Lim Patrick Tian Huat 2010

HOW SINGAPORE JUNIOR COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHERS
DEAL WITH THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE UNDER THE

2006 REVISED JUNIOR COLLEGE CURRICULUM:
A THEORY
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the
Doctor of Education Degree
by
Patrick Tian Huat Lim
Graduate School of Education

The University of Western Australia
2010
i
DECLARATION
I certify that to my knowledge, this thesis does not contain, without acknowledgement,
any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any institution of higher
education. To the best of my knowledge this thesis does not incorporate any material
previously published or written by another person other than that which has been
referenced appropriately in the text.
Signature: ______________________
Date: __________________________
ii
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to develop substantive theory to explain how Singapore
junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the 2006
revised junior college curriculum. In 1997, a new vision for education in Singapore,
called Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, was introduced to prepare students for
successful living in economies driven by knowledge.
To realise this vision, many
educational initiatives have been implemented in Singapore schools for the past decade.
The 2006 revised junior college curriculum is one such initiative. The revised
curriculum emphasises breadth and flexibility, and is intended to transform an
examination-oriented educational culture in Singapore junior colleges to one driven by
passion for learning.
With the implementation of the revised curriculum, junior
college teachers face new challenges.
In addition to the usual responsibility of
delivering quality results in the national examinations, the teachers are also expected to
orchestrate progressive pedagogical practices in classrooms.
Current literature on educational change is replete with scholarly advice that for
sustainable change, theoretical understanding of teachers perspectives and practices
with regards to implementing educational initiatives is imperative. However, no theory
on how Singapore junior college teachers put in practice initiatives underpinning the
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision existed prior to this study. In light of these
considerations, this study was undertaken in October 2007 to generate substantive
theory on how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of
science under the new educational framework.
The study was located within the interpretivist research paradigm. The study further
anchored its theoretical position in the social theory of symbolic interactionism.
iii
Grounded theory was adopted as the research methodology, and sources of data
included semi-structured interviews, lesson observations as well as teachers record
books. The data were analysed via open, axial and selective coding.
The theory generated is: Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the
teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum through a threestaged individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the science
subjects.
The new insights gained from the theory generated in the study are of
significance in three aspects, namely, enhancing Singapore junior college science

teachers professionalism, promoting successful realisation of the Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation vision, and contributing towards a deeper understanding of
educational change.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Page
Declaration
ii
Abstract
iii
Table of Contents
List of Figures
xii
List of Tables
xvii
Acknowledgements
xix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction
Background and Context
The Need for Educational Change in Singapore
A Paradigm Shift in Teaching and Learning
Junior College Education in Singapore
Overview of the Literature

Challenges Teachers Face When Implementing Educational
6
7
Change
The Challenge of Acquiring New Professional
Knowledge
The Challenge of Engaging Students
The Challenge of Working with Insufficient Time and
Limited Resources
Meanings Teachers Ascribe Towards Educational Initiatives
10
Benefits to Teaching and Learning
10
Congruence Between Educational Initiatives and
11
Teachers Professional Orientations

Sense of Ownership
Theoretical Understandings on How Teachers Implement
12
13
Educational Initiatives
Significance of the Theory Developed in the Study
Enhancing Teachers Professionalism
14
15
Promoting Successful Implementation of Educational
16
Initiatives
Contributing Towards Further Research
17
Research Design and Methodology
17
Theoretical Framework
17
Research Questions
18
Research Methodology
19
Sampling
19
Data Collection
19
Data Analysis
19
Findings of the Study
20
Structure of the Thesis
20
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Introduction
22
Globalisation and Educational Change
23
Educational Change in the United States, Japan and Hong
27
Kong
The United States
27
Japan
30
Hong Kong
32
Educational Change: The Case of Singapore

Reforms in Science Education
Goal of Science Education: Scientific Literacy
33
35
35
Nature of Science
38
Constructivist-Based Student-Centred Learning
40
An Overview of the Structure and Stages of Education in
45
Singapore
Primary Education
50
Secondary Education
52
Pre-University Education in Junior Colleges
53
A New Vision for Education in Singapore: Thinking Schools,
54
Learning Nation
Ability-Driven Education
55
vi
IT Masterplan
57
Innovation and Enterprise
58
Teach Less, Learn More
59
The 2006 Revised Junior College Curriculum

New Considerations in the Teaching of Science in Singapore
62
66
Junior Colleges
Conclusion
68
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
70
Challenges Teachers Face When Implementing Educational
71
Initiatives
Acquisition and Construction of New Professional
71
Knowledge
Engaging Students
75
Working with Insufficient Time and Limited Resources
83
Meanings Teachers Ascribe to Educational Initiatives
87
88
Congruence Between Educational Initiatives and Teachers
91
Professional Orientations
Sense of Ownership
Theoretical Understanding on How Teachers Implement
94
98
Educational Initiatives
Conclusion
108
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction
110
110
Research Paradigm Interpretivism
111
Theoretical Position Symbolic Interactionism
112
Rationale for Framework
113
Research Questions
114
117
Grounded Theory
117
vii
Research Site
118
Theoretical Sampling and Selection of Participants
119
Data Collection
122
Semi-Structured Interviews
122
Lesson Observations
123
Teachers Record Books
124
Official Records and Public Documents
124
Data Analysis
124
Open Coding
125
Axial Coding
130
Selective Coding
133
Trustworthiness of the Study
135
Credibility
135
Transferability
135
Dependability
135
Confirmability
136
Parameters of the Study
137
Conclusion
138
CHAPTER FIVE: VIGNETTES OF FIVE SCIENCE TEACHERS

Introduction
140
Recapitulation of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum and
141
the implications for science teachers

Vignettes of Teachers
143
The Institutional Setting
144
Vignette One Jane (Biology Teacher)
149
Vignette Two Michael (Physics Teacher)
154
Vignette Three Margaret (Physics Teacher)
158
Vignette Four Martin (Chemistry Teacher)
163
Vignette Five Denise (Chemistry Teacher)
167
A Storyline on How the Research Participants Dealt With the
171
Teaching of their Science Subjects under the 2006 Revised Junior

College Curriculum
Conclusion
174
viii
CHAPTER SIX: THE CORE THEORY: A THREE-STAGED

INDIVIDUALISED AMELIORATION OF THE
SITUATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING THE
SCIENCE SUBJECTS
Introduction
176
Overview of the Core Theory
176
Detailed Explanation of the Core Theory
178
First Stage of the Core Theory Recognising a Need to
179
Ameliorate the Situation of Teaching and Learning the

Science Subjects
Analysis of Study Findings to Support the Theoretical
182
Claims in the First Stage of the Core Theory

Issues Regarding the Revised Science
182
Curriculum Structure
Issues Regarding Students Learning and
185
Development
Issues Regarding the Ability to Teach the
188
Revised Science Curriculum

Second Stage of the Core Theory Adopting Measures to
191
Ameliorate the Situation of Teaching and Learning the

Science Subjects
193
Claims in the Second Stage of the Core Theory

Knowledge Expansion
193
Resource Consolidation
196
Pedagogical Adaptation
202
Third Stage of the Core Theory Refining the Measures
206
Adopted to Ameliorate the Situation of Teaching and

Learning the Science Subjects
206
Claims in the Third Stage of the Core Theory

Filling Up Gaps in the Knowledge and
206
Materials Obtained from the Course of

Knowledge Expansion
ix
Modifying and Filtering Teaching Materials
208
Obtained Through Resource Consolidation

Pedagogical Re-adaptation Within the Four
208
Quadrants of Pedagogical Practices

Conclusion
210
CHAPTER SEVEN: SUBSIDIARY PROPOSITIONS TO THE CORE

THEORY
Introduction
212
The Subsidiary Propositions
214
Subsidiary Proposition One
214
Subsidiary Proposition Two
218
Subsidiary Proposition Three
224
Subsidiary Proposition Four
229
Subsidiary Proposition Five
234
Conclusion
240
CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
243
Purpose of the Study
243
Key Premises of the Theory Generated
246
The Matter of Generalisability of the Theory Generated
252
Implications of Theory Generated for Realising the Thinking
254
Schools, Learning Nation Vision in Singapore Junior Colleges

Importance of Examination Results
254
Assessment Method
255
Curriculum Content
256
Implications of Theory Generated for Improving Teaching
257
Practice in Singapore Junior Colleges

Augmenting Students Involvement in their Learning
257
Enhancing the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness
262
Advancing the Integration of Realist and Progressive
264
Elements in Lesson Delivery
Implications of Theory Generated for Deepening Our
266
Understanding of Educational Change

Implications for the Literature on How Teachers Deal With
266
Curriculum Change
Implications for the Literature on How Singapore Teachers
271
Deal With the Implementation of Initiatives Designed to

Pursue the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation Vision
Conclusion
273
References
275
Appendices
307
Appendix A
Data Collection Questions
307
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Contents
Page
Figure 2.1
Education structure in Singapore.
47
Figure 2.2
Key processes involved in primary school education.
51
Figure 2.3
Framework on teaching and learning based on the
60
ideology of Thinking Schools, Learning Nation.

Figure 2.4
Location of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum
62
within the new educational framework in Singapore.

Figure 3.1
Conceptual framework for the literature review.
70
Figure 3.2
An ICT-Enabled classroom.
86
Figure 3.3
A model of interactive factors affecting implementation
99
of educational initiatives.
Figure 3.4
The Staged Model.
106
Figure 4.1
Demographics of the research participants.
120
Figure 4.2a
First example on generation of concepts from interview
126
transcripts.
Figure 4.2b
Second example on generation of concepts from
127
interview transcripts.
Figure 4.3a
First example on categorisng of concepts.
128
Figure 4.3b
Second example on categorisng of concepts
129
Figure 4.4a
Diagramming memo generated during axial coding.
131
Figure 4.4b
Theoretical memo generated during axial coding.
132
Figure 4.5a
Diagramming memo generated during selective coding.
134
xii
Figure 4.5b
Theoretical Memo Generated During Selective Coding.
134
Figure 5.1
Extract of the Science Department Workplan.
145
Figure 5.2
Extract of the specimen examination question paper for

physics.
147
Figure 5.3
Example of a modified question used for teaching

Genetics.
153
Figure 5.4
Example of a thinking question used for teaching

Kinematics.
156
Figure 5.5
Example of conceptual questions used for teaching D.C.

Circuits.
160
Figure 5.6
Example of a simulation software used for teaching

Laser.
162
Figure 5.7
Example of a hint sheet used for teaching

Electrochemistry.
165
Figure 5.8
Example of thinking questions used for teaching

Thermodynamics.
170
Figure 6.1
Conceptual map of the theory developed.
178
Figure 6.2
Triangle of issues in which the perceived challenges are
180
rooted.
Figure 6.3
Conceptualisation of all possible issues Singapore junior
181
college science teachers perceive as challenges towards

the teaching and learning of their science subjects under
the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
Figure 6.4
Example of a qualitative synoptic question.
183
Figure 6.5
Documentation of lesson observations by a study
194
participant in her Teachers Record Book.

Figure 6.6
Example of a teaching idea learnt by a study participant
196
from an in-service course.

Figure 6.7a
Example of a diagram used by a study participant.
197
xiii
Figure 6.7b
Example of a computer applet used by a study
198
participant.
Figure 6.8
Example of test questions prepared by a participant for
199
the topic on Genetics of Bacteria and Viruses.

Figure 6.9
Example of a tutorial question prepared by a participant
200
for the topic on Chemical Energetics.

Figure 6.10
Example of re-fitting and re-assembling of content
202
sequence by a study participant.

Figure 6.11
The four quadrants of pedagogical practices.
205
Figure 6.12
Extract of sketchy notes mentioned by a study
207
participant.
Figure 6.13
Re-adaptation of teaching practices by moving within a
209
particular quadrant or across quadrants of pedagogical

practices.
Figure 7.1
Organisation of the core theory and the subsidiary
213
propositions.
Figure 7.2
The eight concerns that relate to preparing students
215
sufficiently for national examinations.

Figure 7.3
The four quadrants of pedagogical practices operating on
219
an Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional approach.

Figure 7.4
Four specific situations that promote the use of the
222
Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional approach.

Figure 7.5
Components of the craft knowledge needed to teach
225
science under the revised curriculum.

Figure 7.6
Knowledge requirements by teachers and students (as
226
perceived by the science teachers).
xiv
Figure 7.7
Triangle of factors in teachers self-assessment of their
231
teaching effectiveness.
Figure 7.8
Correspondence between the concerns of the science
232
teachers in regards to teaching effectively and the

challenges teachers face when implementing educational
initiatives.
Figure 7.9
The purpose and outcome of the process of self-
233
evaluation within the three stages of the theory.

Figure 7.10
Extrapolation from the Expert-Formal Authoritative
236
instructional approach to the Realist educational

paradigm.
Figure 7.11
Pyramidal structure of educational paradigm, approach
238
and practice in the implementation of the 2006 revised

junior college curriculum.
Figure 7.12
Integral diagram of the three stages of the core theory
239
and the five subsidiary propositions in explaining how

Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the
teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum.
Figure 7.13
The core theory, the three stages of the core theory, and
242
the associating subsidiary propositions.

Figure 8.1
Proposed academic goal setting and monitoring form to
259
augment students involvement in their learning.

Figure 8.2
Proposed survey on students learning effectiveness to
263
enhance the science teachers evaluation on their

teaching effectiveness.
Figure 8.3
The Hunter Model of Planning.
264
xv
Figure 8.4
A fit between the pedagogical framework of the Hunter
265
Model of Planning and the four quadrants of

pedagogical practices.
xvi
LIST OF TABLES
Contents
Page
Table 2.1
The Four Pillars of Knowledge.
24
Table 2.2
New Orientations to Teaching and Learning of Science
41
to Achieve Scientific Literacy.

Table 2.3
Key Components in the Course Curriculum in
48
Singapore Schools.
Table 2.4
The Desired Outcomes of Education in Singapore
49
Schools.
Table 2.5
The Three Levels of Study for the Academic Subjects.
63
Table 3.1
Student Engagement.
76
Table 3.2
Students Common Approaches to Studying and
77
Orientations to Learning.
Table 3.3
Students Learning Styles as Identified in the Grasha-
79
Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales.

Table 3.4
Classroom Presses Teachers are Constantly Stressed
90
with.
Table 3.5
Teaching Roles and Corresponding Classroom
92
Practices.
Table 3.6
Three Categories of Teachers.
94
Table 3.7
Perspectives on Teacher Change.
100
Table 5.1
The Three Levels of Study for Each Science Subject.
142
Table 6.1
Key Assertions Maintained with regards to the Three
191
Facets of Measures.
xvii
Table 6.2
Examples of Books Referred to by the Study
193
Participants.
Table 6.3
Examples of Pedagogical Adaptation by Study
203
Participants.
Table 6.4
Attributes and Examples in Each of the Four Domains
204
of Pedagogical Practice.
Table 7.1
The Expert-Formal Authoritative Instructional
220
Approach and Singapore Junior College Science

Teachers Classroom Practices.
Table 7.2
Similarities Between the Theoretical Propositions
229
Developed by Other Researchers and the Way of

Delivering their Science Subjects by Singapore Junior
College Science Teachers.
Table 7.3
Characteristics of a Realist Paradigm of Education.
235
Table 8.1
Benefits of Error Analysis and How Singapore Junior
261
College Science Teachers Can Leverage on these

Benefits.
xviii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In submitting this thesis, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to many people around
me, whose encouragement and support I owed for enabling me to realise this almost
impossible commitment.
I would like to firstly thank my supervisor, Dr David Pyvis. I am most grateful for his
sound advice and professional guidance over the years. His detailed reading and helpful
critique did much to strengthen the quality of my work. I am particularly indebted to
him for the many hours he devoted to editing draft chapters, commenting on ideas and
showering me with positive encouragement.
I would also like to thank the academic and non-academic staff of the Graduate School
of Education, The University of Western Australia.
Without their assistance, the
completion of this study would not be possible.
I am also indebted to my informants who generously agreed to be interviewed, sharing

with me their aspirations and challenges in their professional lives. Their contribution
was the mainstay of this study.
Finally, special thanks to my family, in particular, my wife, Meng, and friends,

especially Lydia and Wee Teck, who stood by me and provided me with the support in
the course of my research.
xix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to generate substantive theory on how Singapore junior
college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised
junior college curriculum. A study on how individuals deal with a particular situation
aims to: discover patterns through a longitudinal investigation on the perspectives of
participants with regards to that situation; how the participants act in light of their
perspectives; and the changes, if any, in the participants perspectives as a result of their
actions (ODonoghue, 2007). Perspectives, here, refer to the frameworks through
which people make sense of the world and it is through these frameworks that people
construct their realities and define situations (Woods, 1983, p.7). Becker and coworkers (cited in Woods, 1983, pp.78) have further described perspectives as a
coordinated set of ideas and actions a person uses in dealing with some problematic
situation.
Since the unveiling of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision in 1997 by then
Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong, many important initiatives have been
introduced in Singapore schools. In January 2006, a revised junior college curriculum
was implemented in all Singapore junior colleges. The 2006 revised junior college
curriculum emphasises breadth and flexibility, and is intended to prepare students to
face the fast changing world of the 21st century (Ministry of Education of Singapore,
2006a). The key changes implemented are as follows. First, all students admitted in all
Singapore junior colleges from 2006 onwards are required to take a contrasting subject
that is outside their area of specialisation. That is to say, each arts major student is
required to take at least one contrasting subject from the mathematics or science
discipline, and each science major student is required to take at least one contrasting
subject from the arts discipline.
Second, the subjects in the new curriculum are
redesigned and pitched at three levels of study differing in breadth and depth (Ministry
of Education of Singapore, 2005b). Third, new teaching content has been added to the
curriculum (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, 2006). Fourth, there is a
stronger focus on developing in students critical and conceptual thinking skills,
communication skills, and the ability to ask questions and seek answers independently
through the adoption of progressive pedagogies as well as the use of information and
communications technology (ICT) in classrooms (Ministry of Education of Singapore,
2006b).
The science curriculum in Singapore schools is divided into two components: science
content and science practical work (Towndrow, 2008). As the 2006 revisions did not
affect the learning and assessment of science practical work, this study focused only on
the teaching of science content under the new revisions. Traditional science content
teaching has been teacher-centred and the focus in learning is on the acquisition of facts
and formulae for assessment purposes, rather than on acquiring scientific literacy skills
(Lee & Yeoh, 2001). The 2006 revised junior college curriculum therefore hopes to
transform the learning of science content in junior colleges from examination oriented
to one that is passion driven.
Implementing educational initiatives, as Fullan (2007, p.129) explains, ultimately

depends on what teachers do and think with regards to these initiatives. The process
of implementing a new curriculum is rarely straightforward (Datnow, Hubbard &
Mehan, 2002) as teachers are meaning makers who will appraise and reappraise the
changes imposed on them (Walker, cited in Henze, Van Driel & Verloop, 2007, p.1820).
The substantive theory developed in this study, therefore, has the potential to offer
insights to deepen our understandings on how teachers deal with the implementation
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

The Need for Educational Change in Singapore
The education system in Singapore has worked well in producing students with high
abilities for the past few decades (Goh, 1997). The academic attainments of Singapore
students have been widely reported by researchers (see, for example, Menon, 2000) as
well as by Singapore government leaders (Tharman, 2005a).
However, with the
emergence of knowledge-driven economies, a need to re-examine the purpose and

practice of teaching and learning in Singapore schools has been recognised (Luke et al.,
2005; Gopinathan, 2001). Questions have been raised as to whether the education
system in Singapore can produce students who are creative, innovative, entrepreneurial,
and able to analyse and communicate effectively for the world of work in the new
economy that is driven by science and ICT, complex ways of processing information, as
well as innovation and creativity (The Straits Times, 2006; Hargreaves, 2003; Johnston,
2003). A new direction for education is judged to be necessary to prepare Singapore
students with the skills, spirit and values required for successful living in a new
economy which depends on knowledge, ingenuity, innovation, and mobilisation of the
talents of all (Tan, C, 2005a).
Furthermore, Singapore government leaders believe that to maintain economic

competitiveness, the country needs to transform itself into a globalised and knowledge-
based economy fostering technopreneurship and nurturing research and development

capabilities (Wong, 2003, p.67). Education is projected to have a key role in developing
a workforce with the requisite knowledge, skills, attitudes and values (Johnston, 2003).
A Paradigm Shift in Teaching and Learning

In 1997, then Prime Minister of Singapore, Goh Chok Tong, introduced a new policy
for education in Singapore. This initiative, named Thinking Schools, Learning Nation
aims to develop students, through education, into creative thinkers, life-long learners
and leaders of change (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2006b). Key initiatives are
introduced in schools to support and realise the vision of Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation. Examples of these initiatives are: Ability-Driven Education; Teach Less,
Learn More; IT Masterplan; as well as Innovation and Enterprise. Collectively,
these key initiatives emphasise more engaged learning, innovative and effective
teaching approaches and use of ICT in teaching, and request less emphasis on rote
learning and repetitive tests (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2006b; Deng &
Gopinathan, 2005).
Under the new educational paradigm, traditional teaching methods such as drill and
practice, one-size-fits-all instruction, and providing standard formulae and model
answers are now regarded as undesirable and are to be discontinued in schools
(Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 03, October 2005). Replacing these classroom
practices are progressive pedagogical approaches such as collaborative learning and
differentiated teaching.
The 2006 revised junior college curriculum is a continuation of initiatives

implemented in Singapore schools that are grounded in the aforementioned new
ideologies towards education.
The revised curriculum therefore hopes to engage
teachers as well as students in active learning, and in experimenting with new ways of
thinking, doing and solving problems (Tan, C, 2006c).
Junior College Education in Singapore

Junior colleges in Singapore are established with the aim of providing a rigorous twoyear pre-university education to students who have completed their secondary school
education. Education in junior colleges is perceived to offer a more direct path towards
university education as compared to other post-secondary educational choices, and is
designed for students that are more academically inclined (Goh, 2002; Tan & Ho, 2001).
At the end of the two-year course in junior colleges, students sit for the General
Certificate of Education Advanced Level Examination. Admission to local universities
in Singapore is determined by the grades students obtain in this national examination.
Most students in Singapore junior colleges major in science. The science subjects
offered are physics, chemistry and biology. Science education plays a pivotal role in
Singapores ambition to be a research and development hub in science and technology
(Lui, 2006). Moreover, a good science education is instrumental in imparting the skills
and knowledge students need for successful living in the new economy (Teo, 2000). In
2006, 82 per cent of the students newly admitted to junior colleges were science major
students, while the remaining 18 per cent of the students majored in arts (Ministry of
Education of Singapore, 2007a). With regard for the importance of science education to
the economic development of Singapore, this study focused on the teaching and
learning of science in junior colleges under the new educational framework.
Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to face new demands when teaching
their science subjects under the new revisions (Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 02,
July 2006). These demands are as follows. First, they are required to pitch their level
of teaching according to the academic background of students. For example, if they are
teaching a class of arts major students, they are required to recognise the knowledge
background and epistemological orientation of these students for effective teaching and
learning.
Under the new revisions, for each science subject, there are now three
different levels of study (Higher One, Higher Two and Higher Three), each of which
differs in breadth and depth, and each of which has its own set of syllabus. Second, the
junior college science teachers are required to teach new content that has been added to
the science curriculum. Third, the science teachers are expected to adopt a more
student-centred teaching approach in classrooms as well as to integrate ICT into their
teaching.
Fourth, the science teachers are required to prepare students for new
assessment criteria which focus more on critical analysis, and not just the regurgitation
of facts and formulae. A theoretical understanding of how Singapore junior college
science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum therefore has the potential to contribute to the successful realisation
of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision.
OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

As mentioned earlier, the outcome of the implementation of curriculum initiatives
depends on what teachers do and think with regards to these initiatives.
The
phenomenon of what teachers do and think with regards to putting in practice the
intended curriculum initiatives is determined by the challenges teachers encounter
during the implementation process as well as the meanings teachers ascribe to the
initiatives. The review of literature pertaining to this study is thus organised in three
parts.
The first part discusses the challenges teachers face when implementing
educational initiatives. The second part examines the meanings teachers ascribe to
intended curriculum initiatives. The third part reports on the theoretical propositions
asserted by researchers on how teachers implement educational change. These three
bodies of literature collectively provided the necessary conceptualisation and
contextualisation of this study. The review also identified gaps in current educational
literature on how teachers deal with educational change.
Challenges Teachers Face When Implementing Educational Change

The volume of literature on the challenges teachers face when implementing
educational initiatives is vast. Notwithstanding, these challenges can be conceptualised
into the following three broad categories: the challenge of acquiring new professional
knowledge; the challenge of engaging students; and the challenge of working with
insufficient time and limited resources. These challenges are discussed below.
The Challenge of Acquiring New Professional Knowledge

