Baildon, Mark (National Institute of Education (Singapore))
Chelva Rajah S N (National Institute of Education (Singapore))
Afandi, Suhaimi (National Institute of Education, Singapore)

Keywords
History
Classroom Design

Introduction
In 2017, then-Minister of Education, Ng Chee Meng emphasized the need for joy of learning in schools. In his parliamentary speech, he commented, “We believe in nurturing the joy of learning so that every child can discover his interests, grow his passions, and love what he is doing. School should not just be about doing well in exams. It should be an exciting place to acquire knowledge and skills, where learning is fun and with the necessary rigour” (Ng, 2017, para. 11). For him, the joy of learning is not merely about having fun in the classroom; it should be balanced with academic rigour. Since then, this has become the prevailing view of the Ministry of Education (MOE) Singapore, and reinforced by the current Minister, Ong Ye Kung in the 2018 Schools Workplan Seminar:

We know that students derive more joy in learning when they move away from memorisation, rote learning, drilling and taking high-stakes exams. Very few students enjoy that. It is not to say that these are undesirable in learning; quite the contrary, they help form the building blocks for more advanced concepts and learning, and can inculcate discipline and resilience. But there needs to be a balance between rigour and joy, and there is a fairly strong consensus that we have tilted too much to the former. Our students will benefit when some of their time and energy devoted to drilling and preparing for examinations is instead allocated to preparing them for what matters to their future (Ong, 2018, para. 29-31).

Kho Ee Moi (National Institute of Education, Singapore)

Keywords
primary social studies
differentiating instruction

Introduction
When we walk into a classroom in Singapore today we are more likely to see greater diversity of children than before. Singapore’s reputation of delivering a sound education as well as its development as a global hub has increasingly attracted many international students. With the increased diversity in the classroom, there is a greater imperative to adjust our instruction to meet the varied needs of our students. Why is this so? All students are different. They differ in many ways, such as in their learning preferences, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, interests and readiness levels. Students do not all have the same knowledge base, competency level or interests. Neither do they learn the same way nor at the same pace. As teachers, it is important that we acknowledge these differences and take steps towards ensuring that our instruction meets the needs of our students. Good teaching is not just about delivering a good lesson, it is also about adjusting our lesson so that every student can be a successful learner. Our past practice of a single approach to teaching, or what is commonly called a “One size fits all” approach can no longer suffice. To help every one of our students achieve the learning goals, it is essential for us to differentiate our lessons so as to meet their learning needs.

What is Differentiated Instruction?
Differentiated instruction, according to its proponents, is a philosophy and not simply a set of tools (Gregory & Chapman, 2007). It is a belief system held by educators who acknowledge the diverse needs of learners and strive to help all their learners achieve the required academic standards. Gregory & Chapman (2007, p.2) identify the following as important beliefs of supporters of differentiation:

Kho Ee Moi (National Institute of Education, Singapore)

Keywords
Primary Social Studies
Social Studies

Introduction
Most educators in democratic societies agree that developing the young to become effective citizens is of utmost importance and schools are well placed to do that (Parker, 2005; Stanley, 2010). In Singapore, Social Studies plays a primary role in citizenship education in school. However, citizenship education is a contentious enterprise as there is no consensus on what “citizenship” means nor about the goals and purposes of citizenship education (Ross, 2006; McCowan, 2009; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). As pointed out by Sim (2008), the plural nature of communities in modern states, compounded by globalization and its attendant issues, has resulted in a lack of shared conceptions of citizenship even among members of the same society. McCowan (2009, p.5) posits that the “aims of citizenship education – the development of a ‘good’ or ‘effective’ or ‘empowered’ citizen – depend on fundamental understandings of the nature of the polity, the balance of liberty and equality and so forth.” The multiplicity and diverse natures of nation states in the world suggest that it is not possible to agree on one definitive form of citizenship education.

Over the years, scholars and educators have proposed various purposes and orientations to citizenship education through Social Studies. As discussed in the article “What is Social Studies?” in this issue, Barr, Barth and Shermis (1977) grouped the various approaches to citizenship education (and Social Studies) into three categories: citizenship or cultural transmission, social science, and reflective inquiry. Many other scholars have also contributed to the discussion on the goals and purposes of Social Studies and citizenship education and proposed other traditions or orientations towards Social Studies. Morisett (1977), for example, described five orientations of Social Studies: