K. (2013). School engagement and parental involvement: The case
of cross-border students in Singapore. Australian Educational Researcher, 41, 89–107. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0124-x
Chapter 6
School Belonging and Wellbeing
in Singapore
Abstract This chapter discusses Singaporean students’ wellbeing and sense of

belonging to their schools. Data from international high-stakes testing indicates
Singapore students have lower levels of school belonging and wellbeing than the
international average. One possible explanation might be associated with the high
expectations to perform well in examinations and the commensurate stress. This
chapter suggests the importance of considering belonging in terms of the levels of
interactions as suggested in (Bronfenbrenner, International Encyclopedia of Educa-
tion 3:1643–1647, 1994) ecological framework, since the actions and reflections of
the students are impacted by a myriad of people and contexts. Drawing on survey and
classroom ethnographic data collected in the Global Childhoods project in Singapore,
we outline some of the findings and features relevant to wellbeing and belonging for
Primary 4 (9–10 years old) students.
Keywords Sense of belonging · School belonging · Children’s wellbeing ·

Children’s attitudes to school · Assessment and examinations · Student–teacher
relationships
Students’ sense of belonging in schools can be understood as “the extent to which they
feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others—especially
teachers and other adults in the school social environment” (Goodenow & Grady,
1993, pp. 60–61). As students spend a significant amount of time in school and
school-based activities, schools have the responsibility to create spaces of belonging
and hence make a positive impact on the students’ academic, physical and mental
health, and wellbeing (Allen & Kern, 2017). When considering a sense of belonging,
the underlying implication is the need to connect with others in the school setting by
taking part in meaningful social interactions with fellow students, teachers, school
leaders and other school staff with varying degrees of connectedness. Having a sense
of belonging could be so vital that Baumeister and Leary (1995, p. 498) state that
“belonging can be almost as compelling a need as food and that human culture is
significantly conditioned by the pressure to provide belongingness”.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_6
108 6 School Belonging and Wellbeing in Singapore
A sense of belonging can be regarded as the underpinning of an individual’s

sense of purpose, wellbeing and life satisfaction (Allen & Kern, 2017). Traditionally,
Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” theory (1962) was used to justify the view that once
a person’s basic needs, such as physiological and safety needs, are fulfilled, love and
belonging are what humans need and desire. Belonging has always been regarded as
an essential part of psychological functioning. This implies that students, too, need to
have a sense of belonging to their school to achieve academically and to create a sense
of wellbeing (Allen & Kern, 2017). Students’ sense of belonging to their school is,
in fact, considered to play a crucial role in their development and identity formation
(Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). International studies have suggested that a sense of
belonging is also positively correlated with students’ academic success, their psycho-
logical wellbeing and other positive outcomes (Anderman, 2003; Brechwald &
Prinstein, 2011; Gokmen et al., 2020).
The Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore has made a deliberate shift to
focusing on students’ wellbeing. In order to create cultures which promote positive
dispositions among students, such as personal effectiveness and wellbeing, and to
build positive relationships, impart values and develop their character, the MOE
created the Social Emotional Learning (SEL) Framework in 2005 (MOE, 2021). The
SEL Framework aims to promote the positive wellbeing of children and adolescents
in schools by imparting strong social-emotional competencies (MOE, 2021; see also
Chong & Lee, 2015; Liem et al., 2017). This focus on holistic education can also
be seen in the Framework for 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes
(MOE, 2014), as outlined in detail in Chap. 2. In addition, Singapore has the Holistic
Health Framework which aims to “develop the total well-being of students”, where
“schools provide opportunities for every student to develop the skills and attitudes to
live healthily and build students’ motivation to sustain a healthy lifestyle even after
they leave school” (MOE, 2022).
It is apparent that Singapore has achieved high academic standards, yet the levels
of satisfaction with social and emotional aspects of students’ lives are much lower,
even when compared to other locations in the region. Cho (2015) concluded that
in terms of the psychological wellbeing of children in East and Southeast Asia,
Singapore ranked only seventh among the eleven countries studied.
Similarly, although Singapore students have achieved consistently high results in
international high-stakes testing assessments such as TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA, the
data on belonging and wellbeing is less positive. For example, as per the TIMSS 2019
report for Primary 4, Singapore ranked at the top of the Mathematics and Science
academic tests, but only 45% of Singapore Primary 4 students had a high sense of
school belonging, 44% had some sense of school belonging and 11% had little sense
of school belonging (Mullis et al., 2020). Comparatively, the country which topped
the list for school belonging, Albania, had 96% of its students having a high sense of
school belonging, indicating that it is possible for nearly all students to feel a sense
of belonging at school. The international average was 58% for high, 34% for some
and 8% for little sense of school belonging (Mullis et al., 2020). This indicates that
Singapore is behind its counterparts in creating a sense of school belonging among
its students.
6.1 Theorising School Belonging 109
Considering the importance of school belonging, it is imperative to consider any

relationship between the Singaporean students’ high achievement and their sense
of belonging to their school. Similar to TIMSS, in PIRLS 2016 Singapore students
scored highly on the academic test (second among the 61 participating countries),
but low on the sense of belonging exhibit from the context questionnaires (Mullis
et al., 2017). Notably, the nation that had the top achievement level in TIMSS 2019
(Primary 4) and the second ranking in PIRLS 2016 was placed in the bottom ten
for the students’ sense of belonging. In fact, other high-performing nations in the
academic tests, such as Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) and Japan, had similar
trends, where they had high achievement scores but were towards the lower end
of the table in relation to sense of belonging to their schools. However, what the
TIMSS and PIRLS results also show is that on average there was a link between a
higher sense of school belonging and higher achievement scores in many locations,
including in Singapore (Mullis et al., 2017, 2020). In other words, even though overall
sense of belonging was low in Singapore, those students with higher achievement
scores in TIMSS and PIRLS had a higher sense of belonging than those with lower
achievement scores. A study based on TIMSS data conducted by Lay and Ng (2020)
highlighted that Singaporean students’ sense of belonging contributed significantly
to their science achievement.
In this chapter, we analyse the data collected from the two Singapore schools in the
study, which aimed to explore the lifeworlds of Primary 4 (9–10 years old) students.
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to understand the everyday
activities of the Primary 4 students. To better understand Singapore students’ sense
of school belonging and wellbeing, we examine data from a survey with 165 students,
focusing on questions relating to relationships with others (teachers and peers) and
enjoyment of school. We also draw on data from our ethnographies to further explore
children’s sense of belonging in school, by including some examples from our class-
room observations. Further details regarding the methods of data collection can be
found in Chap. 1. Before considering this data, we offer an overview of how we
theorise school belonging in this chapter, drawing particularly on Bronfenbrenner’s
(1994) ecological framework to consider children’s lifeworlds. The two data sources
encapsulate the various levels and dimensions of the framework and can be viewed in
the context of the differing levels of impact, ranging from the individual to the broader
societal and cultural contexts of the individual and their schooling experiences.
6.1 Theorising School Belonging
When reflecting on the sense of belonging an individual has towards their school,
factors like the individual’s character, attitude, academic motivation and self-esteem
play a crucial role. Libbey (2004) argues that academic engagement is one of the
factors that increases school connectedness among students. This construct addresses
the extent to which individual students are inclined to learn and excel in their studies.
Ryan and Patrick (2001) support the argument that students’ expectancies for success
and their intrinsic motivation are positively correlated to their sense of attachment to
their school. When students feel attached to their schools, they are more inclined to do
well in their studies as they find that attending school is more fruitful and meaningful
(Allen et al., 2016). An in-depth analysis of TIMSS 2015 indicates that psycholog-
ical factors such as teachers’ job satisfaction, the school’s emphasis on academic
achievement and students’ sense of belonging were key predictors of Singaporean
students’ science achievement in the TIMSS academic test (Lay & Ng, 2020).
International studies also reveal that a student’s self-esteem is an important
predictor of school belonging (Ma, 2003), indicating that students who felt more
worthy about themselves appeared to show a stronger sense of belonging to their
school versus students who had low self-esteem. Students’ attitudes towards them-
selves were found to be transferable to their attitudes towards their school. Apart
from attitude, students’ personal characteristics such as their coping skills, posi-
tive affect and optimistic view have also been found to be positively correlated to
students’ sense of attachment to their schools (Faircloth, 2009; Ma, 2003; Reschly
et al., 2008).
As mentioned above, the Singapore MOE places great emphasis on the social and
emotional learning of students, recognising that a narrow focus on academics is no
longer adequate to prepare the young for their future and shifting its focus to provide
a holistic education paradigm (Chong & Lee, 2015; Ng, 2020). As part of this shift,
the curriculum is focused on strong emotional competencies to develop personal
effectiveness and wellbeing in schools. Through these competencies, MOE hopes
that students will be able to create healthy identities, manage their emotions and
invest in their wellbeing. Though not explicitly stated in its mission, it is foreseeable
that students will develop a sense of attachment to their school and will have better
wellbeing when they are equipped with the social-emotional competencies included
in the curriculum (Chong & Lee, 2015; Ng, 2020).
While there are various theories that can be used to describe and evaluate the need
for a sense of belonging, in this chapter we draw on Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecolog-
ical framework to illustrate the ways in which the individual is connected to broader
societal and cultural experiences. It has been suggested (e.g. Wu, 2021) that this
framework is useful when discussing the Singaporean context as it is already included
in preschool and primary school frameworks. Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological
framework provides a platform to understand human development and learning by
considering the ecological system in which the development process occurs. This
framework suggests that a child’s development is significantly influenced by his
or her environment, which in turn is influenced by the layers of the environmental
structures.
According to Bronfenbrenner’s framework, the ecological environment is
conceived as a set of five nested structures which influence and interact with a
child’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994. See also Allen & Kern, 2017): (1) the
Microsystem—the interactions and relationships a child has with those in close prox-
imity (e.g. parents, friends, teachers); (2) the Mesosystem—relationships and link-
ages in two or more settings involving the child (e.g. school and home, school and
community); (3) the Exosystem—multiple settings the child does not experience
6.1 Theorising School Belonging 111
directly but which influence their lives (e.g. government, law and policy, community
context), (4) the Macrosystem—the cultural and social norms and beliefs that impact
on the child’s life; and (5) the Chronosystem (the top level)—reflects impacts over
time (e.g. changes over life course, socioeconomic status, employment and other
life events). This framework helps to explain the interconnectedness of the people,
institutions and environments that affect a child’s living and learning and how these
interact with one another over time. Importantly, they can provide insights into how
a child’s sense of belonging can be influenced based on the complex ecological
environment (Allen & Kern, 2017; Bronfenbrenner, 1994).
6.1.1 Microsystem Level
When sense of belonging is considered at the microsystem level, peers, teachers and
parents play an important role. Research indicates that social support from peers,
teachers and parents not only results in positive impacts on academics, but it also
prevents negative psychological outcomes (Malecki & Demaray, 2017; Wang &
Eccles, 2012; Wang et al., 2010). This includes relationships between teachers and
students, and relationships between students, both of which we explore in more depth
below, in the relevant sections.
Parent support refers to the ability of parents or guardians to provide academic
support, have open communication with their children and provide social support and
encouragement for their children (Allen et al., 2018). Students who can garner the
support of parents often get themselves involved in prosocial activities, participate
actively in school and get into less trouble (Wang & Eccles, 2012). In this chapter,
we focus more on the supports provided in the schooling context, but it is apparent
that parents’ influences on children’s performance in school are complex and occur
at different levels and to varying extents.
6.1.2 Mesosystem Level
The main form of mesosystem when considering a sense of belonging to school is the
connection between the student and his or her school. Schools can create and provide
an environment conducive to a sense of belonging. The mesosystem represents the
practices of the school, the school policies, the curriculum and pedagogy as well as the
bidirectional interactions within the microsystem layers (Allen et al., 2016). Tillery
et al. (2013) suggest that the mesosystem strengthens or weakens the support provided
to the students at the microsystem level. If schools have policies and regulations
that ensure that students feel comfortable and safe and can voice their discomforts,
students will have a sense of connection with the school (Cemalcilar, 2010).
A school’s way of structuring its policies often revolves around its vision and
mission which determines its priorities. When school belonging is part of the holistic
vision and mission of the school, it aids the development of goals and practices that
create a stronger school community (Allen et al., 2016).
Dotterer et al. (2007) found evidence that when students participate in Co-
curricular Activities (CCA), it improves self-esteem and school bonding. Primary
schools in Singapore highly encourage students to take part in a CCA starting from
Primary 3, while it is mandatory on enrolment in secondary schools. Through CCAs,
the MOE in Singapore hopes that students can develop holistically and also bond
with their peers to form a stronger school community and deepen their sense of
school belonging (MOE, 2020).
6.1.3 Exosystem, Macrosystem and Chronosystem Levels
At the exosystem level, when the school is inclusive and involves extended family
members and communities, the school is establishing a connection for their students
with the community. The individual student’s sense of connectedness to the school
would increase as he or she would be able to see the important role the school
plays in the community. The location of the school in the community is also an
important consideration in relation to connectedness, as well as other macrosystem
and chronosystem level factors such as social norms, culture, history and other life
events.
Other factors that have an indirect impact on school belonging are government
regulations and policies which affect the student’s education journey in both the
short and long term. For example, it is evident in Singapore that the government
is altering its educational policies to embrace holistic education that focuses not
just on academic success but also gives importance to life skills, knowledge and
competencies that are deemed to be necessary to navigate through the twenty-first
century successfully (Lee et al., 2014). Therefore, when the student feels that the
school empowers them to be a competent person who is equipped with the relevant
skills, they would find attending school more meaningful and would feel a stronger
sense of school belonging.
What follows in this chapter is a discussion of the data from the survey and class-
room ethnographies that gives us insight into the students’ sense of belonging and
wellbeing. We reflect on our research in Singapore schools and relate it to children’s
individual, school, community and broader societal expectations and cultural foun-
dations. This chapter includes questions asked in the survey relating to children’s
views of themselves as hardworking and serious students, their grades (whether their
grades are “good” and whether they are happy with them), whether their teachers
showed they liked them, whether their classmates showed they liked them, and their
enjoyment of school. We bring in examples from the ethnographies where relevant
to further illustrate children’s sense of belonging and wellbeing in the context of
Primary 4 classrooms in Singapore.
6.2 Students’ Self-perceptions and Their Schoolwork and Grades 113
6.2 Students’ Self-perceptions and Their Schoolwork

and Grades
We explore children’s self-perceptions in relation to their dedication to schoolwork

and their grades, drawing on the survey data and fieldnotes from the classroom
ethnographies. This is particularly important in the Singapore context considering
students’ high academic results, but often lower levels of belonging and wellbeing, as
discussed above. In the Singapore education system, Primary 1 and 2 have removed
weighted assessment. For the other levels, students to progress to the next grade, they
must obtain an overall pass in their weighted assessments and/or final year examina-
tion. Weighted assessments are conducted periodically in a school year. Students in
the final year in primary schools will take a national examination (the Primary School
Leaving Examination or PSLE). The grades they obtain will determine or limit the
choice of the secondary schools they wish to join. Hence, taking tests and examina-
tions in Singapore is common and students are trained to be examination-ready since
young.
6.2.1 Hardworking and Serious Students?
The survey data reveals the microsystem level of individual performance in schools.
In the survey, students were asked to describe themselves as students in relation
to whether they were hardworking and serious about their work—choosing from
one of four responses: Always, Mostly, Sometimes or Never. The responses showed
that 43.0% of the students said that they were “mostly” hard working and serious
about their work while 20.6% said they were “always” hardworking and serious
(see Fig. 6.1). A third of the students (33.3%) said that they were only “sometimes”
hardworking and serious, and 3.0% of the students admitted that they were “never”
hardworking and serious.
6.2.2 Students’ Descriptions of Their Grades
When asked “How would you describe your grades at school?” more than half of
the responses indicated that the students felt they received good grades “always”
(13.9%) or “mostly” (51.5%) (see Fig. 6.2). However, 31.5% of the students felt that
they only “sometimes” received good grades and 3.0% of the students said that they
“never” received good grades.
In other words, almost one in every three students felt that they did not receive
good grades. One possible explanation could be the academic pressure that they felt
they were facing. This might be the case if they were constantly advised that they
needed to always do better and outperform their peers. Thus, even when they received
50.0
43.0
40.0
Percentage 33.3
30.0
20.6
20.0
10.0
3.0
0.0
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
... hardworking and serious about my work
Fig. 6.1 Students’ attitudes towards their schoolwork
60.0
51.5
50.0
40.0
Percentage
31.5
30.0
20.0
13.6
10.0
3.0
0.0
... getting good grades
Fig. 6.2 Students’ descriptions of their grades
high scores, the students may have felt that they were not good enough and there was
always room for improvement with their grades; hence, they were not easily satisfied
with their performance as represented in their grades.
During the classroom ethnographies, two girls provided responses to a question
about the timing of examinations in our conversation with them. They indicated that
they did not know when the examinations were and then one girl added that she did
not care when there were to take place. One girl went on to explain that she thought
she was going to do badly in the examinations and would fail. The researcher asked
if either of them found school hard. The same girl replied that she found Higher
Chinese Language hard. The other girl agreed and added that she also found Science
hard. In talking with their teacher after this event, we were told that these girls
were quite hardworking although their comments indicated that they did not seem
to have high expectations of themselves. This is complex as perhaps they express

this dissatisfaction if they are not satisfied with their grades, but it might also be an
expression of actual disinterest in the examination process and an unwillingness to
participate.
6.2.3 Students’ Happiness with Their Grades
When students were asked whether they were happy with their grades, 20% of
students responded that they were “always” happy with their grades, while 7.3%
said they were “never” happy about them (see Fig. 6.3). Most of the responses were
between these, with nearly half (44.8%) of the students indicating that they were
“mostly” happy about their grades while over a quarter (27.9%) were “sometimes”
happy about them.
The linear relationship between the students’ perceptions of whether they received
“good” grades and whether they were happy with their grades was r(164) = 0.386,
p = 0.00. This result shows that there is a positive relationship between the two
factors and implies that the more they perceived they were receiving good grades,
the happier they were with their grades. Students who perceive they are achieving a
high level of academic success at school, and who are happy with their grades, may
feel a stronger sense of belonging at school (McMahon et al., 2009). However, it is
interesting to consider that there is likely to be variance among students in what is
considered a “good” grade and consequently whether they were happy about it. For
example, one student might feel 82 out of 100 is a good score while another student
might feel it is not good enough.
It is quite common in Singapore for students and their parents to place a significant
amount of importance on students’ grades and their relative levels. This can have the
50.0
44.8
40.0
Percentage
30.0 27.9
20.0
20.0
10.0 7.3
0.0
... happy with my grades
Fig. 6.3 Students’ satisfaction with their grades

effect of placing more stress on the students, an issue which we introduced in the
previous chapter. There have also been reports of a sense of diminished self-worth
and students thinking that their performance in school defines their total character
(Teng, 2016). As we mentioned above, though Singaporean students perform well
in international high-stakes tests, they also experience high levels of anxiety and
worry about their grades and tests compared with the OECD average (OECD, 2017).
While an average of 66% of students across all OECD countries mentioned that they
were worried about their grades, the percentage was 86 among Singaporean students
(OECD, 2017). TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA research data indicates that within countries
students with a higher sense of belonging score higher on the academic tests, but
at the same time students in Singapore continue to perform well despite having a
lower sense of belonging than students in other countries (Mullis et al., 2017, 2020;
OECD, 2017). Thus, the relationship between performing well at school and school
belonging is complex and warrants further investigation.
6.2.4 Relationships Between Grades and Happiness
The different questions asked in the survey allow for a consideration of how different
aspects of children’s school lives relate to each other. Interestingly, for those students
who stated that they were only sometimes or never hardworking and serious about
their work (n = 60), 51.7% of them stated that they were only sometimes or never
happy with their grades. Among the same group of students (n = 60), 61.7% also
stated that their classmates only sometimes or never showed that they like them (a
question explored in more depth below). Similarly, 65% of this group of students
stated that their teacher only sometimes or never showed that they like them. From
this data, one can observe that there are connections between how hardworking or
serious students feel they are about their work, with how they perceive their grades
and with how they feel about their peers and teachers liking them. However, we
cannot draw conclusions about how these different aspects interrelate.
To explore students’ perception of their grades in more detail, we analysed the
questions: “Do your classmates show that they like you?” and “How would you
describe your grades?” to find out whether the responses to these two questions were
linked, i.e. if they felt that their classmates showed that they liked them did this have
an effect on their perception of their grades? When the linear relationship between the
students’ perceptions of their grades and whether their classmates showed that they
liked them were analysed, Pearson’s correlation was significant, r(164) = 0.345, p =
0.00. This result indicated that there is a positive linear relationship between these two
factors. Similarly, Pearson’s r was significant (r(164) = 0.275, p = 0.00) for the linear
relationship between the students’ grades and whether the teachers showed that they
liked them, again showing there is a significant positive linear relationship between
the two variables. Hence, it is evident that students’ perceptions of performing well
in school are positively correlated to their peers and teachers showing that they like
them. Though the causal link cannot be established to show whether the high grades
result in the peers and teachers showing that they like them or vice versa, the positive
linear relationship is substantial and indicates that importance must be given to both
the students’ performance in school and their positive sense of belonging.
6.2.5 A Focus on Assessment
Expanding on the survey data about dedication to schoolwork and perceptions of

