Index

Jackie

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Secondary School

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Seng Lee Lee (Dunman High School, Singapore) Keywords Geography Secondary School Curriculum The push for more attention on social justice in geography education has gained a stronger sense of urgency and greater coherence in recent decades. This has occurred in tandem with increasing attention paid by geographers to what this discipline, perceived by some as inherently […]

Seng Lee Lee (Dunman High School, Singapore)

Keywords
Geography
Secondary School
Curriculum

The push for more attention on social justice in geography education has gained a stronger sense of urgency and greater coherence in recent decades. This has occurred in tandem with increasing attention paid by geographers to what this discipline, perceived by some as inherently concerned with injustice and disparity (Smith, 1994; Merrett, 2000), can do to contribute to a more equitable world. This push for what Kirman (2003) termed as “transformative geography” (p. 93) in education calls for teachers to introduce students to the geographical aspects of social justice and focus on how these issues are located at a number of interconnected geographic scales (local, regional, state and international). This will allow students to practice the “discipline of geography for the well-being of people and the environment in order to improve the world” (p. 93).

However this endeavor has been met with ambivalence and hostility in some quarters due to worries about the devaluation and displacement of what is perceived to be core geographical knowledge in favor of other kinds of content more closely linked to active citizenship and social justice outcomes. This worry that Geography will be “emptied of content rooted in the conceptual frameworks of the subject” or “be regarded as a convenient ‘vehicle’ for broader general competences such as ‘thinking skills’” (Huckle, 1983) has fed suspicion of the push for attention on social justice. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to explore spaces of possibilities in the incoming Geography Ordinary ‘O’ Level Syllabus 2014 for teachers to engage students with social justice, to examine teachers’ perspectives on the viability of this endeavor, and to how a balance may be reached to address this simmering issue. This balance, however, may not be able to replace the need for a fundamental resolution, at least in the Singapore context, on the direction(s) that Geography education needs to take in order to retain its relevance in a changing world (Chang, 2011).

This paper is divided in four main parts and begins with a brief review and discussion of pertinent literature on the discussion of the utility of geography in furthering the aims of social justice. The next section provides a discussion on the incoming ‘O’ Level Geography syllabus (2014) with regard to spaces (whether consciously created or indirectly opened up) in the document for geography teachers to engage or even promote social justice from syllabus themes and suggested resources. The third component augments the second section and focuses on findings from interviews about teachers’ perspectives on the efficacy of Geography for the social justice agenda and relevant pedagogical approaches. The key findings show that teachers feel a sense of insecurity with regard to the limits of advocacy for social justice. There is also tension between urging for more prominence for social justice and being labelled as moralistic. This paper concludes with a call for a more flexible curriculum supported by the Ministry of Education and for greater teacher agency and autonomy to incorporate social justice in their practice and spark students’ curiosity and engagement with the wider community.

Download Full Article

Suhaimi Afandi (National Institute of Education, Singapore) Keywords History Secondary School Inquiry Teaching Introduction Secondary Humanities teachers in Singapore are well-acquainted with recent developments and changes that accompanied the launch of the new history syllabus in October 2012. A most notable development was the adoption of inquiry-based learning as the recommended pedagogy for instruction. What was […]

Suhaimi Afandi (National Institute of Education, Singapore)

Keywords
History
Secondary School
Inquiry Teaching

Introduction
Secondary Humanities teachers in Singapore are well-acquainted with recent developments and changes that accompanied the launch of the new history syllabus in October 2012. A most notable development was the adoption of inquiry-based learning as the recommended pedagogy for instruction. What was the logic for this change? Why was there a need to pursue inquiry-based learning for school history? What was the spirit behind the change? What did the curriculum developers hope to achieve by pushing for an inquiry approach to history learning? Some of these answers can be obtained from the Singapore Ministry of Education syllabus documents, the Teaching and Learning Guides (TLGs), and other related documents. In this commentary, I offer some of my personal thoughts on the matter and I focus on some issues that require addressing if we are serious about proposing an instructional approach that aims to develop students’ disciplinary thinking in history.

Why the Changes?
In short, I would say that there was a recognition that things were not actually going as well as they should. Yes, our students did very well in the national examinations and have consistently posted impressive scores. But the perception that has emerged over the years was that although many of these students appeared to know a lot about the things they studied, there remained a high level of scepticism as to whether they understood much of what they had studied. From informal conversations with colleagues and school practitioners, the reasons offered for students not understanding much about the history they learnt in their classrooms ranged from too much direct or didactic instruction, too much algorithmic or mechanical learning, too much drilling or rote learning, too much teaching to the test, and so on. Subsequently, a common idea that emerged was that while our students have proven very adept at absorbing transmitted knowledge or information, they were not able to construct new knowledge– one of the characteristics of critical and independent learners.

