Index

Lim Ying Xuan

Authors List

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Approaches to Teaching 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:

Oh Ying Jie (Beatty Secondary School (Singapore) Keywords History Approaches to teaching history Since its inception in 2014, Historical Investigation (HI) has been an integral part of the lower secondary history syllabus. However, some history educators have found the process to be extremely tedious and many would rather opt for direct instruction or to undertake a […]

Oh Ying Jie (Beatty Secondary School (Singapore)

Keywords
History
Approaches to teaching history

Since its inception in 2014, Historical Investigation (HI) has been an integral part of the lower secondary history syllabus. However, some history educators have found the process to be extremely tedious and many would rather opt for direct instruction or to undertake a simplistic version of HI. This article looks at why HI remains essential to the teaching and learning of history as a discipline and why teachers should place emphasis on “the process” rather than simply on “the product” when designing HI.

Download Full Article

Author/s:
,

Lloyd T.C. Yeo (Academy of Singapore Teachers (Singapore) Teddy Sim Y.H. (National Institute of Education (Singapore) Keywords History Approaches to teaching history This article uncovers the alternative conceptions that students have of the study of Singapore during the Temasek period through students’ cartoons, in the process deriving implications for future teaching through an analysis of the work […]

Lloyd T.C. Yeo (Academy of Singapore Teachers (Singapore)
Teddy Sim Y.H. (National Institute of Education (Singapore)

Keywords
History
Approaches to teaching history

This article uncovers the alternative conceptions that students have of the study of Singapore during the Temasek period through students’ cartoons, in the process deriving implications for future teaching through an analysis of the work performed by students. The discussions are drawn from a workshop session conducted by a History Master Teacher at the Academy of Singapore Teachers and cartoons from a selected batch of Secondary 1 students from a school that chose to participate in the learning of Singapore’s pre-modern (Temasek) history through the cartooning approach. The investigation of alternative conception demonstrates that students’ concepts of old Singapore can be affected—not surprisingly—to some extent by presentism in the categorical aspects of life identified on Temasek (architecture, religion, royalty, ordinary life). While it is pertinent to rectify students’ inaccurate alternative conceptions, teachers’ responses and class instruction should not devolve into an identification exercise of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ interpretations. Surfacing alternative conceptions creates classroom opportunities to induct teachers into certain aspects of the topic more deeply and to link the alternative conceptions of presentism to other concepts of history such as historical evidence, perspectives, as well as change and continuity, which allow students to better appreciate history along with contemporary issues of heritage.

Download Full Article

Related Teaching Materials

Attachment Size
 Appendix 1 MB
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:
,

Bradley Soh Chun Ying (National Institute of Education) Sim Guo Chen (National Institute of Education) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Approaches to teaching history Introduction Assessment in Singapore’s history classrooms has long reflected our teachers’ enduring focus on preparing students to meet examination requirements. The most common assessment practices revolve around assessing students’ proficiency in handling […]

Bradley Soh Chun Ying (National Institute of Education)
Sim Guo Chen (National Institute of Education)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Approaches to teaching history

Introduction
Assessment in Singapore’s history classrooms has long reflected our teachers’ enduring focus on preparing students to meet examination requirements. The most common assessment practices revolve around assessing students’ proficiency in handling source-based case study questions and in using writing frames to answer essay questions asked in national examinations. Furthermore, many of these assessment tasks are typically assigned at the end of each topic or theme in the syllabus. There are, however, significant drawbacks to this assessment approach. First, this approach frequently offers delayed quantitative and qualitative descriptions of learner performance, thus preventing teachers from tracking their students’ learning during the instructional process and adjusting their pedagogical strategies accordingly to address students’ learning needs. Closing learning gaps only after analyzing students’ responses to these assessment tasks would likely require teachers to allocate a significant amount of time to revisit the topic, which may not always be possible within limited curriculum time. Second, such assessment tasks are oftentimes tedious to mark, and the resultant feedback may not accurately identify areas for improvement, especially with regard to the student’s apparent overlapping weaknesses. For instance, an inadequate Structured Essay Question (SEQ) response may be the result of several entrenched weaknesses, such as a lack of familiarity with the historical context, an inability to see relevance between content knowledge and the question requirements, or a specific linguistic difficulty in expressing relevant ideas. When faced with necessary and urgent feedback on numerous aspects of their responses, many history students (especially lower progress ones) are likely to be overwhelmed and demoralized.