For the successful implementation of curriculum initiatives that demand teachers to put
in practice progressive pedagogical approaches, teachers need to be proficient in the
following three areas of professional knowledge: subject matter content knowledge;
pedagogical knowledge; and pedagogical content knowledge (Peers, Diezmann &
Watters, 2003; Schneider & Krajcik, 2002). These three forms of knowledge are interrelated, as a good pedagogical content knowledge requires teachers to be strong in their
content knowledge and be able to understand the subject related learning difficulties
students are likely to encounter (Parker & Heywood, 2000; Van Driel, Verloop & de
Vos, 1998). Science teachers with good subject matter content knowledge will be able
to employ diverse teaching strategies and tactics to assist students in comprehending the
many concepts, facts, and theories required by the syllabus (Barnett & Hodson, 2001,
p.426).
Conversely, teachers lacking in content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and

pedagogical content knowledge will not be able to promote active learning in
classrooms (Windschitl, 2002) as these teachers are likely to teach by mere repetition
and rote memorisation (Pederson et al., 2000). Science teachers who are teaching their
science subjects to arts major students may also need to acquire additional skills and
knowledge to teach effectively as non-science major students are likely to encounter
difficulties in interpreting scientific data (Bramble, 2005; Schommer-Aikins, Duell &
Barker, 2003). It has been argued that acquiring new knowledge for innovative science
teaching is dependent on personal and institutional factors (Davis, 2003). Therefore, the
acquisition of knowledge for effective implementation of educational initiatives may not
be a straightforward process.
Researchers have suggested that teachers form
collaborative working communities among peers and experts to acquire the additional
knowledge needed to teach new science content and to facilitate progressive teaching
practices in classrooms (Anderson, 2002).
This study sought to understand the
perspectives and practices of Singapore junior college science teachers with regards to
the acquisition of knowledge to effectively teach their science subjects under the revised
The Challenge of Engaging Students

Teachers also face challenges in achieving active learning amongst students using
progressive teaching techniques. It has been reported that most students generally
prefer teachers to provide them with facts and knowledge (Klein, 2001), as well as
solutions to problems (Monk & Dillon, 2000). Knowledge acquired directly from
teachers is regarded by students as more trustworthy vis--vis the knowledge learnt

through collaboration with their fellow classmates (Campbell et al., 2001; Wallace &
Lounden, 1998). Students accustomed to rote learning often do not appreciate and
understand teachers efforts in promoting active inquiry in the classrooms. This in turn
impedes the quality of their learning (Keys & Bryan, 2001) as learning is a purposive
activity that requires active engagement from the learners (Smith et al., 2005).
Fear and anxiety about science as a subject may also result in students exhibiting
reluctance and resistance to engage in student-centred learning approaches, and instead
rely heavily on teachers to transmit conceptual knowledge. Students generally regard
science as a difficult subject to study (Bennett, 2003; Osborne, Simon & Collins, 2003;
Simon, 2000), and it is common to find students exhibiting anxiety towards the learning
of science (Udo, Ramsey & Mallow, 2004). The level of anxiety in the learning of
science in students is related to their self-efficacy beliefs (Britner & Pajares, 2006;
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003), and students are likely to exhibit more enthusiasm
participating in student-centred learning activities in the presence of a safe, supportive
and caring environment (Rosiek, 2003; Campbell et al., 2001). It is therefore important
for teachers to be able to construct such a learning environment in order to promote
active participation from students in student-centred instructional activities.
The Challenge of Working with Insufficient Time and Limited Resources

Teachers are often confronted with the issues of working with insufficient time and
limited resources for teaching new content as well as organising innovative and creative
lessons in the classrooms (Peers, Diezmann & Watters, 2003; Rigano & Ritchie, 2003;
Kahle & Boone, 2000). Such constraints influence teachers pedagogical choices. For
example, in a rush to complete the required syllabus, which is often the primary
objective of classroom lessons (Windschitl, 2002; Bell, 1998), teachers are likely to
resort to the traditional way of teaching by factual reproduction of concepts and
formulae instead of guiding students through inquiry-based learning (Windschitl, 2002;
Hodson, 1998).
In addition to insufficient instructional time, teachers may also
experience a lack of time for lesson preparation especially in planning for studentcentred activities (Rigano & Ritchie, 2003) as well as ICT learning activities (Bennett,
2003; Granger et al., 2002).
There is still a lack of empirical evidence on what sort of educative materials are
necessary to assist teachers in conducting the teaching practices often prescribed in
reformed curricula (Schneider & Krajcik, 2002).
The lack of relevant teaching
resources may result in teachers not being able to effectively implement curricula
initiatives according to reformers intentions (Fensham, 2006; Schneider & Krajcik,
2002).
Logistical difficulty in the use of ICT is, too, a challenge teachers often
encounter (Bennett, 2003; Granger et al., 2002). More studies are therefore necessary to
deepen our knowledge with regards to helping teachers deal with the issues
concerning insufficient time and inadequate resources (Liew, 2005).
Meanings Teachers Ascribe Towards Educational Initiatives

As mentioned earlier, teachers are meanings constructors. This part of the literature
review conceptualises how teachers construct meanings towards educational initiatives.

Teachers are primarily concerned with how the intended educational initiatives improve
teaching and learning in the classrooms. Educational initiatives that are perceived to be
able to help students attain better results in the examinations are implemented with
10
much enthusiasm by teachers (Churchill & Williamson, 2004; Fishman & Krajcik, 2003;
Datnow & Castellano, 2000). On the other hand, teachers are likely to abort initiatives
that they regard as threats to achieving quality academic grades in examinations
(Owston, 2007; Ko, 2000).
Teachers forced to implement initiatives that they believe to be ineffective in

enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in the classrooms may exhibit negative
feelings of scepticism, frustration and discontent (Hairon, 2003). Furthermore, teachers
are often confronted with other work priorities that they do not have the opportunity to
understand the significance of the initiatives they are implementing (Fullan, 2007), and
this contributes to teachers resistance towards educational change.
Therefore, as
Roehrig, Kruse and Kern (2007) argue, school leaders are responsible for helping
teachers understand the purpose of educational change. However, they observe that a
vacuum of leadership exists in many schools, and teachers are often left to make
individual decisions about if and how to implement educational initiatives (Roehrig,
Kruse & Kern, 2007, p.904).
Congruence between Educational Initiatives and Teachers Professional Orientations

Teachers whose professional orientations correlate to the intended educational
initiatives are likely to implement these initiatives with great fervour (Datnow &
Castellano, 2000).
Congruence between the intended educational initiatives and
teachers professional orientations is perceived as reinforcement to teachers personal

identities (van Veen & Sleegers, 2006). Educational reforms that emphasise inquirybased learning are fully implemented by teachers possessing a student-and learningcentred orientation towards teaching. However, such reforms are, at best, partially
implemented by teachers exhibiting a teacher- or content-centred orientation towards
11
teaching (van Veen & Sleegers, 2006, p.92). Based on their personal epistemological
orientations, teachers adopt different teaching roles in the classrooms (Lloyd & Rezba,
2004). Teachers, therefore, will be very concerned on how their teaching roles in the
classrooms are impacted as a result of changes in educational policies.
Teachers beliefs about teaching and learning play a fundamental role in facilitating or
interfering with successful implementation of curricula initiatives (Kang & Wallace,
2005). As it is difficult to expect teachers to realign their epistemological beliefs in
light of educational reforms (Smith & Southerland, 2007), implementing curriculum
initiatives that contradict their orientations towards teaching and learning can be a very
painful task for teachers.
Sense of Ownership
Teachers do not wish to be mere implementers of curriculum initiatives; teachers want
to be consulted on the prospective changes to curriculum matters (Evers & Arat, 2004;
Hairon, 2003). Teachers sense of ownership towards curriculum initiatives is therefore
critical towards the successful implementation of these initiatives (Evers & Arat, 2004;
Vidovich & ODonoghue, 2003).
Elizondo-Montemayor and co-workers (2008)
observe that teachers are more engaged and are more successful in implementing
curriculum changes when they are involved at the planning stage of the curriculum
revisions. Kirk and MacDonald (2001), however, argue that teachers make only a small
contribution to curriculum discourses and their ownership of curriculum change is
limited. Singapore junior college science teachers sense of ownership towards the
initiatives underpinning the revised junior college curriculum was investigated in this
study.
12
Both the top-down and bottom-up approaches of implementing curricula initiatives

have failed, which Fullan (2007) explains as follows:
Top-down change doesnt work because it fails to garner ownership,
commitment, or even clarity about the nature of the reforms. Bottomup change so-called let a thousand flowers bloom does not produce
success on any scale. A thousand flowers do not bloom, and those that
do are not perennial! (p.11)
Fullan (2007, p.11), therefore, believes that success in educational reforms can be
achieved by reconciling and combining top-down and bottom-up forces of change.
Theoretical Understandings on How Teachers Implement Educational Initiatives

In the process of implementing curriculum changes, teachers are likely to make
adaptations to the intended initiatives (Churchill & Williamson, 2004). Teachers make
adaptations to instructional materials as well as to their teaching practices in order to
meet classroom needs (Spektor-Levy, Eylon & Scherz, 2008; Drake & Sherin, 2006,
Datnow & Castellano, 2000). Furthermore, according to Luehman (cited in Barab &
Luehman, 2003), the teachers pattern of adaptation may involve the following steps:
identification of classroom needs; assessment of intended initiatives in light of the
identified needs; visualisation of the implementation procedures; and finalisation of
implementation plans. Since teachers are likely to make adaptations to teaching matters
when implementing curricula initiatives, Drake and Sherin (2006) stress the importance
of providing support and guidance to teachers so that the objectives of curriculum
change and the needs of the students are both met.
Barab and Luehman (2003) further posit that teachers implement curricula initiatives in
light of classroom culture. This classroom culture is a multi-faceted construct that
includes: teaching resources; teachers beliefs as well as students aptitudes and
13
attitudes. Local adaptation and curricular diffusion are also important phenomena
that occur during the implementation process. These issues were examined in this study.
Moreover, implementation of educational initiatives proceeds in stages and teachers

experience a different set of change characteristics at each stage (Collet, Menlo &
Rosenblatt, 2004). Each set of change characteristics is likely to influence teachers
decision and participation in the implementation process. This study hoped to offer a
theoretical understanding of these change characteristics in the context of Singapore
junior college educational system.
Two key observations can be made from the review of literature. First, teachers may
have a different set of concerns with regards to the implementation of educational
initiatives as compared to that of reformers and this could affect the implementation
outcome. Therefore, it is imperative that teachers perspectives and practices must first
be understood in order for any implementation of educational change to be successful.
Second, there is still insufficient knowledge to help teachers overcome the challenges of
implementing educational initiatives and accommodate the changes involved during the
implementation process.
No substantive theory on how Singapore junior college
science teachers deal with the implementation of initiatives underpinning the

Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision existed prior to this study. Hence the
theory developed in this study is certainly of importance, as elaborated in the next
section, towards guiding educational policy and practice.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE THEORY DEVELOPED IN THE STUDY

Substantive theory on how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the
teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum was developed in
14
this study. A grounded theory study offers an explanation of a phenomenon by relating

theoretical concepts through statements of relationships (Strauss & Corbin, 1998,
p.22). Due to the grounding of the theory in the actual data collected, the substantive
theory developed would be able to resonate with the people directly involved in the
implementation of the revised junior college science curriculum as well as educators
who share a professional interest in examining educational change. Therefore, the
insights drawn from the theory developed in this study contribute to improving
educational research and practice in the following ways: enhancing teachers
professionalism; promoting successful implementation of educational initiatives; and
contributing towards further research.
Enhancing Teachers Professionalism

This study enhances teachers professionalism in two ways.
First, the substantive
grounded theory generated in this study, founded on the theoretical position of symbolic
interactionism, presents to readers contextual realities with regards to teaching and
learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum. Developed from
teachers actual experiences in teaching a curriculum based on new ideologies in
education, the theory itself is a valuable resource for pre-service education. A good preservice teacher education program is one which provides prospective teachers with
curriculum materials to examine real life situations in schools (Fullan, 2007). Most
teacher education programs, as observed by Liston and Zeichner (2006), give little
attention to the social, political and cultural context in schools.
Second, the theory generated in this study offers a common language for practitioners to
talk about regarding their professional practice. Professional development of teachers
is not about sending teachers to workshops or courses, but providing platforms for
15
professional sharing on issues that are able to resonate with their teaching experiences
(Ostermeier, Prenzel & Duit, 2010; Fullan, 2007). The theory developed in this study
reflects teachers perspectives and practices, and such reflection, according to
ODonoghue (2007, p.63), provides excellent opportunities for teachers to judge and
appraise their actions as well as to make improvements to their professional world.
Promoting Successful Implementation of Educational Initiatives

The outcomes of any educational change ultimately depend on how teachers deal with
the implementation process. Current literature on education change is replete with
scholarly advice on the need to provide teachers with the necessary resources and
support for successful implementation of educational initiatives (see, for example,
Zembylas & Barker, 2007; Flores, 2005). However, it is important to understand the
contextual realities of teaching and learning in classrooms before appropriate support
and resources can be given to teachers (Fullan, 2007). The theory generated in this
study, grounded in data collected from teachers, therefore, provides the necessary
immunological understandings (Hargreaves, 1993, p.150) on the realities of teaching
and learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum. Through the
theory developed in this study, Singapore policy makers as well as school leaders would
be able to better understand the concerns of the junior college science teachers and the
strategies the teachers develop to address their concerns.
Such understanding is
necessary in order to introduce successful change to teachers beliefs and practices, as

informed by the aforementioned empirical studies. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier,
the theory developed in this study is a valuable resource for improving teachers
professional knowledge and practices on dealing with initiatives formulated on new
ideologies in education. This in turn promotes a successful realisation of the Thinking
Schools, Learning Nation vision.
16
Contributing Towards Further Research

The current knowledge base on educational change, though impressive, is still not
sufficient to address the challenges educators confront today (Hargreaves et al., 2005).
Diversities, with regards to approach and context, in research concerning teachers
experiences in implementing educational initiatives are important in order to provide the
necessary insights to the implementation process (Fink & Stoll, 2005). In particular,
more interpretive research is needed to understand the dynamics of the
interrelationships of the many factors involved in the process of educational change
(Anderson & Helms, 2001, p.12). As also highlighted in the review of literature, there
are still gaps of knowledge pertaining to helping teachers implement educational
initiatives successfully. The theory generated in this study, therefore, has the potential
to fill up these gaps of knowledge and, thereby, advancing our understanding on
educational change. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, no theory on how Singapore
junior college science teachers deal with the implementation of initiatives
underpinning the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation existed prior to this study. Thus,
the theory generated in this study is an important contribution to educational literature
and furthering educational research.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This study adopted the research paradigm of interpretivism. This paradigm emphasises
social interaction as the basis for knowledge and interpretive researchers are
interested to understand how others understand their world (ODonoghue, 2007,
pp.910). This study further anchored its theoretical position within the social theory of
symbolic interactionism.
Symbolic interactionism rests on three basic premises
(Blumer, 1969, pp.25). The first premise is: human beings act toward things on the
17
basis of the meanings that the things have for them. The second premise is: the
meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one
has with ones fellows. The third premise is these meanings are handled in, and
modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things
he encounters.
According to ODonoghue (2007) and Neuman (2006), symbolic
interactionism is a major theoretical position within interpretivism.
The concept of how individuals deal with a particular situation is consistent with the
theoretical
underpinnings
(ODonoghue, 2007).
widely
articulated
within
symbolic
interactionism
A deal with study is ultimately concerned with revealing the
perspectives of the participants with regards to a specific phenomenon and the actions
the participants take in light of their perspectives.
Research Questions
The central research question, based on the theoretical position of symbolic
interactionism, was: how do Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the
teaching of their science subjects with regards to the 2006 revised junior college
science curriculum?
In this study, the researcher identified patterns from the
investigation of the perspectives of Singapore junior college science teachers with

regards to the teaching of their science subjects under the revised curriculum and how
the science teachers acted in the light of their perspectives. This was pursued through
addressing five specific aims, constructed based on Blumers three premises of
symbolic interactionism, with the help of guiding questions. The guiding questions
were reworded into data collection questions.
18
Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used as the research methodology to
generate theory on how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the
teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum. Grounded
theory involves the use of systematic procedures of collecting data, coding data to
identify categories, and connecting categories to form an abstract theory that explains a
process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Sampling
The study was conducted in a government junior college. Theoretical sampling was
used in the study. A group of 12 teachers, of whom five were physics teachers, five
chemistry teachers, and two biology teachers, were recruited as participants. Maximum
variation sampling (Mertens, 1998) was further used to select these participants to
provide differences in teaching subject, gender, years of teaching experience and the
background of the students they were teaching.
Data Collection
The primary sources of data in this study were semi-structured interviews, classroom
observations and teachers record books.
The secondary sources of data included
official records and public documents such as ministerial releases. Data gathering
commenced in October 2007. The interviews with the participants were recorded using
a digital voice recorder. After recording, the interviews were transcribed verbatim.
Data Analysis
Data analysis comprised three major levels of coding namely, open coding, axial coding
and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Coding was done directly on the
19
transcripts, field notes and related documents. Memos and diagrams (Strauss & Corbin,
1990) were used in all the three levels of coding.
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

The theory developed in this study is that: Singapore junior college science teachers
deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum
through a three-staged individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and
learning the science subjects. The first stage involves the science teachers recognising a
need to individually ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning the science
subjects. The adoption of measures to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning
the science subjects by the science teachers constitutes the second stage of the theory.
The third stage of the theory concerns the science teachers individually refining the
measures adopted to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning the science
subjects. Five subsidiary propositions are further asserted to explain within the theory
how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with specific issues regarding the
teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

The remaining chapters of this thesis report on the various aspects of the study
undertaken. Chapter Two presents the background and context of the study. This
chapter discusses the impact of globalisation on education and examines the strategies
formulated by Singapore government leaders to prepare students to live and work in a
globalised world. Chapter Three reviews the main bodies of literature underpinning the
study. Justification for the need of this study is illuminated in this literature review
chapter. Chapter Four outlines the research methodological framework, methods of
data collection, and methods of data analysis used in the study. Chapters Five furnishes
20
the vignettes of five study participants, explaining how they dealt with the teaching of
their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
These
vignettes serve as a precursor to the presentation of the developed theory in Chapter Six.
Chapter Seven delineates the five subsidiary propositions asserted to explain within the
theory how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the specific issues
related to the teaching of their science subjects under the new educational framework in
Singapore junior colleges. Chapter Eight concludes the thesis by providing an overview
of the study, recapitulating the key premises of the theory developed, highlighting the
theorys importance in guiding educational policy and practice as well as offering
recommendations for improving teachers professionalism and promoting a successful
realisation of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision.
21
CHAPTER TWO
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
INTRODUCTION
As emphasised in the previous chapter, the 2006 revised junior college curriculum is
an initiative grounded in the new interpretation of education in Singapore. The new
educational vision, named Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, is intended to provide a
more holistic form of education in Singapore schools so as to equip students with the
skills and knowledge judged useful for Singapores development of a knowledge-based
economy and for successful living in a globalised world.
In this chapter, the background and context to the study are provided. There are five
sections to this chapter. The first section examines the impact of globalisation on
education and highlights the changes made to broad education policies in response to
the resulting effects of globalisation by drawing cases from selected countries as well as
the case of Singapore.
The second section discusses the importance of science
education in preparing students for successful living in economies driven by knowledge.

Recent developments in science education are also illuminated in this section. The third
section provides an overview of the structure and stages of education in Singapore. The
education system in Singapore junior colleges is also examined in this section as this
study concerns the teaching and learning of science in these institutions. The fourth
section introduces the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation policy, and elaborates on
the accompanying key initiatives, namely, Ability-Driven Education; IT Masterplan;
Innovation and Enterprise; and Teach Less, Learn More. The fifth section furnishes
details of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum and delineates the new
22
considerations in the teaching and learning of science in Singapore junior colleges as a

result of the revision.
GLOBALISATION AND EDUCATIONAL CHANGE

Globalisation has been defined by Green (1999, p.57) as the accelerated international
flows of goods, capital, labour, services and information which have occurred in
response to improved transport, the seemingly limitless revolution in communications
technologies, and the deregulatory policies adopted in many countries during the past
two decades. While there are opposing views over the benefits of globalisation, there
is a general agreement that globalisation has resulted in economic, political and cultural
transformations (Monkman & Baird, 2002), through which knowledge, learning and
education have been intertwined (OECD, 2001, p.48). According to Carnoy (1999),
globalisation affects education in the following five broad ways:
The need to increase the average level of education in the labour force and to
provide more opportunities for adults to return to school to obtain new skills due to
changes made to the organisation of work and to the work people do;
The need to increase spending on education to produce a more educated labour

force in order to attract globalised finance capital;
International comparison of education systems which leads to increased emphasis

on mathematics and science curricula, English as a foreign language, and
communication skills;
Introduction of information communications technology (ICT) into education

systems; and
Redefinition of schools roles as transmitters of modern culture.
23
In their Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the 21st
Century, Delors and his committee (1996) argue that education should be grounded in
four fundamental types of learning, so as to equip students adequately to live and work
in a complex inter-dependent world that is driven by knowledge. The four fundamental
types of learning are further termed as the Four Pillars of Knowledge, and they
comprise: Learning To Know; Learning To Do; Learning To Live Together; and
Learning To Be. Table 2.1 outlines the meanings of these four pillars of knowledge as
explained by Delors and his committee (1996).
Table 2.1
The Four Pillars of Knowledge.
Pillar
Meaning
Learning To Know
Acquiring the instruments of understanding.
Learning To Do
To be able to act creatively on ones environment.
Learning To Live
To participate and cooperate with other people in all
Together
human activities.
Learning To Be
An essential progression with proceeds from the above

three.
Source: Delors et al. (1996)
Carnoy and Rhoten (2002) caution against disregarding the impact of globalisation on
education, since education is responsible for preparing young people to work and live
with the hyper-complexity associated with the 21st century (OECD, 2001, p.48).
Moreover, according to Lee (2005, p.169), the emergence of knowledge-based
economies has redefined the place and role of knowledge in society. A simple but
24
lucid definition of a knowledge-based economy has been given by Powell and Snellman
(2004):
We define the knowledge economy as production and services based
on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to an accelerated pace
of technological and scientific advance as well as equally rapid
obsolescence. The key components of a knowledge economy include a
greater reliance on intellectual capabilities than on physical inputs or
natural resources, combined with efforts to integrate improvements in
every stage of the production process, from the R&D lab to the factory
floor to the interface with customers. (p.201)
Lee (2005, p.169) further explains that due to emergence of knowledge-based

economies, the ability to accumulate knowledge is no longer good enough; students
need to be adept in processing data that are made available through the many channels
of information technology into usable information.
Edwards and Usher (2008) further identify that discussions on the impact of
globalisation and the emergence of knowledge-based economies on curriculum and
pedagogy in schools are concerned with the following two areas:
One is those matters that need to be covered in learning encounters
where the aim is to enable learners to engage as global citizens or
consumers covering, for example, issues such as global values, social
justice, sustainable development, and environmental education. The
second is an examination of the impact of information and
communication technologies, of space-time constraints, and of
emerging form of global education enabled by these developments.
(p.53)
Many countries have thus recognised an imperative need to reshape and realign their
educational policies in order to equip their citizens with the necessary knowledge and
25
skills to live and work in knowledge-based economies (Power, 2007). The next part of
the section highlights the major educational changes that have been implemented in he
United States, Japan and Hong Kong. Educational change, here, refers to innovations
implemented at classroom or school level as well as to reforms of the whole or parts
of the education system of a country (Poppleton & Williamson, 2004, p.9). The United
States and Japan were specially chosen for this discussion on educational change
internationally as the educational system in these two countries were often used for
comparative and evaluative purposes by officials in the Ministry of Education of
Singapore. Former Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok Tong has the following
compliments (cited in Tan & Ng, 2005) in regards to top schools in the United States:
Their best schools produce well-rounded, innovative students by
putting them through a diverse and challenging curriculum. Their
academic institutions and research laboratories are at the forefront of
ideas and scientific breakthroughs, and infused with entrepreneurial
spirit. And they have developed strong links between academia and
industry, society and government. We in Singapore should learn from
these strengths of the American system. (p.1)
Singapore also drew on Japanese educational formulations. For example, the then
Education Minister of Singapore Tharman Shanmugaratnam (Tharman, 2005b) made
the following observation:
The Japanese have implemented changes in education with great zeal.
They made huge cuts in the curriculum, reduced curriculum time, and
introduced new, integrated learning subjects in all schoolsWe can
learn from their experience. (p.3)
Hong Kong is regarded as a rival to Singapores ambition to be the regional hub of

education (Chan & Ng, 2008). As remarked by Ng and Chan (2008, p.488), Singapore
and Hong Kong form an ideal pair for comparative education studies. Both Singapore
26
and Hong Kong are important financial centres in East Asia, both societies have a
majority of Chinese population who can speak English, and both have well developed
education systems that are constantly carrying out reform (Ng & Chan, 2008).
Thus, as Singapore gathers ideas for its educational strategies, it is important to

understand how education in the United States, Japan and Hong Kong is being
understood in the context of globalisation.
Educational Change in the United States, Japan and Hong Kong

