Index

Lim Ying Xuan

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
History

Authors List

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

Lim Ying Xuan (Chung Cheng High School (Yishun),(Singapore) Keywords History Approaches to teaching history This article proposes the usage of ‘how’ questions to develop historical understandings and an appreciation of the historical process. ‘How’ inquiries elicit a temporal dimension that is necessary for historical understanding, especially bolstering the concept of chronology. This article contends that more […]

Lim Ying Xuan (Chung Cheng High School (Yishun),(Singapore)

Keywords
History
Approaches to teaching history

This article proposes the usage of ‘how’ questions to develop historical understandings and an appreciation of the historical process. ‘How’ inquiries elicit a temporal dimension that is necessary for historical understanding, especially bolstering the concept of chronology. This article contends that more thought should be put into the pairings of question forms with particularities of the past. Classroom inquiry should be further modelled on the approaches used by professional historians, pairing an often neglected ‘how’ dimension to the ‘why’ dimension that predominates current inquiries. Asking ‘how’ resists a ‘flattened’ form of history that inhibits understanding of second-order historical concepts, and prevents students from falling into rabbit holes of factorization and weighing that are acutely ahistorical and unnuanced. This article contends that students are already equipped with some of the necessary tools for teachers to use ‘how’ more often in classrooms. In the quest for greater historical understanding, asking the historical ‘how’ appears as the next practicable step to help students have a better glimpse into the historian’s craft.

Download Full Article

Author/s:
, ,

Candice Yvette Seet Siew Yan (Loyang View Secondary School (Singapore) Teo See Hian (Loyang View Secondary School (Singapore) Amelia Yeo Jiaxin (Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Secondary School (Singapore) Keywords History Approaches to teaching history This article discusses the merits of the intentional use of conceptual lenses that spirals across the four years of a student’s secondary-level History education to […]

Candice Yvette Seet Siew Yan (Loyang View Secondary School (Singapore)
Teo See Hian (Loyang View Secondary School (Singapore)
Amelia Yeo Jiaxin (Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Secondary School (Singapore)

Keywords
History
Approaches to teaching history

This article discusses the merits of the intentional use of conceptual lenses that spirals across the four years of a student’s secondary-level History education to develop conceptual understandings and powerful knowledge. By developing a concept-driven set of inquiry tasks that spans across levels, it allows repeated engagement with familiar first and second-order concepts, and opportunities for students to deepen their understanding.

Download Full Article

Author/s:

Pang Wei Han(Raffles Institution (Singapore)) Keywords Social Studies Secondary School Social Studies social studies education Singapore teacher professional learning According to the Upper Secondary (Express/Normal Academic) Social Studies Teaching and Learning Guide, dynamic content “refers to knowledge needed for students to amplify and deepen their understanding of the core content” and “can take the form […]

Pang Wei Han(Raffles Institution (Singapore))
Keywords
Social Studies
Secondary School
Social Studies
social studies education
Singapore
teacher professional learning

According to the Upper Secondary (Express/Normal Academic) Social Studies Teaching and Learning Guide, dynamic content “refers to knowledge needed for students to amplify and deepen their understanding of the core content” and “can take the form of examples found in the Coursebook, or can be examples derived from discussions and explorations students undertake in school and outside of school” (Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 12). This review article was conceptualised with the intention of supporting Social Studies educators by supplementing their toolkit of dynamic content and sources. In addition to presenting an overview of three recently-published texts in the field of Singapore Studies, I will draw linkages with key concepts in the SS curriculum and suggest potential pedagogical approaches to leveraging these texts in the classroom. In keeping with the renewed emphasis on Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), I also remark on how the texts can tie in with various CCE strands, including Values-in-Action, Education and Career Guidance, and discussion of contemporary issues.

Download Full Article

Author/s:

Keith C. Barton (Indiana University) Keywords History Social Studies Secondary School Literacy Writing can be a powerful tool for learning in the Humanities. When used well, it helps students clarify their thoughts in a quick, simple way, and it provides teachers with ready insight into how students are making sense of content.  Writing is also a […]

Keith C. Barton (Indiana University)

Keywords
History
Social Studies
Secondary School
Literacy

Writing can be a powerful tool for learning in the Humanities. When used well, it helps students clarify their thoughts in a quick, simple way, and it provides teachers with ready insight into how students are making sense of content.  Writing is also a natural way to engage students who have a wide range of achievement levels, for it allows different students to participate in the same activity in different ways. Perhaps most importantly, it places control of learning in the hands of students themselves, so that they have a chance to construct their own ideas instead of simply reproducing what they encounter from teachers, texts, or other sources. When used this way, most students write easily and naturally.