grades, in this section we consider data from our classroom ethnographies, focusing
on assessment. Discussions about students’ wellbeing in Singapore are often centred
around testing and pressures relating to academic work and achievement. There was
a large amount of focus on these in the classrooms, highlighting that assessment
was clearly part of children’s everyday lifeworlds at school. This was embedded
in the pedagogies with which students were familiar. Here, we focus on tests and
examinations mentioned during the ethnographies.
Our ethnographic fieldnotes were filled with mentions of tests and examinations,
particularly at School Equality. This included reminders about upcoming tests and
examinations: “The teacher reminded the students that their Chinese test is on the
22nd and 23rd April which is a couple of weeks away”, “The English teacher
reminded them that they have 8 weeks left before their finals and thus have very
limited time to cover their syllabus”, “The teacher reminded the class about the
spelling test they have the next day and dismissed the class for recess”, “The teacher
said that she will distribute the spelling list and explained about the spelling test that
is postponed to next week”. Such a focus suggests that the students were familiar
with this mode of teaching and learning.
Primary 4 students have end-of-year examinations for English, Mathematics,
Science and Mother Tongue. Preparation for Primary 4 examinations or “semes-
tral assessment” was apparent in Term 4, including when teachers gave guidance on
how students should approach questions and what was expected of them. Again, this
was particularly the case at School Equality:
The teacher went through the answers on the worksheet one by one. While she was explaining,
she also reminded the students which methods were acceptable in exams and which methods
were not accepted.
(Mathematics, Wednesday, Term 4, School Equality).
The teacher highlighted a common mistake made by students and some quickly made the
correction. The teacher reminded them to use pencil so they could change their answers
more easily. A couple of students called the teacher to check their work. The teacher allowed
the students to provide alternative answers. One student asked would they be marked wrong
in the exam. The teacher reminded them not to be creative during the exam. A couple of
students were trying to be cheeky and asked about going very close to 90 degrees (for acute
angle).
(Mathematics, Tuesday, Term 2, School Equality).

One student asked if he could figure out the answer without even doing the working. The
teacher said that he still must show his working as during exams even if the students got the
answer wrong, he would still be awarded marks for his working.
(Mathematics, Tuesday, Term 4, School Harmony).
The teacher explained the format in exams, which would differ slightly from what was given
in the textbook.
(Science, Monday, Term 4, School Equality).
The teacher showed a picture of a potato chip on the projector and asked the students to pay
close attention to the details and asked them to think of their reasoning as to whether they
would or wouldn’t buy the product. The teacher said that the more detailed the answer was,
the more points the students would get in their oral exams.
(English, Monday, Term 4, School Harmony).
The teacher played an audio clip that said, “Listening Comprehension Practice 5”. The
teacher paused the clip and recalled the steps the students should follow during their listening
comprehension (LC) exam. She told them that they needed their pens and highlighter. She
also told them what they should do when they received the question booklet. She reminded
them about their posture during their exam.
(English, Tuesday, Term 4, School Harmony).
At School Harmony, one teacher even referred to the need to learn a particular
practice as it would help them in their examinations in Primary 5 and 6 in the future:
The teacher went around to check the English worksheet. She asked about 16 students to
stand up and scolded them for having a clean comprehension passage as it showed that they
did not have any annotation on it as they were supposed to do. She said that she was not
interested in their answer, but she wanted to see their effort in understanding the passage.
She said that they needed to form this habit of underlining and writing annotations on the
passage in order for them to cope with difficult passages in their exams in Primary 5 and 6.
(English, Friday, Term 2, School Harmony)
The importance of the PSLE in Primary 6 was also made clear to students, with
several direct impacts on their own lives at school. At School Harmony, this included
the Primary 4 class having a day off school to accommodate the examinations and at
School Equality having their recess break and lesson times slightly altered, moving
classrooms and having teachers absent as they were invigilating the examinations.
During our ethnographies, several tests took place, including in spelling and dicta-
tion and music. It is interesting to briefly consider one example of these, showing
how a test was conducted in a Singapore classroom, without suggesting this is the
only way these occur:
The teacher told the class that she would now do their spelling and dictation test. She asks
them to take out their paper. She asked the class if they remember her saying that she would
combine both the spelling and the dictation passage and thus they would have to write five
sentences for the dictation. Some students looked surprised. The teacher told the class she
had already reminded students about it. She told them to take five minutes to look through
their spelling list again. … She counted from 1-5 in reverse and told the class to calm down
6.3 Relationships Between Teachers and Students 119
and prepare to take their spelling test. She handed out the spelling work sheet and told the
class to start as soon as they received this. The teacher started to dictate the missing words
in the spelling answer sheet. The students wrote down as the teacher read aloud. The teacher
reminded them to be mindful of their capital letters. She then dictated the five sentences for
their dictation test.
(English, Wednesday, Term 4, School Equality)
This example is a routine type of test for the students, rather than a high-pressure
examination. It is interesting to note that the teacher guided the students in this
process, such as reminding them to check their spelling list again before the test and
to take care with their capital letters. It is interesting to reflect on the impacts of
assessment in the form of tests and examinations on children’s wellbeing in Singa-
pore. On the one hand, students are attuned to the testing culture and are familiar
with an orientation to tests and examinations as part of their everyday lifeworlds and
their experiences of school. On the other hand, the significance placed on these tests
and examinations may cause stress among students, as evidenced with older students
in PISA as discussed above.
6.3 Relationships Between Teachers and Students
Teachers can show caring, respect and appreciation towards students through the
ways in which they engage with students, their methods of teaching and their actions
(Wang & Eccles, 2012). Teachers’ practices in classrooms, such as their emphasis
on collaboration, problem-solving and task-oriented activities that encourage self-
improvement among students, as well as the extent to which teachers monitor the
students’ effort and progress, contribute to creating a sense of connection with the
students (Anderman, 2003). Teacher support also refers to promoting mutual respect,
care, concern, friendliness, fairness, encouragement and student agency between
teachers and students (Allen et al., 2018). Students who feel supported by their
teachers are more likely to comply with their teacher’s expectations, which conse-
quently results in less misbehaviour among students (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Wang &
Eccles, 2012).
Studies in Singapore highlight the importance of supportive teachers for students’
academic achievement and attitudes towards school (e.g. Goh & Fraser, 1998). A
study conducted in Singapore with around 1300 middle school students indicated
that students’ perception of their teachers’ support, satisfaction and conflict was a
predictor of their attachment to their school (Huan et al., 2012). When students feel
that their teachers support and appreciate them, they are more inclined to do well in
school, but when they perceive their teachers negatively, their sense of attachment to
their school declines. Similarly, a Singapore study with over 6500 Primary 4, 5 and
6 students found that students with higher academic achievement had better rela-
tionships with their teachers—they were more satisfied with their relationship with
teachers, had less conflict with their teachers and viewed their teachers and schools
more positively (Ang et al., 2020). Finally, a study conducted with almost 1,500
Singaporean Secondary 1 (Year 7) students revealed that teachers who supported
students’ sense of autonomy and competence, and showed trust in students, were
found to have a significant positive influence on students’ academic engagement
(Caleon et al., 2016).
However, the student–teacher relationship needs to be scrutinised more thor-
oughly, as it might not be a case of students lacking teacher support but rather
their perceptions about the situation, as in fact support strategies are included in
pedagogical strategies. It has been noted in Asian cultures student–teacher relation-
ships are characterised by students who are expected to obey their teachers without
question. From the ethnographic observations of the classes, teachers, too, tended to
be more authoritative to get the students to behave according to their expectations.
It was observed in School Harmony that the Mathematics teacher was very good
at creating effective routines and this seemed to help in teaching and learning, as
evident from the large numbers of students who stated they had learnt something in
Mathematics in the learning dialogues activity (see Chap. 5). A study drawing on
PISA data conducted to compare Western students and East Asian students revealed
that while teachers’ strictness was negatively associated with the students’ motiva-
tion in Western countries, there was a significant positive association for the students
in this relationship in the East Asian countries (Jiang et al., 2021). In other words, the
East Asian students felt more motivated in school when the teachers were stricter. At
the same time, as the TALIS survey highlights, nearly all Singapore teachers agreed
or strongly agreed with the statements “Most teachers believe that the students’ well-
being is important” (98.3% Singapore, 96.2% on average across 48 countries) and
“Teachers and students usually get on well with each other” (97.6% in Singapore,
96.0% on average) (OECD, 2019, Table I.3.46).
In our survey, the question about whether students felt that teachers showed that
they liked the students revealed that 55.8% felt that the teachers “always” or “mostly”
showed that they liked them (see Fig. 6.4). On the other hand, 44.3% felt that their
teachers only “sometimes” or “never” showed that they liked them. This is rather
concerning since when the students feel that they do not have the support of their
teachers, this can impact their sense of connection with them and may result in
students not being able to perform as well academically and/or have a sense of
connection with their school.
From the classroom observations, it was evident that many of the teachers tried
hard to have authoritative control to get the students to behave well. They often used
a points-based merit system as motivation to keep the children focused on their work.
The ethnographic fieldnotes particularly show the use of rewards and punishments
by teachers as a form of classroom management with the aim to increase students’
motivation in the topics being taught. For context, it is important to reiterate that in
both schools, students were grouped according to their seating arrangements or by
other themes (such as superheroes) and were often rewarded and punished in these
groupings.
In School Harmony, each team was given scores as rewards for doing something
well such as answering questions, behaving well, settling down quickly, volunteering
6.3 Relationships Between Teachers and Students 121
40.0
35.8
30.0 28.5
Percentage 27.3
20.0
10.0 8.5
0.0
Your teachers at school show that they like you
Fig. 6.4 Students’ views on their teachers showing they like them
or doing something else that pleased the teachers. When the students exhibited the
opposite behaviour, such as being too noisy, taking their time to settle down and other
behaviours that could potentially upset the teachers, the teams were given negative
scores. However, the teachers did not award negative marks for answering questions
incorrectly and, in fact, they encouraged the students to voice out their thoughts
regardless of whether they thought it was right or wrong. The use of rewards and
punishments at School Harmony are illustrated in excerpts from our ethnographic
fieldnotes:
The teacher said that she was going to deduct points for the group that was talking loudly. She
deducted 10 points for the “Captain America” group. She saw two students talking and she
asked what there was for them to discuss. She reminded the students that it was individual
work. The students were doing their work quietly.
(English, Monday, Term 4, School Harmony).
The teacher said that the students would be given their workbook for them to tear out
pages 103–146. Some students made noise while their classmates hushed them. The teacher
thanked the students who attempted to quieten them down. She then asked the group leaders
to collect the workbook and distribute it to the class. The class became slightly noisy. The
teacher said that she was going to reward the group that was well behaved. She gave 50
points to the “Spiderman” group.
(Mathematics, Tuesday, Term 4, School Harmony).
The teacher asked who wanted to volunteer to show their answer for the email task. Some
students immediately put up their hands. The teacher then picked the students. The teacher
flashed the answers on the projector, and she read them out. She then awarded points to
those groups from which the students had volunteered. She also said that she would choose
a student’s answer out of the five to receive a token.
(English, Thursday, Term 4, School Harmony).

Although the students had different teachers for the different subjects, all the
teachers used the group scores to reward the group that displayed good behaviour
and limited their defiant behaviour. For example, the form teacher could reward the
group with the highest points with some chocolates or small presents at the end of
each term.
At School Equality, the groups were given demerit points for any behaviours
deemed “undesirable” by the teachers. In this school, the Mathematics teacher was
especially keen on using the points system to reward and punish the students in
accordance with their behaviour. When the students displayed exemplary behaviour,
the teacher gave them stickers as a form of reward:
The teacher greeted the class, and the class then greeted the teacher and the researchers. The
teacher told the class that she needed time to set up and she asked them to do silent reading
in the meantime. The teacher told the students to put away their books and they started to
become noisy. She gave demerit points to a group she deemed to have shown poor behaviour.
(Mathematics, Tuesday, Term 4, School Equality).
One student screamed “Mrs [name] is coming!” All the students quickly went back to their
seats. The teacher came in and greets the students. The students then greeted her. The teacher
noticed that a few students were still talking. She gave demerit points to those groups. She
then informed the group about the arrangement that had been made with regard to PSLE.
The teacher then assigned work to the class for the next few days as she would not be around
(she is going for PSLE invigilation). She asked the students to write the work down in their
handbook. She scolded a student for not paying attention. She gave demerit points to the
groups which had students who were talking while she was talking. Later, the teacher asked
the students to start silent reading. She awarded stickers to the two groups which did not
have any demerit points.
(Mathematics, Wednesday, Term 4, School Equality).
It can be seen from these excerpts that the teachers used the points system as a
way to “control” the students’ behaviour in the classroom in varying ways. Thus,
this type of behaviour might indicate that the teachers were being authoritative and
that the students might not like them, especially when they gave demerit or negative
scores to their team. On the other hand, it could also be the case that the teachers
may have felt that if they showed leniency, or if they were not strict enough, they
may have appeared too “easy” on the students. As a consequence, teachers might
not be able to get the students to concentrate on their schoolwork, which would have
implications for their academic achievement. As we mentioned above, relationships
between teachers and students are complex, and in Asian cultures, strictness may
actually be expected and can link to a higher level of students’ intrinsic motivation
(Jiang et al., 2021). One possible explanation about levels of strictness being used
effectively could therefore mean that teachers who are strict, and able to build trust
and rapport with the students, could significantly improve the sense of belonging of
the students. Thus, there is a possibility that the teachers contribute to the students’
sense of belonging even by being strict. Nevertheless, it was observed that teachers
would restrain from scolding students unless necessary and they would use primarily
positive reinforcement (rewards) to motivate students to cooperate and participate in
class.
6.4 Relationships Between Students 123
6.4 Relationships Between Students
International studies have found that relationships between students can be important
for student belonging (e.g. Allen et al., 2018; Craggs & Kelly, 2018) as well as
engagement, as discussed in Chap. 5. Peer social support for students is crucial in
satisfying their needs and having a positive sense of belonging in school. Additionally,
students with peers who can provide support and acceptance are linked to having
increased involvement in school, whereas students who have trouble connecting with
peers or have negative peer relations are known to disengage from school (Wang &
Eccles, 2012).
As mentioned above, the survey results show that nearly two thirds of the students
reported that their classmates “always” or “mostly” showed that they liked them
(see Fig. 6.5). On the other hand, a third (33.4%) indicated that their classmates
“sometimes” or “never” showed that they liked them. This is quite a large proportion
of students. French and Conrad (2001) stated that students who have little peer
support, or those who experience rejection from peers, have an increased risk of
misconduct, lower participation and interest and thus less sense of belonging to their
school. Therefore, although most students in this study indicated quite a high level of
peer support, a significant portion (a third) of the students seemed to have less peer
support which might affect how they perceive the quality of their sense of school
belonging as well as their emotional wellbeing.
The ethnographic data revealed some of the ways that students showed that they
liked their peers and got along well in the classrooms. There were examples of
children helping others with their schoolwork, lending equipment and encouraging
each other in their learning. Watching the children in breaks from the classroom,
we observed them displaying their fondness for each other in various ways such
as sharing their food, playing together, spending time together in conversation and
50.0
41.8
40.0
Percentage
30.0 27.9
24.8
20.0
10.0
5.5
0.0
Classmates at school show that they like you
Fig. 6.5 Students’ views on their peers showing they like them
in many other ways. As mentioned above, in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological frame-

work, peer support is part of the microsystem that increases an individual’s sense of
satisfaction and belonging. As collaborative learning was not common in the class-
rooms, there was not much else in our ethnographic fieldnotes about relationships
between students. However, as we show below in the section on children’s enjoyment
of school, examples of collaborative learning indicated that students got along with
each other and worked together in lessons when given the opportunity.
6.5 Students’ Enjoyment of School
As mentioned above, the TIMSS 2019 report stated that less than half of the students
in Singapore had a high sense of school belonging (Mullis et al., 2020). While data
on enjoyment of school is not readily available, in 2017, then Minister of Education
(Schools), Mr Ng Chee Meng, suggested instilling a joy of learning in school students
so that they would be intrinsically motivated to learn, discover their interests and
passions, and in turn enjoy attending school (MOE, 2017). When the students were
asked whether they enjoyed going to school in our survey, most students indicated that
they “mostly” (37.6%) or “always” (29.1%) enjoyed school (see Fig. 6.6). However,
a third only sometimes (27.9%) or “never” (5.5%) enjoyed going to school. To
understand this response of the students more clearly, the correlation between this
question and the previous questions was calculated (see Table 6.1).
For the question regarding whether classmates and teachers showed that they
liked you and describe yourself as a student, there seems to be a moderate positive
relationship between the variables and whether the students enjoyed going to school.
This means that students who perceived that they were more well liked by their
classmates also perceived that they were more well liked by their teachers. These
40.0 37.6
29.1
30.0 27.9
Percentage
20.0
10.0
5.5
0.0
Enjoy going to school
Fig. 6.6 Students’ enjoyment of school