The United States
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was endorsed by President George Bush, on
8th January 2002. The Act rests on the following four principles (Department of
Education of the United States, 2004): accountability of schools and states in students
academic performance; timely information and options for parents on students results
in annual assessments; greater control and flexibility for innovations and improvement
to raise students achievements; and an emphasis on doing what works based on
scientific research.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a major educational change to improve
student achievement in American schools (Essex, 2006). The Act aims to equip
students with the knowledge and skills for the world of work in the new economy
(Department of Education of the United States, 2007). Two key changes due to the
implementation of the Act are the adoption of annual assessments and the use of
scientifically proven effective teaching methods. The following quote from Essex
(2006) explains the requirements involved with regards to the adoption of assessments:
By the 200506 school year, states must develop and implement
27
annual assessments in reading and mathematics in grades 3 through 8

and at least once in grades 1012. By 200708, states must also
administer annual science assessments at least once in grades 35,
grades 69, and grades 1012. These assessments must be aligned
with state academic content and achievement standards and involve
multiple measures, including measures of higher-order thinking and
understanding. (pp. 56)
On the use of scientifically proven effective teaching methods, Essex (2006) elaborates
as follows:
No Child Left Behind places emphasis on determining which
educational programs and practices have been proven effective through
rigorous scientific research. Federal funding is targeted to support
these programs and teaching methods that work to improve student
learning and achievement. (p.8)
The emphasis on using effective teaching methods can be regarded as a means to

enhance students performances. The adoption of assessments and the use of effective
teaching methods are judged to be important factors towards generating knowledge,
which is a key ingredient in maintaining the countrys economic competitiveness in a
global market (Schneider & Keesler, 2007).
The Department of Education of the United States (2007) has reported that the No
Child Left Behind policy has reduced achievement gaps in reading and mathematics
between African-American nine-year-old students and their white peers. In addition,
more reading progress has been made by nine-year-old students since the introduction
of initiatives underpinning the policy, and mathematics scores for fourth- and eighthgraders as well as nine- and 13-year-old students have reached new heights. These
achievements are also reported in empirical studies (Supovitz, 2009).
Increased
28
participation by teachers in professional development programmes as a result of the

policy implementation is observed by Finnigan and Gross (2007) as well.
Officials from the Department of Education of the United States (2007, p.3) have
announced that the No Child Left Behind Act has evolved from an idea to a law to a
way of life. In this regard, they elaborate as follows:
Today, educators, public officials and the media are engaged in a
nationwide conversation, debating whether academic standards are
high enough, assessments are fair enough, and enforcement is tough
enough. This conversation would not be occurring without No Child
Left Behind. (p.3)
Some researchers, however, are sceptical towards the beneficial claims of the No Child
Left Behind policy. For example, Balfanz, Legters, West and Weber (2007) believe
that the reported achievement gains could be due to factors such as: teaching to the test,
poorly constructed assessments; the way the data were analysed; and changes in student
population tested. Hursh (2007) also reports of teachers narrowing curriculum content
and of schools discriminating against low performing students in order to raise test
scores.
The Department of Education of the United States has proposed a re-authorisation of

No Child Left Behind by building on the policys results in the following three ways:
a stronger effort to be made to close the achievement gap through high state standards
and accountability; middle and high schools to offer more rigorous coursework that will
better prepare students for post-secondary education or the workforce; and states to be
given flexibilities and new tools to restructure chronically underperforming schools, and
families to be given more options to students educational pathways.
29
Japan
In 2002, new initiatives were implemented in Japanese schools to address the
inadequacies in the education system so as to develop in students sufficient creativity
and analytical thinking to meet the new economic challenges (Green, 2000, p.425).
These new initiatives labelled as The Model for Japanese Education in the Perspective
of the 21st Century were compiled by the Central Council for Education (CCE) of the
Ministry of Education of Japan (Motani, 2005). According to Green (2000, p.425), the
CCE recognised that the Japanese economy has to move ever more rapidly towards the
high-technology, high value-added areas of production and services if it is to keep
competitive and this requires higher skills and more innovation, and such
transformation requires the people to have qualities and ability to identify problem
areas for themselves, to learn, think, make judgments and act independently and to be
more adept at problem-solving. The new initiatives signal a paradigm shift in the
education system of Japan, discarding the rote-learning approach and providing more
opportunities for critical and analytical thinking, in order to prepare students to work
and live in an increasing complex world (Motani, 2005, p.311).
The educational initiatives introduced in 2002 aim to encourage a zest for living and to
provide a relaxed education for Japanese students (Motani, 2005). According to the
Ministry of Education of Japan (cited in Motani, 2005, p.311), zest for living means a
capacity to identify a problem, learn and think by herself or himself, make judgment
assertively, take action, and find better ways to solve a problem, no matter how much
the society changes; it is also a rich humanity, that knows her/his boundaries, cooperates with others, whose heart empathises with others and is moved by various
things, while relaxed education refers to a a relaxed, humane state, as opposed to a
competitive, stratifying environment. A relaxed education, seen as a remedy to
30
alleviate the stress in Japanese students due to the excessive competitive examinations
(Green, 2000), is necessary for the cultivation of zest for living.
A significant change to the national curriculum under the new framework of education
in Japan is the introduction of Integrated Studies, a unit designed to encourage more
student-centred, problem-solving pedagogy with no recommended textbooks from the
Ministry of Education of Japan. The introduction of Integrated Studies, according to
Motani (2005, p.310), indicates the possibility that a structural shift has occurred and
the country has decided to address the issues of citizenship, democracy, and justice to
prepare Japanese children for an increasingly interdependent, global, and multicultural
world through public education.
Under the Integrated Studies unit, students
undertake a research project on topics they find particularly interesting. Teachers play
the role of coordinators rather than of knowledge disseminators.
As no explicit
curriculum guidelines and teaching materials are provided for the Integrated Studies
unit, both teachers and students have to seek out resources and information relevant to
the projects undertaken (Bjork, 2009).
Interestingly, when Japanese students did not perform as expected in mathematical

literacy and reading literacy in the 2003 Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA), announcements were made by the Ministry of Education of Japan
to reduce lesson hours for the Integrated Studies unit and to introduce a system of
national achievement tests to monitor schools academic performance closely
(Takayama, 2008). Bjork (2009) believes that the instructional autonomy given to
Japanese teachers under the educational reforms is likely to be undermined by the
societal expectation on schools to produce students with quality examination grades.
31
Hong Kong
In 2000, the Education Commission of Hong Kong recommended reforming the
education system, with the objective of constructing a system conducive to life-long
learning and all-round development. A new vision for education for Hong Kong in the
21st century was drawn up. The new vision termed Learning For Life, Learning
Through Life aims to enable every person to attain all-round development in the
domains of ethics, intellect, physique, social skills and aesthetics according to his/her
own attributes so that he/she is capable of life-long learning, critical and exploratory
thinking, innovating and adapting to change; filled with self-confidence and a team
spirit; willing to put forward continuing effort for the prosperity, progress, freedom and
democracy of their society, and contribute to the future well-being of the nation and the
world at large (Education Commission of Hong Kong, 2006, p.5). According to Chan
(2010), the educational changes reflect Hong Kong governments belief that human
capital is the key to economic growth in a globalised world.
Several strategies were adopted to realise the new vision. First, the selection criteria of
student admission to schools were widened to include non-academic attainments.
Second, the national curriculum was revised to accommodate an inter-disciplinary
format of education. Third, assessment methods were revamped to assess students
creativity, critical thinking abilities and communication skills. Fourth, new teaching
methods were introduced to provide students with comprehensive and balanced learning
experiences. The reforms represent the following shifts in educational priorities in
Hong Kong: from subject-oriented to generic knowledge and skills in terms of
knowledge organisation; from traditional classroom teaching and learning to diversified
modes of learning in terms of teaching strategies; and from competitive examinations to
divergent modes of assessment (Kennedy, Fok & Chan, 2006).
32
Under the new educational policy, Hong Kong schools are given the autonomy to
design their own educational strategies. This policy of decentralisation is regarded as a
step towards providing quality education in Hong Kong schools (Ng & Chan, 2008).
The flexibility by school principals and teachers in deciding resources and plan
curriculum activities according to the needs of their students is, however, confined
within an operational framework decided by the Education Department of Hong Kong.
Additional duties are also expected from teachers with the introduction of the
educational changes. Hong Kong teachers are expected to fulfil the professional roles
stated in the The Teacher Competencies Framework and the Continuing Professional
Development of Teachers published by the Hong Kong Education and Manpower
Bureau in 2004 (Cheung, 2008). Researchers such as Chan (2010) and Cheung (2008)
believe that Hong Kong teachers are likely to experience dilemmas when operating
within this paradox of centralisation within a decentralisation paradigm (Ng & Chan,
2008, p.498).
Educational Change: The Case of Singapore

For the past four decades, direction for education in Singapore has been charted to
maintain and enhance healthy socio-economic conditions in the country. The national
strategy adopted by Singapore government leaders, to ensure economic competitiveness
in a world that is characterised by mobility of capital, talent, jobs, knowledge and
accelerating technological innovation (Singapore Teachers Union, 2004, p.4), is to
transform the country into a knowledge-based economy. Singapore government leaders
have been particularly watchful of the effects of globalisation on education. To ensure
the nations economic success in a globalised environment, the Singapore workforce
need to be entrepreneurial, creative and innovative, proficient in English language with
strong foundations in mathematics and science (Teo, 1999).
33
Singapore students have performed well in international academic competitions in

mathematics and science, as reflected in the Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study (National Centre for Education Statistics, 2004). However, working
ably in the globalised world does not depend on academic abilities alone; a wide range
of skills and knowledge is necessary for the world of work in the economy Singapore
aims to have. Although, Singapore students often excel in examinations, they are less
adept in handling people, particularly managing teams, less able to deal with fuzzy
situations and less daring (The Straits Times, 2006, p.S12). Therefore, to be successful
in a knowledge-driven economy, Singapore students need to be able to collate,
synthesise, analyse and apply knowledge to solve problems, as well as be able to take
calculated risks (Gopinathan, 2001).
To achieve the aforementioned attributes in Singapore students, it is necessary for

teachers to provide a classroom environment that promotes active and collaborative
learning (Tan, C, 2006c).
In particular, classroom teaching in Singapore schools
traditionally has been teacher-centric with lessons textbook-centric and textbooks

teacher-centric (Nathan, 2001, p.48).
Classroom teaching of this nature is now
regarded as inadequate for producing the students Singapore needs for its new economy.
Education reforms both in content and practice have been deemed necessary. Policies
of reform were announced in 1997, when then Prime Minister of Singapore Goh Chok
Tong unveiled a new vision for education in Singapore. This new vision, named
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, is described by Goh (1997) as providing an
environment for total learning, involving all stakeholders in education and strategy, and
for the purpose of ensuring the economic competitiveness of the nation.
Many
initiatives were implemented in Singapore schools to pursue the Thinking Schools,

Learning Nation vision. The 2006 revised junior college curriculum is an example of
34
such initiative. The Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision and the 2006 revised
junior college curriculum are discussed in greater detail in the later sections of this
chapter.
REFORMS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION

Few people would disagree with the assertion made by the Development Education
Association of the United Kingdom (2003) that science education is fundamental to a
childs development. Science education provides students with a broad intellectual
understanding of the natural world, and trains students to think scientifically and to
utilise science concepts for effective living (DeBoer, 2000, p.584). Science education
has received much attention in recent decades (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006).
The
increasing impact of scientific and technological developments in everyday life as well

as the need for innovation and creativity have caused considerable attention on the role
of science within the school curriculum (Hargreaves, 2003, p.9), and questions have
been raised as to what should the goal of science education be (Millar & Osborne, 2006).
Describing science education as a component of young peoples whole educational
experience, Millar and Osborne (2006, p.413) argue that the aim of science education
in schools is to prepare students for a full and satisfying life in the 21st century world.
In support, Bybee and Fuchs (2006, p.350) further stress that science education must
be seen as essential to achieving the desired workforce competencies in the new
economy, and these competencies include critical thinking, complex communications
skills, and the ability to solve semi-structured problems.
Goal of Science Education: Scientific Literacy

With the emergence of globalised markets and knowledge-based economies, science
educators worldwide believe that the development of scientific literacy in students
35
should now be the goal of science education in schools (Brown, Reveles & Kelly, 2005;
Hodson, 2003; Grber et al., 2001; Bell, Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 2000; DeBoer,
2000). The National Research Council of the United States (cited in Grber et al., 2001)
defines scientific literacy as the knowledge which enables people to use scientific
principles and processes to make personal decisions, and to participate in dialogues of
scientific issues that impact society. Harlen (2001) labels scientific literacy as the
capacity to use science knowledge to identify questions and to draw evidence-based
conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and
the changes made to it through human activity. Lee and Yeoh (2001) further describe
scientific literacy as the knowledge about science, and the ability to think critically and
creatively about the natural world.
A scientific literate student, according to Grber and co-workers (2001), would possess
the following competencies: subject competency which involves the ability to
understand the various domains of science; epistemological competency which involves
the ability of having a systematic approach of using science to understand the world;
social competency which involves the ability to work in teams to solve problems
involving science; procedural competency which involves the abilities to observe and
evaluate phenomena, comprehend graphic representations, generate and test hypotheses;
communicative competency which involves the abilities to use and understand scientific
language in discussions and reports; and ethical competency which involves the abilities
to understand norms in location and time, and value hierarchies. These competencies
would allow students to function as useful citizens who can not only cope with the fastpaced changes in this technological world but also to comprehend better the various
issues related to science, for example, global warming and genetically modified foods
(Toh & Tsoi, 2008). Scientific literacy also has the role of preparing students to be
36
informed citizens capable of using science and technology wisely to solve the various
global problems in the society (Dawson & Venville, 2008; Roth & Dsautels, 2004).
Citizenship education, which is for all students, has a similar integral component to that
of scientific literacy, which is to equip students with the ability to comprehend socioscientific issues that arise due to the complex interactions between science and society
(Colucci-Gray et al., 2006).
DeBoer (2000) argues that to achieve scientific literacy in students, science curriculum
in schools should include: teaching and learning about science as a cultural force in the
modern world; teaching the application of science in everyday living; discussion of
science issues as reported in the media; learning about science as a particular way of
appreciating and examining the natural world; and examining the relationship between
science and technology (DeBoer, 2000). Furthermore, according to Millar and Osborne
(2006, p.413), to inculcate scientific literacy in students, the science curriculum in
schools should aim to sustain and develop the curiosity of students about the natural
world and build up their confidence in their ability to inquire about its phenomena as
well as to help students acquire a broad, general understanding of the important ideas
and concepts of science that have an impact in the society, and be able to use their
knowledge to make decisions about societal science issues.
Contained within the definitions of scientific literacy is the concept of science for all.
The goal of a science for all education runs parallel to the outcomes of scientific
literacy (Fensham, 2006). Scientific literacy has, within itself, a broad and functional
understanding of science for all students and not just for a group of students specialising
in science and technology (DeBoer, 2000). Thus, every student, regardless of his or her
area of specialisation, should be scientifically literate so as to live and work in the
37
globalised society, and all students should be able to evaluate and discuss societal
science issues, such as biotechnology, and develop scientific ways of thinking (Bramble,
2005).
Researchers and scholars have also identified that to achieve scientific literacy in
students, it is critical to include the nature of science in the school science curriculum
(Osborne et al., 2003; Moss, Abrams & Robb, 2001; Bell, Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick,
2000; Sorsby, 2000; McComas, Clough & Almazroa, 1998) as well as to use
constructivist-based student-centred learning approaches in classroom teaching (Hodson,
2003; Grber, et al., 2001; Rennie, Goodrum & Hackling, 2001). These concerns are
discussed below.
Nature of Science
According to McComas, Clough and Almazroa (1998, pp.45) the nature of science is
a fertile hybrid arena which blends aspects of various social studies of science
including the history, sociology, and philosophy of science combined with research
from the cognitive sciences such as psychology into a rich description of what science is,
how it works, how scientists operates as a social group and how society itself both
directs and reacts to scientific endeavours. They further add that teaching the nature
of science involves discussing the intersection of the philosophy, history, sociology,
and psychology of science.
Learning the nature of science is vital to the development of scientific literacy as this
body of knowledge provides students with the understanding on the limitations of
scientific knowledge; the various ways of learning science; the ethics of scientific work;
and the history of science (Afonso & Gilbert, 2010). Bell, Lederman and Abd-El-
38
Khalick (2000) describe the nature of science as overlapping with that of scientific
processes. According to them, teaching the nature of science can be used to highlight
that science knowledge is: tentative; empirically based; subjective; partly the product of
human inference, imagination, and creativity; socially and culturally embedded; and
involves a combination of observation and inferences.
Recognising its importance to the development of scientific literacy in students, the

nature of science has been included in the national science curriculum of the United
States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Osborne et al., 2003), as well as in certain
countries in Europe (Bell, Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 2000; Sorsby, 2000).
The diverse meanings of the philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology of science
with their broad classifications have made teaching the nature of science in schools a
challenging task (Sorsby, 2000). In addition, it is difficult to derive the nature of
science into specific instructional objectives for teaching and assessment purposes (Lee
& Yeoh, 2001). Donnelly (2001), in analysing the various policy documents for the
national curriculum for England and Wales, has found out that there are discrepancies
regarding the meaning of the nature of science among educators. He further remarks
that there is an underlying and deeper meaning in teaching the nature of science which
is to engage students individuality and judgment in the course of science education
rather than to teach the nature of science as a subject. According to McComas,
Clough and Almazroa (1998), the nature of science need not be a specific discipline to
be taught in the classroom. The nature of science can be taught in schools through
activities such as debates over scientific concepts.
39
Constructivist-Based Student-Centred Learning

Traditional science teaching has been teacher-centred, and the focus in teaching is on
learning facts and formulae rather than on acquiring problem-solving skills (Grber et
al., 2001). The teaching of science, according to Toh and Tsoi (2008, p.620), has
unfortunately become a formal exposition of definitions and laws to be memorised for
examinations, and of methods of solving artificial problems. The pursuit of scientific
literacy requires teachers and students to uphold a learner-centred perspective towards
the learning of science (Brown, Reveles & Kelly, 2005). Moreover, scientific teaching
involves active learning strategies to engage students in knowledge acquisition (Bell,
Urhahne, Schanze & Ploetzner, 2010; Handelsman et al., 2004). Therefore, to achieve
scientific literacy in students, new orientations towards the teaching and learning of
science, as outlined in Table 2.2, are necessary.
40
Table 2.2
New Orientations to Teaching and Learning of Science to Achieve Scientific Literacy.
More of
Teacher
Student
Instructional Activities
Helping students process
Processing information.
Student-directed learning.
Interpreting, explaining and
Student setting own academic goals.
information.
Facilitating student thinking.
hypothesising information.
Modelling the learning process.
Designing own activities.
Differentiated learning.
Flexible use of curriculum materials.
Sharing of authority for answers to
Emphasis on reasoning, reading and
problems.
writing for meaning, building from

existing cognitive structures, and
explaining complex problems.
Less of
Transmitting information.
Recording teachers information.
Teachers-prescribed activities.
Directing student actions.
Memorising information.
Teacher directing classroom tasks.
Explaining conceptual relationship.
Following teachers instructions.
Uniformity in classroom tasks.
Rigid use of textbooks.
Deferring to teachers authority for
Completing of worksheets.
answers to problems.
41
Source: Anderson (2002)
41
In essence, to effectively inculcate scientific literacy in students, teachers are

encouraged to adopt constructivist-based student-centred learning approaches in the
classrooms (Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2006). Student-centred learning places focus on
the cognitive development of the students and the teachers goal is to assist students
grasp the development of knowledge as a process rather than as a product (National
Research Council of the United States, 1997).
Important characteristics of a
constructivist approach towards teaching and learning include:
Academic outcomes depend on what kind of knowledge, purposes and motivation

the students bring into the classroom;
Personal construction of meaning is involved in the learning;
Learners construct meanings through an active learning process;
Learners evaluate constructed meanings through the process of rejection or

acceptance;
Final responsibility for learning lies on the shoulders of students;
Students construct different types of meanings by experiencing real objects through

natural language; and
Construction of meanings takes place when students participate in discussions

whereby ideas and thoughts are exchanged (Lazarowitz & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1998).
A successful constructivist-based learning environment is one whereby opportunities

are provided for students to explore ideas, explain phenomena, account for events and
make predictions as well as to rethink and reconstruct their ideas and views (Hodson,
1998). Various forms of constructivist-based learning in science education have been
proposed. They are inquiry teaching (Furtak, 2006), argumentation learning (Osborne,
Erduran & Simon, 2004; Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000), and project-based learning
(Rosenfeld & Rosenfeld, 2006). One particular form of constructivist-based student-
42
centred learning approach that has been actively promoted is group learning or
collaborative learning (Grber et al., 2001; Hodson, 1998; National Research Council of
the United States, 1997). Group learning or collaborative learning involves students
working in groups to achieve a common goal with each member of the group
contributing in an individually accountable way (National Research Council of the
United States, 1997).
This learning approach allows students to construct and
reconstruct their own personal framework of understanding and achieving instructional

objectives (Hodson, 1998). Group learning provides a platform for students to engage
in a meaningful and educative debate with regards to the subjects or topics they are
learning, and this could result in the generation of new problem-solving strategies.
Moreover, group learning enhances subject competency, communication competency
and reasoning competency in students (Grber et al., 2001). As mentioned earlier, these
competencies are key attributes of a scientific literate person.
The use of ICT in science lessons is also identified by researchers and scholars as
critical towards developing scientific literacy in students (Millar & Osborne, 2006;
Chang & Tsai, 2005; Bennett, 2003; Poole, 2000). The use of ICT in schools would
refer to the use of hardware, such as desktop and portable computers, projection
technology, data-logging devices and digital recording equipment, software applications
such as multimedia resources and generic software, and information systems such as the
internet and intranet (Hennessy, Ruthven & Brindley, 2005). One aspect of the nature
of science, as mentioned earlier, is to understand how scientists work, and ICT is
almost an indispensable tool in the work of scientists. According to Poole (2000),
scientists make use of ICT to: search and collect information; handle data from
experiments; model ideas; present information and research findings; and collaborate
with other scientists.
Schools are therefore expected to provide opportunities for
43
students to attain the similar set of skills on the use of ICT as mentioned above, and
science teachers are encouraged to infuse ICT in tutorial instruction on science content
as well as to use dataloggers and spreadsheets for information processing and
calculations in experimental work (Bennett, 2003).
The positive impact on learning through the use of ICT has been proclaimed by
researchers such as Bell, Urhahne, Schanze and Ploetzner (2010), Mokhtar (2005),
Chen and Hung (2003), as well as Goby and Lewis (2000). The use of ICT in learning
facilitates the transformation of students from passive learners to active, independent,
creative and analytical ones (Mokhtar, 2005, p.30).
Computer-mediated learning
environment encourages self-regulated learning in students (Bell, Urhahne, Schanze &

Ploetzner, 2010) as well as promotes the development of students metacognitive
knowledge (Chen & Hung, 2003). Moreover, an ICT-integrated curriculum enhances
the retention of acquired knowledge and improves problem-solving ability in students
(Goby & Lewis, 2000).
Thus, major reforms in science education are centred on achieving scientific literacy in
students. The success of such reforms certainly depends on how science teachers tailor
their teaching to include the learning of the nature of science and facilitating
constructivist-based student-centred learning in the classrooms. The following sections
furnish an overview of the educational landscape in Singapore and examine the
educational initiatives introduced to achieve scientific literacy in Singapore students.
44
AN OVERVIEW OF THE STRUCTURE

AND STAGES OF EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE
Education has been a major concern in Singapore since the country gained selfgovernance from Britain in 1959. Singapore government leaders have recognised from
the very outset that with virtually no natural resources and domestic market, the
underlying pillar for maintaining the nations economic competitiveness is its human
resource. Since the mid-sixties, heavy commitments have been made to upgrade
human capital through investments in education and vocational training (Sanderson,
2002, p.86), and in recent years, spending on education constitutes an average of 4.0 per
cent of the countrys GDP (Ng, 2007; Goh, 2001).
According to the Singapore
Teachers Union (2004, p.4), it is critical, for Singapores survival, that a strong link
between education and economy is maintained, and therefore any restructuring or finetuning of the education system is largely in response to the changing economic
environments, both local and global.
In view of the importance of education in shaping the societal structure as well as

providing a human resource that can generate economic wealth for the nation,
Singapore maintains a highly centralised education system (Sharpe & Gopinathan, 2002;
Yip, Eng & Yap, 1997). Key educational policies and initiatives are formulated by the
Ministry of Education of Singapore. These policies and initiatives are channelled down
to schools for implementation. The Ministry of Education of Singapore also decides on
the national curricula for primary, secondary and pre-university education. There are
three categories of schools in Singapore, namely government, government-aided and
independent. Government-aided and independent schools are given more autonomy in
management, but they are expected to follow the core curricula and deliver the key
national policy initiatives introduced by the Ministry (Tan, J, 2005).
45
The stages of education in Singapore are structured into three parts that follow a sixfour-two model: six years of primary school, four years of secondary and two years of
pre-university education. The school system is structured in such a way that children
are provided with at least ten years of basic education before they enter the working
world. Currently, the course curriculum at each level of education is categorised into
three key components, namely, life skills, knowledge skills and content-based subject
disciplines (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2006b).
Figure 2.1 provides an
overview of the structure in the Singapore education system while Table 2.3 outlines the
three key components in the course curriculum in Singapore schools.
46
Years of Schooling 14 11
10 7
65
41
Integrated Programme Schools
Specialised Integrated Schools
Privately-Funded schools
96
Institute
of
Technical
Education
11 10
Polytechnics
Junior Colleges/
Centralised
Institute
15 12
GCE A Level Examination/

Other Qualifications
19 16
Typical Age
Universities
GCE O Level Examination
Secondary 5 N
GCE N Level Examination
Special/Express
Course
(Secondary 1 4)
Normal (Academic)/
Normal (Technical) Course
(Secondary 1 4)
Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)

Orientation Stage (Primary 5 6)
Foundation Stage (Primary 1 4)
47
Figure 2.1
Education structure in Singapore.
Source: Ministry of Education of Singapore (2006b)
47
Table 2.3
Key Components in the Course Curriculum in Singapore Schools.
Life Skills
Knowledge Skills
Content-Based Subject
Disciplines
Aim
Inculcate sound values and
Develop students thinking
Provide students with a good
skills to take students
process and communication
grounding in content across
through life as responsible
skills. Enable students to
different areas of study.
adults and active citizens.
analyse and use information

and be able to express their
thoughts and ideas clearly
and effectively.
Course
Non-academic subjects such
Skills-based subject such as
Examinable academic
Components
as Co-curricular Activities,
Project Work.
subjects such as Languages,
Civics and Moral Education,
Humanities and the Arts,
National Education.
Mathematics, Sciences.
48
48
Each stage of education aims to inculcate in students a set of attributes. These attributes,
called the Desired Outcomes of Education, are presented in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4
The Desired Outcomes of Education in Singapore Schools.
Primary
Secondary
Pre-University
Be able to distinguish
Have moral integrity.
Be resilient and resolute.
Have learnt to share and
Have care and concern
Have a sound sense of
put others first.
for others.
social responsibility
Be able to build
Be able to work in teams
Understand what it takes
friendships with others.
and value every
to inspire and motivate
contribution.
others.
Have a lively curiosity
Be enterprising and
Have an entrepreneurial
about things.
innovative.
and creative spirit.
Be able to think for and
Possess a broad-based
Be able to think
express themselves.
foundation for further
independently and
education.
creatively.
Take pride in their work.
Believe in their ability.
Strive for excellence.
Have cultivated health
Have an appreciation for
Have a zest for life.
habits.
aesthetics.
Love Singapore.
Know and believe in
Understand what it takes
Singapore.
to lead Singapore.
between right and wrong.
Source: Ministry of Education of Singapore (2005a)
The remaining parts of this section discuss, in greater detail, primary, secondary and
pre-university education in Singapore.
49
Primary Education
The overall aim of primary education in Singapore is to provide students with a good
foundation in English, mother tongue language, science and mathematics (Ministry of
Education of Singapore, 2006b).
Primary education is compulsory, with children
commencing primary school at the age of six. As shown earlier in Figure 2.1, primary
education consists of a four-year foundation stage from Primary One to Primary Four,
and a two-year orientation stage from Primary Five to Primary Six.
At the end of Primary Four, students sit for a school-based examination. The students
are then banded according to their academic results in this examination. This system,
called Subject-based Banding offers primary school students greater flexibility in
deciding their course of study based on their academic abilities (Ministry of Education
of Singapore, 2009a). Students are given the option to offer their stronger subjects at
the standard level, or to offer their weaker subjects at the foundation level.
Subject-based banding begins in Primary Five and continues in Primary Six. At the
end of the six-year primary education, all students sit for the Primary School Leaving
Examination, a major national examination which determines students progression to
secondary schools and their course of study in secondary schools. The key processes
involved in primary school education are depicted in Figure 2.2.
50
At
Primary
Four
Student sits for a school-based examination at the end of Primary Four.