To be sure, these assessment challenges are not unique to Singapore: Wineburg (2018) noted that in America, “assessment was history education’s weakest link”, as it “suffered from a poverty of imagination” (pp. 131-132). Any serious considerations towards improving assessment in Singapore’s history classrooms must begin with certain core beliefs we hold regarding assessment as encapsulated in the Singapore Curriculum Philosophy (SCP). The SCP states that assessment designed with “clarity of purpose” is “integral to the learning process” – that is, teachers must first decide “what” and “how” to assess and then use appropriate assessment tools that gather timely, relevant and specific information to “address learning gaps and improve teaching practices” (Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2017). Applying these guiding principles to the enactment of Singapore’s history syllabus and the associated teaching actions, we believe that assessment practices should offer students the opportunity to receive useful and targeted feedback that would help them build better understandings in history. In addressing potential learning gaps and the expectations of what students should have learnt at the respective age levels, it is imperative for teachers to consider developing students’ thinking in history and to assess their ability to make sense of historical knowledge.

Download Full Article

Author/s:

Arthur Chapman (UCL Institute of Education) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Approaches to teaching history Teachers’ Practice Abstract The history of history education, past and present, often resembles a history of contestation, in which rival and polarized understandings of the meanings of ‘history’ and ‘history education’ vie for dominance (Nakou and Barca, 2010). A common […]

Arthur Chapman (UCL Institute of Education)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Approaches to teaching history
Teachers’ Practice

Abstract
The history of history education, past and present, often resembles a history of contestation, in which rival and polarized understandings of the meanings of ‘history’ and ‘history education’ vie for dominance (Nakou and Barca, 2010). A common polarity in debates on history curricula is the opposition between ‘knowledge’ and ‘skill’, an opposition that has had considerable currency in recent curriculum reform processes in England which have emphasized ‘core knowledge’ (DfE, 2013).

Drawing on examples of classroom practice (Chapman, 2003; Woodcock, 2005; Buxton, 2010) and on systematic research and theorizing (Shemilt, 1983; Lee and Shemilt, 2009) this paper aims to destabilize such binary talk and to explore the ways in which ‘first order’ knowledge and understanding about the past and ‘second order’ or metahistorical knowledge and understanding of how the discipline of history works are both logically inter-related and inseparable in practical terms. The notion of historical ‘enquiry’ (Counsell, 2011) is explored as a pedagogic tool for the simultaneous development of these inter-related dimensions of historical thinking.

Introduction
As has often been the case around the world (Carretero, 2011; Nakou and Barca, eds., 2010; Taylor and Guyver, eds., 2011), recent public discussions of history curriculum and pedagogy in England have tended to be structured through overdrawn dichotomies – between ‘content’ and ‘skills’, between ‘traditional’ and ‘progressive’ and between ‘child-centred’ and ‘subject-centred’ pedagogies (Lee, 2011, pp.132-134). This paper aims to demonstrate the emptiness of these oppositions through discussion of a key aspect of historical understanding – historical explanation. It will argue that these oppositions present us with fallacious choices that restrict options to ‘either / or’ where, in reality, more complex choices, including ‘both / and’, are possible and desirable and, very probably, inevitable.