6.5 Students’ Enjoyment of School 125
Table 6.1 Correlations

Other questions Do you enjoy going to school?
between “Do you enjoy going
to school?” and other (a) Do your classmates show r(164) = 0.401, p = 0.00
questions relating to students’ that they like you
self-perceptions and (b) Do your teachers show r(164) = 0.346, p = 0.00
belonging that they like you
(c) Describe yourself as a r(164) = 0.443, p = 0.00
student
(d) Describe your grades r(164) = 0.202, p = 0.01
(e) Are you happy with your r(55) = 0.076, p = 0.331
grades
students also indicated that they enjoyed going to school more, and they also felt
they were doing well in school and were more hardworking.
Of those students who mentioned that they never or only sometimes enjoyed going
to school (n = 55), 63.6% mentioned that they felt their classmates never or only
sometimes showed that they liked them. Likewise, among the same group of students
(n = 55), the same percentage (63.6) of students stated that their teacher never or
only sometimes showed that they liked them. Therefore, when the students had a
negative view of their classmates and teacher, it adversely affected their enjoyment
of school and their (perceived) performance.
Reflecting on our ethnographic fieldnotes from the classrooms, there were many
examples of students displaying an enjoyment of school, and engagement in their
learning. We include some of these examples to counter the often-negative portrayal
of Singapore children’s school lifeworlds. We note particularly that the lessons which
seemed to invoke the most outward enjoyment often involved something which was
different from the regular tasks of individual desk work and preparation for tests; for
example, lessons and topics that were more “hands on” (or watching a teacher demon-
strate something such as a Science experiment), related to “real-world” examples
(such as the news), and/or were collaborative. However, at School Harmony, students
also demonstrated their enjoyment and engagement by being eager to answer ques-
tions asked by their teachers; our fieldnotes have many examples of this, particularly
in Mathematics and English lessons. This type of engagement was not as evident at
School Equality.
Science lessons could often evoke enthusiasm among students. For example, at
School Equality, the students were given a quiz in Science on the online platform
Kahoot! for the first time. This was exciting and engaging for many of the students
because they could use iPads and snacks were awarded as prizes to the top three
students. Science also sparked excitement at School Equality when students were
learning about life cycles of insects and plants, with practical activities involving
insect specimens and growing seeds, as well as watching videos. In another Science
topic, students enjoyed watching the teacher conduct a practical experiment. Students
also enjoyed watching videos in Science at School Harmony when they were learning
about plastics and global warming.
English lessons could also be enjoyable for students. At School Equality, students
engaged in discussions of the news in English. While they read the newspaper Little
Red Dot, students were more excited about watching videos of the news, which
sparked discussion and reflection. This was often the case when discussing news
directly related to Singapore, increasing students’ sense of belonging in their school
and nation. At School Harmony, students were particularly excited about an ice
cream lesson in English where they could decorate and eat ice cream (as mentioned
in Chap. 4). A “Thinking Lesson” in English was particularly enjoyable for many
of the students at School Equality, where they created “water balls” (see Fig. 6.7),
highlighting the ways in which more practical lessons were unique and engaging
for learning. We include an extended excerpt from this lesson here to demonstrate
Singapore students’ enthusiasm for learning in this way:
The students entered the learning lab. They sat on the floor in a few short rows. The teacher
showed a picture on the screen and asked, “What does the picture show?” The students then
described the picture (a clear jelly-like ball). The teacher then showed pictures of plastic
bottles and pictures of them floating in oceans. The teacher asked the students to link the two
pictures and asked if the earlier picture could be used to solve plastics waste. The teacher
then explained about seaweed water balls that could be used to hold water instead of plastic
water bottles. The students eagerly watched the teacher as she explained the ingredients used
to make the water balls. The students then took turns to make the water balls themselves.
The students were very curious and excited when they were making their water balls. They
queued up and then took turns to come to the table to scoop up the liquid and then put it into
another liquid to make it into a ball.
Once the class finished with their water ball making session, they went to the front and sat
down. The teacher then explained how the process worked. After that, the teacher asked the
students how they could use such a method and apply it to the real world. Students came up
with interesting answers such as a “water tub”. The teacher then suggested areas where such
an idea could be implemented. She asked questions and the students answered them with
enthusiasm. The teacher showed them videos that showed how the water balls were made
and used. The students then asked questions like “Why is it not sold in Singapore?” “Why
is our water ball a little thick versus what we saw in the video which looked very thin?”
(English (Thinking Lesson (TK)), Thursday, Term 2, School Equality)
While Mathematics was largely based on worksheets, students enjoyed a fractions

game they played at School Harmony (see Fig. 6.8):
The teacher asked them to put away their notebooks and said that they were going to play
a game now, in pairs. The teacher had two sets of cards: picture and fraction cards. Each
student would be given a set of the picture cards (shapes with fractions of it being shaded)
and they would have a pile of the fraction cards. They would then draw a fraction card and
a picture card. If the cards matched, they would then keep the cards. The pairs would then
take turns in drawing the cards. If they said the wrong sets of cards were matching, their
partner got to keep it. The teacher went around the classroom to check on the students. They
students seemed to be enjoying this activity. The students got excited when their cards were
matching as they said the word “match” rather loudly. The teacher stopped the game and
asked the students how many of them had matching cards and the students put up their hands
according to the number of matches they had.
(Mathematics, Friday, Term 2, School Harmony).

6.5 Students’ Enjoyment of School 127
Fig. 6.7 Students enjoyed a “water ball” making session in an English lesson at School Equality
Fig. 6.8 Students enjoyed a fractions game in a Mathematics lesson at School Harmony
Exploring children’s enjoyment of school is particularly important in the Singa-

pore context. Our ethnographies offer a useful close look at life in classrooms and
highlight that among the talk of testing and examinations (as discussed earlier in the
chapter), students enjoy and engage in a more diverse range of learning activities that
are “hands on”, “real world” and/or collaborative. These activities relate to children’s
wellbeing at school, in that they may increase children’s sense of belonging as they
work collaboratively and informally with teachers and other students.
6.6 Conclusions
Despite performing well academically in international high-stakes tests, the TIMSS

and PIRLS context questionnaires indicate that Singaporean students’ sense of school
belonging is lower than their international counterparts (Mullis et al., 2017, 2020).
Research has shown that students who have a high sense of school belonging tend
to do better in their academic performance in school (Allen et al., 2016). The results
from our survey indicate that most of the students in the study had a strong sense of
belonging to their school, indicating that they enjoyed school and viewed the teachers
and other students as liking them. Although this is not a representative sample of
Singapore, it nevertheless gives an insight into the perspectives of a sample of Primary
4 students in Singapore and how they felt about their school. Approximately a third
of students reported negative views of their school experiences in terms of whether
they were hardworking and serious about their work, whether they received “good”
grades, and whether they were happy with their grades. Our survey suggests students’
perceptions of their school performance have a correlation with their sense of school
belonging, and various factors are intertwined that contribute to students’ sense of
belonging. The findings concurred with studies conducted by Western researchers
in different contexts. This highlights the importance of Bronfenbrenner’s framework
for looking at the individual in context since the students in Singapore may have
different views on their sense of belonging and wellbeing (Jiang et al., 2021). There
is relatively little existing literature on sense of belonging and wellbeing among
students in Singapore, highlighting the need for more work to be done in this area.
As educational policies evolve in Singapore, there is a concern to shift the focus
beyond academic performance (Chong & Lee, 2015; Ng, 2020). Certainly, a sense of
school belonging and ensuring wellbeing have been identified as areas needing more
attention. For example, as we have shown, learning activities which are “hands on”,
“real world” and/or collaborative are likely to be enjoyable for children. In addition,
schools could pay more attention to encouraging a sense of school belonging with a
more organic approach that starts with asking the children what motivates them to
want to do well and what they think are the elements that make them more relaxed and
happier in school. Schools may also seek the help of parents and community members
to identify additional features at the various levels in the ecological framework that
they think might more effectively engender a positive sense of belonging. The various
levels of the ecological framework need to coexist since they are entangled and reflect
References 129
different ways of establishing interconnections, with a focus on their synergy in a

dynamic ecosystem. The complex nature of linking performance features with a
student’s sense of belonging and wellbeing has the potential to inform us about
learning and educational success and warrants further investigation.
References
Allen, K.-A., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2016). Fostering school belonging in secondary
schools using a socio-ecological framework. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist,
33(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.5
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to
know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1),
1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
Allen, K. -A., & Kern, M. L. (2017). School belonging in adolescents. Theory, research and practice.
Springer.
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school
students’ sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(1), 5–22.
Ang, R. P., Ong, S. L., & Li, X. (2020). Student version of the teacher–student relationship inventory
(S-TSRI): Development, validation and invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01724.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children’s early school adjust-
ment. Journal of School Psychology, 35(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(96)000
29-5
Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in under-
standing peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166–179. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia
of Education, 3, 1643–1647.
Caleon, I. S., Tan, J.P.-L., Wui, M. G., Leen, C. C., & King, R. B. (2016). Academically at-risk
adolescents in Singapore: The importance of teacher support in promoting academic engagement.
In R. B. King & A. B. Bernardo (Eds.), The psychology of Asian learners: A Festschrift in honor
of David Watkins (pp. 519–540). Springer.
Cemalcilar, Z. (2010). Schools as socialisation contexts: Understanding the impact of school climate
factors on students’ sense of school belonging. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
59(2), 243–272.
Cho, E. Y. -N. (2015). Children’s wellbeing in East and Southeast Asia: A preliminary comparison.
Social Indicators Research, 123(1), 183–201. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24721597.
Chong, W. H., & Lee, B. O. (2015). Social-emotional learning: Promotion of youth wellbeing in
Singapore schools. In K. Wright, & J. McLeod, Rethinking youth wellbeing critical perspectives
(pp. 161–177). Springer.
Craggs, H., & Kelly, C. (2018). Adolescents’ experiences of school belonging: A qualitative meta-
synthesis. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(10), 1411–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.
1477125
Dotterer, A. M., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2007). Implications of out-of-school activities
for school engagement in African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36,
391–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9161-3
Faircloth, B. S. (2009). Making the most of adolescence: Harnessing the search for identity to
understand classroom belonging. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(3), 321–348.
French, D. C., & Conrad, J. (2001). School dropout as predicted by peer rejection and antisocial
behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 225–244.
Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment and
student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments Research, 1,
199–229.
Gokmen, A., Kelly-Ann, A., & Tracii, R. (2020). Exploring the impacts of school belonging on youth
wellbeing and mental health among Turkish adolescents. Child Indicators Research, 1619–1635.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values
to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education,
60–71.
Huan, V. S., Choon, G. L., Ang, R. P., & Chong, W. H. (2012). How teacher-student relationship
influenced student attitude towards teachers and school. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
21(1), 151–159.
Jiang, Y., Lee, C.-K.J., Wan, Z. H., & Chen, J. (2021). Stricter teacher, more motivated students?
Comparing the associations between teacher behaviors and motivational beliefs of Western and
East Asian learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–10.
Lay, Y. F., & Ng, K. T. (2020). Psychological traits as predictors of science achievement for students
participated in TIMSS 2015. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5749–5759. https://doi.
org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082209.
Lee, D. H., Hong, H., & Niemi, H. (2014). A contextualized account of holistic education in Finland
and Singapore: Implications on Singapore educational context. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 23(4), 871–884.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connected-
ness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274–283.
Liem, G. A. D., Chua, B. L., Seng, Y. B. G., Kamarolzaman, K., & Cai, E. Y. L. (2017). Social and
emotional learning in Singapore’s schools: Framework, practice, research, and future directions.
In E. Frydenberg, A. J. Martin, & R. J. Collie (Eds.), Social and emotional learning in Australia
and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives, programs and approaches (pp. 187–203). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3394-0_10.
Ma, X. (2003). Sense of belonging to school: Can schools make a difference? The Journal of
Educational Research, 96(6), 340–349.
Malecki, C., & Demaray, M. (2017). Social support as a buffer in the relationship between
socioeconomic status and academic performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 375–395.
Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand.
McMahon, S. D., Wernsman, J., & Rose, D. S. (2009). The relation of classroom environment
and school belonging to academic self-efficacy among urban fourth-and fifth-grade students. The
Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 267–281.
MOE. (2017, March 7). MOE FY 2017 Committee of supply debate speech by Minister of Education
(Schools) Ng Chee Meng. Ministry of Education Singapore Speeches. https://www.moe.gov.
sg/news/speeches/20170307-moe-fy-2017-committee-of-supply-debate-speech-by-minister-of-
education-schools-ng-chee-meng.
MOE. (2020, June 2). Overview of co-curricular activities. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://
beta.moe.gov.sg/programmes/cca/overview/.
MOE. (2021, October 18). Social and emotional learning: MOE: Programmes. Ministry of
Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/programmes/social-and-emotional-learning.
MOE. (2022, February 18). Holistic health framework. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://
www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/our-programmes/holistic-health-framework.
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS International results in reading.
TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
References 131
Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International
results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/.
Ng, P. T. (2020). The paradoxes of student well-being in Singapore. ECNU Review of Education,
3(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120935127
OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students’ well-being, PISA. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en.
OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners,
TALIS. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
Reschly, A., Huebner, E., Appleton, J., & Antaramian, S. (2008). Engagement as flourishing: The
contribution of positive emotions and coping to adolescents’ engagement at school and with
learning. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 419–431.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’
motivation and engagement during Middle school. American Educational Research Journal,
38(2), 437–460.
Teng, A. (2016, October 30). Exam stress among the young: When grades define worth. The Straits
Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/when-grades-define-worth.
Tillery, A., Varjas, K., Roach, A., Kuperminc, G., & Meyers, J. (2013). The importance of adult
connections in adolescents’ sense of school belonging: Implications for schools and practitioners.
Journal of School Violence, 12, 134–155.
Wang, M. T., Selman, R. L., Dishion, T. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2010). A Tobit regression analysis
of the covariation between middle school students’ perceived school climate and behavioral
problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 274–286.
Wang, M. -T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012, May/June). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of
social support on three dimensions of school engagement from Middle to High school. Child
Development, 83, 877–895.
Wu, P. S. (2021). From policy to pedagogy: Image of the Singapore child. In N. J. Yelland, L.
Peters, N. Fairchild, M. Tesar, & M. S. Pérez (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of global childhoods
(pp. 465–479). Sage.
Chapter 7
Activities Outside of School in Singapore
Abstract Singapore students are commonly perceived to frequently attend extra

classes to help supplement their schoolwork and enrichment classes for holistic devel-
opment, resulting in little time for leisure activities. However, research on Singapore
students’ activities outside of school is scarce, particularly when looking beyond
academic activities. This chapter explores the out-of-school lifeworlds of Singapore
primary school students, investigating their time spent in an array of activities and
their perception of each activity. Data is reported from an online survey, learning
dialogues, ethnographic fieldnotes and a re-enactment with one student. Students
indicated that they were given homework every day, primarily for core subjects.
About two-thirds of the students had tuition classes in school subjects. Nevertheless,
a large proportion of their outside school time was spent on playing, with leisure
activities conducted mainly indoors. Overall, students were meaningfully engaged
in a variety of activities, both academic and non-academic.
Keywords Activities outside of school · Academic tuition and homework ·

Enrichment classes · Children’s leisure activities · Children’s time use
Children in Singapore are often presumed to spend their out-of-school lives engaged
in academic activities, as an explanation for their educational success at school
and in international high-stakes testing. Singapore has been pushing for a system
that promotes meritocracy and an effective and hardworking nation (Tong & Pakir,
1996) and educational achievement became the way to measuring a person’s ability.
Over the years since the nation’s independence in 1965, students have progressed to
obtain international achievement in reading, mathematics and science, consecutively
achieving top rankings in international evaluations, for example TIMSS, PIRLS and
PISA, as we have highlighted throughout this book. However, this academic achieve-
ment may come at a cost. A study by The Straits Times in 2015 reported that 70–80%
of Singapore primary school students have private tuition outside of school to supple-
ment their learning to be competitive with their peers. The tuition business is thriving,
becoming a S$1.4 billion industry in Singapore (Davie, 2015). This has led to the
perception that Singapore students are always “studying and have no fun”.
Global Childhoods in the Asia-Pacific 2,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_7
134 7 Activities Outside of School in Singapore
Studies have shown both physical and mental health are negatively affected when
children lack allocation of time for play (Landreth, 2012). Similarly, high levels of
stress and anxiety can have an impact on young people’s health. As mentioned in
previous chapters, PISA 2018 reported that students in Singapore had higher levels
of anxiety about their schoolwork compared to those in other countries (OECD,
2019) and a PISA 2015 report indicated that Singapore students were very anxious
about schoolwork and test results, regardless of the number of school hours or the
frequency of testing (OECD, 2017). It was reported that the number of Singapore
teens seeking help at the Institute of Mental Health for school stress had increased
over the years (Cheow, 2019). There is a need to manage the stress level of these
children. Good mental wellbeing of youth is also crucial for an efficient and effective
workforce in the future, as well as a strong and healthy society.
Physical health is important to consider in the Singapore context. Singapore has a
relatively high obesity rate, with the number of obese children increasing over the past
decades and a current obesity rate of 13% amongst Singapore’s school-age children
(Ministry of Health, 2020). Obesity is attributed to the result of a combination of
excessive calorie consumption and insufficient physical exercise (National University
Hospital, n.d.). Children in Singapore mainly remain indoors in often sedentary
activities both at school and outside of school. This might suggest that they are not
expending their energy sufficiently to balance their energy intake. Obese children will
likely become obese adults, and this can lead to other health-related problems which
will negatively affect one’s self esteem, lead to lower work efficiency, and contribute
to increased medical costs (Loke, 2002). Hence, the view has emerged that children
should be physically active to ensure that the nation has healthy citizens. Another
health issue of particular concern to children in Singapore is myopia. One study
suggests that children who did not participate in outdoor activity, and children who
engaged in long hours on computers, mobile devices, and television, also increased
their chances of becoming myopic (Dirani et al., 2009).
Research on the lifeworlds of Singapore children beyond school is scarce, but the
limited existing studies report the engagement of tuition in the students’ time outside
of school (Jones, 2019; Quah et al., 1995; Sharpe, 2002). With the rapid changes
in information technology in the last two decades and commensurate changes in
lifestyles and social contexts, it is pertinent to explore the types of activities of
students today beyond formal education, in order to provide a more holistic picture of
the lifeworlds of children in Singapore. Past research has not quantified the spectrum
of activities of Singapore primary school students, nor measured or reflected on their
perceptions towards these activities. The results from our study with Primary 4 (9–
10 years old) children provide such information that could be useful for designing
initiatives and programmes to better cater for future generations. It could also address
some misconceptions about Singapore children in terms of their attitude towards their
learning and leisure.
Most Singapore primary students attend school from about 7.30 am to 1.30 pm.
One or two days a week, the students have Co-Curricular Activities (CCA) that will
keep them at school until about 5 pm. Additionally, as we outline below, existing
studies have suggested that outside of school designated times, parents also subscribe
7 Activities Outside of School in Singapore 135
to numerous extra activities to occupy their children in purposeful activities, often

leaving the children with very little or no free time to spend on activities of their
own choice. There would seem to be a general perception that Singapore children are
primarily occupied doing homework and/or tuition outside of school to the detriment
of more leisure or fun types of activities.
This chapter explores the out-of-school lifeworlds of Singapore primary school
students, investigating the time spent in an array of activities and their percep-
tion of each activity. The data in this chapter was primarily obtained from surveys
and a learning dialogues activity with children. We also draw on our ethnographic
classroom observation notes where relevant to provide additional context, and a re-
enactment with one child, which we describe in more detail below. For the surveys,
in this chapter, we focus on children’s responses to questions about their involvement
in 18 activities after school on weekdays, and at weekends, and their enjoyment of
these activities (see Table 7.1). An item was used to measure the amount of time spent
using a four-point scale (No time at all/I don’t do this activity, less than 1 h, 1–3 h,
more than 3 h). This was followed by an item that measured how much they liked
doing each of these activities on a four-point scale (It’s great, It’s okay, I don’t like
it, I don’t do it). A total of 165 Singapore students from two schools completed the
survey. Part of the data presented in this chapter has been described in Yelland et al.
(2021), along with data from Hong Kong and Australia. Responses from Singapore
students were further analysed and are presented here. Descriptive and inferential
statistical analyses (mainly non-parametric) were done using IBM SPSS software
(2020), alpha level of significance at 0.05.
Table 7.1 Out-of-school activities in the survey, by category

Category Activity (abbreviation in graphs)
Indoor academic Reading books (reading book)
Doing homework
Tutoring—English (Eng)
Tutoring—Language (Lang)
Tutoring—Mathematics (Math)
Indoor enrichment Classes for dance /drama/singing /music /art (non-acad
classes)
Practise a musical instrument (practice musical instrument)
Activities with a club
Going to the library (going to library)
Outdoor/away from home leisure Visiting friends and relatives (visit friends/relatives)
Outdoor sports or activities (outdoor sports)
Going to the movies (going to movies)
Shopping
Indoor/at home leisure Playing indoors (play indoor)
Watching TV (watching TV)
Using a tablet, iPad or smartphone (using mobile device)
Being read to by someone else (being read to by someone)
Talking and sharing with your parents (talking with parents)
Table 7.2 Learning dialogues activity, questions relating to out-of-school activities

