Hi, please read the following for your first lesson and post your written reflections under this thread.
Holden, P.(1999) The Great Literature Debate
Poon, A. (2007) The Politics of Pragmatics
Smith & Wilhelm (2006) Designing Inquiry units
Deadline: 3 June 2012, Sunday
& Written Reflections 2 on Assessment!
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteI would like to discuss the problematical aspects of Holden’s argument in ‘The Great Literature Debate: Why Teach Literature In Singapore?’
Holden advocates the study of literature as “a part of the process of formation of a national culture”. Yet he recognizes the ideological tension in locking national culture in such a stance, and includes the caveat that “(t)he danger of any national literary curriculum is that it might promote a fixed, essentialist vision of the nation, a museum-like representation of national culture, a tableau which is prescribed, prematurely fixed and impervious to change.” Even though Holden entertains this possibility, he does not provide any recommendations to deal with the formation of such an anti-critical disposition, and aligns his argument with the general view that literature “can be a powerful tool for critical and creative thinking.”
But the concern that Holden raises about a vision that is prescribed and “prematurely fixed” is legitimate. Can we say that the Singapore we encounter in Edwin Thumboo’s or Alfian Sa’at’s works for example, captures the core or essence of Singaporean culture?
But Holden himself invites such a view of the national literature curriculum when he envisions such a ‘scripted’ view of reality:
Although we are frequently not aware of it, our lives are often scripted in a way similar to fiction; we are told stories of self-improvement and national progress which lead as surely towards a conclusion as a novel or a play, and we are encouraged to model our lives upon these scripts. The “reality” in which we live in everyday is a series of metaphors (“the mother tongue”, for example)...Reading literature well enables a more nuanced reading of the lived reality of Singapore. (p 88)
It might be that unless a critical disposition is nurtured, rather than enabling a “more nuanced reading of the lived reality of Singapore”, students might instead go on to pigeon-hole others as they would characters in a novel. The work of a critical pedagogue then, should be encourage students to resist certain conclusions, dismantle the scripted narrative and challenge metaphors that continue to be circulated.
Further, I would like to suggest that Holden’s concern applies not only to texts geared to promote the formation of a national culture, but also to other texts prescribed for literary study in an effort to bring about for students, MOE’s outcome of “ explor(ing) areas of human concern, thus leading to a greater understanding of themselves and others” . Why might it not be the case that a text which is included to facilitate an understanding of foreign cultures or perspectives also be open to the charge that it “might promote a fixed essentialist vision”? Can our students come to know Africa or Africans through Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’? A study of a series of texts alone a may not be effective in fostering a critical disposition.
As Poon argues, our students should be equipped with “a more explicit and self-conscious reading” and be encouraged to read “against the grain and between the lines.”
Brigit
Hi,
ReplyDelete1. Poon writes that in Singapore, "literary skills are [viewed as] transferable and replicable across any type of text, regardless of genre, and that they may be taught and acquired just by using a few texts and self contained extracts" (56). She then goes on to point out that "the emphasis on skills in the the study of literature" is a re-appropriation of the New Criticism method whose function was originally meant to "discourage excessive reliance on secondary material", thus "showing how traditional practices underwritten by a particular set of assumptions may nevertheless be used to uphold differing ideological and political interests". The word "uphold" seems to suggest that there exists a set of skills that are politically neutral and hence can be 'freely' deployed to do its user's bidding. Can there, exist a set of 'skills' that are political neutral and transferable? I'm confused. Are these "specific skills" not the same as the "discussion patters and ways to approach a text over time as modeled by the teacher"? Are skills not a product (of practice/meaning-making) as well, and as such already politically charged? Perhaps "critical thinking" that merely locates the 'gaps' and 'silences' in the text is not enough - it should lead us to examining the way we read, and think and the frames of references we adopt (to our own ends/those imposed upon us), and potentially change or orient ourselves, our thoughts and our actions.
2. While I think the curriculum can change the 'way' things are taught, there is also the problem of the interpretation of the curriculum or the MOE 'script'. If teacher's teach mimetically, according to how they think students can best score, then marking schemes become important 'texts' to be interpreted and thought about as well.
On another note, MOE comes up with many many initiatives that sound good - the latest one I think being the "Teacher Growth Model". While it looks good (what that doesn't?) ... nobody thinks so. In fact, some consider this "growth" model to mean "additional workload" (and not unfairly so).
"One of them said: "This is time taken away from my family obligations and I already do not have much of a work-life balance."
Sure, these new concepts and 21st century competencies sound great, but its implementation is marred when people or middle-level managers read "what they like" into the script turning such 'directives' into a farce or 'more work' -- new label for same bottle of wine?
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120601-0000047/When-the-teacher-wants-to-learn-,,,
What is the point of these codes then if everyone has their own set of codes?
I mentioned in the last class my belief that tests should have an element of unpredictability. And Dr Loh pointed out that even while there is unpredictability, there has, to an extent be predictability for example, in terms of adherence to conventions.
ReplyDeleteShepard’s argument on the need to “support robust understandings” resonated with my belief on testing. Shepard applies her criteria on good teaching to good testing and implies that good testing “constantly asks about old understandings in new ways, calls for new applications, and draws new connections” (Shepard, 1997. She adds that we should not “agree to a contract with our students which says that the only fair test is one with familiar and well-rehearsed problems.” Hence she draws a distinction between understanding (which she believes is a kind of malleable knowledge) and applications and connections. However in practice, I wonder if such a dichotomy between understanding vs application and/or drawing connections is so clearly marked and apparent.
In the case of the Unseen for example, the student’s application of encounters with previous exercises could work to her disadvantage. I have marked scripts where the student appeared to have read the passage with preconceptions which could not convincingly be applied in the newer context and was penalised in turn. So what are these “old understandings”? Perhaps in the ideal teaching, learning and testing environment, the student herself will be compelled to make explicit whether the understanding that she has, can be meaningfully transferred, as well demonstrate cognisance of its limits (as Elizabeth was saying). This would be more in line with the New Literacy Studies school of thought which argues that our understandings are socially constructed and socially embedded.
Brigit
Reflection 2
ReplyDeleteThis reflection is based on the articles of Earl and Johnston & Costello. Both talk about formative and summative assessments, which are what schools here are already employing to varying extents. In light of the readings, I would like to share my school’s attempt in using both different assessments and maybe you might want to share your thoughts on them. While I am rather critical about the way they are administered, I might have missed the intended purpose.
According to Earl, purpose is paramount and it should drive how assessments are planned. In my school (and I’m sure in many other schools), lower primary assessments in English, Maths and Mother Tongue have changed from the usual 2 continual and 2 semestral assessments to 8 bite-sized assessments, objective being “to support holistic development of our pupils”. They are pencil-and-paper “exercises” (I still call them “tests”) which to me are typical examination-type papers cut into small chunks and administered to the pupils once every 3 to 4 weeks. These are assessed and make up 75% of the overall score reflected at the end of the year in the pupils’ report books. The other 25% goes to Writing Portfolio and Show & Tell. The bite-sized assessments test different language component each time and are regarded as assessment for learning as they occur in the middle of learning, more than once. Do they constitute effective formative assessments that will inform teachers of the children’s strengths and weaknesses? After each test, the test scores are converted to qualitative feedback, which, as a parent, do not inform me much of my child’s mastery of skills and ability, nothing more than I already know. In one example of a writing piece, comments include “She is able to write complete and logical sentences… There are a few errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation.” For Maths and Mother Tongue, 100% is based on written tests. There are one-off trails incorporated as part of learning. If the whole idea of bite-sized assessment is to support holistic development, does the emphasis on written tests match its purpose?
There can be a disparity between one’s ability to speak and write. The teaching in lower primary classes include play-acting, hands-on activities, speech and drama, singing, etc. However, such activities are not formally assessed, but they only become details of literate behaviours the teachers can observe. When the assessment is skewed towards students’ ability to write, will it create “brittle learners” (Johnston & Costello) as the marks of those having difficulty in reading and writing reveal they have a lack of “ability”? We know children can perform differently in different authentic contexts, so why is it that we frequently use test scores to give an “accurate” representation of children’s ability?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll three articles (Hargreaves, Shepard, Johnston & Costello) all recognize assessment as a social process aimed at "learning" and "meaningful making". This is in line with the Wilheim and Smith article that calls for an inquiry-led classroom discussion. In other words, in the ideal classroom, classroom practices should be aimed at, to borrow Brigit's words, "unpredictability", one that views learning as a work-in-progress. Yet, as all three articles point out, how can assessment, especially high-stakes standardized testing, which is suppose to be fair, accountable, similar in content, and quantifiable do that?