That may not sound like a very familiar description of writing. Both students and teachers are more likely to think of writing as a difficult and time-consuming process, one that sometimes seems to require impossibly high standards. Many may associate it with drudgery, boredom, and the regurgitation of content that they barely understand. But it does not have to be that way. Developing a more positive and productive attitude toward writing requires thinking more carefully about its role in the learning process.

The Role of Writing in Learning
Writing is one of the most common tasks required of students at school, but it rarely lives up to its potential as a tool for learning. Most often, we ask students to write for one of two reasons: (1) As a summative assessment. We often ask students to write examinations, essays, or other somewhat lengthy compositions as a way of finding out how well they have learned what we intended. Here, writing is a product of learning. (2) As a skill to be learned. In language classes, we teach students the mechanics of composition, and in content courses, we teach them to apply that to particular subjects—by writing a historical essay, for example. Here, writing is the object of learning.

Both of these are important reasons for having students write, but neither of them is centrally concerned with helping students learn content; they are more like by-products or auxiliaries of Humanities content. By placing writing closer to the center of the learning, though, we can make it both more natural and more effective. Rather than only being the product or the object of learning, writing should also be part of the process of learning.

This means giving students the chance to write quickly and informally as they are learning, or immediately after a lesson. It does not involve lengthy compositions, nor does it focus on correct spelling and punctuation. (Think of it as more like email—correct spelling and punctuation are nice, but we do not tell people we will not read their emails if they are not perfect.) If students get too bogged down in the mechanics of writing, the activity will cease to serve its purpose. The purpose of this kind of writing is for students to think about the information they have encountered, and to make it their own through the activity of writing (Britton, 1970; Langer & Applebee, 1987; Smith & Wilhelm, 2010). This is what constructivism is all about—students constructing knowledge by doing something with content. When students react to information through an activity, they construct their own understanding of it. Otherwise they are just memorizing … or forgetting.

Download Full Article

Related Teaching Materials

Attachment Size
 Magic Words 20.57 KB
Author/s:

Rindi Baildon (Singapore American School) Keywords History Social Studies Primary School Historical thinking The study of significant people in history can be an engaging, meaningful, and integrated learning experience for upper primary school students. In this article I describe a project, The Notables, which immersed my Grade 4 students in a series of social studies and […]

Rindi Baildon (Singapore American School)

Keywords
History
Social Studies
Primary School
Historical thinking

The study of significant people in history can be an engaging, meaningful, and integrated learning experience for upper primary school students. In this article I describe a project, The Notables, which immersed my Grade 4 students in a series of social studies and language arts activities designed to help them understand the concept of significance, learn about historical people and events, and develop important research and presentation skills.

In the study of history, key historical concepts such as significance, causation, continuity and change, and evidence are “essential to historical enquiry, the generation of hypotheses, and the appropriate selection, deployment and organization of historical details” (Ashby & Edwards, 2010, p. 35). These concepts are “tools for doing history, for thinking historically” (Seixas, 2010, p. 16). This means that helping young students understand the concept of significance can help them learn about the past. It can help them structure their learning to fully appreciate the role and contributions of key figures in history.

The Notables project uses the concept of significance to integrate language arts curriculum objectives (e.g., developing nonfiction reading skills, research skills, and presentation skills) with key primary social studies objectives, such as students being able to organize information, convey information for particular purposes and audiences, and appreciate the importance of key groups and individuals in their communities (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2008). The concept of significance helps students focus their reading and research, organize information, and understand the role key people have played in  their history.

The Notables has been adapted and used successfully with primary students ages 8-12 years old in various international schools. The activities described in this article were implemented with 9-10 year old students at the Singapore American School but can be modified to fit in any curriculum that requires students to learn about historical figures.

Download Full Article

Author/s:

Goh Chor Boon (National Institute of Education, Singapore) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School History In 1965, Masuji Ibuse, a native son of Hiroshima, published his Black Rain (Kuroi Ame).[i] The novel is masterful reconstruction of death from radiation sickness based on the diary of a Hiroshima survivor plus interviews with some 50 hibakusha or victims of the atomic holocaust. Ibuse’s […]

Goh Chor Boon (National Institute of Education, Singapore)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
History

In 1965, Masuji Ibuse, a native son of Hiroshima, published his Black Rain (Kuroi Ame).[i] The novel is masterful reconstruction of death from radiation sickness based on the diary of a Hiroshima survivor plus interviews with some 50 hibakusha or victims of the atomic holocaust. Ibuse’s sensitivity to the complex web of emotions in a traditional community torn asunder by this historical event has made Black Rain one of the most acclaimed treatments of the Hiroshima story.