Day administered Question asked
Monday • Did you do any schoolwork this weekend? And if you did, can you say
what it was?
• What did you do on the weekend?
• What was the most fun you had this weekend?
Friday • Do you have homework set for you to do on the weekend? What is it?
• What are you looking forward to doing most on the weekend?
In addition to the survey instrument, a learning dialogues activity was used to

obtain qualitative data from the students themselves. They were asked to write and
draw their views on several questions at the start of the week (Monday) and at the
end of the week (Friday). This chapter focuses on children’s responses to questions
relating to their lifeworlds outside of school, including homework (see Table 7.2).
There were 29 students from School Equality and 27 students from School Harmony
who completed their learning dialogues—a total of 56 students. These questions
provided more in-depth detail on students’ thoughts and values relating to their lives
outside of school. Qualitative data was coded, and common responses were tabulated.
Excerpts from the learning dialogues were included to illustrate children’s responses.
We draw on these to provide more contextual information about children’s lifeworlds,
particularly relating to homework which links children’s lives in and out of school.
7.1 Overview of Activities Outside of School
The activities that most students spent time (at least an hour) doing on weekdays
were playing indoors (60%), followed by reading (59%), doing homework (57%),
watching TV (55%) and playing with a mobile device (50%) (see Fig. 7.1). Students
seemed to have a mix of indoor and outdoor activities outside of school, but most of
these activities were carried out in the home or in another indoor venue; 80% of the
students indicated that they spent less than three hours on weekdays playing outdoors.
From another perspective, the activities that had the least number of students who did
not spend time on them (I don’t do them) were doing homework (3%), reading (6%),
and playing indoors (9%). Reading could be classified as a leisure and/or academic
activity depending on the context. In Singapore children are encouraged to read to
improve their language ability as well as for fun (Majid, 2018).
At the weekends, the students spent most of their time in leisure activities (see
Fig. 7.2). The time spent on homework was reduced in terms of it changing from
20% of students spending “a lot” of time (more than 3 h) during the weekdays to
10% spending “a lot” of time on weekends. Activities that required the children to
leave home to travel to another venue occurred more often at weekends, such as
shopping, visiting family and friends, going to the movies, activities with a club and
enrichment classes. Likewise, more students went to a library at weekends. A quarter
7.2 Time Spent on Homework Outside of School 137
Fig. 7.1 Time students spent on selected activities outside of school on weekdays. Note “A lot”
(>3 h), “some” (1–3 h), “little” (<1 h) and “no” time
of students reported that they did not engage in outdoor sports on weekdays (25%),
compared to only 10% at weekends.
In terms of the students’ perceptions of the various activities, academic-related
activities were less favoured compared to leisure activities as would be expected (see
Fig. 7.3). The top five activities that students reported enjoying (i.e. “it’s great”) were
playing with mobile devices, going to the movies, watching TV, engaging in outdoor
sports and activities, and visiting friends and relatives. These preferred activities were
also among the ones that some students spent “a lot” of time doing on weekdays and
weekends.
7.2 Time Spent on Homework Outside of School
An extensive study of 3759 Singapore lower primary school students and parents
published in the mid-1990s reported that children spent about 1–2 h doing homework
each day (Quah et al., 1995). Most parents (91%) felt that it was important for them
to be involved in their children’s education, and more than 80% helped their children
with their schoolwork and learning at home (Quah et al., 1995). It has been noted that
Fig. 7.2 Time students spent on selected activities outside of school at the weekend. Note “A lot”
(>3 h), “some” (1–3 h), “little” (<1 h) and “no” time
parents in Singapore often feel compelled to ensure that their children’s performance
is “above par” so that they can get into the top cohort, or at least the best class or
school possible, at the next level of their schooling. This has often been attributed to
the system of meritocracy and “parentocracy” that is widely practised in Singapore
and has been documented over the decades (Tan, 2017), in a schooling system where
students are rewarded for their academic excellence with places in the best schools.
Doing well in school is perceived as equating to having more choices in life and
acting as a pathway to a better future. This phenomenon has not changed much over
the years. PISA 2015 also reported that Singapore students (aged 15) spent 1–2 h
per day (9.4 h/week) on homework, ranking them third globally with respect to time
spent on homework (OECD, 2017). An ethnographic study of 76 nine-year-olds from
two schools by Jones (2019) reported that many children in Singapore experienced
two curricula, at school and home, operating in parallel, both apparently equally
scheduled.
Most students who completed the survey for this study reported that they spent
three hours or less on homework over a week on weekdays (see Fig. 7.4). More
specifically, 40% indicated that they spent less than an hour on homework over a
Fig. 7.3 Students’ level of enjoyment of selected activities outside of school
week on weekdays and 38% spent between 1 and 3 h. Based on the classroom obser-
vations, students were given a short piece of homework from most of the core subjects
almost every day (i.e. English, Mathematics and Chinese) and/or some corrections to
complete. Non-core subjects, such as Physical Education, Art, Music and Character
and Citizenship Education (CCE), did not usually have homework. Some students
would try to complete their homework at school if they could, which may explain
why some students indicated that they did not spend any time on homework in the
survey.
At weekends, the students would still spend some time on homework because
they were usually given some homework to be completed over the weekend from
the Friday classes. On the Monday learning dialogues, students were asked “Did
you do any schoolwork this weekend? And if you did, can you say what it was?”
and on Friday, they were asked “Do you have homework set for you to do on the
weekend? What is it?” (see Table 7.3). It is unusual that students were not given
some homework over the weekend, as candidly illustrated by one of the students in
Fig. 7.5.
No (seriously) This weekend But actually we ALWAYS have homework except This weekend
(I do not know why)… weird… MOST of the time the teachers will give us homework for
the weekend.
Weekday Weekend
60%
50%
40%
% student
30%
20%
10%
0%
A lot Some A little No
Time Spent
Fig. 7.4 Time students spent on homework on weekdays and weekends. Note “A lot” (>3 h),
“Some” (1–3 h), “Little” (<1 h) and “No” time
Table 7.3 Types of homework mentioned in the learning dialogues activity

School Monday Frequency Friday Frequency
Did you do any mentioned Do you have mentioned
schoolwork this homework set for you
weekend? to do on the weekend?
Equality English, 13 English (little red dot), 23
(N = 29) composition, grammar and
dictation vocabulary, oral work
Maths 7 Maths SLS 1
Project work 1 Project work 1
Chinese 3 Chinese spelling 3
composition and
oral planning
Harmony Maths 9 Maths 17
(N = 26) English 1 English, spelling 8
Chinese 7 Chinese 1
Student learning 1
space (SLS)
Fig. 7.5 Student’s drawing on their surprise at not being given homework for the weekend
One of the tasks mentioned was the Little Red Dot. This is a complementary
supplement for primary school students inserted in the local newspaper The Straits
Times. The newspaper is written by a resident teacher-journalist and includes activ-
ities based on the current news for teachers to use in the classroom. The “Student
Learning Space” (SLS) is an online learning portal created by the Ministry of Educa-
tion (MOE) that allows students to have access to resources uploaded by teachers
in Singapore. Other students mentioned that they did revision papers, assessment
books, study and preparation for upcoming examinations at home.
Further analysis showed that girls in the two schools spent significantly different
amounts of time doing homework on the weekdays than boys (X 2 (1165) = 10.49, p
= 0.02). There were significantly more girls (55.8%) who reported spending “a lot
of time” (more than three hours) than boys (31.8%). Consequently, fewer girls than
boys spent “some”, “a little” or “no time” in doing homework.
Doing homework was not an activity enjoyed by most of the students, with many
(47%) responding “it’s okay” and one-third indicating that they did not like doing
homework (see Fig. 7.6). Similarly, in the learning dialogues, none of the students
named “doing homework” as being a fun activity that they did over the weekend. In
fact, one student commented that the most fun thing he did over the weekend was
“spending time with my friend because I rarely play with them because I am always
at home doing homework”. This implies that doing homework is an everyday feature
of children’s lives in Singapore and is not particularly enjoyed by most students.
In the two schools in our study, teachers for each subject (especially examinable
subjects, such as English, Mathematics, Science) usually gave the students a short
piece of homework once or twice a week. From the classroom observations, it was
apparent that each piece of work required students to spend about 15 min to half an
hour to complete. Some students commented that they tried to complete the work in
school so they could have more time for playing at home. In the learning dialogues,
a few students from each class wrote that they were looking forward to completing
their homework and meeting their friends to complete their project work. Doing
group work with friends seemed to make doing homework much more enjoyable as
Fig. 7.6 Students’ level of 50%

enjoyment doing homework
(excluding students who 40%
indicated that they did not do
% student
the activity) 30%
20%
10%
0%
It's great It's okay I don’t like it
Perception
indicated in their learning dialogues. This links to research in the UK which found
that children enjoy homework the most when they are with others (Mullan, 2020).
From the classroom observations, during class time students in both schools were
very eager to raise their hands to respond to the teacher and be selected by them to
answer questions. These students seem to be at the age where recognition from adults
is deemed as sufficient motivation for certain behaviours, especially in academic-
related activities (Cheung & Pomerantz, 2012; Pomerantz et al., 2014). Hence, by
completing their assignments on time, the teachers would either reward them with
good marks and/or give them stamps and stickers. This seemed to be a plausible
explanation for enjoying their homework even though it is also considered a chore
by them. The results also inferred a certain degree of routineness in the students’
everyday lives (as discussed in Chap. 3), and they were very clear about their duties
and responsibilities that must be completed before any expected deadline.
7.3 Time Spent on Academic Enrichment Outside of School
Private tuition and educational courses are well subscribed to in Singapore, and in
other East Asian countries, to support children in their pursuits of academic excel-
lence. Parents frequently send their children to extra academic classes, be it for one-
to-one tuition, group tuition classes or to Learning Centres with special programmes,
such as Kumon or Eye Level. About 70% of Singapore children attend such academic
enrichment courses outside of school (Choo, 2012). Private tuition costs from S$35
to S$80 per hour depending on the number of students per class and the qualifica-
tions of the teacher. It has been reported that almost half of Singapore parents spend
more than S$500/month on private tuition for their child, and 16% spend between
S$1000 and S$2000 (Choo, 2012). Another report stated that each household in
Singapore spent about S$205 on tuition for primary school children monthly (Davie,
2015). Private tuition alone could easily consume 5–10% of the average household
expenditure of S$4906/month (median total household income1 is S$11,777/month)
(Davie, 2015), some spending even more. Singapore is ranked one of the most expen-
sive cities in which to live, in terms of the price of housing, transportation and food.
Hence, additional expenses to support a child’s private tuition and other education
courses are a great financial strain on families, especially those with low income
and/or a large household.
If a child spent two hours on tuition per subject on a weekly basis, a child could
easily consume two to eight hours of their outside of school time for one or more
of the core subjects (i.e. English, Mathematics, Mother Tongue and Science). This
equates to 5–20% of their outside of school time, assuming they have 7 h of free
1 Total household income includes employment income (S$9425), business income and non-work
income.
7.3 Time Spent on Academic Enrichment Outside of School 143
time a day (49 h per week). If a child is also scheduled to have other forms of non-
academic enrichment classes, there would be even less time for the child to rest and
relax.
About one-third of the students in this study (n = 63, 38.2%) did not have tuition
in English, Mathematics or Language. Fewer than a third (n = 47, 28.5%) had tuition
in all three subjects, 21 students (12.7%) had tuition in two subjects, and nearly a
quarter (24.2%) had tuition in one subject. Among the three subjects, there were more
students undertaking Mathematics tuition (n = 87, 52.7%) and Language tuition (n =
84, 50.9%). Slightly fewer students had English tuition (n = 71, 43%). In Singapore,
students must pass their English examination, which is the first language, and their
mother tongue (Chinese, Malay or Tamil) to be promoted to the next grade. Hence,
if the child is struggling with their language, they will be given extra tuition classes.
Mathematics is regarded as a challenge for students since there are many key concepts
and young students may not be able to understand them all easily. Consequently,
parents usually provide their child with additional help in special tutorial schools if
they can afford it.
Students who had tuition indicated that they spent “some time” (1–3 h) on tuition
at weekends and weekdays (see Fig. 7.7). The results did not show that students had
tuition on either weekdays or weekends. Instead, most students spent “a little” or
“some” time on tuition on both weekdays and weekends. Among the students who
had tuition in just one or two subjects, they either spent time on weekday or weekend
in these classes. However, for those who had tuition in all three subjects, they spent
quite a bit of time on tuition on both weekdays and weekends.
80% Weekday Weekend
70%
60%
50%
% Student
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A lot Some A little No
Time Spent
Fig. 7.7 Time students spent on tuition on weekdays and weekends. Note “A lot” (>3 h), “some”
(1–3 h), “little” (<1 h) and “no” time
One of the students wrote he attended a private education centre known as the
“Eye Level”. He called it an enrichment class rather than tuition, illustrating the
slippage between these classifications (see Fig. 7.8). Another student drew himself
carrying a load of English, Maths and Science revision assignments, and the boy
was crying or sweating, indicating he was stressed by the work. On the tables were
stacks of tuition work. In the picture, the boy was holding a big card with the word
“beware” written on it, indicating fear or caution relating to these tasks.
Regarding their level of enjoyment of tuition, most of the students in the survey
who undertook the different forms of tuition reported that they viewed them “great”
or “okay”, with most of the students indicating that they thought tuition was “okay”
(see Fig. 7.9). However, there was still a third of the students who did not like tuition.
There was no significant difference in the time spent on tuition between the boys and
Fig. 7.8 Students’ drawings of academic enrichment activities at the weekend. a Drawing of the
“eye level”, which is a private education centre. b Drawing on the amount of work the student must
do
7.3 Time Spent on Academic Enrichment Outside of School 145
60% Math English Language
50%
40%
% Student
30%
20%
10%
0%
It's great It's okay I don’t like it
Level of Enjoyment
Fig. 7.9 Students’ level of enjoyment of tuition (excluding students who indicated that they did
not do the activity)
the girls. However, the students did not seem to enjoy Mother Tongue or language
tuition classes, as most of them indicated “It’s okay” and “I don’t like it”.
During a classroom observation in a Mathematics lesson when the topic was
determining the internal angle of a polygon, a few students could solve the question
using a “formula”. The teacher informed us that some students had learned an alter-
native method for solving the problem at a tuition lesson without truly understanding
the Mathematical concepts. In a society that has a strong emphasis on meritocracy,
getting into a good school or a better class signifies success; therefore, tuition is
not only arranged for students who are weak in their academic subjects but also to
improve the overall standards of the students as indicated in testing regimes. Conse-
quently, tuition classes may be regarded by parents and students as more essential
than learning in school.
Several years ago, there was a major debate in the media on the necessity of
tuition when the then Senior Minister of State for Education Ms Indranee Rajah
made the comment “our education system is run on the basis that tuition is not
necessary” (quoted in Sinnakaruppan, 2013). This led to parents, tuition teachers
and schools arguing from their respective viewpoints. Since then, there have been
several initiatives to reduce emphasis on grades by removing the individual academic
position in class and the school rankings. In 2018, Education Minister Mr Ong Ye
Kung, commented that there was no need to ban tuition but there was a need to focus
on finding the best way to teach for the joy of learning (MOE, 2018). As mentioned
in Chap. 2, in 2021, the primary school leaving examination (PSLE) grading was
changed from T-score to the Achievement Level (AL) score system. These changes
were made with the aims of “Reducing fine differentiation of students’ examination
results at a young age”, and “Recognising children’s level of achievement, regardless
of how their peers have done” (MOE, 2021). There has also been a shift to full subject-
based learning in secondary schools where students with different learning abilities
learn together in the same class and are not streamed, now a common strategy in
Singapore. At the point of data collection for this research, over a third of the students
in the survey did not have tuition in English, Mathematics or Language. The data
also showed that students engaged in an array of both academic and leisure activities.
7.4 Time Spent on Non-academic Enrichment Classes

Outside of School
In addition to academic classes, parents in Singapore often engage their children

in non-academic activity classes, such as in the performing arts (drama, music and
dance) or sports (ball games, martial arts and racquet games). Learning these non-
academic skills can instil discipline, confidence and additional skills that might link
to a potential career option (Lafser, 2020). Singaporeans can easily join performing
arts or sport and fitness activities, either in school or with external agencies. Primary
students are encouraged to enrol in a CCA at their school in one of the following
categories: Clubs and Societies, Physical Sports, Uniformed Groups and/or Visual
and Performing Arts. These CCAs are held outside of school for 2–3 h, once a week.
Professional trainers are engaged to coach the students.
In the public sector, more than 30,000 performing arts and sports and fitness
courses for all ages have been organised annually by the People’s Association, a
statutory board in Singapore (Statistics Singapore, 2019). These figures exclude
privately organised performing arts and sports companies. It was reported that there
were 1671 private music companies and 1862 sports and fitness companies in Singa-
pore (Statistics Singapore, 2019). Fees for music lesson range from S$100 to S$200 a
month, depending on the type and size of class; and are similarly priced for sports and
fitness activities (Poh, 2020). The number of children participating in non-academic
enrichment classes outside of school was not available. Nevertheless, engagement
in such activities starts relatively young in Singapore, with music schools catering
from age zero onwards. Hence, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is quite common
for primary school students to be learning a musical instrument and/or be a trainee
in a sport or martial art.
The survey results from this study showed that a third of the students (n = 54,
32.7%) participated in non-academic enrichment classes. Among those who attended
non-academic enrichment classes, most students spent one to three hours on such
activities; 18% reported spending this amount of time on these activities on weekdays
and 13% at weekends. Being engaged in non-academic enrichment classes also meant
students had to spend additional time practising. For example, playing the piano
needs practising for some form of assessment before and after class. There was no
significant difference in the time spent on these classes between boys and girls. Most
students enjoyed these non-academic enrichment classes (47.4% “it’s great”, 42.3%
“it’s okay”).
7.4 Time Spent on Non-academic Enrichment Classes Outside of School 147
The learning dialogues provided more information about their non-academic