ReplyDeleteIf assessment is also part of learning/meaningful-making then perhaps inquiry-led questions could also be asked. "What is Singapore Literature?" Or "Should one study Singapore literature instead of Shakespeare? could be asked after studying a year of reading a series of Singapore Literature texts (which could include films, books, and songs). Or as Dr Loh's suggestion of "What constitutes 'goodness'" in "The Boy in Striped Pajamas"? could be couched as "Why did the commandant, who killed so many and spoke to Marie roughly, take care of her mother? Or Why was Bruno educated only in History and Geography? Inquiry-led questions are fair as they cater to a range of literacies, require students to draw from a repertoire of literacies, and are unpredictable. Unpredictable questioning is important because the questions in and of themselves call into question old understandings. And if as Brigit says, New Literacy Studies suggest that our understandings are socially constructed and embedded, then anything that calls something old into question already demands a re-making. The problem, however, what constitutes "good" re-making is still subject to a normative framework that ultimately quantifies and ascribes a monetary values on a particular set of dispositions. While we can certainly work towards a "fairer" and more "democratic" process of assessment, education is still bound by its utilitarian function.
As such, this is where Johnston and Costello's suggestion resonates with me. They suggest that teachers entertain the "possibility that their intervention might still be insufficiently responsive", as a "result of poorly configured instruction" (263). We often read statistics of underperforming racial groups in high stakes standardized examinations, as well as the "overperformance" of PRCs. Newspapers and people in power, including teachers, tend to attribute the 'blame' of poor performance to the student (lazy or lousy) and the system (ineffectual, pragmatic, no choice etc) yet fail to acknowledge that it is in part the fault of their unresponsive intervention. If assessment is a social process that is aimed at meaningful making, and then it calls on everyone to adopt a more responsive (rather than reactive) and co-operative attitude towards making meaning.
I just wanted to clarify that by co-operative attitude, I do not mean compliant. Elizabeth
Delete"MOE, my peers who are currently studying in ITE SIMEI are having their exams this week. I was told there was rampant copying and discussions during exams in the exam halls, and invigilators turning a blind eye to the cheating. IS THIS WHAT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS ABOUT? This has been going on for years and the invigilators cannot be bothered to put it right. What is the MOE stance on this issue?"
ReplyDeleteI just saw this comment on the MOE Facebook page, and i thought it was funny because it seems to me like our readings for later would view (would they? haha) "rampant copying and discussions" as part of meaningful-making, as Shepard says "learning is an active process of mental construction and sense making". Furthermore, copying is part of the learning process - we all learn through imitation; and we are discerning about the things we copy, aren't we? Perhaps the invigilators who "cannot be bother to put it right" could be read as de-centered facilitators.
Yet the writer is calling for the integrity of the examination to be reinstated thus re-instigating the installing of an "oppressive assessment discourse?" (Jonston and Costello 263). In what way can the teacher validate these literacies and harness them?
Should learning drive assessment? Or, should assessment drive learning? These are two fundamental questions that were discussed as great length in the five articles I read.
ReplyDeleteShepard notes that high-stakes accountability testing has ‘pervasive negative effects’ and they ‘prevent and drive out thoughtful classroom practices’. In other words high-stakes accountability testing, which in the Singapore context includes the PSLE, O level and A level examination, results in the ‘denigration of teaching’ as teachers teach to the test and students memorise and engage in rote learning (practising endless Ten Year Series questions and examination papers from other schools). Student achievement is emphasised rather than the ‘deep understanding’ that Earl (2003) equates with learning. Other than national examinations, this behaviour is also observed in schools when the focus is on summative assessment or rather Assessment of Learning. Teachers will teach and test to ensure that standards are met and whether the students have acquired the necessary knowledge. These are also driven in part by the fact that both teachers and schools are ranked by their academic performance and also that the test and examination scores will determine the student’s academic pathway and rewards. However, this is not the true purpose of assessment. While summative assessments serve a purpose, they should not be all important.
Assessment has to be purposeful and formative. The actual process of learning, how students make sense of the world the live in and the knowledge that they have gained, how they negotiate knowledge in social settings, how they use given feedback to examine and organise their learning are key to promoting ‘deep understanding’. Rather than the quantity of assessment, it is the quality that matters. In fact, ‘increasing the amount of assessment will not enhance learning’ (Earl, 2003).The focus should be on how students learn. This was emphasised by Shepard, Earl and Johnston in their articles. As Earl notes, ‘Assessment influences learning when teachers use it to become aware of the knowledge and beliefs that their students bring to a learning task, use this knowledge as a starting point for new instruction, and monitor students’ changing perception as instruction proceeds.’ If this is the case, what are some things that we should consider in designing purposeful assessment in the classroom. In addition, educators need to look at how feedback is given and used by both students and teachers in the classroom. Shepard proposes a number of strategies that can be used in the classroom to promote this; however, more importantly, she notes that ‘ None of these strategies by themselves will be effective if they are not part of a more fundamental shift in classroom practices and expectations about learning’.
