Index

Jackie

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Volume 2, Issue 2 2013

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Author/s:
Author/s:

Jeremy Stoddard (College of William & Mary, USA) Keywords History Junior College Inquiry Concept Film Prespectives Though often portrayed as a clichéd example of poor history pedagogy, there is now ample research and numerous models of best practice to support the use of film in an inquiry-based history curriculum. In this article I present best practice […]

Jeremy Stoddard (College of William & Mary, USA)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Inquiry
Concept
Film
Prespectives

Though often portrayed as a clichéd example of poor history pedagogy, there is now ample research and numerous models of best practice to support the use of film in an inquiry-based history curriculum. In this article I present best practice models and practical examples of using film as a medium to engage students in inquiry. In doing so, I will attempt to answer the following questions:

  • What happens when film portrays history, and especially controversial events?
  • What are some effective goals and models for teaching with film?
  • How does film act as a historical text or as historical evidence?
  • How should I select films and structure film-based lessons?

History on Film
History is always shaped by the context in which it was recorded and constrained by the perspectives and evidence it contains. Similarly, any time a film is made to represent historical events, issues or peoples, whether it is a documentary or fictitious, it should be viewed as containing “perspective laden-narratives” (Hess, 2007). This is because films are: 1) made by people with particular views and within a particular context, 2) often based on written accounts that are compressed or adapted using dramatic liberty due to the need to fit the narrative and time constraints of film, and 3) usually driven with profit in mind – and thus need to attract an audience.

Further, because of the need to represent narratives that extend over long periods of time, great distances, or multiple perspectives, films also rely on genre conventions to help the audience follow the narrative and keep track of what is going on. This is why war movies often include stock characters such as the tough sergeant, or rely on cinematic effects such as lighting and music to help the audience identify the hero and villain easily. These conventions can be limited to particular audiences, such as those from the particular language, national, or cultural group for whom the film is intended, and may be interpreted very differently by audience members from outside of this intended audience. Regardless of whether or not a person is a member of an intended audience, however, every individual may interpret or understand aspects of the film differently based on their own knowledge of the events or people being represented, their experience in viewing film, or as a matter of personal preference.

Documentary films can be particularly problematic as they are often viewed as being objective accounts of the past because they include interviews with experts, film of actual events, and are most akin to written history. However, these films are still the result of thousands of decisions made by the film’s director and editor and are also reflective of particular genre conventions that shape the story being told. Historically, documentary style film has been a medium of propaganda used to influence audiences on political and social issues.

This does not mean that films are not useful as either historical accounts or as historical evidence. As films are shaped by people from particular contexts (e.g., time, place), and with particular views, they serve as a reflection or artifact documenting different time periods and societies. They serve as historical evidence of particular values, interpretations, and material culture. They also serve as a medium for historiography and for raising particular historical questions or controversial issues.

Download Full Article

Author/s:

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

Author/s:

Syazwani Binte Amrun (Raffles Girls’ School) Keywords History Junior College Singapore Representation Significance Concept This study was designed to explore how students in a secondary school make sense about the significance of different representations of Singapore, and to examine their ideas on what they conceived as icons of Singapore. The research was conducted in a premier […]

Syazwani Binte Amrun (Raffles Girls’ School)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Singapore Representation
Significance
Concept

This study was designed to explore how students in a secondary school make sense about the significance of different representations of Singapore, and to examine their ideas on what they conceived as icons of Singapore. The research was conducted in a premier all-girls’ school in Singapore. The data used in this study was derived from semi-structured interviews that included both a task requiring students to choose from among a set of thirty captioned images, and a set of questions designed to elicit their understanding of significant representations of Singapore. Twelve students, aged 14 to 15 years old, were interviewed in groups of either three or four per group.

The key question guiding this study was “What is the icon of Singapore today?” In order to address this question, students were expected to work with the concept of significance in history. Although the question did not specifically require students to refer to their knowledge of Singapore’s history or to have them make connections with representations of Singapore’s past, student responses may shed light on the way they think about the country’s past, and enable us to build a picture about how they perceive their identity and the country’s heritage. By identifying items they believed were iconic representations of Singapore, students’ responses appeared to reveal the kind of values they held about the country and the means by which they identified themselves as Singaporeans. The findings from this study will be useful for educators in planning programmes that would enhance our students’ understanding of specific icons and cultivate in them a deeper appreciation for Singapore.