enrichment classes. Students in School Equality listed several non-academic enrich-
ment classes that they attended at the weekend, such as martial arts/sports training,
swimming, music, art, and dancing/ballet classes. They also illustrated their activities
in their drawings (see Fig. 7.10). In their learning dialogues, students clearly differen-
tiated whether they viewed the activities as being for enrichment or for leisure. They
would use terms like “enrichment class, training, lessons” compared to “playing (a
sport)”.
Most schools in Singapore offer performing arts clubs and societies as part of their
CCAs, such as orchestra, choir, band, dance and drama. Such CCA clubs and activ-
ities prefer to enrol students with music or dance backgrounds. Most schools with
performing arts as a CCA will compete in the bi-annual Singapore Youth Festivals
Fig. 7.10 Students’ drawings of non-academic enrichment activities at the weekend. a Student went
swimming, dancing and Olympiad tuition. Olympiad is a competition held for selected students in
the school. b Student went swimming training on Saturday
(SYF). “Winning” or getting a good placement in the SYF Central Judging make the
activity highly competitive. In 2012, the Central Judging was renamed as the SYF
Arts Presentation to make it less competitive and more of a presentation.
In Singapore, both schools and parents encourage the development of the right
side of the brain through music and other performing arts activities. Schools had
compulsory music lessons in their former curriculum, and some parents will enrol
their child in outside of school performing arts classes as young as possible. The
data in this research showed that among those who participated in non-academic
enrichment activities outside of school, the majority enjoyed them. One student
wrote that she looked forward to the “ballet competition” in her learning dialogue.
Many of the music, ballet and martial arts classes have some form of internationally
recognised examination, such as the ABRSM and the UK’s Trinity Guildhall for
music. Learning music and other forms of performing arts is thought to help with
brain development, making it very attractive for parents, and if the child excels in
such activities, it could become a career opportunity.
7.5 Time Spent on Leisure Activities Outside of School
A research study conducted with Singapore adolescents reported that the time they
spent outside of school on homework is reciprocally related to their leisure time,
and those who spent long hours on homework/studying were more depressed (Yeo
et al., 2020). Teenagers spent less than 1.5 h and slightly less than 2 h in leisure
activities (exercise/sports and hanging out with friends) on weekdays and weekends,
respectively. A study by Majid (2018) reported that, of 254 students, aged 6–12,
59.9% of the students indicated that playing (with toys, sports, etc.) was one of
their top three favourite activities, followed by reading (books/comics) (50.8%) and
watching television (43.7%). Focusing on reading, Majid further elaborated that two-
thirds of students spent 60 min or less on reading per week, and 70% of the students
stated they like reading a lot. Another study of reading, focusing on a survey with
1312 bilingual children (age 9–11) in Singapore, found that students tended to most
frequently read books in English for enjoyment and books in Chinese or Malay to
improve their grades in tests and examinations (Sun et al., 2020). Other research has
indicated enjoyment of reading series books (Jones, 2015), again highlighting that
reading can be an enjoyable leisure activity for children in Singapore.
According to statistics reported on the data.gov.sg Website, indoor entertainment
for 7–10-year-old children mainly consists of watching television (about 3 h of Free-
to-air TV and 1.6 h Pay TV daily) and playing video games (1.7 h) (Infocomm Media
Development Authority, 2016). Another study indicates that parents in Singapore
mediate their children’s use of digital technology, particularly by limiting the duration
of technology use and allowing the use of technology after the completion of tasks
such as homework or household chores (Shin & Li, 2017).
As mentioned above, Singapore children spend much less time on outdoor activi-
ties. One study suggests Singapore children average about 0.58 h per day on weekdays
7.5 Time Spent on Leisure Activities Outside of School 149
and 1.27 h at weekends during school term, with the duration increasing for both
indoor and outdoor activities during school holidays (Dirani et al., 2009). Outdoor
activities are shorter in duration, perhaps due to the need for adult supervision. In
addition, the hot and humid Singapore weather is not conducive for children to play
outdoors in the afternoon.
Playing is regarded as a crucial component in children’s lifeworlds. This study
was able to elicit the wide array of students’ leisure activities outside of school. On
weekdays, the students played indoors more, and at weekends they could do more
outdoor or away-from home activities, e.g. visits, playing in venues other than their
own homes and sports. Going to the movies seemed to be a common out-of-school
activity, particularly for boys. There were significantly more girls who did not go
to the movies on weekdays and weekends than boys (55.9% girls did not go to
the movies compared to 29.5% boys on weekdays; 40.3% girls compared to 21.6%
boys at weekends). More boys spent “a lot” and “some” time in playing with mobile
devices than girls, and conversely, there were more girls who spent “a little” and “did
not spend” time than boys in playing with mobile devices. The top five activities on
which most students spent more than three hours, and their level of enjoyment on
weekday and weekend are listed in Table 7.4. The activities listed in the learning
dialogues did not deviate much from the activities listed in the survey.
Reading was one of the activities on which students spent a lot of time on weekdays
(ranked 5th) as well as at weekends (ranked 6th). As previously mentioned, reading
could be considered a leisure activity as well as an academic activity. Half of the
students (52%) found it “great” to read, and 37% felt it was “okay”. Visits to the
library were likely related to students borrowing books to read. Few students (8%)
visited the library on weekdays for more than three hours, but many more students
spent more than three hours in the library at the weekend (47%).
In the learning dialogues, several students indicated they looked forward to
spending time with parents and other family members, as well as their friends. Key
phrases or words like “with my family”, “brother/sisters/cousins”, “grandparents”
and “friends” were tagged with the activities (see Table 7.5 and Fig. 7.11). In contrast,
at weekends, the parents would try to take them somewhere outside for entertain-
ment. In terms of gender differences, girls enjoyed shopping much more than boys
Table 7.4 Top five leisure activities on weekdays and weekends on which children spent more than
3 h and top five most enjoyed activities
Time spent Enjoyment level
Weekday (% student) Weekend (% student) It’s great (% student)
Play indoor (36%) Play indoor (35%) Play mobile devices (79%)
Watch TV (25%) Play mobile devices (35%) Go to the movies (74%)
Play mobile devices (24%) Shopping (33%) Watch TV (73%)
Outdoor sports (19%) Watch TV (32%) Outdoor sports (62%)
Reading (17%) Visit friends and family (32%) Visit friends and family (60%)
(X2 (1, N = 165) = 10.49, p = 0.02), with more girls finding “It’s great” to shop than
boys.
Leisure is a big part in the lifeworlds of the 9 and 10-year-olds in the study. Based
on our observations and calculations using the students’ timetables, on an average
weekday, about 35% of a child’s time is spent on sleeping (8–10 h), 25% spent
in school (6 h), and 8–10% on meals outside of school and travelling (2 h). The
remaining six to seven hours are spent on homework, academic enrichment, non-
academic enrichment and leisure. Assuming a student spends about half the time on
academic and non-academic enrichment, there would be at least two to three hours
every day for leisure. At weekends, children would have an additional six hours
during the day that they can spend on other activities. The survey results showed
that the main difference between leisure activities on weekdays and weekends was
the number of students who spent more than three hours on shopping and visiting
friends and families. As mentioned above, for playing outdoors, 25% of the students
did not play outdoors on weekdays but only 10% did not at weekends. Therefore,
a considerable amount of time was allocated to activities that were outside of the
home, although not necessarily an outdoor sports activity.
Table 7.5 Students’ mentions of family members and friends in relation to leisure activities at
weekends
Most fun thing I did at the weekend What I look forward to at weekends
The most fun I had was to go to Vivo Citya I look forward to spend[ing] more time with
with my family my family members
My sister and I went to my cousin’s house to I’m looking forward to my aunt’s birthday
play Nintendo games celebration
Going to Vivo City I look forward to relaxing and visiting my
… going to my friend’s house this weekend relatives
Playing badminton with my family Going to my grandparents’ house
At my friend’s birthday party. That was the Actually, I am looking forward to swimming
most fun with by brother
Spending time with my family Spending time with family and going to new
Eating pizza with my sis places
Spending time with my friend because I rarely Play some sports. Spend some family time with
play with them because I am always at home my siblings
doing homework Playing soccer and mobile games with my
Spending time with my family and friends friends
Hugh swimming pool with my family Play with my brother soccer
Playing badminton with my dad and spending
time with my parents
Spending time with my family because my dad
always go[es] fishing 7.30–7.00 and I want him
to get good rest
To go to my grandfather’s house and meet my 2
cousins
Playing cards with my friends
Playing Roblox and go to my cousin house
Play Wii, PS Vita, Nintendo switch
Going to my grandmother house
Note a One of the major shopping malls in Singapore
7.5 Time Spent on Leisure Activities Outside of School 151
Fig. 7.11 Students’ drawings of leisure activities. a “I went to West Coast Park”. b A boy played
soccer with his friend. c Another boy playing badminton
Engagement in activities that required the students to travel was less feasible
on weekdays due to time constraints, and hot and humid weather in Singapore.
In Singapore, about 65% of families with at least one child below 21 years old
have both parents working (Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF),
2017); therefore, a large group of students would probably lack adult supervision
on weekdays to conduct activities outdoors. One-fifth of the families in Singapore
have domestic helpers and/or extended family members at home who could serve
as an alternative guardian to accompany the children, but the majority would not do
this (MSF, 2017). Those without adult supervision at home might be attending after-
school student care centres (an estimated 10% of children in Singapore are enrolled)
until the end of the day or be left at home without adult supervision (MSF, 2020).
Currently, there are no laws in Singapore stating a minimum age for leaving a child
home alone. As reported in an article in a local lifestyle magazine, some parents may
be comfortable to leave their 9 and 10-year-olds at home alone for a few hours after
school, but most would not allow their child to go outdoors (Molok, 2016). Hence,
outdoor activities must be conducted at weekends when most parents can be with
their children.
It was also interesting to note students’ eagerness to spend time with their parents
and other family members, as well as their friends. Singapore is a small island
city and the maximum travelling time by car between destinations is about 45 min.
Many government flat owners choose to purchase their homes near their parents or
children as they receive financial rebate under the Proximity Housing Grant scheme.
It is common practice to visit senior relatives at weekends in Singapore to strengthen
family ties. At 9 and 10 years old, the students are still seeking the company of their
parents before they reach adolescence when they might not be so keen to be in public
with their parents.
7.6 Re-enactment: The Out-of-School Life of a 10-Year-Old

Child in Singapore
In this section, we provide a more in depth look at the everyday out-of-school

lifeworld of one child in Singapore. As mentioned in Chap. 1, we adapted the
re-enactment methodology developed by Pink, where participants “re-enact” their
everyday routines in a way which sparks both memory and reflection (Pink, 2012;
Pink & Mackley, 2014). One student, Ashley (pseudonym), from School Equality was
granted parental permission to participate in a re-enactment, which was conducted
by Nanthini. Nanthini accompanied Ashley home and asked her about her activities
outside of school over a week, before focusing on “re-enacting” what she would
usually do on that day (Thursday) after school.
Ashley was 10 years old and lived with her parents and two sisters (one at the
same school) in condominium housing. Her family could be considered (upper)
middle class in terms of socioeconomic status; her father was a businessman, and her
7.7 Conclusions 153
mother was a full-time homemaker. This is unusual in Singapore where both parents
are usually in full-time work. Ashley spent a large amount of her time outside of
school in extra-curricular activities (including in school and ballet class), tuition (e.g.
Mathematics, Chinese) and homework. She also spent quite a bit of time on leisure
activities, particularly playing with one of her sisters, reading, watching television
and playing with gadgets (e.g. iPad).
On the day of the re-enactment, Ashley finished school at 1.30 pm and caught the
public bus home which took about 15–20 min. Her sister had an event on at school
that day, so they did not travel home together. When she reached home, Ashley’s
mum greeted her inside and Ashley put down her bag and had a quick shower. Her
sister returned from school, and they had lunch together at 2 pm, prepared by their
mother. Ashley usually liked to read a book at the same time as eating her lunch.
Following lunch, Ashley read an English language book for leisure in her bedroom,
which she usually did for 15–30 min before starting on homework. She worked
on both her school homework and tuition homework for about 1–2 h. Ashley then
practised her drums for about 30 min, which she had chosen to learn. After this, she
took a short nap and then played cards with her sister. She then read for leisure while
her mother cooked dinner, which Ashley occasionally helped with. The family ate
dinner together at about 6.30 pm, and then Ashley read again for about 30 min. From
8 to 9 pm, Ashley and her family watched their favourite television show and then
Ashley had screen time, where she watched videos or read online. Ashley brushed
her teeth and went to sleep at 9.30 pm.
While we have only given a brief account of Ashley’s out-of-school lifeworld
here, it gives a glimpse into the life of one Primary 4 child in Singapore. We explore
her re-enactment, together with that of a student from Australia and a student from
Hong Kong, in a chapter in the edited book from the Global Childhoods project (see
Bartholomaeus et al., forthcoming).
7.7 Conclusions
The results of this study elicited several pertinent aspects of the lifeworlds of 9
and 10-year-old children. Children in Singapore live a relatively routinised life, and
most of them are engaged in academic and/or non-academic enrichment activities
outside of school. They have homework almost every day, so it is part of their routine
to spend some time each day doing homework followed by revision for upcoming
examinations or on tuition assignments. While doing homework and assignments are
not reported as being highly enjoyable, the students were also not averse to doing
them, and most of them still found them at least “okay”. Non-academic enrichment
activities were enjoyed by nearly all students and were taken just as seriously as
academic enrichment activities, because most of them followed a structured grading
system and could lead to future opportunities to excel. Unlike popular belief that
children in Singapore only study and do not have time for playing, this study indicates
that leisure is a large part of children’s lifeworlds in Singapore. Most of their leisure
activities were conducted indoors, such as playing with mobile devices, watching TV
and reading. At weekends, they were able to go outside more, although the activities
outside of the home were still mainly indoors such as visiting relatives, going to the
library and going to the movies. The brief re-enactment with Ashley paints a picture
of one child’s life in Singapore, showing out-of-school activities—academic, leisure
and routines such as eating—on one example afternoon. Overall, students at this age
in Singapore are meaningfully engaged with a variety of activities, both academic
and non-academic.
References
Bartholomaeus, C., Chan, A. K. W., Yelland, N., Karthikeyan, N., & Soo, L. M. J. (forthcoming).
Everyday out-of-school lifeworlds look like this: Children’s activities in three global cities. In I.-F.
Lee, S. Saltmarsh, & N. Yelland (Eds.), Childhood, learning & everyday life in three Asia-Pacific
cities: Experiences from Melbourne, Hong Kong and Singapore. Springer.
Cheow, S. A. (2019, April 11). More teens in Singapore seeking help at IMH for school stress.
The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/more-teens-in-singapore-
seeking-help-for-school-stress-at-imh
Cheung, C.S.-S., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance chil-
dren’s achievement? The role of parent-oriented motivation. American Psychological Association,
104(3), 820–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027183
Choo, D. (2012). 1 in 2 who engage tuition teachers spend more than $500 per month:
Survey. Yahoo! News. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/1-in-2-who-engage-tuition-teachers-spend-
more-than--500-month--survey.html
Davie, S. (2015). 7 in 10 parents send their children for tuition: ST poll. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/7-in-10-parents-send-their-chi
ldren-for-tuition-st-poll
Dirani, M., Tang, L., & Gazzard, G. M. (2009). Outdoor activity and myopia in Singapore teenage
children. The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 93(8), 997–1000. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.
2008.150979
Infocomm Media Development Authority. (2016). Children’s daily time spent on media
activities. https://data.gov.sg/dataset/children-s-daily-time-spent-on-media-activities?resource_
id=606fea8c-462b-4a98-bfa1-f6f01073dc5a
Jones, S. A. (2015). Children reading series books: Ways into peer culture and reading development.
Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 22(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1358684X.2015.1049513
Jones, S. A. (2019). Home school relations in Singaporean primary schools: Teachers’, parents’ and
children’s views. Oxford Review of Education, 45(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.
2018.1481377
Lafser, C. (2020). Learning to play a musical instrument affects student behavioral health. Masters
Theses. 616, Liberty University. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/616
Landreth. (2012). Play therapy: the art of the relationship [electronic resource] (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Loke, K. Y. (2002). Consequences of childhood and adolescent obesity. Asia Pacific Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 11(S7), S702-704.
Majid, S. (2018). Leisure reading behavior of young children in Singapore. Reading Horizons: A
Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 57(2), 56–81. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_h
orizons/vol57/iss2/5/
Ministry of Health. (2020). Obesity trend and programmes. Ministry of Health Singapore. https://
www.moh.gov.sg/news-highlights/details/obesity-trend-and-programmes
References 155
MOE. (2018). Many paths, new possibilities—Ready for a new world together: Empowering
individuals, nurturing joy of learning. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.
gov.sg/news/press-releases/20180305-many-paths-new-possibilities-ready-for-a-new-world-tog
ether-empowering-individuals-nurturing-joy-of-learning
MOE. (2021). Why is MOE changing the PSLE scoring system? Ministry of Education Singapore.
https://www.moe.gov.sg/microsites/psle-fsbb/psle/changing-psle-scoring-system.html
Molok, N. (2016). At what age is it OK to leave your child at home alone? Women’s Weekly. https://
www.womensweekly.com.sg/family/at-what-age-leave-child-home-alone/
MSF. (2017). Family and work. Insight series paper no. 4/2017. Ministry of Social and Develop-
ment Singapore. https://www.msf.gov.sg/research-and-data/Research-and-Data-Series/Docume
nts/Family%20and%20Work%20Report.pdf
MSF. (2020). Family services: Statistics on student care centres. Ministry of Social and Develop-
ment Singapore. https://www.msf.gov.sg/research-and-data/Research-and-Statistics/Pages/Fam
ily-Services-Statistics-on-Student-Care-Centres.aspx
Mullan, K. (2020). A child’s day: A comprehensive analysis of change in children’s time use in the
UK. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781529201710
National University Hospital. (n.d.). Obesity. National University Hospital Singapore. https://www.
nuh.com.sg/Health-Information/Diseases-Conditions/Pages/Obesity-(Children).aspx
OECD. (2017). Schoolwork-related anxiety. In PISA 2015 results (volume III): Students’ well-being.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-8-en
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for students’ lives, PISA.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777
Pink, S. (2012). Situating everyday life: Practices and places. Sage.
Pink, S., & Mackley, K. L. (2014). Re-enactment methodologies for everyday life research: Art
therapy insights for video ethnography. Visual Studies, 29(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1472586X.2014.887266
Poh, J. (2020, March 24). Taking piano lessons in Singapore—Lesson rates, exam fees and more.
MoneySmart. https://blog.moneysmart.sg/entertainment/piano-lessons-singapore-price-fees/
Pomerantz, E. M., Ng, F.F.-Y., Cheung, C.S.-S., & Qu, Y. (2014). Raising happy children who
succeed in school: Lessons from China and the United States. Child Development Perspectives,
8(2), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12063
Quah, M. L., Sharpe, P., Lim, A. S. E., & Heng, M. A. (1995). Home and parental influences on
the achievement of lower primary school children in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Education,
15(2), 12–32.
Sharpe, P. (2002). Preparing for primary school in Singapore—Aspects of adjustment to the more
formal demands of the primary one mathematics syllabus. Early Child Development & Care,
172(4), 329–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430212719
Shin, W., & Li, B. (2017). Parental mediation of children’s digital technology use in Singapore.
Journal of Children and Media, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1203807
Sinnakaruppan, R. (2013, Nov 2). Tuition is popular due to education system issues. The
Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/tuition-is-popular-due-to-education-sys
tem-issues
Statistics Singapore. (2019). Yearbook of statistics Singapore, 2019. Department of Statistics,
Ministry of Trade & Industry, Republic of Singapore.
Sun, B., Loh, C. E., & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2020). Leisure reading in multilingual Singapore:
Reading enjoyment, habits and preferences of Singaporean children. Journal of Multilingual
Theories and Practices, 1(2), 313–339. https://doi.org/10.1558/jmtp.17610
Tan, C. (2017). Private supplementary tutoring and parentocracy in Singapore. Interchange, 48,
315–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-017-9303-4
Tong, C. K., & Pakir, A. (1996). The making of national culture in Singapore. In E. Thumboo (Ed.),
Cultures in ASEAN and the 21st century (pp. 174–188). UniPress for ASEAN-COCI.
Yelland, N., Muspratt, S., Chan, Y. O. C., & Gilbert, C. (2021). Asian childhoods: Exploring the
lifeworlds of students in contemporary Hong Kong. Global Studies of Childhood, 2(4), 286–301.
https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2012.2.4.286
Yeo, S. C., Tan, J., Lo, J. C., Chee, M. W. L., & Gooley, J. J. (2020). Associations of time spent on
homework or studying with nocturnal sleep behavior and depression symptoms in adolescents
from Singapore. Sleep Health, 6(6), 758–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleh.2020.04.011
Chapter 8
Lifeworlds of 9 and 10-Year-Old Children
Living and Learning in Singapore
Abstract The previous chapters of this book have provided detailed descriptions
and analyses of various aspects of the lifeworlds of 9 and 10-year-old children living
in Singapore. It is well established that many Singaporean students continue to
be academically successful in international high-stakes testing, and this study was
designed to consider the variety of other ways in which they experience educational
success and their lives more broadly, from both systems and personal perspective.
This has involved venturing beyond simplistic descriptions that link educational
success to performance in high-stakes tests, to provide a rich account of the various
dimensions of living and learning in the global city of Singapore. Elements of the
children’s lifeworlds have been discussed in terms of how they contribute to the chil-
dren’s engagement with learning and their wellbeing and sense of belonging in their
school, family and communities. In this final chapter, we synthesise the findings of
the research, link them to the current educational initiatives in Singapore and look
towards the future.
Keywords Global cities · Educational success · Learning in Singapore ·