Thus, the focus should be on present classroom practices and how these can be transformed. If that is the case, how can we encourage educators to embrace this shift as teachers are the key. Should we ‘teach the test’ rather than ‘teach to the test’?
Furthermore, the essential question is: how can we change the perceptions of the general public about assessment? Can and will there be a fundamental change in the way we view assessment when it is set against the exam-centric and results-driven culture of Singapore?
For Kodi
The history of assessment and the direct towards which the social constructivists would like to take assessment outlines the journey of education in Singapore. We have, in my opinion, been trying to shift the focus that has been on high stakes examinations for a long period of time to the holistic development of students. The recent PERI committee’s recommendations have indeed pointed us in that direction. More time has been allocated to sports and the aesthetic development of a child than there was in the past. There is also a mandatory period during which form teachers are supposed to cast aside academic matters and spend it getting to know their students well so as to establish a strong rapport with them. As grand as these plans appear to be on the drawing board, there is a disconnect between the lofty ideals of the curriculum planers and the actual implementation of the practitioners.
ReplyDeleteAs Shepard mentions, “Yet, these findings are based on students' experiences with traditional, inauthentic and normative forms of assessment, where students took little responsibility for their own learning, and criteria remained mysterious…Thus we face the challenge of trying to find out what works at the same time that we are attempting to create new contexts and new cultural expectations that will fundamentally alter the very relations we are trying to study.”
In the past, where there was assessment of learning at the end of each term; however, the new initiatives strive towards assessment for learning instead. This is where at least in the primary school, in the lower levels, major examinations have been replaced by bite sized tests instead. These were intended to remove the pressure of examinations from the young ones and to also assess the level of comprehension of students intermittently such that teachers would be able to fill in the learning gaps as soon as they are created and not have to wait till the end of the term to identify students for remediation.
Again, as Shepard mentions, as noble and idealistic these aims are, teachers have trouble adapting themselves to such a system, having undergone the rote method as students themselves. They still view ‘objective’ assessments where all students are tested similarly in controlled environments as necessary in order to sift out the students of varying abilities. Thus, we now have the token performance tasks which are seen to assess the understanding of students but the instead of four tests a year, students now face a ‘minor’ test every week in schools. It is evident that the planning lacks foresight and also has not been followed up well by the curriculum planners. The reason for the seeming failure of the plan is the fact whatever may have changed in the formative years of primary schooling, the PSLE at the end of the six years remains unchanged. Hence, teachers are caught in a whirlwind of tasks; attempting to incorporate the new system while still not being able to let go of the old.
ReplyDeleteShepard’s claim is that, “all (forms of assessment) can have a corrupting influence on teaching (Whitford & Jones, 2000). Moreover, as Darling-Hammond (1988), McNeil (1988), and others have pointed out, external accountability testing leads to the de-skilling and de-professionalization of teachers…to the denigration of teaching. High-stakes accountability teaches students that effort in school should be in response to externally administered rewards and punishment rather than the excitement of ideas. And accountability-testing mandates warn teachers to comply or get out (or move, if they can, to schools with higher scoring students).”
The intention of having regular bite-sized assessment was to have students take accountability for their own leaning as the dates of the ‘tests’ were not supposed to have been revealed to them for the purpose of keeping overly-enthusiastic parents at bay. However, there was such a ruckus created by parents for this reason that revealing the dates of the assessment could be not be avoided. Thus, the purpose was yet again defeated. Teachers too are losing their motivation while being pulled in million different directions.
The issue does in fact seem to be the high stake examinations. Yet, we are not able to do without them. Our very system rests of the premises of these forms of assessment. Removing them would call for an overhaul of every single one of our practices.
In understanding the role of literature in today’s world, I feel we need to study and understand the methods that are deployed to teach literature to students in schools. For that, we also need to understand the messages that the study of literature wishes to impart. According to Sir Henry Newbolt’s (in Holden 1999) “Teaching literature would have important social, as well as personal, results; it would have a unifying tendency.” Historically, literature was taught with the aim of promoting the nationalistic spirit amongst the people of England. A question worth asking here is whether the literary texts within the Singapore curriculum can hope to inspire nationalism in the students here when most of texts are mainly from the western canon. This makes us question the message of nationalism that Singaporean students derive from studying the texts of the people who once colonised them.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting thing to note here is whether England itself was being truly nationalistic in choosing certain texts for the curriculum, as these represented one set of histories but conveniently excluded those it did not find important. Conrad Black felt that the national curriculum was “not truly national” as it failed to showcase “the multiculturalism of contemporary British Society,” and it chose to bank upon “a nostalgic reconstruction of an imagined past”. Is this the kind of literature we want our students to be brought up on? When England’s notion of their nostalgic past is thwarted, what lessons can we expect the students to derive from them? When I think of the texts that can replace the current ones, I feel we have a variety of writers who can fit the bill in terms of literary merit. Then, why do we still bank upon classic English texts to fill the cultural void we feel in our lives? I often wonder what students in the current era will interpret by reading “Taming of the Shrew”. Will the girls feel infuriated by the actions of the hero? I remember when we did texts in school; we merely learnt it for the sake of reading and studying it for our exams. The same cannot be expected of students today who constantly have been trained to question and challenge assumptions. How can we then provide them with texts with which they cannot relate to?