In order to raise standards of history, geography and social studies education in Singapore, policy-makers and curriculum planners in the Curriculum and Planning Development Division (CPDD) recognized the need for a major shake-up in the way the Humanities subjects have been taught in schools. Inquiry-based learning was seen as the key to transforming the teaching of the Humanities from a largely content-transmission approach to an approach that gets students to take ownership of their learning by purposefully seeking information and constructing their own knowledge within the norms and standards set by the disciplinary nature of the subject. In history, the major thrust of inquiry-based learning was targeted at getting students to “appreciate the underpinnings of the discipline” as they engage in the process of “doing history” (Ministry of Education/Curriculum Planning and Development Division, 2012, p. 12). Inquiry was deemed essential for providing students with the opportunity to build essential understandings, particularly about the concepts that lie at the heart of history.

Download Full Article

Avner Segall (Michigan State University) Keywords History Secondary School Critical Thinking History Textbooks Reading pedagogy into historical texts Such a focus in history education is important because, as we also know, history and the past are not one and the same. Rather, history, as Seixas (1993) explains “is only a discourse about the past, a story […]

Avner Segall (Michigan State University)

Keywords
History
Secondary School
Critical Thinking
History Textbooks

Reading pedagogy into historical texts
Such a focus in history education is important because, as we also know, history and the past are not one and the same. Rather, history, as Seixas (1993) explains “is only a discourse about the past, a story constructed to make meaning for us in the present” (p. 307; see also Berkhofer, 1995; Jenkins, 1991). Writing the past inevitably involves a deliberate process of “selection, ordering, and evaluation of past events, experiences, and processes” (Kaye, 1991, p. 71). Meanings given to the past are never objective or neutral; they are always interpretations that advance some assumptions, perspectives, and worldviews rather than others. Consequently, scholars exploring such issues invite historians, as well as those who teach and study history, “to consider history as a literary form, on a par with, or at any rate exhibiting affinities to, other kinds of imaginative writing – narrative or descriptive, comic or realist, as the case may be” (Samuel, 1992, pp. 220–21. cf. Jenkins, 1995, p. 36. See also White, 1978).

While the idea that history and the past are not identical may not come as news to some (hopefully, to most), such understandings carry with them a variety of implications, both for how we encourage students to read history and also, and importantly, for the kind of readings teachers ought to conduct in preparation for their pedagogical encounters with students. For what such understandings imply is that historical texts are not only sources of content upon which to base a teacher’s pedagogy. Rather, this understanding signals that historical texts already embody assumptions, perspectives, and worldviews folded into the very process of narrating the past. As such, history textbooks and primary/secondary sources should not be seen simply as teaching students pure content about a topic but as pedagogical invitations for learning – positioning the students to explore that topic, and the world more broadly, in particular ways. In other words, content doesn’t only teach us something, it also, and unavoidably, teaches us how to think and what to think about and value when we engage that content. Some of this “teaching,” as we will see, is implicit and, at times, can run contrary to or subvert the very ideas the text might intend to convey.

Let me elaborate on the idea that historical (any) texts already embody pedagogical invitations for learning. In doing so, I will explore both the notions of content and pedagogy and then move to provide some questions that might help guide your own exploration of the pedagogical nature of curricular content. To foreground this discussion, let’s use an example from Todd & Curti’s textbook, The American Nation (Boyer, 1995), a commonly-used U.S. social studies textbook, that provides this boxed-in paragraph titled “Multicultural perspectives” on the left margin of a page in its chapter, “American Expansionism”:

Native American women who worked in the fur trade often married non-Indian fur traders and played important roles in their societies as a result. For example, Huntkah-itawin, a Sioux woman, married trader James Bordeaux. She helped Bordeaux cement his trading ties with the Sioux, and her access to trade goods helped her brother rise to the position of chief. (p. 318)

Download Full Article

Brooks, Clare (Institute of Education, London) Keywords Geography Secondary School Critical Thinking Critical Thinking in Geography Education Critical thinking is a term that has a great deal of popular appeal with many governments, and can be found in several education policy documents around the globe. However a quick internet and literature search reveals that there is […]

Critical Thinking in Geography Education

Critical thinking is a term that has a great deal of popular appeal with many governments, and can be found in several education policy documents around the globe. However a quick internet and literature search reveals that there is little consensus over what critical thinking means.  To illustrate this point, Figure 1 includes a range of definitions of critical thinking. The reader may wish to consider how their own understanding of critical thinking corresponds with these definitions, and indeed what they consider to be the common or core components of critical thinking?

Table 1. Definitions of critical thinking

“Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions.” 

~ Brookfield, S.D. (2000). “Contesting criticality: Epistemological and practical contradictions in critical reflection” in Proceedings of the 41st Annual Adult Education Research Conference.

Critical thinking has also been described as:

“thinking about thinking.”