Lifeworlds of children · Holistic education · Authentic learning
The Global Childhoods project was an extensive study of Primary 4 (9–10 years old)
children in three cities—Singapore, Hong Kong and Melbourne (for further details,
see Lee et al., forthcoming). This book has focused on Singapore and provided
comprehensive empirical data relating to dimensions of the lifeworlds of children,
both in school and outside of school. We analysed how various aspects of children’s
lifeworlds contributed to the development of Singaporean children who are often
considered academically successful. This included their orientations to educational
success and how they felt about their lifeworlds at 9 and 10 years of age. As stated
throughout this book, international high-stakes testing, such as TIMSS, PIRLS and
PISA, has shown that students in Singapore achieve high academic scores in these
tests, being consistently placed in the top five positions in ranking with other coun-
tries. Academic success in these tests does not imply that every child in Singapore
is scoring at a high level, but as these international assessments are conducted with
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3_8
158 8 Lifeworlds of 9 and 10-Year-Old Children Living and Learning …
a representative sample of students, Singapore students do demonstrate a higher

reading ability, and higher mathematical and scientific knowledge than many other
children of the same age globally. There is a huge range of complex and inter-
related factors that contribute to this academic success, including a rigorous educa-
tion system based on detailed and strategic policies. The Global Childhoods project
was an attempt to research beyond the already existing school and personal factors
to explore the broader contexts of children’s lifeworlds. It also aimed to capture
the students’ views about what engages them in learning, both in school and out of
school, and their aspirations for the future. Therefore, this project has attempted to
achieve a broader and more holistic understanding of how Singaporean students are
responding to the expectations placed on them to achieve educational success, as
well as exploring the diversity of the students’ lifeworlds.
8.1 Being a School Student in Singapore
Singapore developed a centralised education system after the 1960s. Prior to that,
schools were mainly run by various community groups who independently deter-
mined the curricula. Literacy levels were low following the disruption of education
during World War II when Singapore was occupied by the Japanese. In the post-war
period, and more particularly post-independence, Singapore was transformed from a
fishing village community to a thriving economic metropolis, and during the 1960s,
embarked on building schools. They also introduced the bilingual policy, which is
regarded as being the cornerstone to the nation’s language policy (Sim, 2016). Since
then, by generating evolving education policies, Singapore I&E has based its growth
strategically on the belief that the nation needs a well-educated and well-informed
population for economic growth and prosperity. The success of this system can be
evidenced from the high academic performance in international high-stakes testing.
Going beyond this, the Global Childhoods project explores other dimensions of the
educational experiences of Singaporean children.
With regard to educational policy initiatives, educational goals have always been
redefined to thrive in an ever-changing global environment. The four prominent
phases that the education system in Singapore has undergone are: “survival-driven”
(1959–1978), “efficiency-driven” (1979 mid–1990s), “ability-based, aspirations-
driven” (mid-1990s–2011) and “student-centric, values-driven” (2011–present)
(Dornan, 2008; Goh & Gopinathan, 2008; Ho & Koh, 2018; Wang, 2021).
The “ability-based, aspirations-driven” phase, from the mid-1990s–2011, started
with strategic initiatives focused on creating a strong and competent workforce for
the knowledge-based economy (Goh & Gopinathan, 2008; Ho & Koh, 2018). The
major shift in the educational paradigm for Singapore during this phase, starting
with the “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) vision in 1997, highlighted
the importance of a knowledge-based economy. “Thinking schools” was designed
to produce “thinking adults” that were much needed for the workforce as well as to
8.1 Being a School Student in Singapore 159
create a “learning nation” perspective, that would ensure constant upgrading of skills
and knowledge to empower economic prosperity and efficiency (MOE, 2021a).
To complement the policies in these phases, the government introduced additional
initiatives such as National Education (introduced in 1996); Information and Commu-
nications Technology (ICT) Masterplan (since 1997); and Innovation & Enterprise
(I&E) (2004) (Soo & Chua, 2014). In line with the TSLN policy, the I&E initiative
was launched to ensure that Singapore was at the cutting edge of economic develop-
ment amidst robust economic global competition. Later, in 2006, the “Teach Less,
Learn More” (TLLM) strategy was formulated. With TLLM, syllabus was reduced,
and time freed up for teachers to re-evaluate their pedagogical practices and consider
the learning needs of students with more effective teaching.
The most recent phase is the “student-centric, values-driven” phase (2011–
present), with an emphasis on basing Singapore education on values. Then Minister
of Education, Mr Heng Swee Keat, introduced the new Character and Citizenship
Education (CCE) initiative to “put values and character development at the core of
our education system” at the MOE Work Plan Seminar in 2011 (MOE, 2011). The
CCE framework comprises National Education, Co-curricular Activities (CCAs)
and Civic and Moral Education. He also created the famous phase “Every School, a
Good School” and stopped the ranking of secondary schools by academic achieve-
ment (MOE, 2015a). He reiterated the importance of having engaged students, caring
educators and supportive parents to make the Singapore education system a success
(MOE, 2015a). The MOE also rolled out the Framework for 21st Century Compe-
tencies and Student Outcomes in 2010 (MOE, 2014). This framework aims to define
the set of values and skills that should be instilled in the education system to better
equip students for the future.
The Global Childhoods project aimed to capture and describe the lifeworlds of
students inside and outside schools. As described in Chap. 1, ethics approval was
obtained from the Nanyang Technological University—Institutional Review Board
and the MOE, and permission was granted by the teachers, parents and students who
participated. Approval for the broader Global Childhoods project was received from
Flinders University and the University of Melbourne in Australia. We wanted to see
how the policies were enacted and experienced both from a school perspective and
from the personal perspectives of the students. A range of research methods were used
with children who attended two schools, for which we have used the pseudonyms
School Equality and School Harmony. In summary, the research methods were:
1. Online survey: The students were asked to complete an online survey that
comprised items relating to perceptions of their schoolwork and grades, relation-
ships between students and between teachers and students, enjoyment of school
and time spent on activities outside of school and their enjoyment of them. One
hundred sixty-five students participated in the survey, 111 from School Harmony
and 54 from School Equality.
2. Classroom ethnographies: Researchers spent two weeks in the classrooms at both
schools to observe and make fieldnotes of children’s activities and teaching and
learning scenarios.
3. Learning dialogues: Students were asked to write and/or draw their thoughts
on questions relating to their learning at school, feelings about school, career
aspirations and out-of-school activities. These took place on a Monday and a
Thursday/Friday of the same week; 56 students participated, 29 from School
Equality and 27 from School Harmony.
4. Re-enactment: A student from School Equality shared her lifeworld outside of
school in a re-enactment of her routines and activities after one school day.
This book has provided the context of educational provision in Singapore and
considered the lifeworlds of the children both in school and out of school, with each
chapter focused on the following: timetables and routines in primary schools; peda-
gogical encounters; students’ engagement in school and orientations to educational
success; students’ sense of belonging and wellbeing at school; and students’ out-of-
school activities. In the following sections, we synthesise the main points for each
chapter and consider what might be the next phase of development in the education
of young Singaporeans.
8.2 Timetables and Routines
A detailed analysis of the timetables and routines of the two schools showed that
the school curriculum is designed in a way that attempts to engage the students in
essential and meaningful learning and knowledge building (see Chap. 3).
Primary schools in Singapore have formal testing regimes and students are
required to participate in four examinable subjects: English, Mother Tongue, Mathe-
matics and Science. There are also other non-examinable subjects, such as Physical
Education, Character and Citizenship Education, Social Studies, Music and Art. The
MOE has removed some school examinations, starting with Primary 1 and 2 students,
and mid-year examinations are being incrementally removed so they will no longer
be undertaken in primary and secondary schools by 2023 (Teng, 2018). In the 2021
scoring system for the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), students were
given a grade that was reflective of Achievement Levels (AL) for their performance
in the four examinable subjects, rather than the previous T-scores used. A high AL
means that the students will have a wider choice of the secondary school they can
attend. The PSLE is still therefore an important milestone of achievement. Hence,
the school timetables allocate more time for these examinable subjects (about 65%
of timetables) than for those that are not examined. The array of non-examination
subjects taught in schools also aims to provide the students with a holistic education
that builds knowledge and develops skills and character traits. Being a good citizen
is regarded as a valuable character trait so that everyone is willing to contribute to the
overall success of the nation. Students are also encouraged to join a Co-curricular
Activity (CCA) that is usually organised outside of school hours. The CCAs offered
in any school range from aesthetic clubs, like choirs and dance classes, to traditional
organised groups like scouts and guides.
8.3 Pedagogical Encounters 161
Timetables and school/class routines are regarded as important to ensure that

students are meaningfully engaged during their time in school. Singapore has a
centralised education system for public schools, and this meant that both schools in
the study had similar timetables. However, schools have the autonomy to make some
changes to the times allocated to each subject. For example, School Harmony allo-
cated more time for English than did School Equality because the English standard is
regarded as being relatively weaker, and they wanted to improve their performance
level. School Equality had 90 min more time allocated to Higher Mother Tongue
because it was a more difficult syllabus, although MOE syllabus suggests 60 min
more (MOE, 2015b).
From the fieldnotes, it was apparent that all the students knew exactly what they
would be learning, and how to behave in class. They all knew the “standard oper-
ating procedure” and what was expected of them so that disruptions to teaching and
learning were kept at a minimum. There were protocols in place, from asking for
permission to leave the classroom, to transferring to another room, and there was an
underlying expectation of the responsible behaviour for tasks. Most students indi-
cated that they liked to have some form of regulation to ensure the smooth operation
of their classes, but some students were not as willing to conform to schedules and
rules and sometimes exhibited more disruptive behaviours.
8.3 Pedagogical Encounters
The school teaching teams were required to ensure they “covered” content in accor-
dance with the scheme of work designed by the school. The scheme of work is based
on the national curriculum set by the MOE at the time. This is important in terms of
consistency across the nation as the students will eventually all be taking the PSLE
examinations in Primary 6 and the teachers are tasked to prepare the students with
the content needed for the examinations.
Traditional didactic methods of repetition and rote learning were part of the peda-
gogical repertoire regarded as being necessary to impart foundational skills and
knowledge leading to the creation of academically strong students, especially in
preparation for tests and examinations. However, thinking and analytical skills are
increasingly regarded as being more important for the future workforce as described
by the 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes prescribed by MOE (2014).
Thus, our ethnographic observations revealed that the students were exposed to an
array of pedagogical approaches in response to the changing times and expectations
of the education system in Singapore, even while direct instruction prevailed as the
most frequently used pedagogy.
The teachers in the two schools tried to plan interesting and content-rich lessons.
Direct instruction was mainly conducted in relation to routine activities such as
grammatical rules, mathematical formulas and science theories. The teachers usually
started with some modelling to help the students understand the basic content, before
presenting more challenging tasks where they needed to apply the concept. In these
scenarios step-by-step instructions and sufficient scaffolding were provided to help

the students in their learning. Due to the emphasis on high-stakes examinations
within Singapore, such as the PSLE, students are exposed to examination formats
and procedures at a young age. They knew, for example, that they needed to be
focused and “serious” when they were being tested, whether it was a spelling test,
or an extended written assessment.
Our fieldnotes also indicated examples of collaborative and cooperative learning.
Students were sometimes paired, or grouped, to complete a task in a variety of
subjects. For example, students took part in a group activity to solve a problem in
an Art lesson at School Harmony (as detailed in Chap. 4). Also, at School Harmony,
students played a fractions game in Mathematics in pairs (see Chap. 6). At School
Equality, the students designed a “police and thief” game in groups of fours or fives
in Mathematics (see Chap. 3). This task was in fact set up by a parent who happened
to be a Mathematics professor in a local university, providing a good example of
parent collaboration.
Teaching and learning happen beyond the classroom. For example, in School
Harmony, the teacher taught English using the topic “ice cream”. The teacher organ-
ised an ice cream making session at the school canteen. Students did not actually make
the ice cream but could add toppings of their own choice. Students were organised
in groups. After the session, students cleaned up before returning to class.
Since the implementation of the IT Masterplan in the late 1990s, Singapore
teachers have been all equipped with basic ICT skills to conduct lessons using a
computer and various software. Singapore schools have the Student Learning Space
which teachers can use to conduct their lessons and store their educational mate-
rials. Project work was also completed in the computer labs. Teachers also used
popular apps such as Kahoot! to engage the students in inquiries and problem-solving
experiences.
8.4 Engagement and Orientations to Educational Success
The high performance of Singapore children in international high-stakes testing may

have created doubt about the quality and range of activities present in their lives.
Popular discourse often presents them as being “all work and no play” dull types of
kids or kids that dislike schooling but are compelled to perform well. While there are
reports of increasing stress levels and anxiety about examinations, when the students
were asked “how do you feel about how you are doing in school?” in the learning
dialogues, most students responded positively to this question. Out of 55 responses,
10 responded with words to indicate that they felt “good”; 11 used the term “happy”;
six said they felt that they were doing “great” or “well” at school; and a couple
said it was fun to go to school. Sixteen of the 55 students used the terminology
that they performed “okay” or “fine” (which we have translated as being acceptable
to them). However, most of the children indicated that they found what they were
being taught was not hard to learn, showing a sense of ease and relaxation towards
8.5 Wellbeing and Sense of Belonging 163
their school performance. A few students who indicated they were stressed said that
they managed to mitigate the stress with play or support from their peers. Students
also looked forward to their Physical Education lessons and were eager to take their
physical fitness test (NAPFA), and participate in their CCAs. Chapter 5 provides
detailed description and analysis of this phenomenon.
For this cohort of children, learning was often viewed as interesting and not a
chore. Students could also clearly describe what they were taught in school that week
and most of them deemed it as a “good thing”. When asked to write about a good thing
that happened to them in school that week, some indicated that they were happy with
some form of achievement (good marks for test, position in competition), doing a
play, completing their Mathematics project, learning fractions, reading books, doing
their STEM projects, and participating in thinking lessons. They also mentioned
other fun activities, such as “making” ice cream (personalising the topping for their
ice cream) for English class, NAPFA, making friends, helping friends and games
played in school.
When the students were asked what they wanted to do when they left school, many
gave what might be regarded as the standard response of becoming a professional
such as a doctor, engineer, or lawyer. A common theme that surfaced in their learning
dialogues was their desire to help others, and this resonated with the notion of being a
good citizen. Some mentioned they wished to follow in the footsteps of their parents,
who they regarded as the key inspiration for their career aspirations. Emerging trends
of career paths for the students included being a YouTuber and a gamer. It was
apparent that the majority of the children were able to clearly articulate what they
wanted to do, or be, when they finished their schooling.
8.5 Wellbeing and Sense of Belonging
Students’ sense of belonging to their schools and classrooms can be understood as

“the extent to which they feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported
by others—especially teachers and other adults in the school social environment”
(Goodenow & Grady, 1993, pp. 60–61). As students spend a significant amount
of time in school and in school-based activities, schools have the responsibility
to create spaces of belonging and hence, make a positive impact on the students’
academics, physical and mental health and wellbeing (Allen & Kern, 2017). In the
Singapore education system, there is the Holistic Health Framework and the CCE’s
Social and Emotional Learning. These wellbeing programmes aim to develop the
students holistically, ensuring they get to know themselves and helping them build
relationships with others. TIMSS and PIRLS studies have reported that students in
Singapore did not have a strong sense of school belonging (Mullis et al., 2017, 2020),
despite their excellent performance in the academic aspects of these international
high-stakes tests. Ng (2020) suggested that taking care of students’ wellbeing in
Singapore involves not just relieving them of stress, particularly examination stress,
but “creating appropriate learning challenges and providing the necessary support
for them to overcome difficulties” (p. 448), in order to prepare them for the “real
world”.
The CCE curriculum is designed to develop the segments of the framework of the
21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes (21CC framework, described in
Chap. 2). In the 2014 syllabus, the goal of the CCE curriculum was to develop the core
values of respect, responsibility, integrity, care, resilience and harmony, in order to
increase social and emotional competencies and skills, focusing on making students
active citizens with an affiliation to Singapore (MOE, 2012). In the reviewed syllabus
for implementation in 2022 (MOE, 2021b), there is greater emphasis on teaching
moral values in primary schools, developing teachers in teaching CCE and converting
lessons to online sessions. A CCE 2021 curriculum framework was also designed to
present the curriculum in a diagrammatic form. The CCE 2021 framework has the
same core values outcomes as the 21CC framework, but included the various aspects
of CCE curriculum content, such as National Education, Sexuality Education, Mental
Health, Education and Career Guidance, Cyber Wellness, and Family Education
(MOE, 2021b). This has made CCE more current, comprehensive and experiential
(MOE, 2020). As documented throughout this book, studying in Singapore can be
stressful because of the demands to do well (Mathews et al., 2017; OECD, 2019).
The latest curriculum acknowledges this need and ensures that mental health will
be taught explicitly. Parents indicated in a 2017 survey (Mathews et al., 2017) that
they wished that schools placed greater emphasis on character building and less on
schoolwork, and this is reflected in the new CCE curriculum that aimed to deepen
the learning of moral values (MOE, 2022).
Our survey indicated that 66.3% of the students reported that their classmates
“always or mostly” showed that they liked them, while another 27.9% “sometimes”
liked them and 5.5% felt that their peers “never” liked them. When these results
are compared with the examples provided in the learning dialogues completed by
the students, it shows that many children felt that they were liked by their class-
mates. This could be seen, for example, in the sharing of their food, helping with
their schoolwork, playing together and spending time together. In terms of their
perceptions of how much their teachers liked them, fewer students (55.8%) felt that
their teachers “always” or “mostly” showed that they liked them. Students in School
Harmony perceived that their teachers showed that they liked them more than students
in School Equality. There were positive correlations between being liked by friends
and teachers and their enjoyment of school. Likewise, those who perceived they
did well in school also enjoyed school significantly more. Students in both schools
were similarly rated in the way they described their grades, but students in School
Equality were happier with their grades than School Harmony. This is an interesting
finding as School Equality is a Special Assistance Plan (SAP) school so it could be
assumed that the students would be more competitive, eager to do better and hence
less satisfied with their grades, but the results indicated otherwise.
These results connect with the learning dialogues responses in which half of the
students indicated that they enjoyed and found school great and fun, and many wrote
or drew that schoolwork was not difficult for them. From the survey results, about
60% of the students indicated that they “always” or “mostly” received good grades
8.6 Outside of School 165
in school, and almost the same number of them felt “always” or “mostly” happy with
their grades. There was a significant but weak correlation between obtaining good
grades (as reported by the students) and enjoying going to school. Satisfaction with
their grades was not significantly correlated to their enjoyment of going to school.
This perhaps indicates that enjoying going to school is not exclusive to students who
are doing well academically.
Students are constantly seeking approval from teachers, as shown in the class-
room ethnographies. Students seemed to be eager to receive positive reinforcement,
such as being awarded points, being told they had obtained the correct answers,
and being praised for appropriate behaviour. On the other hand, to avoid being
chided by the teacher for disrupting the lesson, the students would maintain their
best behaviour. Interestingly, during the Mathematics lessons in one of the schools,
the teacher was very strict, and students were required to conform to the routines
consistently. However, it was apparent that the students did not fear answering ques-
tions in this class and were also eager to volunteer their service when the teacher
asked for a job to be done. Hence, seeking approval is regarded as being important
to the children and demonstrates that the Singapore students are eager to learn and
do well.
8.6 Outside of School
Outside of school, students filled their time not only with homework and extra
academic lessons, but also with play and leisure activities. The activities that many
students spent time (at least an hour) engaged in on weekdays were: playing indoors
(60%); reading (59%); doing homework (57%); watching TV (55%); and playing
with a mobile device (50%). On weekends, the amount of time spent on leisure activ-
ities increased. Although the common perception of Singapore students is that they
spend a lot of time on academic learning, our data showed much more complexity,
with high amounts of leisure time being recorded in the survey of the Primary 4
students alongside learning activities. As suggested by Bach and Christensen (2017)
and Tan, C. (2020), Tan, J. (2020) while the school curriculum aims to develop
the students holistically and to be less test driven, with the introduction of TSLN
and TLLM, parents are depending on tuition to give their children a competitive
edge over their peers. The study concurred with previous findings that tuition or
enrichment activities were quite common among Singapore students. However, not
all students participated in these and those who did were generally not engaged in
them for a large amount of time. We asked students about tutoring in Mathematics,
Language and English. About a third of students did not have any tuition, a quarter
had tuition in one subject, more than 10% had tuition in two subjects, and less than
a third had tuition in all three subjects. 5% of the students spent more than 3 h on
tuition, 20% spent 1–2 h, and 10% spent less than 1 h. In this study, it was noted
that parents also signed their children up for non-academic enrichment activities,
such as music and dance, after school and at weekends. Many believe that these
activities can contribute to their child’s holistic development and thus were valuable.
In short, parents did ensure that their children’s out-of-school time was filled with
what they considered to be meaningful tasks and connected to what they may view
as “successful” students.
It is also interesting to note that students spent most of their leisure time indoors.
Approximately 50% of the students spent “little” or no time engaged in outdoor
sports or activities, on weekdays outside of school or at weekends. Singapore is a
tropical city with relatively high humidity and hot weather. Playing outdoors may not
be regarded as a good option for after-school activities in the afternoon. In addition, a
large proportion of parents are both working. They often leave their child at home with
a caregiver, usually the grandparents or domestic helper. These caregivers may be
reluctant to bring the young ones outdoors. Hence, most of the children stayed indoors
on weekdays. On weekends, students did go outside more, but the activities were still
predominantly indoor activities, such as visiting the library, visiting relatives’ homes,
going to the movies and shopping. The favourite leisure activity of the students was
to play with mobile devices, reflecting the influence of technologies on the lifeworlds
of the younger generation. “Being read to” was the least favoured activity. As these
children are 9 and 10 years old, they were probably already competent reading by
themselves.
8.7 Where to Next?
The Singapore education system has produced academically successful students,