Research Methods
Setting and Participants
This study involved interviews with twelve students from three different Year Three classes, with the age of participants ranging from 14 to 15 years old.  These students were selected to participate in this study as they had all completed one year of studying Singapore’s history in Year Two.  The decision to select Year Three students also was made with the assumption that participants would have a basic knowledge of Singapore’s history as their understanding of the milestones in Singapore’s history may affect their perception of what they conceived as iconic of Singapore. All the students involved in the study were Singapore citizens except for two who were Singapore Permanent Residents (PR). The students selected consisted of both high and average achievers within their history classes, and the selection also took into consideration the ethnic backgrounds of the participants. Students were interviewed in fours largely due to convenience as these interviews were conducted during breaks in their curriculum time. The first group of students consisted of two ethnic Chinese Singaporeans and two ethnic Indians (one of whom was a PR from India); the second group of students consisted of 4 ethnic Chinese Singaporeans; and the last group consisted of one ethnic Chinese Singaporean student and three ethnic Malay students (one of  whom was a PR from Indonesia). For more information of the participants, refer to Appendix A.

Download Full Article

Author/s:
Author/s:
Author/s:

Mark Baildon (National Institute of Education (Singapore)) Keywords History Junior College Book Review Singapore History Loh Kah Seng’s new book, Squatters into Citizens: The 1961 Bukit Ho Swee Fire and the Making of Modern Singapore (NUS & NIAS Presses, 2013) provides a highly interesting social history of urban kampongs in Singapore and the modernist public housing scheme that […]

Mark Baildon (National Institute of Education (Singapore))

Keywords
History
Junior College
Book Review
Singapore History

Loh Kah Seng’s new book, Squatters into Citizens: The 1961 Bukit Ho Swee Fire and the Making of Modern Singapore (NUS & NIAS Presses, 2013) provides a highly interesting social history of urban kampongs in Singapore and the modernist public housing scheme that transformed Singapore. Loh, currently an Assistant Professor at the Institute for East Asian Studies at Sogang University in South Korea, is also the author of Making and Unmaking the Asylum: Leprosy and Modernity in Singapore and Malaysia (2009).

Loh’s book is a well-written and accessible narrative that blends the author’s personal history (his early years in a one-room rental flat and interviews of his parents) with oral history methods, ethnography, and disaster studies. He also analyzes different “mythologies” and the ways they operate in Singapore. In his chapter on memory, myth, and identity, for instance, Loh examines the ways the Bukit Ho Swee fire is treated: from the celebratory official narrative promoted by the People’s Action Party (PAP) in various public texts to the nostalgic view of the kampong and kampong spirit, as well as the “counter-myth” of rumors and “wild talk” that circulated in Singapore about the fire. Each of these “myths” and how they work in shaping views of the past is highly relevant to history educators and anyone interested in the ways different discourses about the past, public policy, and public space work in Singapore. The book also highlights the challenges historians of Singapore often face when they are unable to gain access to public records (e.g., classified government records held by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Ministry of Home Affairs).

The book also provides an alternative account and conceptual frame through which Singapore’s past and public spaces can be viewed. Noting that linear and mostly celebratory views of Singapore’s housing policy obscure the resistance and social contestation that took place, Loh demonstrates the ways  policy-makers used a language of crisis (i.e., disease, crime, disorder, social danger, communism, etc.) with scientific-rationalist visions of order and development that didn’t recognize the  agency, self-reliance, and autonomy of local communities. Loh argues that national developmental goals do not necessarily cripple local communities, even though the transitions required by new policies are often painful. Singapore’s kampong culture exhibited high aspirations, social autonomy, a blending of traditional and modern views, and a desire for development that is respectful of traditional values and cultures. Like Pankaj Mishra, in his excellent book, From the Ruins of Empire: The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia (2012), Loh points to the way traditional or more communal values and capacities can serve as a buffer against social dislocations caused by government interventions.

Download Full Article

Scroll to Top