Based on students results, school recommends a combination of
subjects that most suit the student.
Parents to fill up option form indicating preferred subjects combination.
At
Primary
Five
At the
end of
Primary
Five
Student takes the combination of subjects decided by parents.

English, mathematics, science and mother tongue language are
available at standard and foundation levels. Mother tongue language
is also available at the higher level.
Student who takes 1

or more foundation
subject(s) and does
very well in the
subjects
Student who takes 4

standard subjects
and had difficulty
coping.
All other students.
School may allow

student to upgrade
some subjects to
standard level if
school believes the
student can cope or
continue the same
subjects combination
in Primary Six.
School may allow

student to take 1 or
more subjects at
foundation level in
Primary Six.
School will allow the

student to continue
the same subjects
combination
in
Primary Six.
At
Primary
Six
At the
end of
Primary
Six
Figure 2.2
Student takes subjects combination decided by the school.
Student sits for the Primary School Leaving

Examination (PSLE).
Key processes involved in primary school education.
51
Secondary Education
There are three courses of study in secondary schools, namely, Special, Express and
Normal.
The Special and Express courses provide a faster option towards
completing secondary education as compared to the Normal course. Students are

placed in one of these courses of study depending on their academic results in the
Primary School Leaving Examination. In the Special and Express courses, all
students follow a four-year programme leading to the General Certificate of Education
Ordinary Level Examination.
The Normal course is further divided into Normal (Academic) and Normal
(Technical). Students in the Normal (Academic) course will study academicallybased subjects while those in the Normal (Technical) course follow a practice-oriented
curriculum. All students in the Normal course sit for the General Certificate of
Education Normal Level Examination at the end of the four-year course. Students who
satisfy the requirements are enrolled in a fifth year of study at the same secondary
school where they will sit for the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level
Examination at the end of the year.
As shown earlier in Figure 2.1, there are three choices of post-secondary education.
Pre-university education in junior colleges is the most direct path towards university
education and is meant for students who are more academically inclined (Goh, 2002;
Tan & Ho, 2001). Students need to have a certain standard of academic achievement in
the General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level Examination in order to be
admitted for pre-university study in junior colleges.
52
Pre-University Education in Junior Colleges

Pre-university education is conducted mainly in junior colleges over a period of two
years. The first junior college was set up in 1969 for the purpose of optimising
resources and to provide a quality pre-university education for the academically
stronger students (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2005a). Before that time, preuniversity education was offered only in selected secondary schools. Over the years
from 1969, an increase in the number of qualifying students has led to more junior
colleges being established.
At the end of the two-year course in junior colleges,
students sit for the national General Certificate of Education Advanced Level
Examination. Admission to local universities is largely determined by the grades
students obtain in this major national examination. Junior colleges adopt a lecturetutorial system which serves as a gradual introduction to tertiary education, and to
develop independent learning and self-discipline in students.
The junior college
curriculum is regarded by government leaders as a successful system providing a robust

and rigorous pre-university education (Teo, 2002).
Moreover, a pre-university
education in junior colleges is regarded as the most viable option for students who
aspire to a university education.
The government-aided and independent junior colleges are given more freedom, as
compared to the government junior colleges, to design their own curricula to allow their
students to experience a more holistic form of education.
allowed to stray from the key national initiatives.
However, they are not
This understanding remains
unchanged, notwithstanding the new era of educational developments in Singapore.
Most students major in science in junior colleges. A pre-university science education

allows more choices for courses of study in universities. In 2006, 83 per cent of the
53
students newly admitted to junior colleges majored in science (Ministry of Education of

Singapore, 2007a).
The science subjects offered in junior colleges are physics,
chemistry and biology. Science education in Singapore plays a pivotal role towards the
countrys development as a research and development hub, and has a crucial role in
imparting the skills and knowledge to prepare Singapore students for knowledgebased employment (Lui, 2006).
As Singapore aspires to be a research and
development hub for Biomedical Engineering, Biomedical Science, Environmental

and Water Technologies, as well as Interactive and Digital Media (Masagos, 2007), it
is important to maintain a high quality science education in junior colleges.
As can be seen in Figure 2.1, high-stakes national examinations are conducted at the end
of primary, secondary and pre-university courses. The academic grades obtained from
these high-stakes examinations often determine students progression and pathways
along the stages of education (Tan & Ng, 2005; Gregory & Clarke, 2003; Cheah, 1998).
The majority of Singapore students are required to sit for at least three high-stakes
national examinations in the process of advancement from primary to university
education. A typical first year junior college student would therefore have had ten years
of prior education and have sat through two high-stakes national examinations.
A NEW VISION FOR EDUCATION IN SINGAPORE:

THINKING SCHOOLS, LEARNING NATION
As mentioned in the earlier sections of this chapter, a new vision for education in
Singapore was announced in 1997. The Thinking Schools, Learning Nation policy
emerged from the recognition that schools need to nurture thinking and committed
citizens to keep Singapore vibrant and successful in the future (Tan, C, 2006c, p.141).
54
In regards to the meanings of Thinking Schools and Learning Nation, the Ministry of
Education of Singapore (2007b) elaborates as follows:
Thinking Schools will be learning organisations in every sense,
constantly challenging assumptions, and seeking better ways of doing
things through participation, creativity and innovation.
Thinking
Schools will be the cradle of thinking students as well as thinking

adults and this spirit of learning should accompany our students even
after they leave school. (p.1)
A Learning Nation envisions a national culture and social
environment that promotes lifelong learning in our people.
The
capacity of Singaporeans to continually learn, both for professional

development and for personal enrichment, will determine our
collective tolerance for change. (p.1)
The pursuit of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision has required a change in
mindset concerning classroom teaching in Singapore schools. Since the unveiling of the
vision, many key supporting initiatives have been introduced in all areas of education,
ranging from early childhood to tertiary education. Initiatives, which have a direct
impact on teachers classroom practices, namely, Ability-Driven Education,
Information Technology (IT) Masterplan, Innovation and Enterprise, and Teach
Less, Learn More, are discussed below.
Ability-Driven Education
The Ability-Driven Education initiative, introduced in 1999, aims to equip and prepare
students to meet the challenges in a knowledge economy by taking into consideration
their individual abilities and talents, rather than the sole reliance on examination grades
(Tan, C, 2005a). The Ability-Driven Education initiative represents a paradigm shift
from an Efficiency-Driven Education (Tan, C, 2005a).
The latter focused on
55
producing skilled workers for the economy in the most efficient way. In contrast, an
ability-driven education aims to identify and develop the talents and abilities of every
student to the maximum. Former Senior Minister of State for Education, Peter Chen,
(cited in Tan, C, 2005a) provides the following justification on the need for this
initiative:
The education system in a knowledge economy should be to provide a
balanced and well-rounded education that will develop every
individual morally, intellectually, physically, socially and aesthetically
so that his or her full potential can be realised. (p.447)
An ability-driven education, in the true sense, celebrates diversities in individuals

talents and abilities (Heng, 2001), and focuses on choice in learning rather than
preparing students for examinations (Tharman 2005b). With the implementation of this
initiative, school principals are now given greater autonomy to admit students on the
basis of the abilities and talents of the students, other than academic achievements.
Under the new revisions in the junior college curriculum, each content-based subject
discipline had been redesigned and pitched at three levels of study differing in breadth
and depth.
Students thus have more flexibility and choice regarding the level of
mastery they wish to pursue in that particular subject. The 2006 revised junior college
curriculum, discussed in more detail in the later sections of this chapter, is intended as
a step, under the umbrella of Ability-Driven Education, towards providing greater
flexibility and diversity in preparing students for a university education. To harness
students individual talents and abilities in an ability-driven education system, teachers
are expected to explore different pedagogical methods that are innovative, interactive
and enjoyable (Tan, C, 2005b).
56
IT Masterplan
The IT Masterplan in the Singapore education system is a blueprint for the integration
of ICT in teaching and learning. Two such blueprints were introduced: IT Masterplan
I in 1997 and IT Masterplan II in 2002. These two initiatives are intended to help
schools design and conduct ICT-infused lessons so as to foster a more innovative and
student-centred learning environment to develop critical thinking skills in students
(Deng & Gopinathan, 2005; Mokhtar, 2005). The IT Masterplan I presents an overall
map on the use of ICT in Singapore schools in order to provide every student access to
an ICT-rich curriculum and school environment (Mokhtar, 2005). The IT Masterplan
II further focuses on the integration of ICT into the curriculum design and the creation
of a more student-centred learning environment (Deng & Gopinathan, 2005).
In addition to the benefits proclaimed by the use ICT in teaching and learning,
Singapore government leaders regard good ICT knowledge as indispensable to working
ably in a knowledge-based economy. Recently, Singapore unveiled plans to be an
Intelligent Nation in 2015 (Siew, 2006). Singapore government leaders envisage that
by 2015 in Singapore, ICT will touch all aspects of peoples lives and affect how they
live, learn, work and play (Tham, 2006). Therefore, it is critical to develop ICT literacy
in every student.
While the Ministry arguably has been generous in providing monetary support to equip
schools with the necessary infrastructure for ICT-based learning, the onus is on school
teachers to effectively utilise and integrate the ICT resources for quality teaching and
learning.
57
Innovation and Enterprise

The initiative of Innovation and Enterprise was launched in 2003 to prepare students
for a new workplace environment that supposedly thrives on the ability to innovate,
invent and try new ideas and products without the fear of failing (Tharman, 2003). The
following
quote
by
then
Minister
for
Education
of
Singapore,
Tharman
Shanmugaratnam (cited in Ng, 2005), is provided to illustrate the meaning of

Innovation and Enterprise:
Innovation and enterprise is an attitude of mind, developing habits of
mind. At the core of it, innovation and enterprise is firstly, about
developing intellectual curiosity amongst all our children, a
willingness to think originally. Second, a spirit of initiative, and a
willingness to do something different, even if there is a risk of failure.
And third, its about developing strength of character, the ability to
bounce back, try again, and the willingness to stand in team to lead a
team, and to fight as a team. (p.42)
In essence, the spirit of innovation and enterprise is about developing intellectual

curiosity and character of strength to take calculated risks, being able to live with
ambiguity, being able to have the courage to accept failure, and being able to recover
and move on despite setbacks (Ng, 2005). In the context of teaching roles, Innovation
and Enterprise in schools encourages teachers to abandon some of their tried and
tested methods of teaching, and embrace new and unexplored pedagogical practices
(Nathan, 2001). In encouraging teachers to incorporate this new spirit of teaching, Ng
(2005, p.49) has called upon teachers to design simple yet effective innovative and
entrepreneurial lessons for quality learning in classrooms.
58
Teach Less, Learn More

Introduced in 2004 by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, during his
National Day Speech to the nation, the Teach Less, Learn More initiative is
intended to promote more engaged learning, high quality teaching, innovative and
effective instructional approaches, while de-emphasising the role and importance of rote
learning and repetitive tests (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2006b).
The Prime
Minister (cited in Tan & Ng, 2005) elaborates as follows:

Weve got to teach less to our students so that they will learn more.
Grades are important, dont forget to pass your exams but grades are
not the only thing in life and there are other things in life which we
want to learn in school. (p.vii)
The following excerpt from the speech by then Minister for Education of Singapore
Tharman Shanmugaratnam at the Ministry of Education Work Plan Seminar in 2004
(cited in Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 03, October 2005) is provided to
illuminate the essence of Teach Less, Learn More:
It [Teach Less, Learn More] is a call to educators to teach better, to
engage our students and prepare them for life, rather than to teach for
tests and examinations. (p.5)
Teachers are regarded as the heart of Teach Less, Learn More (Contact The
Teachers Digest Issue 03, October, 2005, p.5), as the success of the initiative is
understood to depend on how teachers construct their pedagogical practices. Teachers
are expected to adopt progressive pedagogical approaches, instead of the more
traditional teaching methods, to enhance the quality of learning in classrooms. In
particular, the drill and practice, one-sized-fits-all instruction, and giving formulae
and standard answers methods of teaching (Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 03,
October 2005, p.10), to which Singapore teachers are so familiar and accustomed, are to
59
be discontinued. In addition, teaching and learning should not be just focused on

passing and excelling in examinations.
To help teachers implement the aforementioned initiatives, a teaching and learning

framework based on the ideology of Thinking Schools, Learning Nation was drawn up
by the Ministry of Education of Singapore (Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 03,
October 2005). This framework is shown in Figure 2.3.
Remember Why We Teach:

More:
For the learner
To excite passion
For understanding
For the test of life
Less:
To rush through the syllabus
Out of fear of failure
To dispense information only
For a life of tests
Reflect On What We Teach:

More:
The whole child
Value-centric
Process
Searching questions
Less:
The subject
Grades-centric
Product
Textbook answers
Reconsider How We Teach:

More:
Managed learning
Differentiated teaching
Guiding, facilitating and modelling
Formative and qualitative assessing
Spirit of innovation and enterprise
Figure 2.3
Less:
Drill and practice
One-size-fits-all instruction
Telling
Summative and quantitative testing
Set formulae and standard answers
Framework on teaching and learning based on the ideology of
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation.

Source: Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 03 (October, 2005)
60
While the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision espouses a more holistic form of
education, high-stakes examinations are not discarded.
The quest for excellent
academic achievement in national examinations remains the utmost priority in teachers,

students and parents (Mokhtar, 2005; Tan & Ng, 2005; Ng, 2004; Cheah, 1998).
Furthermore, examination results are still regarded as a vital testimony to the quality of
learning in schools. In this regard, then Minister for Education of Singapore Tharman
Shanmugaratnam (cited in Hung et al., 2009) explains:
They [examinations] provide transparency in the system, and give
parents and students confidence that access to a school or tertiary
institution is based on merit - confidence which is often lacking in
other systems. (p.213)
Essentially, then, there is a paradox in requiring teachers to promote independent selfdirected learning in students while still demanding teachers to produce quality academic
results in the national examinations, as Hung and co-workers remark:
Schools are therefore put in a position of having to think out of the box
while doing well within the box. This is no simple feat. (p.213)
The issue of how teachers deal with the implementation of initiatives underpinning the
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision is a pertinent concern among international
and local educators (Tan & Ng, 2005; Koh, 2004). The theory developed in this study
to explain how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of
science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum thus has great potential to
facilitate further deliberations on the practicality of implementing initiatives
underpinning the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision in Singapore schools.
61
THE 2006 REVISED JUNIOR COLLEGE CURRICULUM

The implementation of the aforementioned key initiatives to pursue the vision of
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation has resulted in major changes being made to the
curricula as well as pedagogic practices in schools. The 2006 revised junior college
curriculum, introduced to pre-university education in Singapore junior colleges, is an
example of pedagogic and curriculum transformation under the new policy. In the form
of a flowchart, Figure 2.4 locates the 2006 revised junior college curriculum within
the educational reforms in Singapore.
Vision for
Education
Key
supporting
initiatives
Teach Less,
Learn More
Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation
Ability-Driven
Education
IT Masterplan
Innovation
and Enterprise
2006 Revised Junior College

Curriculum
Figure 2.4
Location of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum within the new
educational framework in Singapore.
The key changes to education in Singapore junior colleges, with the implementation of
the 2006 revised junior college curriculum are as follows. First, the examinable
academic subjects under the new junior college curriculum have been redesigned and
pitched at three levels of study differing in breadth and depth (Ministry of Education of
62
Singapore, 2005b). This is to allow the junior college students more choices in the
subjects they wish to study as well as in the level of mastery they wish to pursue in that
particular subject. In order to distinguish between the three levels of study, the subjects
are labelled as Higher One (H1), Higher Two (H2) or Higher Three (H3), each of
which differs in breadth and depth, and each of which has its own syllabus. Table 2.5
shows the differences between the three levels. All the science subjects (physics,
chemistry and biology), are offered at all of the three levels of study (Ministry of
Education of Singapore, 2006a).
Table 2.5
The Three Levels of Study for the Academic Subjects.
H1 Subjects
H2 Subjects
H3 Subjects
Equivalent to half of
Equivalent to the rigour
Subjects with a wide
H2 subjects in breadth
of the academic subjects
variety of learning
but similar to H2
in the former junior
opportunities for in-
subjects in depth.
college curriculum.
depth study, such as

advanced subject
content, research paper
study and university
modules.
Can be taken by science
major students as well as

arts major students (as a
contrasting subject).
major students as well as

arts major students (as a
major students who are

also studying the
equivalent H2 science
subject.
63
Second, all students admitted in all junior colleges from 2006 onwards are required to
take a contrasting subject that is outside their area of specialisation, so as to provide a
multi-disciplinary pre-university education (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2005b).
For example, each arts major student is required to take at least one contrasting subject
from the mathematics or science discipline, and each science major student is required
to take at least one contrasting subject from the arts discipline. The contrasting
subject can be taken at the H1 or H2 level. Contrasting subjects are taken into
account for admission into the two local universities, the National University of
Singapore (NUS) and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) (Singapore
Examinations and Assessment Board, 2006).
Third, there is an incorporation of new content and topics into the science curriculum to
equip students with knowledge concerning recent trends in science development as well
as in the niche research areas in science (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2005a).
Fourth, there is a stronger focus on developing understanding, critical thinking, the
ability to ask questions to seek answers and solutions, higher-order thinking skills,
conceptual thinking, and communication skills through student-centred learning
methodologies and the use of ICT in classrooms (Ministry of Education of Singapore,
2006b). Fifth, the format of the General Certificate of Education Advanced Level
Examination, which is jointly developed by the Ministry of Education of Singapore,
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Singapore Examinations
and Assessment Board, has been revised to accommodate the changes made to the
junior college curriculum. A greater emphasis on knowledge processing and application
is sought, as is emphasis on higher-order thinking and analytical skills (Ministry of
64
Essentially, the 2006 revised junior college curriculum is a continuation of initiatives

grounded in the vision of Thinking Schools, Learning Nation. The new changes
introduced aim to reinforce the rigour of a junior college education, while at the same
time, prepare students for the world of work. The revised framework has received
positive responses and recognition from some of the major universities in the world
(Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board, 2005). In the context of the current
education paradigm in Singapore, the revised curriculum hopes to foster an environment
of engaged learning and innovative teaching in junior colleges, while at the same time
producing students with high academic achievements in the General Certificate of
Education Advanced Level Examination.
According to the Ministry of Education of Singapore (2006a), the key objectives of

science education under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum are as follows:
to enable students to acquire sufficient understanding and knowledge to:
become confident citizens in a technological world and able to take or develop

an informed interest in matters of scientific import;
recognise the usefulness, and limitations, of scientific method and to appreciate

its applicability in other disciplines and in everyday life;
be suitably prepared for further studies after completing the pre-university

education;
to develop in students abilities and skills that:
are relevant to the study and practice of science ;
are useful in everyday life;
encourage efficient and safe practice in the learning of science;
encourage effective communication;
to develop attitudes relevant to science such as:
65
concern for accuracy and precision;
objectivity;
integrity;
skills of enquiry;
initiative;
inventiveness.
From a comparison of these objectives with the definitions of scientific literacy

presented earlier, it can be surmised that science education under the 2006 revised
junior college curriculum hopes to inculcate scientific literacy in Singapore junior
college students. The former curriculum only succeeded in achieving science literacy in
students but failed to produce scientific literate students (Lee & Yeoh, 2001). As
remarked by former Minister for Education of Singapore Teo Chee Hean (2000, p.1),
how Singapore will fare in a knowledge-driven economy will depend on whether this
goal is achieved. This study therefore offered opportunities to examine the progress of
achieving scientific literacy in Singapore junior college science students.
New Considerations in the Teaching of Science in Singapore Junior Colleges

The 2006 revisions have certainly resulted or are resulting in new considerations in the
teaching of science in Singapore junior colleges. Singapore junior college science
teachers are required to pitch their level of teaching according to the academic
background of students. For example, if they are teaching a class of arts major students,
the teachers need to have a good understanding in the students learning backgrounds
and epistemological orientations. As there are now three different levels of study (H1,
H2 and H3) for each science subject, the science teachers need to be familiar with
the depth of content coverage during lesson planning and teaching.
The science
66
teachers are also required to teach new content that has been added to the revised
curriculum. The new curriculum content covers recent advances in science knowledge
as well as the niche research areas in science. The science teachers are now expected to
adopt progressive and innovative teaching approaches in classrooms as well as to
integrate ICT into their teaching.
They also need to prepare students for new
assessment criteria which focus more on critical analysis and higher-order thinking
rather than the mere regurgitation of facts and formulae. The tried and tested methods
of teaching are no longer considered to be sufficient to prepare students under the new
assessment format, which emphasises critical analysis.
It is in the light of these innovations and demands that this study examined the issue of
how junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of their science subjects
under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum. In terms of the new paradigm of
education described earlier in this chapter, science teachers are now expected to adopt
progressive teaching practices to infuse in students higher-order thinking and critical
analytical skills, but this same population of teachers is also expected to continue to
deliver good academic results in the national examinations. In the past, the emphasis on
examination results has pushed science teachers to use rote-learning and textbook and
teacher-centric practices. The challenge now for science teachers in Singapore junior
colleges is to accommodate traditional and new educational priorities. The revisions
introduced to Singapore junior colleges signal that the old ways of learning such as
those that rely on individual and dialectic forms of instruction must give way to more
social and distributed epistemologies and that learners need to possess dispositions
not just to learn, but to learn in socially adaptive and technologically enriched ways
(Hung et al., 2009, p.213). Ng (2007, p.243), however, cautions that the quest to
67
achieve the best of both worlds may end up achieving neither of both worlds. This
is a dilemma for science teachers working in junior colleges in Singapore.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has provided the background and context to the study. The chapter is
organised in five sections. The first section examined the links between globalisation
and education policies, and presented cases of education change undertaken to meet the
challenges of globalisation in three countries as well as the case of Singapore. The
second section discussed the role of science education in preparing students to live and
work in a globalised world. The third section provided the overall structure and stages
of education in Singapore schools. The fourth section elaborated on the Thinking
Schools, Learning Nation vision and explained the meanings and intentions of the key
initiatives underpinning this new vision of education in Singapore.
The fifth section
furnished details of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum and identified the new
considerations in the teaching and learning of science in Singapore junior colleges as a
result of the changes introduced to the science curriculum.
To summarise, the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision, launched in 1997, aims
to prepare Singapore students for the world of work, and to facilitate the countrys
transformation into a successful knowledge-based economy. This new paradigm of
education in Singapore espouses a more holistic form of learning, involving the
development of analytical and communication skills through progressive pedagogical
practices and a de-emphasising on the role of examination grades to guide teaching.
Since the introduction of the new vision of education, many supporting key initiatives
had been implemented in Singapore schools. Key initiatives that have a direct impact
on teachers are those of Ability-Driven Education, Information Technology (IT)
68
Masterplan, Innovation and Enterprise, and Teach Less, Learn More.
These
initiatives are intended to transform education in Singapore schools from examinationoriented to passion-driven. However, despite the introduction of these initiatives, the
academic results of students in the national examinations remain the crucial assessment
on the quality of teaching in Singapore schools. Therefore, in pursuing the vision of
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, teachers are expected to teach differently for
different outcomes and yet achieve academic excellence in examinations, an outcome
that has traditionally been associated with teacher-centred classroom practices that are
now regarded as undesirable.
With effect from January 2006, a revised curriculum was implemented in all Singapore
junior colleges.
With the implementation of this 2006 revised junior college
curriculum, new considerations in the teaching of science in junior colleges have

emerged. Singapore junior college science teachers are now expected to demonstrate a
more holistic form of learning by introducing progressive teaching methods and
encouraging more innovative student-centred learning activities in the classrooms while
at the same time deliver quality results in the national examinations. Therefore, with the
changes introduced to the science curriculum, Singapore junior college science teachers
face greater challenges in teaching their science subjects. The issue of how Singapore
junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of their science subjects under
the new educational framework in Singapore junior colleges was the main focus of this
study. The next chapter, through a review of related literature, explains to readers the
intricacies involved in the implementation of educational initiatives.
69
CHAPTER THREE
LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
The process of implementing educational initiatives is simply determined by what
teachers do and think about the initiatives (Fullan, 2007, p.129). A review of relevant
literature revealed that the phenomenon of what teachers do and think about
implementing educational initiatives is largely influenced by the challenges teachers
face during the implementation process as well as the meanings teachers ascribe to the
educational initiatives that are being implemented.
To facilitate the discussion on relevant literature pertaining to this study, a conceptual

framework based on recommendations provided by Boote and Beile (2005) is drawn up.
This framework is shown in Figure 3.1 below.
The phenomenon of what teachers do and think with regards to

implementing educational initiatives
Challenges teachers face

when implementing the
initiatives
Meanings teachers ascribe

to the initiatives
Theoretical prepositions on how teachers

implement educational initiatives
Figure 3.1
Conceptual framework for the literature review.
70
To reiterate, the challenges teachers encounter when implementing educational

initiatives as well as the meanings teachers ascribe to the initiatives are two components
that largely shape what teachers do and think about educational change. These two
components further provide the theoretical understanding on how teachers implement
educational initiatives. This understanding, in turn, maps the phenomenon of what
teachers do and think with regards to implementing the educational initiatives imposed
on them. The conceptual framework shown in Figure 3.1 is discussed over three
sections in this chapter.
CHALLENGES TEACHERS FACE WHEN