who, in international high-stakes tests perform at a consistently high standard
academically over the years than many children around the world of the same age.
With their excellent performance in these international assessments, it is easy to
characterise Singapore children as hardworking, disciplined children who spend the
majority of their time being drilled in their school studies and having no fun. This
study has provided empirical data that indicates that many Singapore children are
motivated to work hard. However, it is also evident that most of the students enjoy
learning and are actively seeking to do well. They live in a culture and environment
that promotes excellence and encourages them to strive to do their best, both in school
and outside of school. They are supported in their learning and provided with the
resources to live a rich and varied life. Singapore educational policies have progres-
sively been refined to support more creative pedagogical approaches, and syllabuses
have gradually moved away from a single focus on rote learning. There have been
moves to encourage thinking skills and creative problem solving since these are
recognised as being vital to workers in the twenty-first century. Other compulsory,
but non-examination, subjects and activities in school and outside of school aim to
help children to develop holistically and to become contributing citizens. The educa-
tion system is designed to be responsive to change and to be in a continuing state of
evolution, thus concurring with the OECD Learning Framework 2030 which empha-
sises the need to empower students to be future-ready, and advocates that “in an era
8.8 Assessment 167
characterised by a new explosion of scientific knowledge and a growing array of

complex societal problems, it is appropriate that curricula should continue to evolve,
perhaps in radical ways” (OECD, 2018, p. 3).
8.8 Assessment
In 2021, the PSLE examination changed from providing students with their T-score,
which was a numeric score of achievement, to a grading system. The aim was to
remove the simple differentiation of the students by the score, as well as not scaling
the students according to their performance in the test. They were to be graded based
on their own level of achievement. The previous grading using the T-score existed for
almost 50 years, having originated in the 1970s, so the change to the new system has
been quite dramatic. However, changing the grading system has not meant the end
of examinations. The PSLE remains a one-off high-stakes summative examination
period that determines the choices available for high school. It is noted that these
examinations are regarded as being equitable since everyone completes them under
the same conditions. However, some students are better at examination conditions
than others, while others thrive in more inquiry-based assessments, indicating the
need for more authentic assessment for learning (Reyes & Tan, 2018), and alternative
assessments (Tan, 2011). Leong and Tan (2014) suggested that while there are moves
towards more “holistic education”, Singapore has a long history of importance placed
on examinations and thus of teachers supporting students to achieve high results in
these. During the COVID-19 pandemic period, some students missed the examination
due to being infected and quarantined. Alternative assessments over the course of
their studies may be a good way to measure students’ performance rather than one-off
high-stakes examinations.
Test results perpetuate the notion of a standard or universal performance. However,
performance in test conditions will be diverse. One possible alternative would be for
the examination system to be supplemented with the use of project-based inquiry
work or specifically designed coursework. Having inquiry-based work as part of the
assessment protocols would avoid limiting conceptualisations of educational success
to examination results, and recognise that other skills are important in making a
contribution to learning outcomes for students. In the Singapore Cambridge General
Certificate of Education examinations for Secondary 4 (or Year 10, 16-year-olds)
students, some subjects, such as Art, Design and Technology and Nutrition and Food
Science, do have a coursework component. The coursework is carried out over a few
months of the school year, and students complete a report which comprises 40–50%
of their total grade. This releases some of the emphasis on examination results as
well as reduces the pressure students often experience in preparing for examinations
at the end of the school year. Inquiry-based subjects, such as Science, could also
be a well-chosen first step in this process by introducing coursework assessment to
complement examinations.
The use of collaborative assessments could also be another consideration. The

Framework for 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes promotes commu-
nication, collaborative and information skills (MOE, 2014). The PSLE does not
have assessment that involves collaborative work. It is solely based on independent
learning. Although collaborative work is difficult to evaluate, it has been achieved
in other jurisdictions (Van Aalst, 2013). Completion of collaborative projects can
be a viable option. This could include grading the process instead of the products,
peer evaluation and/or grading on the section that students complete individually that
contributes to the group work. This change would need to be introduced carefully
as traditionally examinations have been the primary form of assessment in Singa-
pore. Qualitative assessment, perhaps including a level of attainment against specific
criteria, would need to be carefully planned and introduced. Incorporating collab-
orative skills into the national assessment components would enable the students
to spend time on a sustained project and engage in deep learning. Students would
spend less time studying the content of the current four examination subjects, so that
their routines and schedules require a different set of organisational skills that would
ultimately benefit them in terms of the desired twenty-first-century skills.
Globally, there is a move to supporting the concept of authentic learning. In
authentic learning, foundational skills are taught and related to real-world contexts
or scenarios that have meaning for students and communities. A common criticism
of schooling is that it often does not relate to everyday lives. Authentic learning
addresses this issue as it has the advantage of engaging the students in deep learning
due to their interest in topics relevant to their everyday lives. For example, this might
include issues relating to sustainability and climate change. These topics are very
relevant to the physical and social sciences and inquiries can mean that students
use their foundational skills in literacy and numeracy to support such investigations.
Authentic learning would require teachers to be able to set assignments that are rela-
tively higher order as real-world problems are more complex and multidimensional.
Modification to pedagogical and assessment approaches would be required to change
accordingly. An extensive study on 30 elementary schools and 29 high schools in
Singapore concluded that authentic assessment task design improved student learning
and performance (Koh & Luke, 2009). Students were able to achieve the higher
standards required by the tasks given.
The recognition of authentic learning has already been introduced in schools
in Singapore through the Applied Learning Programme (ALP) since 2018. Applied
subjects provide real-world learning situations for students to be creative and innova-
tive in solving authentic problems using their existing knowledge. The MOE requires
that all schools be engaged in ALP by 2023, so this is already recognised as an impor-
tant innovation and focus for Singaporean schooling. Apart from the ALP initiative,
authentic learning can also be incorporated into existing curricula by shifting away
from practising skills devoid of context. Policy is often focused on future citizenship.
But in fact, children are also current citizens and are interested in contemporary issues
such as the impact of climate change, as demonstrated by 80% of children knowing
about climate change issues in an OECD study (OECD, 2018). The collaborative Art
activity discussed in Chap. 4 also highlights children’s engagement in “real-world”
8.9 Values-Based Education 169
issues. By locating these topics for inquiry in schools, education systems can facili-
tate the contribution of students now, not just when they graduate from school. They
are concerned citizens and can be advocates of issues in schools and collaborate with
their peers to embark on inquiries that are significant for the benefit of the overall
society.
8.9 Values-Based Education
In any discussion of deep learning (Fullan & Scott, 2014), it is important to note the
six Cs that a person is thought to require to function effectively in contemporary times.
These comprise: Character, Citizenship, Collaboration, Communication, Creativity
and Critical Thinking. Under “Character”, the core outcomes of learning are grit,
tenacity, perseverance, resilience, reliability and honesty (Fullen & Scott, 2014).
These learning outcomes are also aligned to the characteristics of the core values
of the MOE’s 21st Century Competencies and student outcomes, which include
respect, responsibility, resilience, integrity, care and harmony. These values define
a good citizen who will ensure social stability and economic growth. Values are
regarded in many ways as being more important than knowledge, as they direct the
effective application of knowledge. A basic premise of the new approach to values
education in Singapore is that students’ lives are grounded in sound core values.
One example of this is for children to be able to apply cyber ethics when working
on digital platforms and be safer in these situations. This is important considering
that the rise of digital technologies, and the prevalence of social media has led to the
emergence of new forms of criminal activity (e.g. Co, 2021).
Future economies also need “Ethical Entrepreneurialism” (Fullen & Scott, 2014).
This is similar to social entrepreneurialism where business is “not just about making
money but also being able to identify and resolve complex personal and societal chal-
lenges locally and globally” (Fullen & Scott, 2014, p. 3). We need to be confident that
our schooling system is not creating a generation that requires instant gratification.
Students need opportunities to become skilled in evaluating their sources of informa-
tion so that they can make effective and informed decisions. They must also consider
the wellbeing of the broader society and ensure the sustainability of resources, in
caring for the environment.
As Fullan and Scott (2014) further write, accompanying such actions, it is essential
that students are able to formulate what they call an “ethics of life” (p. 3). This
would involve consideration of how they treat others, and more broadly how they act
globally to build a sustainable future for the planet. They write “[w]hen we change our
education system, and when hordes of people are acting individually and collectively
in ethically entrepreneurial ways the world changes and keeps on changing with built-
in adaptation and resilience” (Fullan & Scott, p. 3). The report that the United Nations
initiated in the Education for Sustainable Development for 2030, empowers learners
with the “knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to address the interconnected global
challenges we are facing, including climate change, environmental degradation, loss
of biodiversity, poverty and inequality” (United Nations, 2021). They advocate the
importance of everyone being proactive in seeking and solving current environmental
issues. Today’s students will face the brunt of global warming. Education systems
need to support them to develop ethical values to strive to live in a sustainable way
to ensure economic growth, social wellbeing and environmental conservation.
8.10 Connecting School and Out-of-School Lifeworlds
Our study has shown that students’ lives inside and outside school are complex
and multifaceted. In a 24-h period, students spend about 7–8 h in school (including
travelling), and another 8 h outside of school engaged in leisure activities, meals,
completion of schoolwork and academic enrichment classes (for some students).
As mentioned above, two-thirds of students had some form of tuition each week,
students usually have homework, and some may have enrichment classes, accounting
for approximately 2–3 h of organised learning after school each day. As discussed in
Chap. 7, children’s out-of-school time is usually routine based and purposefully
organised by parents. Aligning school and out-of-school lifeworlds will support
children to achieve improved outcomes and contribute to their wellbeing. Activi-
ties in school and outside of school should complement and value-add to the school
curriculum where possible. This did not always occur. In one example, a student in
School Equality introduced his teacher and class to a new method to solve a Math-
ematics question on determining the internal angle of a polygon that he had learned
in a private tuition lesson. However, the teacher did not engage with the alternative
method, using the reasoning that some students might find the method too complex
and would not understand the process.
Analyses of the schools’ timetables and routines indicated that the students were
provided with a holistic curriculum that incorporated specific content knowledge
learning and skill building, as well as providing opportunities for physical activities
and character building. This might be regarded as sufficient for most students in a
general way. In their policy initiative the MOE has advocated TLLM and recom-
mended that the students should be given more exposure to current affairs, new ideas
and innovation, in order to become applied thinkers and be proactive, not just passive
doers with only content knowledge. These can all be considered as important initia-
tives to move the schooling system away from the dominance of examinations as the
primary indicator of educational success.
We cannot end this book without reference to the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the schooling experience since it has changed how schooling has
been experienced across the world. During the height of the pandemic, pedagog-
ical approaches were radically adapted to accommodate the changes required by
lockdowns and quarantining. We saw classes converting from face-to-face to online
sessions with short notice. Even when students were allowed to return to school
sites, strict social distancing mandates were introduced. Laws and regulations were
in constant flux depending on the severity of the situation at the time. Collaborative
8.11 Possibilities 171
learning strategies in classrooms which had been introduced and strongly encour-
aged were now not possible in the pandemic context. In Singapore, students and
teachers were not allowed to work in groups, but some days they could collaborate
in pairs online, or work in a maximum of five per group in the e-learning contexts.
If attending onsite, students were not allowed to remove their masks at any time
and physical exercise classes had to be conducted with sufficient distance between
students. The ability to adapt to changing circumstances became vital.
The MOE put Singapore in a good position to accommodate such changes and
adapt to the fluid circumstances. In many instances, it might have appeared to be
a return to the traditional style of didactic teaching, albeit with new technologies
that supported interactive engagement and conversations. In the previous emergency
during the global outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
in 2003, teachers prepared printed assignments and sent them to their students
by mail (Goh, 2020). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, students were
taught through the various online meeting platforms available, and teachers kept
in frequent touch with their students via video calls. Technological advancements
made it possible for all Singapore students to obtain or borrow a personal device to
enable them to participate in online learning (Ang, 2020), although some of them
had less efficient devices which limited their capacity for full participation (Lee &
Yeo, 2020). When in class the use of masks often limited face-to-face contact and
inhibited more effective communication.
Moving forward, it is expected that teaching will not always be face-to-face, but
rather will incorporate a variety of methods. In Singapore, this was already occurring
with Home-Based Learning (HBL), as we discussed in Chap. 3. This pandemic has
also shown that the presence of a teacher to scaffold and support learners is critical.
Many students and teachers reported being physically exhausted with the extended
online classes and suggested that online communications were much more exhausting
than face-to-face (Goh & Yip, 2021; Tan, 2020, 2021). Hence, contemporary teaching
and learning needs to consider new aspects of schooling that did not exist before the
pandemic.
8.11 Possibilities
Finally, as demonstrated by this study, it is apparent that education systems need to