This article aims to demonstrate how “assessment” issues go beyond testing of historical understanding, meeting examination requirements, teaching strategies and other pedagogical concerns, to include wider implications of how historical knowledge is reviewed and re-assessed by historians and history educators.  It was motivated by a recent discussion I had with two upper secondary history teachers who have been teaching for five to seven years. Both do not teach beyond the dropping of “Little Boy” on Hiroshima and “Fat Man” on Nagasaki to indicate their end of their teaching on the Pacific War in August 1945. When asked why is there no discussion on the aftermath of the dropping of the atomic bombs, one teacher replied that it is not in the syllabus, while another admitted that she has no knowledge of the topic to generate discussion with the pupils.[ii] In short, pupils’ historical knowledge on the end of the Pacific War literally ended with the dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”. They are not able to judge and evaluate America’s decision to drop the bombs and to appreciate the impact of the decision.

If we are passionate about teaching History, and to impart the craft of the historian to our pupils, we have to give pupils a more holistic understanding (or “Total History”) of the events in history and their relevance to our lives today. We need to allow our pupils to appreciate – and to interpret – the wider implications of development of events in the past and present.  This implies that to promote historical understanding and meaningful assessment for learning, we need to anchor decisions on ‘what’ and ‘how’ to assess to the clarity of purpose, that is, the ‘why’. Pupils would then be able to appreciate concepts of Change and Continuity, Cause and Consequence (or Causation), Similarity and Difference, and Historical Empathy. It is also important to note that, if the teacher has his/her biased interpretation of a historical event, such as the war in the Pacific, it is likely to be reflected in his/her narration of events. The sources selected could also reinforce the teacher’s biased interpretation. We all know that History is one subject that provides opportunities for the teacher to influence the perceptions of pupils towards the historical past, especially controversial, turning-points events.

One of the stated learning outcomes related to the end of the War is to “empathise with people who have lived through trying times under extreme conditions” (Division, 2012: 29). The “people” referred to were those living in Singapore or broadly human beings whose lives were devastated by war.  We know that History is one of the best subjects in the curriculum to develop empathy in the young. Historical empathy involves the ability to look at people, events and issues in the past as the people in the past would have looked at them. This means that our pupils will be expected to comment on history from the point of view of someone who was living at that period of time under discussion. To understand what happened in the past they must learn to set aside their own ideas and background and picture themselves in the past. The pupils need to think about feelings, motives, attitudes, beliefs and opinions of the people living in a specific place and time in history. To do this, they have to use their imagination. History as narratives deals with basic and powerful emotions familiar even to younger children (Egan, 1979; Levstik and Barton, 2008). Understanding history is more than just equipping pupils with knowledge. We need to make them see the significance of events, to develop insights into the social and moral values that led to the unfolding of events within the particular historical circumstances.

Author/s:

Barton, Keith C. (Indiana University) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School pedagogy Discussion can be a valuable element of history classrooms, and assessing participation can provide an important means of improving students’ engagement in this valuable form of communication. Doing so requires that teachers identify the specific skills of historical discussion that they want students to […]

Barton, Keith C. (Indiana University)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
pedagogy

Discussion can be a valuable element of history classrooms, and assessing participation can provide an important means of improving students’ engagement in this valuable form of communication. Doing so requires that teachers identify the specific skills of historical discussion that they want students to master; teach those skills systematically; and develop practical procedures for collecting information on students’ participation. This article suggests guidelines for teachers to consider in preparing for each of these tasks.

For most history teachers (and others in the humanities), classroom discussion is an inherently appealing practice. After all, professional historians discuss their work with each other—and with the public—all the time, so introducing students to this part of the discipline seems an authentic way to move beyond the traditional tests and essays found in most history classrooms. In addition, it seems self-evident that discussion can increase students’ engagement, sharpen their intellects, develop their verbal skills, and model how to take part in civil discourse with those whose ideas differ from their own. Notably, an important predictor of students’ commitment to democratic values is the extent to which they have experienced an “open” classroom climate in school (reviewed in Knowles & McCafferty-Wright, 2015), and one of the characteristics of such classrooms is that they encourage students to engage in a relatively free exchange of ideas through discussion of social and political issues (which often overlap with history). With all these reasons in its favor, most history teachers these days look for opportunities to regularly engage students in classroom discussion.