Download Full Article

Author/s:
, ,

Andrew Anthony (Academy of Singapore Teachers (Singapore)) Lloyd Yeo (Academy of Singapore Teachers (Singapore)) Suhaimi Afandi (National Institute of Education, Singapore) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Approaches to teaching history Abstract This small-scale study explores professional development (PD) designs for history teachers in Singapore and proposes a PD model that uses a job-embedded collaborative approach. Drawing from […]

Andrew Anthony (Academy of Singapore Teachers (Singapore))
Lloyd Yeo (Academy of Singapore Teachers (Singapore))
Suhaimi Afandi (National Institute of Education, Singapore)

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Approaches to teaching history

Abstract
This small-scale study explores professional development (PD) designs for history teachers in Singapore and proposes a PD model that uses a job-embedded collaborative approach. Drawing from research on effective PD and data gathered from questionnaires and interviews conducted with participants involved in a PD workshop, this paper considers the value of collaborative PD approaches aimed at promoting and encouraging historical thinking. The authors conclude that PD history workshops that are carefully designed to support the development of teachers’ professional knowledge bases, and ones that offer opportunities for teachers to actively translate conceptual ideas into concrete teaching strategies, are critical in transforming beliefs and practices that can work towards more robust historical thinking and discourse in the classroom.

Introduction
The teaching and learning of History as a disciplinary field of study in schools is a complex and sophisticated endeavor. The assumption that acquiring historical knowledge may be achieved simply by committing historical narratives (including factual details such as events, names and dates) to memory no longer holds. Preparing students for education in the 21st century involves expanding their knowledge base beyond content mastery or information accumulation, to include deeper understanding about the nature of a specific discipline and the development of relevant thinking and reasoning skills that can allow students to engage with the subject matter. Over the past few decades, research on history education has shown that learning history, for the purpose of deeper understanding, involves not only the study of historical narratives but also the acquisition of discipline-specific cognitive strategies that students can use to better learn and understand the past. To be able to better understand the nature of history, students must be equipped not only with the relevant historical content but also with the necessary tools that can enable them to think historically about the past.

Download Full Article

Author/s:
,

Suhaimi Afandi (National Institute of Education, Singapore) Mark Baildon (National Institute of Education (Singapore)) Keywords History Junior College Secondary School Approaches to teaching history Understanding history can be an intellectually challenging task for many students in schools. It requires students to contemplate issues, events and people who had lived in the distant past and who are often […]

Suhaimi Afandi (National Institute of Education, Singapore)
Mark Baildon (National Institute of Education (Singapore))

Keywords
History
Junior College
Secondary School
Approaches to teaching history

Understanding history can be an intellectually challenging task for many students in schools. It requires students to contemplate issues, events and people who had lived in the distant past and who are often far removed (from them) in time and familiarity. Such challenges, however, have seldom been satisfactorily addressed in many history classrooms in Singapore. Where historical instruction in schools takes on a heavily content-transmission approach, students are more likely to conceive history learning as the uncritical absorption and memorisation of knowledge that has little bearing to their everyday lives. This is especially so when the existence of a prescribed textbook and a pre-selected content is viewed as sufficient learning materials for direct historical instruction. Additionally, the attention spent on developing methods to train and prepare students to answer examination questions has reduced historical thinking and reasoning to sets of somewhat rigid, algorithmically-devised skills-related procedures (Afandi & Baildon, 2010). While these may help build students’ capacity to deal with the requisite assessment objectives tested in the examinations, they do little to build student’s knowledge of history. Amidst a schooling context that places emphasis on rigid procedures to produce “the right answers” and driven by a strong purpose to meet assessment requirements and accountability in the examination, it is unsurprising if many believe that history teaching need not go beyond simply the transfer of (historical) knowledge or content. This, however, should not be confused with learning history. As Lee (1991: pp. 48-49) maintained, [it is] absurd … to say that schoolchildren know any history if they have no understanding of how historical knowledge is attained, its relationship to evidence, and the way in which historians arbitrate between competing or contradictory claims. The ability to recall accounts without any understanding of the problems involved in constructing them or the criteria involved in evaluating them has nothing historical about it. Without an understanding of what makes an account historical, there is nothing to distinguish such an ability from the ability to recite sagas, legends, myths or poems.

Implicit in Lee’s assertion is the suggestion that acquiring the kind of knowledge that is deemed historical goes beyond information acquisition and rote memorisation of facts; it must equip students with “more powerful” ways of understanding history and the historical past (Lee & Ashby, 2000, p. 216). Among other things, this would involve getting students to come to grips with the disciplinary basis of the subject and having them understand how knowledge about the past is constructed, adjudicated and arbitrated.

Download Full Article

Scroll to Top