IMPLEMENTING EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES
This section discusses the challenges teachers commonly face when implementing
educational initiatives such as teaching new content and adopting progressive
pedagogical practices in classrooms. The challenges, conceptualised from the vast
literature on the constraints teachers experience when implementing curricula change,
can be classified into the following three categories: acquisition and construction of
professional knowledge; engaging students; and working with insufficient time and
limited resources.
Teaching practices in the classrooms, which in turn shape the
outcome of implementation, are largely determined by how teachers deal with these
challenges.
The aforementioned three categories of challenges are not mutually
exclusive and it is difficult to discuss each category in isolation.
Acquisition and Construction of New Professional Knowledge

Teachers need to acquire or construct new professional knowledge when implementing
curricula initiatives such as teaching new content and utilising progressive pedagogies
(Chen, 2008; Niess, 2005; Windschitl, 2002; Keys & Bryan, 2001).
Teachers
71
professional knowledge generally comprises subject matter content knowledge,

pedagogical knowledge as well as pedagogical content knowledge. Effective teaching
and learning in the classrooms essentially depends on how teachers synthesise these
three bodies of knowledge (Taitelbaum, Mamlok-Naaman, Carmeli & Hofstein, 2008;
Peers, Diezmann & Watters, 2003).
Subject matter content knowledge not only refers to the understanding of facts, ideas
and concepts within that subject but also to the ways these facts, ideas and concepts are
related and organised, and the methods to test for their validity and reliability
(Calderhead, 1996). Good subject matter content knowledge in teachers is essential for
the development of students correct conceptual understanding about the subject that is
being taught (Ball, 2000). Pedagogical knowledge encompasses a broad understanding
of effective classroom management and instructional strategies, as well as issues on
how students think and learn (Borko & Putnam, 1996). Pedagogical content knowledge,
a concept developed by Shulman (1987, 1986), refers to the amalgamation of subject
matter content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in a specific context. Teachers
with good pedagogical knowledge would have an understanding of: students prior
knowledge; the best way to present concepts to students for their comprehension; the
most appropriate instructional approach in the teaching of the content; and the
misconceptions students may have and the methods to rectify these misconceptions
(Chen, 2008). Hashweh (2005, p.290) further presents pedagogical content knowledge
as a collection of teacher professional constructions and as a form of knowledge that
preserves the planning and wisdom of practice that the teacher acquires when repeatedly
teaching a certain topic.
72
Therefore, based on the aforementioned scholarly literature, pedagogical content

knowledge in the teaching of science would encompass knowledge of science content,
and the specific instructional strategies and activities that can effectively present the
teaching content to students as well as address their learning difficulties.
While
pedagogical knowledge provides teachers with the broad knowledge of teaching and
learning methods, pedagogical content knowledge allows teachers to organise
instructional activities that meet both the objectives of the curriculum and the learning
needs of the students.
Good pedagogical content knowledge requires teachers to be strong in their subject

matter content knowledge as well as a good understanding of the learning difficulties
likely to be encountered by students (Parker & Heywood, 2000; Van Driel, Verloop &
de Vos, 1998). Science teachers strong in their subject matter content knowledge are
more effective in promoting higher-order critical thinking skills in the students as they
are able to ask cognitive challenging questions and pick up students misconceptions
(Childs & McNicholl, 2007, p.1632).
Furthermore, teachers with strong content
knowledge would be able to better facilitate inquiry-oriented and collaborative-based

lessons (Glasgow & Hicks, 2003). Conversely teachers who are weak in their subject
matter content knowledge often encounter difficulties in aligning their classroom
teaching with the reform-oriented goals set by their schools such as organising
constructivist-based student-centred lessons (Windschitl, 2002).
Tobin and Fraser
(cited in Osborne, Simon & Collins, 2003, p.1069) point out that because teachers did
not have the content knowledge, errors of fact were made and opportunities to elaborate
on student understandings and to diagnose misunderstandings were missed.
73
Teachers lacking in subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and

pedagogical content knowledge are likely to teach by mere repetition and rote
memorisation of content as well as avoid taking questions from students (Loughran,
Mulhall & Berry, 2008; Pederson et al., 2000). Furthermore, they will not be able to
organise and facilitate effective student-centred instructional activities such as
collaborative learning (Windschitl, 2002; Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000) as well as
integrating the use of technology in classrooms (Chen, 2008; Niess, 2005) Teachers
pedagogical content knowledge also plays an important role in the development of
students attitudes towards learning as students may develop a dislike for a subject due
to the lack of subject matter content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge
displayed by the teachers when teaching that subject (Johnston & Ahtee, 2006).
Under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum, Singapore junior college science
teachers are likely to be involved in teaching arts major students. The science teachers
would therefore need to take into consideration the epistemological aspect of these
students for effective teaching and learning (Schommer-Aikins, Duell & Barker, 2003).
Non-science major students have been reported to encounter difficulties in interpreting
scientific data (Bramble, 2005).
As numerical manipulation and interpretation of
scientific data for graph plotting and problem solving are integral components of
science subjects such as physics, Singapore junior college science teachers may need to
readjust their existing pedagogical content knowledge to help the arts major students
understand the science content well.
As these empirical studies suggest, teachers knowledge adequacy is an important

aspect for the successful implementation of intended educational initiatives. Singapore
junior college science teachers certainly need to acquire new or reconstruct existing
74
professional knowledge when teaching their science subjects under the revised junior
college curriculum. As detailed in the previous chapter, the revised science curriculum
has incorporated new science content, adopted a new mode of assessment which places
a stronger emphasis on higher-order thinking abilities, and advocated the use of
progressive pedagogies in the classrooms.
This study, therefore, provided an
opportunity to understand how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the
issue of acquiring new professional knowledge to effectively teach their science
subjects under the revised junior college curriculum.
Engaging Students
As explained in the previous chapter, reforms in science education usually demand
science teachers to adopt progressive teaching approaches in the classrooms. In such
learning environment, students are expected to undertake a greater responsibility in
planning, organising, and synthesising the subject content (Wu & Huang, 2007,
p.730).
To actively engage students in lessons that are constructed based on the
ideology of progressivism is another challenge teachers commonly face. This section

explicates the issues involved in engaging students in their learning.
Student engagement is essential for the learning to be purposive. As Christensen (cited

in Smith et al., 2005, p.99) remarks, to teach is basically to engage students in
learning.
However, student engagement encompasses more than just students
cognitive involvement in classroom tasks. According to Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and

Paris (2004), student engagement is a multi-faceted construct that includes behavioural,
emotional, and cognitive engagement. The meanings for these three facets of student
engagement are provided in Table 3.1.
75
Table 3.1
Student Engagement.
Three Facets of
Meaning of Each Facet
Student Engagement
Behavioural
Positive conduct of students, such as following the

rules and adhering to classroom norms, as well as
the absence of disruptive behaviours such as
skipping school and getting in trouble.
Involvement in learning and academic tasks and
includes behaviours such as effort, persistence,
concentration, attention, asking questions, and
contributing to class discussion.
Participation in school-related activities such as
athletics or school governance.
Emotional
Students affective reactions in the classroom,

including interest, boredom, happiness, sadness,
and anxiety.
Cognitive
Flexibility in problem solving, preference for hard

work, and positive coping in the face of failure;
Students psychological investment in and their
efforts directed toward learning, understanding,
mastering the knowledge, skills or crafts that the
academic work is intended to promote.
Source: Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris (2004)
Wu and Huang (2007) further investigated if there is any difference in the levels of
behavioural, emotional and cognitive engagement in students between teacher-centred
and student-centred instruction. They report that while student-centred instruction is
better able to engage students emotionally vis--vis teacher-centred instruction, the
mode of instruction has little impact on students performances on achievement tests.
76
They believe that different instructional approaches merely provide students with
different opportunities to engage emotionally, but not necessary cognitively, in the
learning of science.
Therefore, to engage students in their learning, it is also important for teachers to take
into consideration students approaches and orientations towards knowledge acquisition.
According to Felder and Brent (2005), students approaches to studying and orientations
to learning can be characterised in the three ways shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Students Common Approaches to Studying and Orientations to Learning.
Approach
Orientation
Characteristics
Surface
Reproducing
Relying mainly on rote

memorisation and mechanical
substitution of formula in problem
solving.
Making little or no effort to
understand the materials being
taught
Deep
Meaning
Probing, question, and exploring

the limits of applicability to achieve
understanding in the materials
being taught.
Strategic
Achieving
Doing whatever is necessary to

achieve high grades in assessments,
taking a surface approach if that
suffices and a deep approach when
necessary.
Source: Felder & Brent (2005)
77
In addition, students seem to prefer instruction that matches their learning style
preferences (Terry, cited in Melton, 2003). In this regard, Felder and Spurlin (2005)
elaborate as follows:
Some [students] prefer to work with concrete information (facts,
experimental data) while others are more comfortable with abstractions
(theories, symbolic information, mathematical models). Some are
partial to visual presentation of information pictures, diagrams,
flowcharts, schematics, etc., and others get more from verbal
explanations. Some like to learn by trying things out and seeing and
analysing what happens, and others would rather reflect on things they
plan to do and understand as much as they can about them before
actually attempting them. (p.103)
Thus, not all students welcome opportunities to interact and collaborate with peers for
knowledge acquisition. According to Melton (2003), there are no less than twenty
instruments available for use in determining students learning styles. One particular
instrument, the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales, is highlighted here
due to its relevance to the context of this study.
This instrument was designed
specifically to be used with senior high school students (Melton, 2003), the level in
which Singapore junior college students are studying.
In addition, the Grasha-
Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales is based on a social interaction model

associated with three classroom dimensions: student attitudes toward learning; their
views of their teachers and peers; and their reactions to classroom procedures (Melton,
2003; Lang et al., 1999). As detailed in Chapter Two, initiatives that underpin the
2006 revised junior college curriculum, such as Teach Less, Learn More and
Innovation and Enterprise, aim to enhance the quality of interaction between junior
college science teachers and students. Six styles of students learning are identified in
the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning Style Scales and they are described in Table
3.3.
78
Table 3.3
Students Learning Styles as Identified in the Grasha-Riechmann Student Learning
Style Scales.
Categories
Characteristics
Competitive
Learn material in order to perform better than peers

and to receive recognition for their academic
accomplishments; prefer a teacher-centred focus;
usually prefer a lecture or seminar.
Collaborative
Learn by sharing ideas and contributing to class

discussion; enjoy cooperating with teachers and
peers; prefer lectures with small group discussions
and group projects.
Participative
Interested in class activities and discussion; eager to

do as much class work as possible; keenly aware of
and have a desire to meet the teachers expectations.
Avoidant
Have little enthusiasm for learning course content;

are often bored or overwhelmed by class activities.
Independent
Prefer working on their own and self-paced

instruction; willing to listen to others ideas; have
confidence in abilities, prefer student-centred rather
than teacher-centred classroom.
Dependent
Do not show much intellectual curiosity; often learn

only what is required of them; look to the teacher and
to peers as a source of structure and guidance; prefer
teacher-centred approaches.
Source: Melton (2003)
As mentioned in the previous chapter, researchers and scholars are urging teachers to
promote student-centred learning in classrooms to achieve scientific literacy in students.
79
However, students may be resistive towards student-centred learning approaches in

classrooms especially when their learning styles do not match the learning tasks. It is
not easy to change students learning style. Students, coming to classrooms, already
have a mindset as to what constitutes teaching and learning (Hodson, 1998). Students
are unwilling to change their mode of learning especially if they find that their current
learning strategies have been successful in achieving their objectives (Verjovsky &
Waldegg, 2005; Hodson, 1998).
The following quote by Dewey (1956) succinctly
sums up the reason why students may be resistive towards changing their preferred style
of learning:
Human nature being what it is, however, it tends to seek its motivation
in the agreeable rather than in the disagreeable, in direct pleasure rather
than in alternative pain. (p.29)
Teachers are likely to revert to traditional methods of teaching when they perceive that
their efforts to promote student-centred modes of learning are regarded as wasteful
digressions by their students (Nanwani & Ang, 2006, p.616). Students approaches to
studying and orientation to learning are also influenced by their knowledge background
(Davis, 2003), as well as their motivation and attitudes towards teaching and learning
(Kahle & Boone, 2000). Nanwani and Ang (2006) observe that majority of Singapore
secondary school science students are not really interested in learning science although
the students claim to be academically strong in this discipline. Singapore junior college
science teachers perspectives on the learning attitudes of their students were examined
in this study.
The dominant epistemological approach students adopt towards the study of science is
that of positivism (Samarapungavan, Westby & Bodner, 2006), and their preferred
style of learning science is through rote memorisation and mathematical computation
80
(Tan & Ng, 2005; Yerrick, Pedersen & Arnason, 1998). Despite the widely reported
advantages on constructivist-based learning, students may still rely strongly on teachers
to provide them with facts and knowledge (Klein, 2001). Students have been found to
often regard the knowledge attained directly from teachers as a safer and more
trustworthy option than the knowledge acquired through constructivist-based learning
activities which are perceived as risk taking affairs (Campbell et al., 2001; Wallace &
Lounden, 1998). This explains why students are generally happy to receive direct
transmission of facts from teachers, memorise these facts and regurgitate them in
examinations (Monk & Dillon, 2000). Students may be inclined to adopt the safe
option particularly when examination grades are at stake. Thus, to construct their
own knowledge in learning may not be a priority to students (Fairbrother, 2000). This
is especially so for students who adopt a surface approach in learning and who often
cannot appreciate the efforts made by teachers to promote active learning in the
classroom (Campbell et al., 2001). Though students may be engaged in student-centred
learning activities, as insisted upon by their teachers, their lack of appreciation and
understanding of such learning activities may impede the quality of their learning (Keys
& Bryan, 2001). Students who are accustomed to rote learning may resist changes
towards other forms of knowledge acquisition such as group learning where they need
to play a more active role during lessons. As these empirical studies suggest, students
inclination towards teaching and learning can direct teaching practices in classrooms.
This was one of the main issues examined in this study.
Another reason as to why students may be reluctant to engage in student-centred

learning approaches and rely heavily on teachers to transmit knowledge is their fear and
anxiety in the learning of science. It is a common perception among students that
science is a difficult subject to study (Bennett, 2003; Osborne, Simon & Collins, 2003;
81
Simon, 2000). Anxiety towards the learning of science is prevalent among students and
the level of anxiety appears to be higher in the arts major students who are studying
science as a minor subject (Udo, Ramsey & Mallow, 2004). Science anxiety refers to
feelings of tension and stress that impede with the knowledge construction,
development of skills and abilities in the learning of science (Britner & Pajares, 2006).
The level of engagement in various science learning activities by students is also
affected by their self-efficacy beliefs, which are in turn affected by their degree of
science anxiety (Britner & Pajares, 2006; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).
Asking
students, who exhibit fear and anxiety towards the learning of science, to construct their
own knowledge can be a daunting and stressful task for the students (Kember, 2001).
Hargreaves (1998) has commented that good teaching has to do with positive emotions.
It will not be wrong to also say that good and effective learning has to do with positive
emotions. Thus, teachers need to understand that students have to handle both the
cognitive and emotional aspects in classroom learning (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003).
Students are more willing to participate in student-centred learning approaches, which

are perceived as risk taking activities, in the presence of a safe, supportive and caring
environment (Rosiek, 2003; Campbell et al., 2001). The idea of a safe, supportive and
caring environment is most likely to differ among students in view of their background,
beliefs and attitudes. However, literature on what constitutes a safe, supportive and
caring environment in science learning and how to help students build emotional
relations to what they are learning is still lacking (Rosiek, 2003). Furthermore, the
knowledge to design student-centred instructional approaches that can engage students,
who are often influenced by their personal ways in making sense of learning situations,
may require teachers to seek knowledge beyond their subject pedagogical content
knowledge (McCaughtry, 2005).
82
These empirical studies, therefore, highlighted the need to examine the influence of
students attitudes towards teaching practices. The teacher participants in this study
were enquired on their perspectives with regards to students approaches towards
learning.
The strategies used by the participants in scaffolding a supportive
environment for active learning were also examined in this study.
Working with Insufficient Time and Limited Resources

In a study by Kahle and Boone (2000) on the learning of science in schools, insufficient
time and limited teaching resources are the two major obstacles teachers experience.
The issues of insufficient time for lesson planning and classroom teaching have been
widely articulated in empirical studies investigating curriculum implementation
(Bennett, 2003; Peers, Diezmann & Watters, 2003; Rigano & Ritchie, 2003; Granger et
al., 2002; Windschitl, 2002; Bell, 1998). Teachers need time to understand the changes
introduced in new curricula and incorporate these changes into their daily classroom
practices (Zembylas & Barker, 2007; Peers, Diezmann & Watters, 2003; Rigano &
Ritchie, 2003).
Insufficient time is a common reason cited by teachers for not
implementing curricula initiatives (Keys, 2005; Peers, Diezmann & Watters, 2003).
The following comment by a research participant in the study conducted by Peers,
Diezmann and Watters (2003) is presented to illustrate this point:
The time demands on teachers are growing and growing and
growingIts not that the [teachers] dont want to [do a good job
implementing the science syllabus]. Its that they physically dont have
the time. (p.100)
The issue of limited time is likely to influence teachers on their choices of classroom
practices. In a rush to complete the required syllabus, teachers are likely to resort to the
traditional teaching of chalk and talk at the expense of using student-centred learning
83
which is more time consuming, or teach by rote memory whereby students are
encouraged to memorise and reproduce verbatim textbook phrases (Windschitl, 2002;
Hodson, 1998). The quality of science learning certainly does commensurate with the
amount of teaching time teachers have (Rennie, Goodrum & Hackling, 2001, p.492).
The participants in this study were enquired if they faced similar concerns.
Teachers are encouraged to use a broad range of teaching strategies in the classroom to
offer students a variety of creative and imaginative learning experiences so as to capture
their interest and active participation.
Such strategies, in science learning, would
include making models of DNA in a genetics laboratory or having students ride carts
round a circular track to appreciate the concept of angular momentum (National
Research Council of the United States, 1997). Planning and executing such innovative
and creative teaching practices certainly require more planning and instructional time
which may not always be available to teachers. The main concern for teachers is to
finish teaching the prescribed syllabus and teachers often face insufficient curriculum
time to do so (Windschitl, 2002; Bell, 1998). The process of how the study participants
balanced the need to finish teaching the prescribed syllabi and introduced innovative
ways of teaching their science subjects was examined in this study.
The availability of resources for lesson preparation and classroom teaching is another
major concern for teachers.
Resources here refer to teaching resources such as
textbooks and instructional materials as well as physical resources such as ICT

equipment and classroom layout.
According to McComas, Clough and Almazroa
(1998), teachers refer to textbooks or some other instructional materials 90 to 95 per

cent of the time. Teachers refer to textbooks primary for planning and teaching (Rigano
& Ritchie, 2003), as well as to gain professional knowledge (Kesidou & Roseman,
84
2002). However, there are few textbooks or instructional materials that are devoted to
the new teaching methods and new subject content often required by reformed curricula,
and this could result in teachers being unable to effectively implement the changes
prescribed in the new curricula demands (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002; Schneider &
Krajcik, 2002). The availability of quality teaching resources and curriculum materials
are important factors that contribute to the success in the implementation of reformed
science curriculum by teachers (Fensham, 2006). Teacher who are able to make use of
educative materials for content knowledge and pedagogical practices have been reported
to have more success in implementing reformed curriculum (Schneider & Krajcik,
2002).
The availability of teaching resources for ICT teaching and learning is also a concern
for teachers (Bennett, 2003; Granger et al., 2002). Teachers face the issue of the lack of
suitable ICT teaching resources, such as multimedia CD-ROMs as well as shortage of
computers.
They also face the problem of inadequate computer laboratories with
internet connection for ICT-infused lessons. In addition, insufficient time for planning
and the absence of technical support for setting up of equipment have prevented
teachers from successfully implementing technology-related curricula initiatives
(Penuel et al., 2007).
The provision of a supportive environment is certainly imperative for effective ICTinfused lessons to be carried out. A classroom that is conducive for collaborative
learning and ICT-infused lessons would be one with tables arranged to facilitate group
discussions, and equipment, such as portable computers and overhead projector,
installed for teachers and students to use. An example of such a classroom is provided
in Figure 3.2.
85
Figure 3.2
An ICT-enabled classroom.
Source: Handelsman et al. (2004)
However, not all schools are equipped with such classroom setup and with the necessary
resources. The absence of such infrastructure and resources may result in teachers not
being able to effectively conduct student-centred learning activities and to facilitate
ICT-infused lessons. Findings from the aforementioned empirical studies highlighted
the need to examine if teachers faced insufficient time to implement the intended
initiatives.
Hence, one of the main concerns in this study was to examine the
perspectives and practices of the participants regarding curriculum time and teaching
resources.
Teachers are encouraged to collaborate with each other in order to overcome the
aforementioned challenges when implementing educational initiatives.
Teachers
working collaboratively have been reported to be more successful at implementing

educational change (Fullan, 2007). McLaughlin and Talbert (2006, p.4) encourage
teachers to form learning communities to work collaboratively to reflect on their
86
practice, examine evidence about the relationship between practice and student
outcomes, and make changes that improve teaching and learning. When teachers work
collaboratively with peers, they develop new understandings and new classroom
practices, thereby facilitating the implementation of curricula initiatives (Anderson,
2002).
Nolan and Meister (2000), however, warn that teacher collaboration is a
complex issue. They believe that teachers do not have to collaborate on all matters; it is
more important for teachers to maintain their individuality yet pool their expertise to
affect a wider range of students (Nolan & Meister, 2000, p.216). In support, Liew
(2005, p.149) suggests that a more realistic model for teacher communities should
acknowledge the twin virtues of collective and individual action, where teachers
participate in dynamic arrangements of selective collaboration, sharing and combining
the results of independent and interdependent work.
The perspectives of the
participants on forming collaborative working communities to facilitate the teaching of

their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum were examined
in this study.
MEANINGS TEACHERS ASCRIBE TO EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES

The implementation of educational initiatives usually entails teachers using new
teaching materials, adopting new teaching approaches and embracing new beliefs in
teaching and learning (Fullan, 2007). The manner of how teachers deal with such
changes in their practices generally determines the outcome of implementation, and
each teacher is likely to handle the change required of them differently (van den Berg,
2002, p.601). Classroom practices are usually the products of teachers meaning
constructions on the intended educational initiatives (van den Berg, 2002). Meaning
constructions take place more actively especially when there is a dialectic process
(involving how) previous constructions of reality influence interpretations of new
87
experiences (and how) these new experiences influence the construction of reality
(Poole, cited in van den Berg, 2002, p.579).
The constructed meanings on the
educational initiatives are further translated into teachers classroom practices which in
turn shape the implementation process (Rigano & Ritchie, 2003). Rigano and Ritchie
(2003, p.301) further comment that if teachers are to be the key players in making the
reform process work, then researchers and reformists should try to understand how
teachers give meaning to proposed curricular changes and their implementation.
Three critical issues pertain to how teachers relate to educational initiatives. They are:
the perceived benefits of initiatives to teaching and learning; congruence between
initiatives and teachers professional orientation; and teachers sense of ownership
towards initiatives. These issues are discussed in the following sub-sections.