~ Raiskums, B.W., (2008). An Analysis of the Concept Criticality in Adult Education.

 “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.” 

~ Ennis, R.H., (2003). “Critical Thinking Assessment” in Fasko, Critical Thinking and Reasoning: Current Research, Theory, and PracticeISBN 978-1-57273-460-9

“the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action”.  

~ Scriven, M., and Paul, R.W., (1987). Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking

“the process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment, which uses reasoned consideration to evidence, context, conceptualizations, methods, and criteria.” 

~ Facione, Peter A. Critical Thinking: What It is and Why It Counts, Insightassessment.com

“Within the critical social theory philosophical frame, critical thinking is commonly understood to involve commitment to the social and political practice of participatory democracy, willingness to imagine or remain open to considering alternative perspectives, willingness to integrate new or revised perspectives into our ways of thinking and acting, and willingness to foster criticality in others.”

~ Raiskums, B.W., (2008). An Analysis of the Concept Criticality in Adult Education.

Critical thinkers demonstrate:

  • Rationality – rely on reason rather than emotion
  • Self-awareness – weigh the influences of motives and bias
  • Honesty – recognise emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes or other modes of self-deception
  • Open-mindedness – consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives
  • Discipline – avoid snap judgments
  • Judgement – recognise the relevance of alternative perspectives

From: CriticalReading.com

Download Full Article

Yuen, Kah Mun (Commonwealth Secondary School, Singapore) Keywords Geography Junior College Secondary School Fieldwork eography teachers face numerous difficulties in conducting fieldwork for their students. While the national curriculum is shifting towards a field inquiry approach, some pre-existing problems remain, such as the issues of large class sizes, the lack of suitable sites due to our […]

eography teachers face numerous difficulties in conducting fieldwork for their students. While the national curriculum is shifting towards a field inquiry approach, some pre-existing problems remain, such as the issues of large class sizes, the lack of suitable sites due to our highly urbanised landscape, and teachers who do not have an understanding of the role fieldwork plays in constructing meaning in Geography. Having an understanding of how geographical knowledge has evolved will allow teachers to adopt meaningful strategies in the field in order to maximise the construction of geographical concepts and learning of geographical skills. In this paper, I propose a simple matrix that identifies purpose and strategies as two key goals that can help teachers work towards the implementation of a meaningful fieldwork programme for students.

Introduction

Geography is possibly the most exciting discipline in the Humanities and Social Sciences group of subjects. Physical landscapes lend an authentic lens to contextualise the discipline. The need to measure and observe in order to infer and generalise are geographical skills that students find intriguing. When students venture out of their classrooms, the world becomes more apparent and real. The demand for quantification also necessitates collaboration amongst classmates. Suddenly, the Shy Shirley begins to talk, and Reticent Richard starts to come to life. Friendships, attitudes and values are forged and strengthened. Those who have gone through a cycle (or two) in fieldwork can easily testify to these positive outcomes.

While many geography teachers are excited at the prospect of geographical fieldwork re-emerging as a key driver for geographical education in Singapore, real challenges exist. A small handful of teachers still bemoan the lack of physical landscapes to conduct “real” fieldwork in Singapore (though this has been partially overcome by the somewhat generous government subsidy for overseas fieldtrips). There are also sceptics who think that fieldwork is just another round of “wave-counting” exercises and nothing else; and others who believe that the huge class size deters any form of fieldwork.

The aim of this paper is, therefore, to correct the misconceptions that fieldwork

  • requires an expensive trip out of Singapore
  • cannot be conducted in big groups
  • is a boring data collection exercise

First, I provide a brief background to the evolution of fieldwork that developed with progress of geographic thought in the twentieth century. Knowledge of this development is important because it allows the teacher to understand the purpose of fieldwork. I then propose a simple framework that challenges educators to think about geographical fieldwork strategies based on the aims of the discipline. In this way, teachers can design focused and meaningful tasks for their learners.

Download Full Article

Brady Baildon (National Institute of Education) Kevin Blackburn (National Institute of Education) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Primary School Oral History sing oral histories in history and social studies classrooms can highlight the fact that historical sources are authored and contain particular assumptions, biases, and perspectives about the world. They require critical evaluation to understand why […]

Brady Baildon (National Institute of Education)
Kevin Blackburn (National Institute of Education)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Primary School
Oral History

sing oral histories in history and social studies classrooms can highlight the fact that historical sources are authored and contain particular assumptions, biases, and perspectives about the world. They require critical evaluation to understand why people might have said what they said, why they might view particular events or issues in certain ways, the kinds of insights, emotions, and attitudes they have about what happened in the past, and the reasons they give for acting in the ways they did. Because oral histories have become more widely available and utilized due to electronic and digital means of preservation and access, they can be easily used with students of all ages. To learn more about the use of oral history in the classroom and consider how students can work with oral sources, I reviewed the work and ideas of Associate Professor Kevin Blackburn, a proponent of using oral histories in classrooms.