Assessing those discussions, however, is another matter. Many teachers hesitate to formally evaluate students’ participation in discussion, for a number of related reasons (Hess, 2002). First, some teachers feel—not without reason—that holding students accountable for the quality of their discussion may inhibit participation. Students may be so afraid of making a mistake, that is, and so they minimize their engagement for fear of losing credit. Conversely, teachers may worry that students will be so focused on getting a good grade that it will render discussion inauthentic: Students may simply follow scoring guidelines without regard to their true thoughts on the topic, or without concern for the inherent benefits of sustained intellectual discourse. And finally, teachers may despair at the possibility of creating an assessment measure that adequately captures the nature of historical discussion. They may feel less qualified to evaluate a discussion than the more familiar format of an essay, for example, or they may feel that forms of discussion are so diverse—even idiosyncratic—that there is no way to create a common rubric that would apply to each discussion and each student.

These are valid concerns, and teachers must grapple with them. Nonetheless, there are good arguments that the value of assessing classroom discussion outweighs such challenges. Perhaps the most important is that we should assess students on those things we consider important. With presentations and written work, we do not assess students on their memory of historical trivia, but on their ability to construct a well-reasoned argument and communicate it clearly; we therefore send a clear signal that reasoning and communication is more important than remembering trivia. If we truly believe that historical discussion is important, then we should signal that through our assessment practices (Hess, 2002). Otherwise, students may come to regard discussion as a distraction from the “true” historical work of writing—a perspective that is already reinforced by the essay-focused nature of external examinations.

Download Full Article

Author/s:

Ong Daphne Rachel (Broadrick Secondary School (Singapore)) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Approaches to teaching history Assessment Introduction Source-Based Case Study (SBCS) is a compulsory part of the formal history assessment in Singapore. It falls under Assessment Objective 3 which requires students to “interpret and evaluate source material” (MOE, 2013). Since this is an important […]

Ong Daphne Rachel (Broadrick Secondary School (Singapore))

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Approaches to teaching history
Assessment

Introduction
Source-Based Case Study (SBCS) is a compulsory part of the formal history assessment in Singapore. It falls under Assessment Objective 3 which requires students to “interpret and evaluate source material” (MOE, 2013). Since this is an important component in the current assessment framework, history teachers spend a significant amount of time helping students to master the requisite source-work skills. In addition, they would frequently be engaged in the task of setting and marking SBCS assignments. Some of these teachers would strive to give feedback to help students know where they stand and how they can improve. They would normally include comments and some may write copious amount of feedback. While these teachers held good intentions when writing feedback, for example, to help students improve their performance, anecdotal evidence suggests that students were likely to skim over written feedback and instead concentrate mainly on the marks and grades awarded. This action on the part of the students, however, negates the purpose of Formative Assessment (FA) “as one that is specifically meant to provide feedback on performance to improve and accelerate learning” (Sadler, 1998, p. 77).

Another issue hindering student improvement in answering SBCS questions is their over-reliance on the teacher, especially in going through detailed explanations for each question after the marking process, and then for students to merely address the corrections by copying given answers. This situation can be described as “learning is being taught” (Watkins, 2003) where the traditional roles of the teacher as the provider of all knowledge and that of the student as the absorber of passed down knowledge play out in the context mentioned above. While doing corrections may suggest that students have comprehended their mistakes, anecdotal evidence again suggests the ineffectiveness of this approach as the recurrence of the same mistake being made by students appears very high. One reason is because most students – without being consciously aware – are just copying the model answers without ever thinking about the question again. While some students may independently re-look and try to make sense of these answers before tests and examinations, a large number of them can experience “rumination”, a state in which students get stuck on their mistakes and wander around them without learning how to find a solution (Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2014). Moreover, the copying of model answers erroneously reinforce the idea that the teacher’s answer is the only logical or correct one while discarding the possibility of other acceptable answers (which the students are not exposed to).

This article aims to share how designing a comprehensive error analysis lesson package, which was implemented at Broadrick Secondary School (BSS), can serve as a means for thinking about a student-centered approach to bridge their learning gaps in answering SBCS questions. Teachers can leverage the opportunity of maximizing error analysis methods into an Assessment for Learning (AfL) design by using marking codes, feedback, questioning, gradual release of responsibility, differentiated instruction and self-reflection to engage students in their learning.