Teachers are likely to be primarily concerned with the question of how new educational
initiatives benefit teaching and learning. Teachers endorse new initiatives only when
they are convinced that the intended changes in education can improve the quality of
teaching and learning (Churchill & Williamson, 2004; Datnow & Castellano, 2000).
When teachers do not see educational initiatives benefitting students learning, they are
likely to abort the implementation of the intended initiatives (Owston, 2007; Ko, 2000).
Furthermore, teachers working in educational systems which employ regular highstakes assessments will be very concerned to know how the proposed educational
initiatives lead to an improvement in students grades (Fishman & Krajcik, 2003).
Research has shown that students are likely to perform well in examinations when
teachers are able to align content instruction to assessment format (Liu et al., 2009).
Thus, it is unlikely for teachers to abandon those teaching methods that are perceived to
88
be effective in producing quality examination results.
Hairon (2003) reports that
Singapore primary school teachers are reluctant to integrate the initiatives underpinning
the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision into classroom lessons as these
initiatives may threaten the academic achievement of the students.
This study
examined if such perspectives were found in the participants who, too, were required to
implement similar initiatives when teaching their science subjects under the 2006
revised junior college curriculum.
The correlation between the perceived significance of educational initiatives and the
intention to implement these initiatives can be attributed to the teachers commitments
towards students academic learning as well as students personal development which
transcend above all other aspects of school work (Nolan & Meister, 2000). Such strong
commitment may even affect the work-life balance of teachers. For example, teachers
are willing to spend long hours in schools and to prepare lesson materials over
weekends at homes for the benefit of students (Yu & Lau, 2006; Kennedy, 2005).
Teachers immediate concerns on how educational initiatives benefit students learning
are clearly presented in the following remarks by Owston (2007):
But unless teachers ultimately see students benefiting from an
innovation or other evident advantages of the innovation, the
likelihood is small of them being motivated to sustain it even with
extra funding, equipment, support from others inside or outside of the
school, or policy directives. (p.75)
The failure to improve the academic results of students despite implementing innovative
teaching practices may lead to teachers experiencing incoherence in the translation of
policies to practices (Hairon, 2003, pp.108109). This could further result in feelings
of scepticism, frustration and uncertainty in teachers when implementing educational
initiatives. Singapore primary school teachers were found to exhibit such feelings when
89
implementing initiatives such as Teach Less, Learn More and Innovation and
Enterprise (Hairon, 2003).
Teachers, as Fullan (2007) asserts, need support to understand and to believe in the
value of the educational initiatives they are asked to implement.
Teachers are
constantly stressed by a set of classroom press (Huberman, cited in Fullan, 2007)

which exhausts teachers energy and limits opportunities to reflect on the significance of
the intended educational initiatives. This set of classroom press is shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4
Classroom Presses Teachers are Constantly Stressed with.
The Classroom Presses
The press for immediacy and concreteness: Teachers engage in an estimated 200,
000 interchanges a year, most of them spontaneous and requiring action.
The press for multidimensionality and simultaneity: Teachers must carry out a range
of operations simultaneously, providing materials, interacting with one pupil and
monitoring the others, assessing progress, attending to needs and behaviours.
The press for adapting to ever-changing conditions or unpredictability: Anything
can happen. Schools are reactive partly because they must deal with unstable input
classes have different personalities from year to year; a well-planned lesson may
fall flat; what works with one child is ineffective for another; what works one day
may not work the next.
The press for personal involvement with students: Teachers discover that they need
to develop and maintain personal relationships and that for most students
meaningful interaction is a precursor for academic learning.
Source: Huberman (cited in Fullan, 2007)
Thus, as the literature suggests, the fervour in implementing new initiatives rests on
how teachers see the benefits of these initiatives in enhancing teaching and learning.
90
The participants perspectives on how had the new educational initiatives underpinning
the 2006 revised junior college curriculum helped in enhancing the quality of science
education was therefore one of the main issues examined in this study.
Congruence Between Educational Initiatives and

Teachers Professional Orientations
Teachers responses towards educational initiatives are not directly correlated to their
personal characteristics. Rather, teachers respond to intended educational initiatives
according to their professional orientations regarding teaching and learning (Datnow &
Castellano, 2000). Professional orientations, here, refer to the preferred practices of
teachers which are shaped by their beliefs and experiences in teaching as well as by the
contextual realities of classroom teaching.
Teachers react more positively when new
educational initiatives are congruent with their professional orientations (van Veen &
Sleegers, 2006).
Conversely, when teachers find new mandates burdensome or
contrary to their educational philosophy, they may respond with various kinds of
resistance (Falk & Drayton, 2004, p.383).
Teachers regard congruence between
educational initiatives and their professional orientations as a further reinforcement of

their personal identities.
Drake, Spillane and Hufferd-Ackles (2001, p.2) define
teachers identities as teachers sense of self, knowledge and beliefs, dispositions and
orientation towards work and change. Enyedy, Goldberg and Welsh (2006) further
posit that teachers identities include relationships with students and school
administration, as well as with the discipline the teachers are teaching.
Teachers epistemological beliefs, which concern their views about nature and the
acquisition of knowledge, are likely to influence their pedagogical approaches towards
achieving their teaching goals (Kang & Wallace, 2005). These internally constructed
91
beliefs are so powerful that they are able to override the externally imposed aspects of
contexts in shaping pedagogical choices (Smith & Southerland, 2007, p.418). This is
because, as Pajares (cited in Smith & Southerland, 2007, p.399) explains, teachers
invest emotionally and intellectually in their beliefs, and therefore, teachers will hold
on to these beliefs unless they are sufficiently challenged.
Teachers epistemological beliefs further determine the roles they maintain in the
classrooms (Lloyd & Rezba, 2004). Examples of teachers teaching roles and their
corresponding classroom practices are provided in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5
Teaching Roles and Corresponding Classroom Practices.
Teaching Roles
Classroom Practices
Catalyst
Push students in class to use their minds and think and apply
what they are learning.
Interact with students on a one-to-one basis.
Guide
Promote independent learning in problem solving.
Pied Piper
Have all students say an answer together.
Friend
Involve every student in learning in a class period.
Caterer
Differentiated teaching so that all students in class can

understand the lessons taught, and that the bright students
are challenged in their learning.
Mother
Provide a lot of positive reinforcement in learning.
Source: Lloyd & Rezba (2004)
Therefore, the impact of educational change on their teaching roles will be a matter of
concern to the teachers. As Schmidt and Datnow (2005) observe, teachers show little
concern with regards to change at school level, but greater emotion is attached, both
92
positive and negative, when the teachers roles in the classrooms are affected by the
change in educational policies.
Teachers with a student-and learning-centred orientation towards teaching and

extended orientation towards the school organisation generally implement educational
initiatives with much enthusiasm. On the other hand, teachers with a teacher- or
content-centred orientation towards teaching and restricted orientation towards the
school organisation view educational initiatives as constraining to their teaching duties
(van Veen & Sleegers, 2006, p.92). The beliefs and classroom practices of the study
participants with regards to teaching science under the 2006 revised junior college
curriculum were the major concerns of this study. This study also investigated if the
implementation of the revised junior college curriculum had reinforced or inhibited the
teaching practices of these participants.
Roehrig, Kruse and Kern (2007) have classified teachers into the following three
categories: Traditional Teachers; Mechanistic Implementers; and Inquiry Teachers.
This classification is based on the teachers classroom practices and the extent of
implementing the intended educational initiatives by the teachers. Table 3.6 compares
the classroom practices and the extent of implementing educational initiatives of the
teachers in each category.
93
Table 3.6
Three Categories of Teachers.
Category
Classroom Practices and Extent of Implementing Intended

Initiatives
Traditional
Curricula initiatives such as exploratory-based activities are not
Teachers
implemented and are replaced by other traditional forms of learning.

Focus on transmitting factual information to students.
Teacher-centred approach in lesson delivery.
Mechanistic
Curricula initiatives are implemented.
Implementers
Limited use of cooperative learning in lessons.

Limited discussion with students after completion of instructional
activities.
Inquiry
Curricula initiatives are implemented.
Teachers
Consistent use of cooperative learning strategies in lessons.

Active discussion with students in group activities.
Source: Roehrig, Kruse & Kern (2007)
Drawing upon such findings, this study investigated if the Singapore junior college
science teachers can be similarly grouped into the aforementioned categories with
regards to their classroom practices and the extent of implementing the initiatives
underpinning the revised junior college curriculum.
Sense of Ownership
New educational initiatives are often planned and decided by policy makers, which are
then channelled to schools for implementation. This top-down structure does not allow
teachers to develop a sense of ownership over the implementation of the curricula
initiatives.
A sense of ownership is important for successful implementation of
curricula initiatives as it serves to connect and engage teachers in the implementation of

94
curriculum changes (Evers & Arat, 2004; Vidovich & ODonoghue, 2003). Involving
teachers in the planning of educational reforms is more likely to generate
implementation success as teachers possess intimate knowledge regarding the local
contexts of implementation and the obdurate practicalities of classroom situations
(Kirk & MacDonald, 2001, p.564).
An absence of ownership often results in teachers not appreciating the intentions behind
educational change.
This can evoke negative emotions, in teachers, towards
implementing the intended curricula initiatives (Evers & Arat, 2004). The presence of
negativity in the participants with regards to implementing the initiatives underpinning
the revised curriculum was examined in this study.
Teachers do not wish to be mere implementers of curriculum changes. They aspire for
autonomy in the design of curricula initiatives (Evers & Arat, 2004; Hairon, 2003).
According Evers and Arat (2004, p.216) teachers want a real voice from the initial
brainstorming phase all the way to the implementation stage.
Teachers who are
involved in the decision making process with regards to curriculum revisions and
curriculum developments are likely to demonstrate a greater sense of ownership and
enthusiasm during the implementation phase (Coenders, Terlouw & Dijkstra, 2008;
Elizondo-Montemayor et al., 2008.). This study examined if the aspiration for more
autonomy in the design of the revised junior college curriculum can be found in the
study participants.
It is interesting to note that while teachers wish to have a greater sense of ownership in
developing curricula initiatives, they also appreciate the provision of guidelines and
instructions to help them develop the new curricula materials. Teachers feel uncertain
95
on what and how to teach, especially if there is no written curriculum for them to follow
(Nolan & Meister, 2000). This, in turn, leads to anxiety and frustration in teachers.
Providing teachers with a sense of ownership in educational change is, thus, a delicate
issue, as Pint (2005) remarks:
Give too much direction, and teachers lose any sense of ownership.
Give too little, and they feel that they do not know what to do. (p.2)
Nolan and Meister (2000), however, believe that the successful implementation of
educational initiatives does not necessary depend on the teachers commitment to the
initiatives per se. In this regard, they elaborate as follows:
Commitment to students and colleagues, not a sense of ownership or
commitment to the innovation, may be a more critical factor in teacher
willingness to implement an initiativeAdministrators may find
teachers more willing to implement change by honing their natural
commitment to students rather than by developing strategies for
building allegiance to the initiative itself. (p.213)
Drawing upon the aforementioned scholarly advice on the importance of teachers sense
of ownership towards successful implementation of educational initiatives, this study
examined if the participants regard themselves as owners of the initiatives
underpinning the revised junior college curriculum.
Researchers have suggested conducting professional development programmes to help

teachers accommodate and put in practice the changes made to education (Park, 2008).
However, good professional development programmes are those that are relevant to
teachers needs (Guhn, 2009). Drawing upon the literature that analyses the needs and
modes of teachers professional development in the context of educational reforms,
96
Deng and Gopinathan (2006) put forth a set of conditions that are crucial to teacher
learning. The set of conditions is as follows:
1. Teachers need to have opportunities to understand more clearly assumptions
underlying the reform initiatives and to figure out the implications for their practice
in order to forge an intellectual engagement with the reform rationales and ideas,
with the new resources and technology provided, and with the new instructional
approaches.
2. Teachers need opportunities, especially in a secure and non-threatening environment,
to re-examine their beliefs and teaching practices, only then will they be able to
undergo a set of epistemological shifts changing instructional resources and
technology, changing their beliefs, and reinventing their classroom practices.
3. Teachers need greater and more varied opportunities to interact with colleagues,
both in and out of the school.
4. Teachers need to be part of active, larger communities that can provide support and
ideas to improving teaching and learning in the classrooms, and these communities
include school principals and other stakeholders in education.
5. Teachers need opportunities to experience learning in ways consistent with the
reform initiatives.
6. Teachers need support and advice of a principal or a head of department who
understands the demands reform places on teaching and what it takes to change
teachers roles and practices.
7. Teachers need to learn to fashion a new culture of teaching that would encourage
reflection, experimentation, innovation, on-going learning and uncertainty, a culture
in which creativity and innovation are encouraged for everyone teachers, students,
principals and parents.
97
8. Teachers especially need time and mental space; while school-based workshops are
desirable, there is also a need to experience learning in new and different contexts,
and with teachers from outside ones own school.
Singapore teachers, according to Koh and Luke (2009), still lack the knowledge and
skills to incorporate holistic, developmental and formative assessments into their
classroom practices. Thus, in the context of Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, there
is an imperative need to develop assessment literacy in Singapore teachers. Brookhart,
Moss and Long (2010) believe that assessment literacy in teachers is the key towards
the successful integration of progressive pedagogies in high-stakes formative
assessment educational system. The Ministry of Education of Singapore has provided
various professional development programmes to prepare Singapore school teachers for
educational changes under the new educational framework of Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation (Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 03, October, 2005). The
efficacy of these programmes in helping the school teachers implement initiatives such
as Teach Less, Learn More as well as Innovation and Enterprise will be a matter of
concern to both teacher educators and policy makers in Singapore. The perspectives of
the participants with regards to the usefulness and practicality of these professional
development programmes were enquired upon in this study.
THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING ON HOW

TEACHERS IMPLEMENT EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES
The previous two sections have examined the challenges teachers face as well as the
meanings they ascribe to educational initiatives. This section goes on to review the
theoretical propositions and theoretical models developed by researchers to explain how
teachers implement educational initiatives.
98
As mentioned earlier, the implementation of educational initiatives often requires a

change in teachers beliefs and practices. The previous two sections have explained the
importance of rendering support to teachers to facilitate the change in their beliefs and
practices.
The process of teacher change, as Fullan (2007, p.84) contends, is
technically simple but socially complex. This is because the implementation of

educational initiatives involves putting into practice an idea, programme, or set of
activities and structures new to teachers, and being humans, teachers are more
unpredictable and difficult to deal with than things (Fullan, 2007, pp.8485). Fullan
(2007) further explains that the process of implementing educational initiatives involves
the interaction of a set of factors. These factors can be grouped into the following three
categories: characteristics of the intended initiatives; local roles; and external influence.
A model representing the organisation and interaction of these factors in the
implementation of educational initiatives is provided by Fullan (2007). This model is
shown in Figure 3.3.
Characteristics of
Intended Initiatives
Need
Clarity
Complexity
Quality/Practicality
Local Roles
District
Community
Principal
Teacher
IMPLEMENTATION
External Influence
Government and other
agencies
Figure 3.3
A model of interactive factors affecting the implementation
Source: Fullan (2007)
99
Teachers, according to Crossley and Guthrie (cited in Watson & Manning, 2008, p.706),
are not irrational opponents of change. Teachers will rationally weigh alternatives
according to the realities they perceive in response to a new curriculum or pedagogic
strategy (Watson & Manning, 2008, p.706). Fullan (2007, p.75) believes that many
teachers are willing to adopt change at the individual classroom level under the right
conditions such as: clear and practical policy directives; support from district
administration and school principals; opportunity to interact with other teachers;
advocacy from teachers union; and outside resource assistance.
Spektor-Levy, Eylon and Scherz (2008) further offer a set of perspectives on the
facilitation of teacher change. This set of perspectives is outlined in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7
Perspectives on Teacher Change.
Elements of Teacher Change
Change as training change is something that is done to teachers, that is, teachers
are changed.
Change as adaptation teachers change in response to something; they adapt their
practice to changed conditions.
Change as personal development teachers seek to change in an attempt to
improve their performance or develop additional skills or strategies.
Change as local reform teachers change something for reasons associating with
personal growth.
Change as systemic restructuring teachers enact the change policies of the
system.
Change as growth of learning teachers change inevitably through professional
activity; teachers are themselves learners who work in learning community.
Source: Spektor-Levy, Eylon & Scherz (2008)
100
Moreover, a change in teachers instructional practices is often the result of particular

interactions between teachers and curricular materials around specific subject matter
and pedagogical content (Drake & Sherin, 2006, p.154). Insights to how primary and
secondary school teachers implement educational initiatives can be drawn from the
following propositions developed by Churchill and Williamson (2004):
1. Changes attributed to sources internal to the school are likely to have more
favourable consequences for both teachers and their students than changes attributed
to external sources.
2. Increased feelings of ownership of a change by teachers are likely to produce a
stronger impact of the change on their work lives, a more positive effect on their
professional development, more positive feelings about the change, more
receptiveness to responsible involvement in similar change in the future, more
receptiveness to involvement in further change in general, and a more strongly
perceived effect on students learning.
3. School changes regarding content and/or method of teaching are likely to elicit more
positive feelings from teachers than changes concerning assessment of student
learning, school experience of students, or school system management.
4. School changes aimed at improving the academic experiences of students are likely
to elicit more positive feelings from teachers than changes aimed at improving the
social or cultural experiences of students.
5. Teachers who perceive a school change as having strong effects on students
learning are likely to feel more positive about the change and view their work lives
as having more strongly impacted by it than teachers who perceive the change as
having weak effects on students learning.
101
6. When teachers experiences with a school change arouses their interest in taking a
responsible role in further school change of a similar nature, they are likely to
become more receptive to further changes in general.
Adding on to the above propositions, Zembylas and Barker (2007, p.252) assert that
change is not about forcing all teachers to subscribe enthusiastically to new ideas and
therefore, a reform process needs to allow teachers to carve out spaces for themselves
in order to work individually and collaboratively and find ways to reflect on their
practices.
The process of implementing educational initiatives is likely to be characterised by

teachers making adaptations to educational initiatives. Teachers, according to Churchill
and Williamson (2004, p.52), will adapt rather than adopt curricula innovations.
Teachers make adaptations to instructional materials as well as to their teaching
practices in order to meet curriculum needs (Spektor-Levy, Eylon & Scherz, 2008;
Datnow & Castellano, 2000) as well as students needs (Drake & Sherin, 2006).
Furthermore, adaptation is never a unidirectional process because teachers not only
adapt curriculum to fit their teaching practices, but also adapt their practices in order to
align with curriculum (McLaughlin, cited in Drake & Sherin, 2006, p.160).
In
particular, high-stakes assessments have a predominant effect of narrowing curricular

content and fragmenting subject knowledge into test-related pieces (Au, 2007, p.258)
as teachers often feel obliged to teach for examinations (Koh & Luke, 2009; Valli &
Buese, 2007).
102
Drake and Sherin (2006) further propose that every teacher has his or her own model
of curriculum use that involves the three chronological steps of: read; evaluate; and
adapt. They go on to explain as follows:
By read, we mean the process of looking at any curricular materials,
including the teachers guide and student workbook pages. Evaluate
involves judging the curricular materials according to criteria
determined by the teacher. This could include teachers making
decisions about the appropriateness of the lesson for the students or for
the teacher, the order of the activities, the materials to be used, or the
expected student responses. Adapt means making significant
curricular changes in a lesson. Again, these changes primarily involve
either the presentation of the conceptual material or the role of the
teacher and/or students in the lesson. (p.167)
Drake and Sherin (2006) also assert that teachers pattern of adaptation rests on the
following three premises: their early memories on learning the subjects which they are
currently teaching; their current perceptions of themselves as learners of the subjects
they are currently teaching; and their interaction with family members with regards to
the subjects they are currently teaching. Furthermore, teachers adapt in ways that are
consistent with their own moral values and concerns (Zembylas & Barker, 2007,
p.252). The adaptation of teaching practices and instructional materials can result in
improvements made to teaching and learning (Arat & Szemerszky, 2004; Churchill &
Williamson, 2004), thus contributing towards teachers professional development.
These empirical studies suggest that teachers implementing educational initiatives are
likely to be involved in some form of adaptation. One of the main concerns in this
study, therefore, was to understand the patterns of adaptation of Singapore junior
college science teachers in teaching their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum.
103
Luehman (cited in Barab & Luehman, 2003) describes teachers adaptation of curricula
innovations as a customisation process which consists of the following four
components: identifying local needs; critiquing the innovation in light of these needs;
visualising possible scenarios of implementation; and finally making plans or decisions
regarding the implementation.
Teachers, according to Barab and Luehman (2003,
p.462), are continually remaking and contextualising curricula innovations in terms of

local classroom contexts. Barab and Luehman (2003) further provide an equation to
represent the implementation experience of science teachers. The equation is as
follows:
Teachers perceptions + Designed curriculum + Classroom culture
= Implementation experience
Under this representation, the implementation experience, which in turn affects the
implementation process, is equal to the sum of teachers perceptions towards
educational initiatives, design of the educational initiatives and classroom culture.
Barab and Luehman (2003) believe that the variation in teachers implementation
experience is largely due to classroom culture. They further provide the following
explanation on the meaning of classroom culture:
when we use the phrase classroom culture we are acknowledging
available tools and resources (including computers, internet access,
supplemental texts), classroom norms (including division of labour,
rules,
expectations),
administrative
external
expectations,
classroom
standardised
pressures
testing,
(including
parental
involvement), the students (including ability level, interests, class size)

and, most importantly given his/her central role in mediating the
impact of the other factors, the role of the teacher (including his/her
pedagogical perspective, learning goals, interests, content expertise,
memberships, school roles, self-efficacy, and experiences). (p.462)
104
Since teachers are likely to teach according to the culture of the classrooms, the
impact of this phenomenon on the classroom practices of the participants was examined
in this study. This study also offered opportunities to understand the issues of local
adaptation as well as curricular diffusion, as identified by Barab and Luehman (2003),
in the teaching and learning of science in Singapore junior colleges under the new
revisions.
The use of assessments during classroom instruction that mimic high-stakes

examinations, partly as test-taking preparation and partly as a means of providing
feedback to students content mastery is a common practice in many Asian countries
with deep Confucianism roots (Brown et al., 2009). Singapore teachers, in particular,
are adept in mirroring classroom instruction to examination demands (Tan & Ng,
2005). Such classroom practices are likely to hinder the development of higher-order
thinking skills in students (Koh & Luke, 2009).
From a cross-cultural analysis of the effects of educational change on secondary

teachers in nine countries, Collet, Menlo and Rosenblatt (2004) conclude that the
implementation of educational initiatives by teachers occurs in stages. Their Staged
Model, shown in Figure 3.4, provides an illustration of the stages teachers experience
during the implementation process.
105
Context
Country, Demographics, Age, Gender
Stages 1 & 2
Locus of control
Type of change
Initiator of change
Objective of change
Stage 3
Teachers involvement in the change
Stage 4
Alterations in the teachers work
Stage 5
Teachers affective response to alterations
Stage 6
Teachers disposition toward future change
Figure 3.4
The Staged Model.
Source: Collet, Menlo & Rosenblatt (2004)
106
In this model, teachers experience different stages of change when implementing

educational initiatives.
A combination of change characteristics (Stages 1 and 2)
heavily influence the teachers involvement (Stage 3) in the educational change process.
Teachers involvement becomes the primary determinant on the alterations in the
teachers work (Stage 4). The alterations in the teachers work, in turn, result in how
teachers feel about the change process (Stage 5). The teachers affective responses
further establish their disposition towards future educational change (Stage 6). The
research participants in this study were examined if they, too, underwent such similar
stages during the implementation process. Such comparison would be interesting and
informative as Singapore was not among the nine countries studied by Collet, Menlo
and Rosenblatt (2004).
It is proclaimed at the outset of this study that no theory on how Singapore junior
college science teachers deal with the implementation of educational initiatives
underpinning the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision existed prior to this study.
A number of non-empirical studies regarding the possibility of realising the vision in
Singapore schools have been reported by researchers such as Aaron Koh (Koh, 2004),
Ng Pak Tee (Ng, 2005), Charlene Tan (Tan, C, 2005a) as well as Jason Tan (Tan, J,
2005). These studies carry the following premises:
The Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision is just a curriculum imagination

as the amalgamation of initiatives (such as Teach Less, Learn More, Innovation
and Enterprise, IT Masterplan, and Ability-Driven Education) has generated
potentially irreconcilable tensions and paradoxes around the role of education in
the formation of national identity, the knowledge economy, and the shaping of
creative and critical citizens (Koh, 2004);
107
Educational initiatives underpinning the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation

vision are likely to be implemented in a piecemeal fashion and co-opted to suit the
well entrenched culture of intensive coaching and practice in answering
examination questions (Tan, J, 2005);
Efforts to promote the holistic development of Singapore students will simply fall
victim to the intense inter-school competition for academic banding, and the
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision is not likely to take root in a
fundamental manner in Singapore schools (Ng, 2005; Tan, C, 2005a; Tan, J, 2005).
Therefore, this empirical study, through the development of theoretical propositions on