(cont...d from previous thread)
ReplyDeleteToday when we discussed how literature was taught in secondary classrooms, we were made to think of two questions: 1. What is the purpose of Literature? 2. What should the purpose of literature be? I think these questions kind of highlight the gap between what we do in the classroom and what we think we should be doing the classroom. It highlights the difference between the real practice in the classroom and the ideal classroom we want to have. In studying the current syllabus, I wonder whether the few unseen passages will help students appreciate the culture and values reflected in them. Will it enthuse them to learn more about the world around them? Or are we just training them with the critical skills to dissect an unseen text?
In connection to this, Poon (2007) feels that administering literature in such “piecemeal fashion” does not “add up to a rich and balanced literary diet”. In other words, the current state of the curriculum fails to inspire the student to learn or study literature as it is. Instead, they are engaged more in the academic skills of dissecting a text for formative assessment than for the purpose of appreciation. My experience as a part time literature tutor as well as my interaction with other tutors suggests that there is a growing demand for literature tutors. If the school was able to meet the demands of every student, there would be no need for the student to go outside for external help. Why do students consider the literature subject dry? Maybe, incorporating inquiry units into the subject matter can infuse a sense of excitement into studying it. The teachers must genuinely feel for the subject and see how they can transfer that passion to the student by using different methods of teaching it. Smith and Wilheim felt that “ …we must consider why the conceptual materials and tools we are teaching were created, what issues they were meant to address, and what work this knowledge can do.” When the teacher provides more “opportunities for students to deal with curricular materials and activities,” it “will help them develop expertise and understanding over time”. According to Vygotsky, such support and guidance from the teacher will help the students mature in the appreciation of the world around them. Students reach the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD, also known as Zone Nearing Development) a stage when the teacher is successful in equipping them with the necessary thinking skills to perceive/experience the world for themselves.
Second Reflection
ReplyDeleteWhat is a fair and objective assessment and what does it truly mean to assess? What kind of knowledge gets assessed and when it should be assessed? In certain schools in India, they don’t have formal assessment or an exam till the student is in secondary 3. Instead, they conduct on-going internal class assessments in forms of tests and hands on activities. This news pleased me on one hand as I felt these students did not have to be stressed by the Quarterly and half-yearly exams like I did. But on the other hand, I wondered how they would cope with the sudden stress of exams in the “O” Levels. Would the sudden introduction of assessment hinder their ongoing progress. I know quite a few friends who completed their education from the same school, and doing well. This means that the kind of learning for learning and not only for testing was to some extent successful in producing well-rounded individuals.
J Krishnamurti, the school founder describes school as " a place where one learns both the importance of knowledge and its irrelevance" This highlights the importance of studying knowledge as a whole instead of segregating certain units that are not relevant. The question here worth asking is what knowledge is considered irrelevant and who legitimises the official knowledge. Smith and Wilheim refer to these two kinds of knowledge as "toolish" and "schoolish". It's like teaching a child the subject of biology mechanically without making them feel the importance of the human body itself. When a child learns about the respiratory system, are they excited to learn something new about their body? Or are they just blindly mugging for the test. Mr P.K. Srinivasan, a renown mathematics teacher said, " it is wrong for a teacher to set a test for the student If the student is not going to learn something from the test." ( http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2005031103710100.htm&date=2005/03/11/&prd=qu&) I cannot help but agree with this viewpoint as I feel from my personal experience that students learn better when both the goal of learning is entwined with the goals of learning. I agree with Shephard when she says that, " Our aim should be to change our cultural practices so that students and teachers look to assessment as a source of insight and help instead of an occasion for meting out rewards and punishments." Can we implement this social practice in reality? Can the teachers be encouraged to focus more on the learning process? This indirectly also reflects the mindset of society that values the grades achieved than what the student has learnt. Maybe, the mode of assessment has to change to encourage teachers to think beyond the exam, only then will true learning take place.