be more engaged with children’s lifeworlds. The empirical data collected uncover the
multifaceted considerations that define the lifeworlds of the children in the study and
how these contribute to their academic success. It is vital to look beyond binaries
and stereotypical explanations of educational success. The study highlighted that
students in Singapore have varied and full lifeworlds that shape their identities and
make them who they are. A continued move towards holistic schooling and away
from high-stakes examinations could further enrich children’s lives. Future research
needs to build on the lifeworlds perspective to ensure that education policies are
relevant and meaningful to the lives of all children.
References
Allen, K.-A., & Kern, M. L. (2017). School belonging in adolescents. Theory, research and practice.
Springer.
Ang, J. (2020, June 11). MOE lends 3300 devices to students who need them for home-based
learning amid COVID-19 pandemic. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitsti
mes.com/politics/3300-devices-loaned-by-moe-to-students-who-need-them-for-home-based-
learning-amid-covid-19
Bach, D., & Christensen, S. (2017). Battling the tiger mother: Pre-school reform and conflicting
norms of parenthood in Singapore. Children & Society, 31, 134–143.
Co, C. (2021, July 8). Cybercrime made up 43% of overall crime in 2020; more online threats
linked to COVID-19. Channel NewsAsia. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin
gapore/cybercrime-hacking-phishing-online-crimes-covid-19-1984866
Dornan, J. (2008). Learning from Singapore: the findings of a delegation of North Carolinians that
examined education and the economy. Raleigh, NC: The Center for International Understanding.
Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2014). New pedagogies for deep learning whitepaper. Education
PLUS. The world will be led by people you can count on, including you! Collaborative
Impact SPC, Seattle. https://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Education-Plus-A-
Whitepaper-July-2014-1.pdf
Goh, H. Y. (2020). From worksheet delivery to lesson delivery. Schoolbag. The Education News
Site. https://www.schoolbag.edu.sg/story/from-worksheet-delivery-to-lesson-delivery
Fredriksen & J. P. Tan (Eds.), An African exploration of the East Asian education (pp. 80–108).
The World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/15599
Goh, G. T. & Yip, C. (2021, September 5). ‘My mental health is at an all-time low’:
Teachers talk of burnout, MOE aware that ‘gaps’ need plugging. Channel NewsAsia.
CNA Insider. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-insider/my-mental-health-all-time-low-tea
chers-talk-burnout-moe-aware-gaps-need-plugging-2157151
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values
to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education,
60–71.
World Scientific.
Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An
empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 16(3), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319703
Lee, V. & Yeo, S. (2020, April 18). How home-based learning shows up inequality in Singapore—
A look at three homes. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/
how-home-based-learning-hbl-shows-up-inequality-in-singapore-a-look-at-three-homes
Lee, I.-F., Saltmarsh, S., & Yelland, N. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Childhood, learning & everyday life
in three Asia-Pacific cities: Experiences from Melbourne, Hong Kong and Singapore. Springer
Nature.
Leong, W. S. & Tan, K. (2014). What (more) can, and should, assessment do for learning? Observa-
tions from ‘successful learning context’ in Singapore, The Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 593–619,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.970207
Mathews, M., Lim, L., & Teng, S. S. (2017). Parents’ perceptions of the Singapore primary school
system. IPS Working Papers No. 27 (July 2017). Institute of Policy Studies, Lee Kuan Yew School
of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/
ips/wp-27_parents’-perceptions-of-the-singapore-primary-school-system.pdf
References 173
MOE. (2011). Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry of
Education (MOE) work plan seminar on Tuesday, 22 September 2011, 10 a.m. at Ngee Ann Poly-
technic Convention. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/
data/pdfdoc/20110929001/wps_opening_address_(media)(checked).pdf
MOE. (2012). Character & citizenship education (CCE) syllabus primary. Implemen-
tation starting from 2014. Ministry of Education Student Development Curriculum
Division. https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/characterandcitizenshipeducationprim
arysyllabusenglish.pdf?la=en&hash=07C4DBF66BCF5182FF4AEA4436679A96466DDE24
MOE. (2015a). Keynote address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Education, at the Ministry
of Education work plan seminar 2015a, on Tuesday, 22 September 2015a at 9:15 am at Ngee
Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/
news/speeches/2015a0922-keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat-minister-for-education-at-
at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre
MOE. (2015b). Primary school subjects and syllabuses. 2015b Chinese Language (Primary).
Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/primary/chinese-pri
mary-2015b.pdf?la=en&hash=A987D4D156E56CE06F4D68B95B3DB8C054F9E52E
MOE. (2021a). Our mission and vision. Ministry of Education Singapore. https://www.moe.gov.
sg/about-us/our-mission-and-vision#:~:text=MOE’s%20vision%20of%20%E2%80%9CThin
king%20Schools,Goh%20Chok%20Tong%20in%201997.&text=Thinking%20Schools%20w
ill%20be%20learning,through%20participation%2C%20creativity%20and%20innovation.
MOE. (2021b). Character & citizenship education (CCE) syllabus primary. Ministry
of Education Student Development Curriculum Division. Implementation starting from
2022. https://www.moe.gov.sg/-/media/files/syllabus/2021b-primary-character-and-citizenship-
education.ashx?la=en&hash=74825B521E705CC783D239C687B3DFD696590819
MOE. (2022). MOE is refreshing its curriculum in three areas. Ministry of Education Committee
of Supply. https://www.moe.gov.sg/microsites/cos2020/infographics/COS2020_refreshing-cur
riculum.pdf
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 international results in
reading. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Boston
College. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580353.pdf
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., & Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international
results in mathematics and science. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA). Boston College. https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2020-12/TIMSS%202
019-International-Results-in-Mathematics-and-Science.pdf
Ng, P. T. (2020). The paradoxes of student well-being in Singapore. ECNU Review of Education,
3(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120935127
aper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume I): What students know and can do. PISA, OECD
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
Reyes, V., & Tan, C. (2018). Assessment reforms in high-performing education systems: Shanghai
and Singapore. In M.S. Khine (Ed.), International trends in educational assessment (pp. 25–39).
Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004393455_003
Sim, C. (2016, September 1). Singapore infopedia: Education bilingual policy. Singapore Infopedia.
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2016-09-01_093402.html
Soo, L. M. J., & Chua, S. K. C. (2014). The 21st century approach in teaching home economics, A
Singapore perspective. International Journal of Pedagogy and Curriculum, 20(2), 61–75. https://
doi.org/10.18848/2327-7963/CGP/v20i02/48959
Tan, K. (2011). Alternative assessment in schools: A qualitative approach. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Tan, C. (Online First 2020). Private tutoring and the subjective rationalities of parents: The experi-
ences in South Korea and Singapore. Asian Education and Development Studies. https://doi.org/
10.1108/AEDS-08-2020-0183
Tan, J. (2020, August 29). Commentary: Teachers now have new jobs. Schools will never be normal
again after COVID-19. Channel NewsAsia Commentary. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/com
mentary/teachers-coping-covid-19-coronavirus-new-roles-challenges-632276
Tan, J. (2021, May 19). Commentary: Shift to home-based learning welcomed but has its shortcom-
ings. Channel NewsAsia Commentary. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/covid-
hbl-education-school-pri-sec-jc-moe-rule-close-curriculum-1381001
Teng, A. (2018, March 5). Parliament: All primary schools to have applied, hands-on learning
programmes by 2023. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-all-
primary-schools-to-have-applied-hands-on-learning-programmes-by-2023
United Nations. (2021). UN decade of ESD. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization. https://en.unesco.org/themes/education-sustainable-development
Van Aalst, J. (2013). Assessment in collaborative learning. In C.E. Hmelo-Silver, C.A. Chin, C.K.,
K. Chan, & A. O’Donnell (Eds.), The International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 280–
296). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1642304
Index
A B
Academic achievement, see Assessment; Belonging, sense of. See also
Examinations; Grades; Testing Bronfenbrenner, Urie, ecological
framework; PIRLS, belonging;
Academic enrichment, see Tuition
PISA, belonging; TIMSS, belonging
Activities, children’s and academic achievement, 2, 6, 17, 60,
adult supervision, 149, 152 81, 95, 110, 119, 122, 133, 159
enjoyment, 13, 79, 85, 87, 88, 91, 94, Bronfenbrenner, Urie
109, 112, 124, 125, 128, 135, 139, ecological framework, 13, 107, 109,
141, 144, 145, 148, 149, 159, 164, 165 110, 124, 128
indoor, 25, 133–136, 148, 149, 154,
165, 166
C
outdoor, 57, 134–137, 148–150, 152, Career aspirations
166 children’s drawings of, 86–90, 93,
travel, 136, 152, 153 98–100
weather, 149, 152, 166 currently good at, 97–99, 120
enjoyment, 85, 86, 88
weekdays, 10, 135–141, 143, 146,
helping others, 84, 90, 99, 123, 163, 164
148–150, 152, 165, 166
parent occupation, 97, 99
weekends, 9, 10, 25, 135–141, 143, 144, professional, 4, 6, 22, 23, 28, 37, 97,
146–150, 152, 154, 165, 166. See also 146, 163
Enrichment; Homework; Leisure SkillsFuture report, 29, 100
activities; Tuition university, 6, 21, 96, 97, 159, 162
Anxiety, see Wellbeing Classroom management, 44, 45, 63, 68,
Assessment 120. See also Discipline
authentic, 167, 168 capturing students’ attention, 45, 46, 62,
69
formative, 79, 90, 101
Classroom set up, 8, 12, 30
summative, 79. See also Examinations; Co-curricular activity/activities (CCA), 24,
Grades; Testing 25, 54, 82–84, 87, 89, 112, 134, 146,
Authentic learning, 168. See also Applied 147, 159, 160, 163
Learning Program (ALP); categories, 146
Assessment, authentic enjoyment, 146, 159
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license 175
to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6645-3
176 Index
time spent, 24, 146. See also “survival-driven”, 20, 21, 158. See also
Enrichment Education, Singapore; Ministry of
Collaborative learning, 72, 85, 124, 171 Education (MOE)
Cope, Bill, see Learning by Design Education, Singapore, 2, 3, 6, 11, 17, 18,
COVID-19 pandemic 21, 26, 35, 55, 78, 80, 113, 159, 163,
home-based Learning, 30, 48, 49, 171 166, 169
Curriculum, Singapore, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13, compulsory, 19, 36, 166
18, 21–24, 26, 29, 36–38, 53, 55, 56, history, 12, 17, 18
70, 78, 80, 138, 148, 158, 164, 165 pathway, 2, 4, 20, 22
Art and Craft, 11, 12, 19, 38–41, 139, post-independence, 17, 20, 158
160 pre-independence, 17, 18. See also
Character and Citizenship Education Ministry of Education (MOE)
(CCE), 8, 11, 12, 19, 20, 36, 38–41, Enrichment
139, 159, 160 academic, see Tuition
Chinese, 11, 12, 18, 38, 78, 80, 109, art, 135, 146
139, 143, 148 children’s drawings of, 144, 147
English, 2, 11, 12, 19, 38–41, 58, 78, cost, 142
143, 146, 148, 160, 165 dance, 135, 146, 165
Higher Chinese, 11, 39 music, 135, 146, 165
Mathematics, 2, 11, 12, 19, 21, 39–41, number of students, 142
58, 78, 81, 139, 146, 160, 165 singing, 135
Mother Tongue, 1, 8, 11, 12, 19, 38, 40, sport, 146
41, 143, 160 time spent, 142, 146
Music, 8, 11, 12, 19, 38–41, 139, 148, weekdays, 136, 146, 150, 165
160 weekends, 25, 136, 144, 147, 150, 153,
Physical Education, 8, 11, 12, 19, 165
38–41, 139, 160 Every School a Good School, see Ministry
of Education (MOE), “Every School
Science, 2, 8, 11, 12, 19, 21, 38–41, 78,
a Good School”
81, 160
Examinations, 5, 11, 17, 21, 26, 27, 37, 42,
Social studies, 11, 12, 19, 38–41, 160
43, 55, 59, 77–79, 91, 94, 96, 101,
students’ views, 5, 49
107, 113–115, 117–119, 128, 141,
time allocation, 12, 38. See also
143, 145, 148, 153, 160–163,
Timetables, school
166–168, 170, 171. See also Primary
School Leaving Examination
(PSLE)
D
Digital technology, see Mobile devices
Discipline, 36, 54, 80, 91, 146 F
punishment, 120–122 Family, see Parents
rewards, 120–122. See also Classroom Friends
management, Teachers, Singapore children’s drawings of, 86, 88, 90, 98,
151
definition of “doing well” in school, 82,
94, 95, 101, 125, 138, 165
E interactions with, 30, 82, 88, 90
Ecological framework, see Bronfenbrenner, show they like you, 116, 121, 123, 125
Urie, ecological framework
Education phases, Singapore, 20
“ability-based, aspirations-driven”, 20, G
22, 23, 35, 158 GCE, Singapore, 21, 78, 96
“efficiency-driven”, 20, 21, 28, 158 Global childhoods project methods
“student-centric, values-driven”, 20, 23, ethnographies, 7, 107, 159
26, 35, 158, 159 learning dialogues, 7, 81, 160
Index 177
re-enactment, 7, 153, 160 Kalantzis, Mary, see Learning by Design

survey, 6, 7, 107, 159 Kiasu, 37, 78
Global city, 1, 3, 4, 157
concept, 1, 3
Singapore, 1, 4, 157. See also Sassen, L
Saskia Languages, Singapore, 1, 2, 11, 12, 19, 21,
Grades, 6, 13, 17, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 79, 80, 38–40, 135, 136, 143, 146, 158, 165
94, 95, 97, 101, 112–117, 125, 128, Learning by design
143, 145, 148, 159, 160, 164, 165, analysing critically, 57, 66, 70
167 analysing functionally, 57, 60, 70
report card, 26 applying appropriately, 57
students’ descriptions, 113, 114 applying creatively, 57
students’ satisfaction, 115. See also conceptualising by naming, 57, 60
Assessment conceptualising in theory, 57
Group work, see Collaborative learning experiencing the known, 56
experiencing the new, 56
origins, 56
H Leisure activities
Health, 40, 43, 107, 134, 163, 164 children’s drawings of, 147, 151
myopia, 134 enjoyment, 135, 148, 149
obesity, 134. See also Wellbeing mobile devices, 135, 137, 149, 154,
History, Singapore, 12, 17, 18. See also 165, 166
Education, Singapore, History number of children, 146
Holistic development, 6, 26, 29, 133, 166. playing, 25, 26, 133, 135–137,
See also Holistic education; 147–151, 153, 165, 166
Ministry of Education (MOE), reading, 26, 136, 148, 149, 153, 154,
Holistic Health Framework 165, 166
Holistic education, 2, 17, 26, 108, 110, 112, shopping, 135, 149, 150, 166
160, 167. See also Holistic time spent, 24, 133, 135, 136, 148, 149,
development; Ministry of Education 165
(MOE), Holistic Health Framework time with family and friends, 150
Home-based learning, 30, 48, 49, 171 watching television, 25, 135–137, 148,
Homework, 9, 24, 25, 62, 72, 83, 95, 133, 153, 154, 165
135–142, 148, 150, 153, 165, 170 weekdays, 136, 137, 149, 150, 165, 166
assigned at school, 62 weekends, 136, 137, 149, 150, 154, 165,
completion at school, 101, 170 166
group work, 46, 48, 59, 62, 96, 101, Lessons, Singapore
141, 168 Art, 25, 36, 39, 42, 54, 58, 68–70, 146,
subjects, 45, 59, 95, 133, 139, 141, 167, 148, 162
168 English, 36, 39, 55, 60–64, 66–68, 71,
time spent, 24, 25, 133, 136–138, 148 73, 74, 125–127, 145, 165
weekdays, 136, 138, 140, 141, 148, 165 English “thinking lesson”, 39, 42, 55,
weekends, 9, 136, 139–141, 148, 149, 83, 92, 126, 163
154, 165. See also PISA, homework; Mathematics, 36, 39, 125
Tuition homework Lifeworlds
concept, 1–3, 66
Literacy rate, Singapore, 78
I Little Red Dot, 48, 126, 140, 141
International high-stakes testing, see
PIRLS; PISA; TIMSS
M
Mental health, see Wellbeing
K Ministry of Education (MOE), 6, 10, 11,
Kahoot!, 45, 84, 85, 92, 125, 162 13, 17–20, 22, 23, 26–28, 35–38, 41,
178 Index
43, 48, 49, 53–56, 58, 60, 63, 66, 70, examination grading system changes, 27
73, 78, 79, 82, 96, 101, 108, 110, grades of children, 17, 24, 25, 29, 80,
112, 124, 141, 145, 159–161, 164, 115, 143, 145
168–171 language, 11, 12, 37, 143, 153, 165
21st Century Competencies, 18, 26, 27, leisure time for children, 24, 148, 165,
35, 54, 55, 100, 101, 108, 159, 161, 166
164, 168, 169 number of children, 146
“Every School a Good School”, 20, occupations, 97, 99
101, 159 tuition for children, 25, 78, 135, 142,
holistic health framework, 26, 108 143, 145, 153, 165, 170
Information and Communications university for children, 6, 96, 97, 159,
Technology (ICT) Masterplan, 23, 159 162
School-Based Curriculum Development Pedagogies, see Learning by Design
(SBCD), 54 Peers, see Friends
Singapore Teaching Practice model, 53, Physical health, see Health
54 Pink, Sarah, 9, 10, 152
Social Emotional Learning (SEL) PIRLS
Framework, 37, 108 academic achievement, 133
Student Learning Space (SLS), 140, belonging, 82, 108, 109, 116, 128, 163
141, 162 confidence, 91
“Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM), 23, school emphasis on academic success,
56, 72, 73, 159, 170 90
“Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” PISA
(TSLN), 22, 23, 35, 54, 158, 159. See academic achievement, 81
also Education, Singapore; Education anxiety, 24, 116, 134
phases, Singapore belonging, 79, 108, 116
Mobile devices, see Leisure activities, engagement, 79–82, 94, 96, 120
Mobile devices fear of failure, 81
happiness in school, 82, 94, 115
homework, 24, 25, 138
N Singapore news headlines, 80
National Institute of Education (NIE), 2, 3, teacher strictness, 120
6, 42, 44, 54 worry about grades, 116
National Physical Fitness Award (NAPFA), worry about taking a test, 116
83, 87, 101, 163 Primary School Leaving Examination
National pledge, Singapore, 10, 44 (PSLE)
Non-academic enrichment, see Enrichment subjects, 19, 28, 43
T-score, 26, 145, 160, 167
O
OCED
education 2030 report, 24 R
OECD, 5, 6, 18, 24, 25, 29, 78–82, 90, 94, Recess, school, 41, 43, 84, 89–91, 96, 117,
96, 116, 120, 134, 138, 164, 118
166–168. See also PISA food, 43, 47, 85, 89, 107, 123
Online learning, see Home-based Learning time, 43, 47, 89. See also Snack break,
school
P
Parent(s) S
academic performance of children, 24, Sassen, Saskia, 3, 4. See also global city
28, 96, 128 School fee, 10
enrichment classes for children, 25, School routines, 3, 9, 10, 12, 35, 44, 48, 49,
146, 170 62, 66, 119, 152–154, 160, 161, 170
Index 179
School start time, see Timetables, school, Education (MOE), Singapore

school start time Teaching Practice model; TALIS
School subjects, 35, 133 Teacher-student relationships, see Teachers,
children’s drawings of, 85 Singapore, student-teacher
examinable, 38, 43, 91, 141, 160 relationships
non-examinable, 43, 160 Teach Less, Learn More” see Ministry of
students looking forward to, 91 Education (MOE)
Subject-Based Banding, 28. See also Teamwork, see Collaborative learning
Curriculum Television, see Leisure activities, Television
Secondary school, Singapore, 11, 19, 21, Testing, 3, 5, 13, 21, 23, 77, 78, 107, 108,
22, 24–26, 28, 38, 42, 77, 94, 96, 97, 117, 119, 128, 133, 134, 145, 157,
112, 113, 145, 159, 160 158, 160, 162
streaming, 22, 28 culture of, 119
Subject-Based Banding (SBB), 28. See dictation test, 118, 119
also see Education, Singapore, preparation, 125, 161
Pathway; Primary School Leaving revision, 26, 153
Examination (PSLE) spelling test, 62, 101, 117, 119, 162. See
Self-esteem, children’s, 109, 110, 112 also Assessment; Examinations;
Snack break, school, 43. See also Recess, National Physical Fitness Award
school (NAPFA); PIRLS; PISA; Primary
Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools, 11, School Leaving Examination (PSLE);
38, 164 TIMSS
Sport, 11, 19, 20, 25, 28, 30, 36, 61–63, Tests, see Testing
82–84, 87, 91, 94, 102, 135, 137, Thinking Schools, Learning Nation
146–150, 166. See also School (TSLN), see Ministry of Education
subjects, Physical Education (MOE)
Stress, 6, 17, 21, 25, 27, 91, 94, 95, 101, Timetables, school
107, 116, 119, 134, 162, 163 dismissal time, 37, 41
examinations, 27, 91, 94, 95, 107, 119, planning, 41
162, 163 school autonomy, 37, 41, 43, 161
reduction, 27 school equality, 8, 10, 38, 39, 41–43,
school, 134. See also PISA, anxiety; 160, 161, 170
PISA, fear of failure; PISA, worry school harmony, 8, 10, 38, 40–43, 160,
about grades; PISA, worry about 161
taking a test; Wellbeing
start time, 37, 38, 49
Subjects, see School subjects
subjects time allocation, 43
Success”, educational
TIMSS
definition, 2, 3, 5, 13, 81, 129, 133, 157,
academic achievement, 81, 110, 133
158, 160, 162, 167, 170, 171
belonging, 79, 82, 108, 109, 116, 124,
128, 163
T confidence, 91
TALIS, 120 school emphasis on academic success,
Teachers, Singapore, 120, 162 90
pedagogical moves, 68 T-score, see Primary School Leaving
show they like you, 120, 125 Examination (PSLE)
strictness, 120, 165 Tuition
students’ views, 78, 80, 92, 94, 112, billion dollar industry, 25
119, 120, 125, 128 cost, 142
student-teacher relationships, 13, 77, English, 143, 146
79, 96, 109, 111, 119, 120, 122, 159 enjoyment, 145
supportive, 79, 119 homework, 153
training, 54. See also Discipline; language, 143, 145
Learning by Design; Ministry of Mathematics, 165
180 Index
number of students, 21, 87, 136, 142, anxiety, 36, 54, 108, 110
150 social-emotional competencies, 24, 79,
time spent, 144 116, 134, 162
Tutoring, see Tuition and testing. See also Belonging; Health;
21st Century Competencies, see Ministry of Ministry of Education (MOE),
Education (MOE), 21st Century Holistic Health Framework; Ministry
Competencies of Education (MOE), Social
Emotional Learning (SEL)
Framework; PISA, anxiety; PISA, fear
U of failure; PISA, worry about grades;
University, 6, 21, 54, 96, 97, 134, 159, 162. PISA, worry about taking a test; stress
See also Career aspirations,
university; Education, Singapore,
Pathway
Y
Yelland, Nicola, 2, 3–5, 7, 9, 13, 53, 55–57,
W 72, 135, 157. See also Learning by
Wellbeing Design

Children's Lifeworlds in A Global City - Singapore

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Children's Lifeworlds in A Global City - Singapore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Childhoods in the Asia-Pacific 2

Li Mei Johannah Soo ·

ISSN 2730-7816 ISSN 2730-7824 (electronic)

1 Introduction: Children’s Lifeworlds in the Global City

2.4.6 Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

5.1.2 Physical Education (PE) and Co-curricular Activities

8.6 Outside of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Nanthini Karthikeyan is an Assistant Manager at the Singapore Institute of Tech-

Dr. Clare Bartholomaeus is a Research Fellow in the Melbourne Graduate School

Professor Nicola Yelland is the Professor of Early Childhood Studies in

Keywords Global childhoods · Children’s lifeworlds · Global cities · International

1.1 The Global Childhoods Project: Singapore

In examining the everyday lifeworlds of children in Singapore, we consider the inter-

1.2 The Context: Globalisation and Global Cities

Rapid globalisation coupled with unprecedented growth in technology has had a

1.3 Considering Children’s Lifeworlds

This book focuses on the lifeworlds of children by considering their activities,

1.3.1 Children in Schools: Policy and Practices

1.4 Research Methods

(1) Online survey,

1.4.1 Online Survey

1.4.2 Ethnographic Observations

Table 1.1 Learning dialogues activity, all questions

1.4.3 Learning Dialogues

1.5 Case Study Schools

1.5.1 School Equality

School Equality was a government-aided co-educational primary school situated in

1.5.2 School Harmony

School Harmony was a preparatory to Primary 6 government co-educational primary

1.6 Outline of the Book

In this book, we offer a comprehensive exploration of children’s lifeworlds in Singa-

Chapter 4 focuses on the pedagogical encounters in teaching and learning, based

Austin, I. P. (2015). Singapore as a ‘global city’: Governance in a challenging international envi-

Keywords Singapore education system · Singapore education history · Thinking

2.1 Brief History of Education in Pre-independent

2.2 Education Policies and Changes in Post-independent

Fig. 2.1 Education pathway in Singapore

2.2.1 The Four Phases of Educational Development

Gopinathan, 2008). During this “survival-driven” phase, the number of students

promotion, and educational institutes underwent major restructuring and expansion.

2.3 Current Education Challenges

Singapore’s impressive performance in the academic components of international

2.3.1 The Need for Leisure Time

2.4 Looking Forward

2.4.1 Holistic Development

2.4.2 Revision to Assessment

2.4.3 Streaming to Subject-Based Banding

Streaming in schools, which was introduced during the “efficiency-driven” phase

2.4.4 Professional Development

2.4.5 Education for Sustainable Development

One of the components of the 21st Century Competencies is to cultivate “Global

of sustainability in their cross-discipline ALPs to create awareness and find solu-

2.4.6 Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic

MOE. (2014). 21st century competencies. Ministry of Education.

Wilson, H. E. (1977). Education as an instrument of policy in Southeast Asia: The Singapore

Keywords School timetables · Class routines · School subjects · Lesson

3.1 Timetables: Structures for Achieving Educational

As outlined in Chap. 2, primary school education is compulsory for all Singapore

3.2 Timetables in Primary Schools

3.2.1 Difference in Time Allocation for the Two Schools

Table 3.2 Weekly timetable for Primary 4 at School Harmony

3.2.2 Autonomy to Timetable Planning

being considered more of a “neighbourhood” school1 than School Equality, and