Singapore junior college science teachers perspectives and practices in light of recent
educational reforms, offered excellent opportunities to examine if the above premises
hold true.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has provided an extensive review of literature related to this study. The
review, based on the conceptual framework drawn up, was organised in three sections.
Collectively the three sections served to provide an understanding of the phenomena of
what teachers do and think with regards to implementing educational initiatives.
The first section examined the challenges teachers commonly face when implementing
educational initiatives. The challenges can be conceptualised into three inter-related
categories, namely, acquisition and construction of new professional knowledge,
engaging students, and working with insufficient time and limited resources. The ways
teachers deal with these challenges influence teaching and learning practices in
classrooms, which in turn shape the outcome of educational change.
108
The second section discussed the meanings teachers ascribe to the intended educational
initiatives. Teachers act according to what these initiatives mean to them. Three issues
are especially important to teachers in how they understand the intended educational
initiatives.
They are: benefits of educational initiatives to teaching and learning;
congruency between educational initiatives and teachers professional orientations; and

sense of ownership over the educational initiatives.
An understanding of the challenges teachers face when implementing educational

initiatives and the meanings teachers ascribe to the intended initiatives provided the
information needed to frame relevant data collection questions that were able to relate to
the participants perspectives and practices on how they deal with the teaching of their
science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum. This is an important aspect
in assuring that the theory generated was grounded in data.
The third section reviewed the theoretical propositions that have been developed by
researchers to understand the phenomenon of what teachers do and think with regards
to implementing educational initiatives. The theoretical propositions discussed here
range from theoretical descriptions to elaborate models on the process of curriculum
implementation. As proclaimed at the outset of this study, no theoretical propositions
on how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the implementation of
initiatives underpinning the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision existed prior to
this study. The substantive theory developed in this study is, therefore, a significant
contribution to facilitating discussions among teachers, school leaders, researchers, and
policy makers concerning the fruition of the vision in Singapore junior colleges. The
next chapter discusses the research framework and methodology adopted in this study.
109
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is concerned with the theoretical foundations as well as the research design
and methodology associated with the study, which aimed at generating substantive
science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum. There are seven sections to
this chapter. The first section describes and justifies the theoretical framework adopted
in this study as well as the rationale for using the qualitative approach. The second
section presents the central research question and guiding research questions, and
explains how these questions were generated based on the theoretical framework. The
third section explains the rationale for using the grounded theory research methodology
as well as the technical issues associated with the methodology such as research site,
theoretical sampling and selection of research participants. The fourth and fifth sections
examine the methods of data collection and data analysis respectively. The sixth section
delinates the strategies employed to establish trustworthiness of the study and the
seventh section outlines the parameters of the study.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Theoretical framework refers to a set of assumptions, concepts and specific social
theories that provides orientations or sweeping ways to see and think about the social
world (Neuman, 2006, p.74).
A framework consists of inter-related parts
(ODonoghue, 2007). The theoretical framework of this study comprised two interrelated components, namely, the research paradigm and the specific theoretical position
110
adopted in the study.
Paradigm refers to a loose collection of logically related
assumptions, concepts, or propositions that orient thinking and research (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003, p.22), while theoretical position refers to the specific social theory, within
the research paradigm, within which the study was conceptualised.
Research Paradigm Interpretivism

This study adopted the research paradigm of interpretivism. Interpretive researchers
assert that human beings do not passively respond to situations around them, but have
the capacity to think through different courses of action and respond (or not as the case
may be) on the basis of their interpretations and ideas, and thus human action can
only be understood by relating it to the conscious intentions, motives, and purposes, and
ultimately the values of the agent who performs it (Henn, Weinstein & Foard, 2006,
p.14). The goal of interpretive researchers is to develop an understanding on how
people define and make meaning of a situation or a phenomenon in natural settings
(Lichtman, 2006; Neuman, 2006).
As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this study was to generate substantive theory on
how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under
Studies aimed at generating theory
regarding how research participants deal with a particular phenomenon involve an

examination of the participants perspectives on that phenomenon and their actions in
light of their perspectives (ODonoghue, 2007).
Perspectives, here, refer to the
frameworks through which people make sense of the world and it is through these
frameworks that people construct their realities and define situations (Woods, 1983,
p.7). From their definitions, it can be seen that interpretivism and perspectives share
111
similar philosophical roots. Thus, the interpretivist research paradigm was especially
appropriate for this study.
The interpretivist research paradigm is generally regarded as a qualitative approach in

social science research (ODonoghue, 2007; Neuman, 2006). Punch (2005, p.3) defines
qualitative research as research where the data are not in the form of numbers.
Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p.2) describe qualitative research as multimethod in focus,
involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its [sic] subject matter. In qualitative
research, qualitative data are usually collected, and data analysis generally involves text
analysis with the purpose of generating themes and propositions that represent the
phenomenon being studied (Creswell, 2005).
Theoretical Position Symbolic Interactionism

This study anchored its theoretical position, within the interpretivism research paradigm,
in the social theory of symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism, a term coined
by Herbert Blumer (1969), focuses on the actions of individuals and their interactions
with others (Delaney, 2005). Symbolic interactionists believe that human beings are
capable of modifying their actions to meet the needs of the present and the immediate
environment, and thus human beings are constantly acting in relation to each other.
According to Blumer (1969, pp.25), symbolic interactionism rests on three basic

premises. The first premise is that human beings act toward things on the basis of the
meanings that the things have for them; the second premise is that the meaning of
such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with
ones fellows; and the third premise is these meanings are handled in, and modified
through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he
112
encounters. The process of interpretation is regarded as a two-step process. The actor,

first, indicates to himself the things toward which he is acting, and the actor then
selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in the light of the
situation in which he is placed and the direction of his action (Blumer, 1969, p.5).
Blumers three premises essentially address the importance of meaning in human action,
the source of meaning, and the role of meaning in interpretation (Wallace & Wolf,
1999). The adoption of symbolic interactionism as the studys theoretical position is
judged to be appropriate as symbolic interactionism shares similar theoretical
foundations with interpretivism (ODonoghue, 2007; Neuman 2006).
Rationale for Framework

To reiterate, this study adopted a symbolic interactionist theoretical approach within the
interpretivist research paradigm. The rationale for utilising this research framework was
based on three considerations.
Firstly, this study was concerned with process, in
particular, the process of teaching and learning of science under the new educational
framework in Singapore junior colleges. This process was to be understood in the
natural setting of a school and in the context of the education system in Singapore.
Secondly, the study sought to understand the participants perspectives and
interpretations, and how their perspectives and interpretations were translated into
actions. Thirdly, this study aimed to build substantive theory on how science teachers
deal with the teaching of a revised science curriculum. These three considerations
were addressed with the adopted theoretical framework a qualitative interpretive study
utilising the theoretical position of symbolic interactionism.
Thus, the choice of
adopting this framework was a pragmatic one in view of the nature of the research
problem.
113
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The central research question in this study, formulated within the qualitative
interpretivist research paradigm and through the adoption of the specific theoretical
position of symbolic interactionism, was: how do Singapore junior college science
teachers deal with the teaching of their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum? The central research question was answered through addressing
five specific aims that were constructed based on the described theoretical framework,
with the help of guiding questions.
The specific aims and guiding questions were formulated based on the components that
constituted what is known as perspectives which, as mentioned earlier, were sensemaking frameworks. These components were: participants intentions and the reasons
given by the participants for having these intentions; participants strategies for realising
their intentions and the reasons given by the participants for using these strategies; the
significance which participants attached to their intentions and the strategies, and the
reasons given by the participants for such significance; and the outcomes expected by
the participants as a result of their actions and the reasons given by the participants for
expecting these outcomes (ODonoghue, 2007).
The specific aims and the corresponding guiding questions were:

Specific Aim 1:
To examine the intentions of the participants and the reasons

behind these intentions with regards to the teaching of their
science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college
curriculum.
Guiding Question 1.1:
What were the intentions of the participants with regards to

the teaching of their science subjects under the 2006 revised
114
junior college curriculum?

What were the reasons behind these intentions?
What indicators did the participants use to see if they had

achieved their intentions?
Specific Aim 2:
To examine the strategies adopted by the participants, and the

reasons for adopting these strategies, with regards to the
teaching of their science subjects under the 2006 revised
What strategies did the participants adopt in order to achieve

their intentions?
What were the reasons for adopting such strategies?
How did the participants organise or structure their

strategies?
Specific Aim 3:
To examine the importance of the intentions and strategies to

the participants, and the reasons they gave for this
importance, with regards to the teaching of their science
subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
What was the importance of the intentions and strategies to

the participants?
Why did the participants regard these intentions and

strategies to be important?
Which of the intentions and strategies did the participants

consider to be the most important to them in terms of dealing
with the teaching of their science subjects under the 2006
115
revised junior college curriculum?
Specific Aim 4:
To examine the outcomes the participants had expected, based

on their intentions and strategies, with regards to the teaching
of their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum.
What outcomes, based on their intentions and strategies, did

the participants expect?
What were the reasons for expecting these outcomes?
What difficulties did the participants face in trying to achieve

these outcomes?
Specific Aim 5:
To examine how the process of action and interaction (with

the other stakeholders) impacted/influenced the participants
with regards to the teaching of their science subjects under
Did the intentions of the participants change during the

course of teaching their science subjects under the revised
curriculum?
Did the teaching strategies of the participants change during

the course of teaching their science subjects under the revised
curriculum?
Had the relative importance of their intentions and strategies

changed during the course of teaching their science subjects
under the revised curriculum?
116
The guiding questions were developed in accord with the theoretical position adopted in
the study symbolic interactionism. The first four sets of guiding questions had similar
orientations to Blumers first two premises while the fifth set of guiding questions was
rooted in Blumers third premise. These guiding questions were not put forth to the
participants as phrased above, but rather reworded into conversational data collection
questions. As the data collection questions were employed for the purpose of collecting
data to help answer the research question (Punch, 2005), they were formulated to
examine the participants perspectives with regards to the teaching of their subjects
under the revised curriculum. The data collection questions were initially general in
scope and they were restructured when themes were discovered from the interviews.
The list of the initial data collection questions is shown in Appendix A.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory was employed as the research methodology in this study. This study
adopted the grounded theory methodology that is advocated by Strauss and Corbin
(1998, 1990). According to these authors, grounded theory research methodology uses
a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about
a phenomenon. A grounded theory is more likely to resemble the reality as compared
to one that is derived by putting together a series of concepts based on experience or
solely through speculation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.12).
The choice of using grounded theory as the research methodology rested on two factors.
Firstly, grounded theory shares similar theoretical foundations to that of symbolic
interactionism (ODonoghue, 2007; Neuman; 2006; Jackson, 2003).
According to
Strauss (1987, p.6), grounded theory has its roots in the philosophical and sociological
117
traditions which assume that change is a constant feature of social life, and which
place emphasis on the importance of understanding social interaction and social process.
Methodology refers to the general logic and theoretical perspective of a research
project (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p.31), and thus it is critical that the theoretical
perspective espoused within the methodology is compatible to the overall theoretical
framework of the study.
Secondly, the use of grounded theory research methodology best addressed the research
aim of building substantive theory concerning a phenomenon that tends to be oriented
towards action and process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p.38), such as how Singapore
junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the revised
In essence, grounded theory methodology offered an
approach and strategy to study the research problem that was congruent to the adopted
theoretical framework through a set of systematic procedures for inquiry and data
analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Research Site
This study was conducted in one government junior college in Singapore. This school
was chosen as it was the first public junior college to be presented the School
Distinction Award (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2006c). This prestigious
award is given to schools that had demonstrated exemplary school processes and
practices.
A grounded theory study does not require multi-sites but rather events and incidents
that are indicative of the phenomenon that is being studied (Strauss and Corbin, 1990,
118
p.190). Grounded theory studies, in educational research, at a single research site have
been conducted by researchers such Bray (2004).
Access to the research site was granted from October 2007 to March 2008 by the
Ministry of Education of Singapore. Written consent was further obtained from the
principal of the junior college for the study to be conducted within the premises of the
college and within this period of time.
Theoretical Sampling and Selection of Participants

A grounded theory study uses theoretical sampling. In grounded theory, the researcher
first collects a set of data through guiding questions and the data is then analysed
through a set of procedures called coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). After the analysis
of the first set of data, a second set of data, guided by the theoretical developments that
have emerged from the analysis of the first set of data, is collected. New participants
are selected to refine ideas and patterns. The second set of data is then analysed and the
process repeats itself. This continues until theoretical saturation, a situation when new
data are not showing the possibility of adding new concepts but rather verifying what
has already been discovered, is reached (Punch, 2005).
It was ascertained prior to the commencement of the study that the population of science
teachers in the junior college had sufficient variation in terms of gender, age, and years
of teaching experience to support a grounded theory study. At the commencement of
the study, there were 43 science teachers teaching in the junior college, of which 18
were physics teachers, 19 were chemistry teachers, and six were biology teachers. A
group of seven science teachers was selected to provide the first set of data. Maximum
variation sampling (Mertens, 1998), with variation in the teaching subject, gender and
119
years of teaching experience, was used to select these teachers. Among the seven
teachers, three were physics teachers, two were biology teachers and two were
chemistry teachers. Data collected from these seven teachers were analysed (details
regarding the methods of data collection and analysis are provided in the subsequent
sections of this chapter). Themes and propositions were generated from the analysis. A
second group of participants comprising five science teachers was next recruited to
provide a new set of data to be used to validate the generated themes and propositions,
as well as to check if there were new insights with regards to the process of teaching the
revised science curriculum. The demographics of the 12 teachers are shown in Figure
4.1.
First
Group of
Science
Teachers
Second
Group of
Science
Teachers
Figure 4.1
Name
(Pseudonym)
Age
Gender
Years of Teaching
Experience
Diane
Early 30s
Female
Margaret
Late 20s
Female
Michael
Late 50s
Male
25
Jane
Late 20s
Female
Nancy
Late 20s
Female
Martin
Late 20s
Male
Denise
Mid 20s
Female
Bert
Late 30s
Male
12
Cindy
Early 20s
Female
Sophie
Late 50s
Female
25
Marianne
Early 20s
Female
0.5
Melissa
Mid 20s
Female
Teaching
Subject
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Demographics of the research participants.
This structure of having two groups of teachers allowed theoretical sensitivity and
theoretical saturation to be established in the study which in turn ensured that the
developed theory was grounded in data, conceptually dense and well integrated (Strauss
120
& Corbin, 1990). Among the 12 participants, two were beginning teachers with less
than two years of teaching experience. Although these two beginning teachers did not
teach the former junior college curriculum, they were judged to be important informants
to this study as beginning teachers sometimes exhibit greater passion in organising
progressive pedagogies in their lessons (Davis & Smithey, 2009). This is critical to the
generation of a theory that sought to explain the teachers perspectives and practices of
implementing a curriculum that emphasised innovative classroom teaching.
Participation was entirely voluntary. Letters of invitation were sent to each participant
at the outset of the study. The aim of the study was stated in the letters and the
participants were told that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Anonymity
was also ensured to the participants. Letters of consent were received from all of the
participants.
The study commenced in October 2007. The research participants had taught the
revised science curriculum since its 2006 implementation. This did not contradict the
research design as the processes involved in symbolic interactionism still occur even in
long established situations (Blumer, 1969). Meanings are not static but are reinforced
or modified through interactions. Since the participants had had experience in teaching
the revised science curriculum, it was reasoned that through experience they would have
formed perspectives relevant to the research issue. As ODonoghue (2007, pp.3637)
argues, there is no point in designing a study about participants perspectives on
something unless we are convinced before we commence the study that it is something
about which they have fairly well formed views. Therefore, it was judged that the
research focus was a real issue for the participants and not something outside their
concerns (ODonoghue, 2007, p.36).
121
DATA COLLECTION
Qualitative data collection methods were used in the study as they provided the best
opportunity for the emergence of information that was rich and context-bound which
is necessary for theory generation (Creswell, 1994, p.7). The sources of data in this
study were semi-structured interviews, lesson observations, and documents comprising
teachers record books, official records and ministerial releases.
Semi-Structured Interviews
The first source of primary data was semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured
interviews are data gathering techniques designed to seek information about the views,
opinions, ideas and experiences from the participants (Arksey & Knight, 1999). In
semi-structured interviews, questions are normally specified but the researcher has the
freedom to seek clarification and elaboration on the responses of the interviewees
(May, 2001, p.123).
The interview questions are generally open-ended and the
interviewer records the essence of each response (Krathwohl, 1998, p.287).
Through descriptive questioning, issues that were important to the participants and the
meanings that were attached to these issues were documented. Probing questions (Berg,
1998) were also used to obtain elaborated responses from the participants.
An interview guide which served as a framework for the main body of a semistructured interview (Arksey & Knight, 1999, p.97) was used to ensure that all the key
topics were covered in a particular order during the interviews (Bernard, 2000). The
interview guide, consisting of data collection questions, was developed from the guiding
questions and was revised as necessary as interviews were conducted. As themes
122
emerged from the study, redundant questions were discarded and new questions were
added. The interviews also became more structured as the study progressed.
Face to face interviews were conducted from October 2007 to March 2008. Each
interview lasted about 45 minutes. Permission to record the interviews was obtained
from each participant.
All recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim.
Two
teachers from the second group declined to be audio taped and in the course of their
interviews, data were collected through note-taking. Each participant was identified by
a numerical code on the transcript to ensure confidentiality of the data. As access to the
research site was granted only up to March 2008, interviewing via telephone and
electronic mails was used when there was a need for further questioning of participants.
Such interviewing techniques have been advocated by Hoyle, Harris and Judd (2002), as
well as Fontana and Frey (2000).
Lesson Observations
Lesson observations provided the opportunity to verify and substantiate the information
gathered through the interviews (Lichtman, 2006). They also served to check if there
were cases of disparity between the interview data and the behaviour of the participants
whereby the participants may not have followed up with regards to their intentions or
may not have acted as they claimed they would.
It is important to ensure consistency
between participants meanings and their actions in a symbolic interactionist study.
Permission was obtained to observe the lessons. Each lesson observation lasted about
45 minutes. Two observations were made for each participant. Observation notes were
made concerning how the participants conducted their lessons and how the participants
interacted with their students.
123
Teachers Record Books

The third source of primary data was teachers record books. In Singapore schools, all
teachers are required to record their classroom teaching activities in their teachers
record book. Thus, the record books served as a form of diary for the study. Such
documents are important sources of data as they provide a first-hand account of a
situation to which a researcher may not have a direct access as well as an insiders
account of a situation (Burgess, 1984, p.135).
Official Records and Public Documents

The fourth source of primary data was official records and public documents, including
speeches from key officials in the Ministry of Education of Singapore, government and
school reports, schemes of work, minutes of meetings, press releases, newspaper articles
and information booklets. Non-print articles from relevant websites were also gathered.
These records and documents were collected to provide background information and
insights into the dynamics of everyday functioning (Mertens, 1998, p.324) which
helped to provide theoretical sensitivity to the developed theory.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis in grounded theory comprises three major types of coding, namely, open
coding, axial coding and selective coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
All the three
coding techniques were used to analyse the data collected in the study. While coding of
the collected data was generally done in stages from open to axial and then to selective,
there was interweaving between the three stages. Coding was done directly on the
interview transcripts and field notes. Provisions were made for the transcripts and field
notes to have wide margins for coding. Theoretical memos were generated for each
level of coding.
124
Open Coding
Open coding of the data is about generating conceptual labels and categories for the
purpose of forming a theory (Punch, 2005). The conceptual labels placed on the data
are called concepts (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Open coding in this study proceeded by
generating and placing concepts on the data collected. Conceptualisation of the data in
open coding was guided by comparison of data for similarities and differences, and
asking questions about the phenomena the data represented.
There are several ways of doing open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The first way is
to do a line-by-line analysis of the data whereby phrases and words are examined;
second way is to do a sentence or paragraph coding; and third way is to code the entire
document.
The line-by-line analysis was adopted in the study as this was the most
generative. Two examples on how concepts were generated from interview transcripts
are provided in Figures 4.2a and 4.2b.
125
Ref: P1_T1 (7/9/2007)

Line
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Transcript
Coding
P: Ok, with regards to teaching to different, to students with

different academic background, I actually think that it is
more difficult because for example, if you are teaching
physics to arts students, we are, we have to make sure that
we are aware of their prior knowledge before teaching and
we have to take extra effort to do that before we actually
carry out our lessons because the class may consist of wider
variety of students with different levels of background
knowledge. So we have to pitch our lessons accordingly.
This is slightly more difficult, as compared to before.
teaching difficulty;
professional;
students background;
professional;
increased workload;
class makeup;
students learning; effective
teaching; teaching
difficulty; addressing
situation;
I: Have you had any experience in teaching this group of

students that are different from the normal group?
P: Yes. I have taught H1 physics to students who mainly
doing, who have mainly done combined science before, and
as I go along through the lesson, I assume that they know
certain concepts but actually, you know, when I actually,
proceed say halfway through the lesson and then they tell me
that, oh actually teacher, I, we have not learn this. So I
actually have to go back and start all over again. This I find it
quite difficult.
students background;
learning difficulty;
learning difficulty;
addressing students
concerns; teaching
effectiveness;
I: So, what would be your overall plan when you are

teaching such group of students.
P: Ok, now that I am aware of such a problem, what I will do
is recently now, probably, find out from the students, for
example, the majority of the class, what have they learnt in
the secondary schools. So that I know what their prior
knowledge is and then teach accordingly.
lesson effectiveness;
students learning;
teaching strategy;
I: Their prior knowledge.

P: Yes. Based on their prior knowledge. For example, if they
have not learn certain concept which is required for the H1
syllabus I will teach that first and then the lesson, or else the
lesson will not be useful at all because they will not
understand anything.
Figure 4.2a
teaching strategy; lesson

effectiveness; students
learning;
First example on generation of concepts from interview transcripts.
126
Ref: B1_T1 (5/9/2007)

Line
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
Transcript
Coding
all a very good plan and I hope that they support this
initiative to stimulate the different way of teaching and
learning. But at the ground level, they have to seriously
reconsider whether this is feasible given the number of
topics that has to be forced down to students throats in a
short span of one and a half years. So if they want to
maintain this directive of creative and out of box thinking,
where the world is the classroom and this sort of directions,
then they should seriously consider reducing the number of
topics to teach. Only by reducing the demands can we
explore other avenues of a more conducive way of
studying.
positive approach;
diversity in teaching and
learning;
practicality;
difficulty in coping;
constraints;
meeting learning outcomes;
progressive teaching;
streamlining curriculum;
creating opportunities;
I: And the main criteria for guiding or determining the way

you teach, be it lesson preparation, assessment, classroom
teaching. What is the guiding formula? Is it your personal
belief as a teacher, your training, your department scheme
of work, the work review? What is the main guiding
principle, guiding formula that you prepare your lessons,
the amount of time, the way you teach in classroom, I mean
your daily work as a bio teacher?
P: First I will want to teach to the best of my ability, that I
will make sure, for example, the new topics, we, I will
make sure that whatever I prepared is one hundred and ten
percent, one hundred and ten percent meaning that,
meaning that, whatever content there is to know for this
topic will be inside. I will not miss out anything.
professionalism,
commitment; giving the
best; effective teaching and
learning; meeting students
needs;
I: What drives you to be like that?