In Singapore, Kevin Blackburn is an Associate Professor of Humanities and Social Studies Education at the National Institute of Education (NIE). His ideas and experiences with the use of oral histories to teach history are of great use to teachers who are interested in having students work with oral history sources in their classrooms.

In sitting down and conducting an interview with Associate Professor Kevin Blackburn (a prime example of the process of recording and using oral history), he revealed that he first began working with oral histories with his education students at NIE during what he refers to as the “Big History Revamp” in 1999. This move by the Singapore Ministry of Education towards an inquiry-based approach to teaching history and towards using source-based material in history education required pedagogical change and seemed like an appropriate time to introduce oral histories in his history courses.

Blackburn was drawn to oral histories because of the way they allowed for what he refers to as a “democratization of memory” (Blackburn, 2012). He asserts that throughout history, a large majority of the historical sources we have access to have been written and created by those privileged few with money, publishers, and an education. Many people throughout history were without access to publishers, but still possessed interesting stories, opinions, and points of view about the world around them. Their memories – the memories of the marginalized, minorities, and those with an outside perspective – can be brought to light and to the public through the recording of oral accounts and histories (Blackburn, 2012).

As Blackburn (2012) sees it, “ordinary people do extraordinary things.” Those whom we would typically refer to as nothing more than the “common people” are far from just passive eyewitnesses to the events that have unfolded in their lifetime; instead, as Blackburn declares, these people are the “chorus of history” and regularly chime in to supplement the song of the past.

Within the classroom, Blackburn has had aspirant teachers work on a family history project, in which they interviewed family members in order to look at the way people have lived their lives and to examine both the challenges they have faced and the defining moments in their lives. With this project, Blackburn revealed how he thought that the interview process and recording of oral family history allowed his students to better understand cultural change within their families.

Download Full Article

Royce Chan (National Institute of Education) Cheng Guan Ang (National Institute of Education, Singapore ) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Southeast Asia History Vietnam Most of us are familiar with the narrative of the Vietnam War as it is commonly told in history textbooks: (1) the United States got involved because they were afraid of the […]

Royce Chan (National Institute of Education)
Cheng Guan Ang (National Institute of Education, Singapore )

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Southeast Asia History
Vietnam

Most of us are familiar with the narrative of the Vietnam War as it is commonly told in history textbooks: (1) the United States got involved because they were afraid of the possibility of a domino effect of Southeast Asian countries falling to communism; (2) there was a huge public outcry back in the United States as American casualties increased dramatically and the horrors of war were shown in every home; (3) the US eventually withdrew its troops; and (4) North and South Vietnam were reunited. But in this unjustifiably sketchy summary of the typical portrayal of the Vietnam War, it is evident that most students of history only look at materials that, ironically, the losers of this war provide. American versions of these historical events often point to the failings of the South Vietnamese regime (the regime of Ngo Dinh Diem), the failed US containment policy or domestic opposition as the reasons behind the fall of Vietnam.

Associate Professor Ang Cheng Guan’s work will be of interest to teachers seeking to look beyond the history textbook in enriching students’ understanding of the Vietnam War. Currently the Head of the Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Dr Ang’s research interests include international history of the Vietnam War and post-World War II Southeast Asia. He has written and published extensively on the subject of the Vietnam War, including The Vietnam War from the Other Side: The Vietnamese Communists’ Perspective (2002), and its sequel, Ending the Vietnam War: The Vietnamese Communists’ Perspective (2004). He has also published another book titled Southeast Asia and the Vietnam War (2010).

Dr Ang’s book, The Vietnam War from the Other Side: The Vietnamese Communists’ Perspective, analyzes the Vietnamese struggle for independence. The book follows and “attempts to re-construct the evolution of decision-making on the communist side of the Vietnam War, particularly between the years 1954 to 1969, and to show the progression of the Vietnamese communists’ struggle from one that was essentially political in nature to a full-scale war” (Ang, 2002, p. 4). The Vietnam War from the Other Side examines the motivations and process behind the decisions taken by the Communists during the planning and execution of the armed confrontation with the United States. It also analyzes the changing relations between Hanoi, Moscow and Beijing and its influence on the strategic decisions taken by the Vietnamese communists in their struggle for reunification (Ang, 2002).

This book provides an alternative to the perspective that is available in most history textbooks. Students of history need to understand the communist perspective so that they can better analyze events, issues, and personalities in light of the full evidence available. In particular, The Vietnam War from the Other Side contributes to students’ understandings of the Vietnam War as a struggle for independence and reunification by the Vietnamese. This will add to what students already can gather from history textbooks, which tend to focus more on the regime in South Vietnam or America’s containment policy in Southeast Asia.

Download Full Article

Scroll to Top