AfL as A Way to Learn
AfL or FA “is an active and intentional learning process that partners the teacher and students to continuously and systematically gather evidence of learning with the express goal of improving student achievement” (Moss  &  Brookhart,  2009, p. 6).

Error analysis becomes a form of AfL when feedback, questioning, collaboration and differentiated sense-making are established into a model of learning. This type of learning follows a socio-cultural model of learning and can be considered as co-constructivist as learning takes place through interacting with others in meaningful contexts and through problem-solving activities (Watkins, 2003).

Download Full Article

Author/s:
,

Celine Oon (Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education (Singapore) Bertrand Tan (Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education (Singapore)) Keywords History Assessment Introduction Identifying students’ learning gaps is often a challenge for Pre-University History teachers. Besides generic formative assessment strategies such as teacher questioning, think-pair-share and student reflection, formative assessments carried out at the […]

Celine Oon (Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education (Singapore)
Bertrand Tan (Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education (Singapore))

Keywords
History
Assessment

Introduction
Identifying students’ learning gaps is often a challenge for Pre-University History teachers. Besides generic formative assessment strategies such as teacher questioning, think-pair-share and student reflection, formative assessments carried out at the A-Levels also involve getting students to discuss or write essays in response to past year history examination questions. While these tasks provide teachers with some sense of how students are able to manage question items in the A-Level History examination, how much do these essays or Source-based Case Study (SBCS) assignments tell teachers about students’ understanding of historical concepts and skills?[i] Furthermore, how helpful are these assignments in informing the next steps of instruction?

Generally, many pre-University history teachers recognize the value of formative assessment in supporting teaching and learning. Knowing where students ‘are at’ at significant junctures of the learning process can help teachers decide what to do to close students’ learning gaps (Wiliam, 2011). However, in the absence of formative assessments that can be quickly implemented and targeted to elicit information on students’ knowledge of historical concepts and skills, teachers often end up using summative assessment for formative purposes.

Yet, to meet formative assessment objectives, dealing mainly with A-Level History examination questions may have limited utility. The first issue is that lengthy essays make it difficult for teachers to quickly identify particular skills or concepts that need further attention (Breakstone, 2014). The second issue relates closely to the purpose of the assessment. Specifically, A-Level History examination questions require students to synthesize component skills in the course of answering them. Yet, a student’s response to A-Level History examination questions offers little or limited information on precisely where the student’s strengths and weaknesses lie and do not serve as an effective compass pointing teachers towards appropriate instructional interventions. As put forth by the National Research Council (NRC) in Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, “…the more purposes a single assessment aims to serve, the more each purpose will be compromised” (National Research Council [NRC], 2001: 2).

Author/s:

Barton, Keith C.  (Indiana University) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Historical Sources Abstract Historical sources are a common feature of history classrooms, but the purpose of using them is not always clear,  and as a result, instructional activities with sources may not be as effective or meaningful as they should be. This lack of […]

Barton, Keith C.  (Indiana University)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Historical Sources

Abstract
Historical sources are a common feature of history classrooms, but the purpose of using them is not always clear,  and as a result, instructional activities with sources may not be as effective or meaningful as they should be. This lack of clarity stems in part from the fact that there are four distinctly different reasons for using sources, and each carries its own implications for classroom practice. These purposes are 1) illustration and motivation; 2) evidence for historical inquiry;  3) visual or textual interpretation; 4) source analysis. By reflecting on how each of these purposes can play a role in the classroom, which kinds of sources are appropriate for each, and where they fit into an overall sequence of instruction, teachers can ensure that their use of sources deepens and extends students’ historical understanding.

All history teachers know they should be using original historical sources—often misleadingly referred to as “primary sources”—but sometimes they are less clear on the purpose of using them. Students encounter original historical sources in textbooks and accompanying exercises, and they may be required to analyze them as part of examinations. But these encounters are not enough to communicate the purpose of including sources in the curriculum, particularly given that they are often difficult to read and understand. In order to have educational value, teachers need to think carefully about why original historical sources are important, and how their purpose affects their use in the classroom.

Perhaps the lack of clarity about sources stems in part from the fact that there is no single reason for including them, and thus no “right” way of have students engage with them. Rather, there are four distinct purposes for using original historical sources, and each carries its own implications for educators. It is important to think through how these purposes differ and what their role might be in the history classroom.

Download Full Article

Scroll to Top