P: No because I have to make sure that whatever I teach the
students is sufficient for them to prepare for the new
syllabus. But I see the new syllabus there is with regards to
the format of the Cambridge exam paper there is far fewer
Paper 3 questions and this Paper 3 is called application
paper. And in this application paper, there are 3 structured
questions and 1 essay question. And this application paper
is totally new topics which happened to be Uni level topics.
And nobody knows what sort of questions can possibly be
asked. So in with regards to that the only way to ensure my
students can cope with the questions is to give them the
hundred and ten percent.
Figure 4.2b
meeting students needs;

examination-oriented;
preparing for examination;
familarisation with
assessment format;
no information; resource
deficient;
preparing students; teaching
and learning effectiveness;
commitment;
professionalism;
Second example on generation of concepts from interview transcripts.
127
The generated concepts were then grouped around an identified phenomenon. This
process is called categorising (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A category is more abstract
than the concepts it denotes. Categories were developed in terms of their properties and
dimensions. Properties refer to the attributes or characteristics relating to a category
while dimensions refer to the locations of properties along a continuum (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990, p.61). Examples on categorising of concepts are shown in Figures 4.3a
and 4.3b. Theoretical memos which represented abstract thinking (Strauss & Corbin,
1990, p.198) about the categories were written for each category generated.
Category: Teachers Concerns
Ref: C2_OC1
(5/10/2007)
Related codes: Preparing students for exams

Helping students
Pitching pace of lessons
Learning outcomes
Students feedback
Students reaction
Properties & Dimensions:
Scope of concerns (specific diverse) specific
Teachers concerns are mainly centred around helping students learn better.
Theoretical memo
While teachers concerns can be described as narrow in scope, in that the concerns are mainly
centred around helping students, there seems to be more than one layer of concerns. One layer
is helping students learn the content and apply what they have learnt during examinations.
Another layer is helping students acquire a set of analytical skills as life skills. The latter seems
to be more important to the teacher.
The teacher teaches analytical skills in the form of how to analyse and answer exam questions.
She acknowledges that students priorities are still exams results. Hence the students may see
that the teacher is helping them to prepare for exams. The teachers hidden intention may be
different from her delivered intention. The delivered intention could be used to address
students priority which is doing well in examinations. Addressing students needs is a subcategory of this category of Teachers Concerns.
The teacher is also concerned about students understanding the concepts taught. She recognises
that her current students are not that strong. The reduction in tutorial time also resulted in lesser
time for students to master the content knowledge. Thus she make changes to the ways lessons
are conducted (refer to Improving Teaching and Learning).
Figure 4.3a
First example on categorisng of concepts.
128
Category: Curriculum Structure

Related codes:
Ref: B1_OC1
(10/10/2007)
Demanding
Appropriateness
Content heavy
Questioning objective
Curriculum/school constraint
School/environment constraint
Curriculum non-integration
Essence of learning
Relook into curriculum structure
Purpose of learning science
Differentiation
Not well defined
Differentiated learning
Properties & Dimensions:
Depth (shallow deep) deep (especially for H1)

Breadth (narrow wide) wide (too many topics)
Suitability (no yes) no
Impact to teaching & learning (low high) high
The revised curriculum (for this subject) contains too many topics and many of which are too
demanding especially for H1 students. This largely impacts the way teacher deals with teaching
the revised curriculum.
Theoretical Memo
The teacher feels that there are too many topics within the revised curriculum. The teacher has
no time to cover each topic adequately. As a result the teacher has to conduct remedial lessons
outside curriculum time. Some of the topics are also quite abstract for the students to
understand. This is especially so for the H1 curriculum. The understanding of concepts is made
more difficult due to the lack of integration between theory and practical. The teacher also
questions the appropriateness of the depth of the revised curriculum as the students are not
exhibiting the required level of mental maturity.
The structure of the curriculum is not aligned to the teachers perspective of how science should
be taught, especially in the aspect of practical lessons. Practical lessons are necessary in order to
provide students a better understanding of the concepts. The teacher feels that practical lessons
will help students understand the theoretical aspects of the revised curriculum better and will
also help them in preparing for the A level examinations.
The curriculum structure does not promote student-centred learning activities due to constraints.
Teacher and students are pressed for time to complete the syllabus. Hence the dominant mode of
lesson delivery in classrooms will serve to facilitate content subject mastery in the shortest time
possible.
Figure 4.3b
Second example on categorising of concepts.
129
Axial Coding
The categories generated from open coding were further analysed using the method of
axial coding. Strauss and Corbin (1990) define axial coding as the process of putting
data back together in new ways by making connections between a category and its
subcategories. The categories were connected through a coding paradigm that involved
subcategories which were categories themselves. The subcategories were related to the
categories by some form of relationship that denoted casual conditions, phenomenon,
context, intervening conditions, action/interactional strategies, and consequences
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Statements of relationships were established between
categories and evidence was sought from the data to support these relationships. The
function of axial coding was to establish an understanding of the central phenomenon in
the data in terms of the conditions that gave rise to it, the context in which it was
embedded, the action/interaction strategies by which it was handled, managed or carried
out, and the consequences of these strategies. Diagramming and theoretical memos, as
shown in Figure 4.4a and Figure 4.4b respectively, were used to aid the axial coding
process.
130
Ref: C2_AC1 (1/5/2008)
Diagramming Memo
Cause of
(Major)
Teachers Concerns
Curriculum Structure
Adopts/Decides
(Personalised;
Highly important)
Teaching Methods
Cause of
(Major)
Results in
(primarily)
(Personalised;
Ongoing;
Highly important;
Reflective)
Strategies by
Customisation of
Teaching
Address/
(Personalised;
Fulfill
Highly important)
Students Learning
Needs/Experience
(Highly important
for all students)
Outcomes/
Goals
Examination
Purpose
Figure 4.4a
(Personalised to
the teacher)
Improve On/
Gather
Learning from Other

Teachers
Indicators of
(Personalised;
Ongoing;
Highly important;
Reflective)
Enhancing Teaching and

Learning
Educational Purpose
Diagramming memo generated during axial coding.
131
Ref: C2_AC1 (1/5/2008)

Theoretical Memo
The new curriculum has caused the tutorial time to be shortened. The teacher is concerned about
this situation. She also perceives that her students are facing difficulties in coping with the new
curriculum due to the reduction in tutorial time. She addresses these situations by making
changes to her classroom teaching. The teaching methods she adopts include being more concise
during teaching and emphasising on the main points in the lessons. The choice of adopting such
teaching methods or strategies is a personalised one. The teacher believes this is a way to help
her students along their path of learning. This can be described as customisation of teaching to
address the learning needs of students. There is a strong commitment to help the students.
Personalised here means that the situation the teacher is facing and the ways and strategies she
adopts to address the situation is based on her own reflection, personal beliefs and her teaching
capacity. While she observes other teachers to gather new teaching methods and strategies, the
application of knowledge still occurs in a personalised way to address her own situation.
The teacher is also concerned about imparting analytical skills in her students which she
perceives will be useful in their decision making processes in the future. The new assessment
format also demands the students to apply analytical skills. The way the teacher teaches
analytical skills is in the form of question-answering techniques. She feels that learning should
not be for examination purpose only. However she understands that the students are mainly
concerned about examination readiness. Thus she teaches analytical skills through answering
tutorial questions. This teacher can be described as teaching for examination purpose as well as
educational purpose.
There is a strong commitment in being an effective teacher for herself and her students. She
observes other teachers to improve her teaching skills. Learning from other teachers is one way
to improve her teaching capacity. She also intends to invite feedback from her students with
regards to teaching effectives. In essence there is a sense of enhancing teaching and learning to
meet curriculum needs as well as leaning needs for examination purpose and educational
purpose. Again this process of enhancing teaching and learning is personalised, ongoing,
reflective and highly important to the teacher.
Figure 4.4b
Theoretical memo generated during axial coding.
As shown in Figure 4.4a, the subcategory of Customisation of Teaching related to the

category of Teaching Methods as an action/interactional strategy. Customisation of
Teaching, being a category itself, was described in terms of its properties and
dimensions as personalised, ongoing, highly important and reflective. Statements
of relationship were similarly generated for the other categories.
132
Selective Coding
The third stage of the data analysis involved selective coding. Strauss and Corbin (1990,
p.116) define selective coding as the process of selecting the core category,
systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in
categories that need further refinement. They further describe the core category as the
central phenomenon around which all the other categories are integrated (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990, p.116). The core category represented the central theme (Punch, 2005,
p.211) with regards to how the research participants dealt with the teaching of the
The relating of categories to the core category was done through a paradigm model
conditions, context, strategies and consequences. The grounding of the theory was
completed when it was validated against the data collected. A story was formulated
to provide a conceptualised description of the core category (Strauss & Corbin, 1990,
p.119).
Figures 4.5a and 4.5b respectively show the diagramming memo and the theoretical
memo generated during selective coding process for a research participant.
The
diagramming memo depicts how the core category of Improving Teaching and Learning
was related to the other categories while the theoretical memo provides a qualitative
description of the story.
133
Ref: C2_SC1
(15/9/2008)
Selective coding of C2_OC1 & C2_AC1
Diagramming Memo
Basis
Concerns regarding teaching and learning

of the revised curriculum
Individualised/
Personalised
Results in
Basis
Enhancing teaching and learning by

adopting appropriate teaching methods and
strategies
Outcome
Examination
Purpose
Figure 4.5a
Outcome
Educational Purpose
Diagramming memo generated during selective coding.
Ref: C2_SC1
(15/9/2008)
Theoretical Memo (The Story)
The process of teaching the revised curriculum is about enhancing teaching and learning in a
way that addresses the students learning needs. The teacher regards the learning needs as
twofold, namely, examination needs and educational needs. She addresses examination
needs by strategising the ways which lessons are delivered (e.g. highlighting main points, be
more concise and focused). She addresses educational needs by imparting analytical skills
through answering tutorial questions. The intentions and actions of the teacher are personally
motivated.
It does not mean that there is no motivation to enhance teaching and learning prior to the
implementation of the revised curriculum. The implementation has brought about specific
challenges and concerns regarding teaching and learning which the teacher intends to
address through enhancing the process of teaching and learning by adopting appropriate
teaching methods and strategies that are individualised/personalised to herself (i.e. her
personal and profession orientation with regards to teaching and learning) and her own
students (i.e. to the learning needs of the students; quality and background of students).
Figure 4.5b
Theoretical memo generated during selective coding.

134
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE STUDY

Four criteria, namely, credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability
(Lincoln & Guba, 1999) were used to establish trustworthiness of this qualitative
interpretive study.
Credibility
Credibility means the accuracy with which the phenomenon under investigation was
described (Jackson, 2003). Credibility in this study was assessed through checking for
a correspondence between the way the respondents actually perceive social constructs
and the way the researcher portrays their viewpoints (Mertens, 1998, p.181). This was
done through triangulation of data sources (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003; Lincoln & Guba,
1999). Sources of data used in this study included interviews, lesson observations and
teachers record books. Furthermore, the research participants were invited to examine
and comment on the theory generated in the study.
Transferability
Transferability refers to the generalisation of the study findings to other settings,
populations, and contexts (Jackson, 2003, p.183). A thick description on the time,
place, research background, participants, methodology, interpreted results and emerging
theory of the study was provided to allow transferability to be established in the study
(Brown et. al., 2002; Mertens, 1998). The provision of such details allowed readers to
judge the appropriateness of the research findings to other settings.
Dependability
The issue of dependability is a reflection of the reality that situations constantly change
and peoples realities differ (Jackson, 2003, p.183). This study employed the method
135
of an audit trail (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994, p.146) in order to establish

dependability. All the sources and methods of data collection, and the ways which the
data were analysed were documented. These included the audio recordings, verbatim
transcripts, interview and observation notes, and coding and memos from the interviews,
observations and documents.
Confirmability
Confirmability refers to the objectivity of the data (Jackson, 2003), the determination
that the data and their interpretations are not based on researcher bias, assumptions and
imagination. The method used to ensure confirmability in this study involved verifying
that the data gathered in this study were traceable to the sources and that the analysis
processes were explicitly described. A confirmability audit (Mertens, 1998, p.184)
was used to indicate that the data were traceable to original sources. The confirmability
audit was used together with the dependability audit.
The following set of criteria (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was further used to ensure the
empirical grounding of the data:
1. Are concepts generated?
2. Are the concepts systematically related?
3. Are there many conceptual linkages and are the categories well developed? Do they
have conceptual density?
4. Is there much variation built in the theory?
5. Are the broader conditions that affect the phenomenon under study built into its
explanation?
6. Has process been taken into account?
7. Do the theoretical findings seem significant and to what extent?
136
PARAMETERS OF THE STUDY

The scope of this study is limited to government junior colleges in Singapore. The
theory generated does not apply to junior colleges offering the Integrated Programme.
Out of the 17 junior colleges in Singapore, six are offering the Integrated Programme
(Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2009c).
Students under the Integrated
Programme are given the privilege to sit for the General Certificate of Examinations at
Advanced Level without first passing the General Certificate of Examinations at
Ordinary Level (Kang, 2005). That is to say, this group of students is admitted into
junior colleges without having to first complete the usual four-year secondary school
education. The teachers working in junior colleges offering the Integrated Programme
thus have a different teaching portfolio as compared to the other junior college teachers.
Access to the research site was permitted only for a period of six months by the
Ministry of Education of Singapore. It was judged that data collection in the form of
interviews and lesson observations within this period of six months would be difficult
for a large number of participants. Thus, only a small group of 12 participants was
recruited for the study. Furthermore, the majority of the study participants recruited
were female teachers, so, in terms of gender, the participants were not equally
represented. This is a constraint the researcher had to work with because female
teachers constitute about 65 per cent of junior college teachers in Singapore (Ministry of
However, the informants were purposely chosen so as to provide significant differences

and maximum variation within the research participants in terms of age, teaching
experiences and teaching subjects.
Such diversity was deemed advantageous, in
keeping with the assertion by LeCompte and Goetz (1982, p.48) that qualitative
137
researchers should consciously seek out and maintain a diversity of participants

within the population under examination.
This diversity of participants allowed
multiple perspectives and practices of science teachers to be represented and examined

which in turn provided the richness needed for theory generation (Creswell, 2005).
CONCLUSION
This chapter provided an account of the research design and methodology used for the
study.
The study adopted a qualitative approach using the interpretivist research
paradigm with symbolic interactionism as the theoretical position. Grounded theory

was used as the research methodology in this study. The chapter also explained why
this theoretical framework and research methodology best supported the research
agenda. In addition, the chapter identified and justified the methods of data collection.
Sources of data included semi-structured interviews, lesson observations and teachers
record books. Explanation was given of the grounded theory method used for data
analysis, whereby analysis systematically developed through the three stages of coding,
namely, open, axial and selective coding.
The parameters of the study were also
outlined.
The theoretical findings of the study are provided in the next three chapters of this thesis.
Chapter Five presents vignettes of five study participants, explaining how these five
science teachers dealt with the teaching of their science subjects with regards to
changes made to the junior college science curriculum. Using these vignettes as a
precursor, Chapter Six unfolds to readers the substantive theory developed to explain
how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under
Five subsidiary propositions to support
the theory in illuminating how Singapore junior college science teachers deliver the
138
revised science curriculum were also asserted in this study, and these propositions are
furnished in Chapter Seven.
139
CHAPTER FIVE
VIGNETTES OF FIVE SCIENCE TEACHERS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents vignettes of five teachers, who were participants in this study,
showing how they dealt with the teaching of their science subjects under the 2006
revised junior college curriculum. These vignettes are included as context for the
theory to be presented in Chapter Six. They reveal common elements of experience and
practice that were important to theory development. They are also provided to give the
reader insights into the individual situations of the study participants.
With the
intention of showing variation across the sample, these five teachers were chosen based
on the following considerations: the particular science subject that the teachers were
teaching; the years of teaching experience; and the gender of the teachers. Following
the vignettes, a storyline reflecting the typical experience of teaching science under the
revised junior college curriculum is constructed.
This chapter consists of three main sections.
The first section provides a brief
recapitulation of the key features of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum and the
implications for science teachers teaching in junior colleges.
The recapitulation
provides the background and context to the implementation experience of the

participants, thereby facilitating the reading and understanding of the vignettes. The
second section presents the vignettes of the five teachers. Each vignette describes
perspectives of a teacher on the situation of teaching his or her science subject under the
new revisions and the manner in which he or she dealt with the situation. The third
140
section furnishes a storyline which is constructed to highlight the common experience of

the participants in teaching their subjects under the revised curriculum.
RECAPITULATION OF THE 2006 REVISED JUNIOR COLLEGE

CURRICULUM AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR SCIENCE TEACHERS
This section recapitulates the major innovations introduced in the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum. Firstly, each junior college student is required to study an
additional subject. This additional subject, labelled as a contrasting subject, has to be
of a different discipline from the students area of specialisation; the aim of the
innovation being to promote a multi-disciplinary pre-university education. In practice,
this means that each junior college science major student has to study an arts subject as
a contrasting subject, and each arts major student has to study a science subject as a
contrasting subject.
Secondly, to allow junior college students more choice in the subjects they wish to
study as well as in the level of mastery they desire to pursue in that particular subject,
each major subject in the junior college curriculum has been expanded from one level to
three levels of study under the new revision. This means that the three science subjects,
namely, physics, chemistry and biology, are now reclassified into three levels of study
and each level of study has its own scope and syllabus. The key differences between
each level of study are outlined in Table 5.1.
141
Table 5.1
The Three Levels of Study for Each Science Subject.
Higher One (H1)
Science Subjects
Higher Two (H2)

Science Subjects
Higher Three (H3)

Science Subjects
Equivalent to half of
Equivalent to the rigour
Subjects for in-depth
H2 subjects in breadth
but similar to H2
subjects in terms of
depth.
of the academic
subjects in the former
junior college
curriculum.
study, such as advanced

subject content and
university modules.

major students as well
as arts major students
(as a contrasting
subject).
Can be taken by
science major students
as well as arts major
students (as a

major students who are also
concurrently studying the
equivalent H2 science
subject.
Thirdly, there is a change in content for all the academic subjects offered in junior
colleges so as to meet the objectives of the revised curriculum. Fourthly, the revised
curriculum adopts a new examination format that is directed towards the assessment of
students analytical and critical thinking skills, marking a shift away from assessment of
the ability to regurgitate facts and formulae.
Underpinning the 2006 revised junior college curriculum are the initiatives of Teach
Less, Learn More, Innovation and Enterprise, IT Masterplan, and Ability-Driven
Education.
These four initiatives have been described in detail in Chapter Two.
Together with the revised junior college curriculum, these new initiatives are intended
to develop students holistically, through new educational practices, into innovative and
creative thinkers, life-long learners, and leaders of change.
No explicit written
guidelines are provided by the Ministry on what kind of educational practices would be
142
considered as showcasing the spirit of Teach Less, Learn More or Innovation and
Enterprise.
Schools are given the prerogative to interpret the meanings of these
initiatives, and teachers are encouraged to experiment on new pedagogical practices and
innovative educational activities that would develop students holistically.
Following the implementation of the revised curriculum and the introduction of the new
educational initiatives such as Teach Less, Lean More, science teachers in junior
colleges now has additional commitments with regards to teaching their subjects.
Firstly, they have to teach new content pertaining to their subjects. The areas in science
that are considered obsolete are removed from the syllabi, while new science topics,
covering knowledge on recent developments as well as niche areas in science research,
are added. Secondly, the science teachers are expected to teach their subjects at three
different levels of study. Thirdly, they have to prepare their students for a new set of
assessment criteria in the national examinations. Fourthly, they are required to teach
their science subjects to arts major students, and fifthly, they are expected to showcase
innovative pedagogical practices and educational activities in their lessons. These new
commitments are in addition to their usual responsibilities of delivering quality
academic results in the national examinations in the subjects they taught.
VIGNETTES OF TEACHERS
This section focuses on the experiences of five science teachers with regards to how
they dealt with the teaching of their science subjects under the 206 revised junior
college curriculum. To provide readers with a better understanding on the school
environment within with the participants were working, the institutional setting is
described prior to the presentation of the individual vignettes.
143
The Institutional Setting

The science teachers were deployed according to their subjects of specialisation. All the
science teachers were university graduates, majoring in a particular science discipline
(that is, physics, chemistry or biology). In addition, each of them had formal training in
education and teaching. As a junior college provides a two-year pre-university course,
the teachers were further divided into two sections, with each section teaching a
particular cohort of students. Thus, at any one particular academic year, one section of
teachers would be teaching the Year One students while another section of teachers
would be teaching the Year Two students. The science teachers taught only one
science subject, which was their subject of specialisation.
Each teacher was given at least three tutorial classes of students and each class consisted
of about 25 students. The teachers were responsible for the academic results of their
tutorial classes in the subjects they were teaching. Tutorial questions for each particular
topic in each science subject were prepared by the teachers. The tutorials comprised
mainly questions from the past years national examinations on that particular topic. In
addition, the teachers were assigned lecture topics. Lectures were conducted to the
entire cohort of students studying that particular science subject.
All the science teachers were issued with their respective departmental work documents.
An extract of the Science Department Workplan that charted the teaching and learning
goals under the new revisions is shown in Figure 5.1. The inclusion of qualitative
questions and synoptic questions as reflected in the Planned Programme/Activity
column were examples of new additions to the department workplan.
144
SCIENCE DEPARTMENT WORK PLAN 2007

Science Department Internal Perspective Strategic Thrust S1: Maximise students potential in science subjects
Focus Area
Key Performance
Indicators
Targets
Planned Programme/Activity
S1.1
Effective
instructional
programme
JC1 Promotional
exam results, JC2
Prelim exam
results,
PRISM, GCE A
level results
2007 JC1 Promotional Exams :

H2 subjects: 85 % passes & 40% grades A and B
H1 subjects: 65% passes and 20% grades A & B.
Differentiated Programme
To set tutorials of different levels of difficulty and format

(STATC format) for at least 60% of topics
To include qualitative questions (80% of topics) and

synoptic questions (30% of topics) in tutorials to stretch
the thinking skills of average and strong students.
To divide the JC2 students into different groups (2 or 3

groups) based on the Mid-year common test so as to plan
revision lectures that suits the different needs & abilities
of individual students
To conduct VA programme (Physics) / ENABLER

program (Chemistry) for JC2 students from Term 2 for
the middle band (C, D & E graders) students.
S1.1.1
Customised
academic
programme
that caters to
students of
different
learning
abilities
2007 GCE A level exams:

H2: 100 % passes and 75% grades A and B
H1: 100% passes and 50% A & B
No. of
topic/sections
selected for selfstudy module
Figure 5.1
2007 JC2 Preliminary exams:

H2: 90 % passes and 50% grades A and B
H1: 75% passes and 30% A & B
1 topic /section per level per subject
Self-study Module
To select topic/section for selfstudy by students
Teachers to provide lecture notes/ reference materials/ electures for students study the topic/section on their own
Teachers to discuss the tutorial questions to check and

ensure students learn and are able to apply the concepts.
Extract of the Science Department Workplan.
145
145
Details on the teaching activities as well as the schedule of curriculum topics to be

taught were spelt out in these work documents. The documents also contained new
teaching and learning activities that followed the ethos of the initiatives such as Teach
Less, Learn More as well as Innovation and Enterprise. These activities were not
used when teaching the former curriculum. Examples of these activities include the
incorporation of games, real-life simulation and puzzles to classroom lessons.
Resources, such as textbooks, were purchased by the department and were shared
among the teachers. An important teaching resource used by all the science teachers in
the department were questions compiled from the past national examinations by
commercial publishers. The titles for these publications for the three science subjects
were as follows:
GCE A Level H2 Physics Topical Papers;
GCE A Level H2 Chemistry Topical Papers; and
GCE A Level H2 Biology Topical Papers.
Additional ICT tools such as the Interactive Whiteboard was also purchased to
support the IT Masterplan initiatives and the science teachers were expected to utilise
these equipment in their lessons.
The science teachers were also given the autonomy to consult other educational
resources such as the examiners report on past national examinations so as to aid them
in teaching their subjects. To prepare the science teachers for the new assessment
format, they were each given a copy of a specimen examination question paper on the
subject they were teaching. An extract of the specimen examination question paper for
physics is shown in Figure 5.2.
146
5(a) Describe, in terms of band theory, the conduction of electrons through an

intrinsic semiconductor.
(b) The addition of one part per million of arsenic will decrease the resistivity of
silicon by a factor of 105. This doped silicon is p-type silicon. State two
differences between p-type silicon and n-type silicon.
(c) Discuss, using the idea of a depletion layer, how a p-n junction can act as a
rectifier.
6(a)(i) Explain what is meant by the expression simple harmonic motion.
(ii) Sketch a graph of acceleration against displacement to illustrate your
explanation in (i).
(b) A sound wave moving along a tube in a trumpet causes air molecules in the
tube to undergo simple harmonic motion. At a point in the tube, the
variation of displacement x with time t is given by the equation x = xosinwt
where xo = 0.0068 m and w = 1610 s-1.
(i) Deduce, for the sound wave at this point, the amplitude, period, and
frequency if the sound wave.
(ii) The speed of the sound in the tube is 340 m s-1. Calculate the wavelength
of the sound wave.
(c) A stationary wave is normally set up in any musical instrument. Describe
(i) the conditions necessary for the sound wave in (b) to produce a stationary
wave
(ii) the movement of air molecules in the trumpet once the stationary wave
has been established. The tube of the trumpet is 1.0 m long. Include a
diagram in your answer.
(d) Damping is very often necessary when unwanted oscillations occur in
machinery such as washing machine or a dishwater. Describe the factors that
determine the frequency at which unwanted oscillations occur and the
principles that are used in damping out these oscillations.
Figure 5.2
Extract of the specimen examination question paper for physics.
According to the teachers, the specimen question papers reflected an emphasis on

assessing students reasoning and analytical abilities under the new examination format.
Under the previous curriculum, students were mainly assessed on their abilities to recall
and apply concepts to solve problems.
More space in the school timetable had to be created to accommodate the expansion
from one level to three levels of study for each major subject under the new revisions.
147
This was done by reducing the number of tutorial hours for each major subject. Thus,
the tutorial hours for each H2 science subject were reduced from three hours to two
hours per week following the implementation of the revised junior college science
curriculum. Two hours of timetabled time were allocated for tutorials for the H1
science subjects while another four hours were allocated for the H3 science subjects
per week. The H1 and H3 subjects are new additions while the H2 subjects are
revamped from the former science curriculum.
The science teachers were professionally expected to deliver the following targets in the
General Certificate of Education Advanced Level Examination:
For H2 science subjects 100% of the students scoring at least grade E with
75% of the students scoring at least grade B;
For H1 science subjects 100% of the students scoring at least grade E with
50% of the students scoring at least grade B.
No targets were set for the H3 science subjects, as the examination results of these
subjects would not affect the academic banding of the junior colleges.
Furthermore, the science teachers were required to track the academic performance of
students under their charge using a quantitative indicator called value-addedness. This
indicator, in terms of a numerical value, reflects the difference between a students
expected academic performance and his or her actual performance in the assessments.
A positive value in the students value-addedness would mean that this student is
performing up to the expectation set by the Ministry of Education of Singapore.
148
Vignette One Jane (Biology Teacher)

Jane was a beginning biology teacher with one year of teaching experience. She was
posted to this junior college in June 2006, six months into the implementation of the
revised junior college science curriculum. Thus, she had no experience in teaching the
former curriculum. She had been teaching biology since her posting to this junior
college. Due to the shortage of biology teachers, she was given four tutorial classes of
students instead of the usual three. One class was taking biology at H1 level and the
remaining three classes were H2 biology students. All her students were science
major students.
Being a new teacher, Jane had a mentor who was also a biology teacher and who had
been teaching this subject for four years in the same junior college. Both Jane and her
mentor were teaching the Year Two students during the time which this study was
conducted. These Year Two students were the first batch of students to study under
the revised junior college science curriculum.
One of Janes biggest concerns was the tutorial time allocated to teach the entire biology
content. She felt that the weekly two hour tutorial sessions were insufficient to finish
teaching the prescribed syllabus. The teaching of biology, according to her, needed
much more time, which she explained as follows:
Science subjects are just very, very content heavy. Biology is one of
themIts chunk and chunk of concepts. You need to ensure that the
students master this concept before teaching the next one. For example,
take Evolutionyou cannot teach one concept without making
relations to the others and this takes up a lot of time...We are really
struggling with time to teach them [the students] what the whole
syllabus requires (sic).
149
Another concern for Jane was her students progress in their learning. She felt that the
new topics added to the curriculum, such as Diversity and Evolution, were beyond the
academic abilities of the junior college students. According to her, these newly added
topics were designed for university courses, and junior college students generally lacked
the academic ability as well as intellectual maturity to handle the rigour and demands of
such topics, which she elaborated below:
I feel that the topics are a bit too heavy content, apart from that it is
also very abstract (sic). You must have the intellectual maturity to
understand the topic such as Diversity and Evolution. The students
must be open-minded and accept ambiguities and possibilities.
However, at their age, they are always trying to fit things into a
particular mould, and they still do not have the maturity to challenge
assumptions.
Even though she observed that her students were having difficulties understanding the
concepts taught, the lack of curriculum time prevented her from conducting extra
lessons to help her students during the school term. In this regard, she described her
experience as follows:
All I can say is that I cannot do anything different or out of the normal
box during the academic term. if there is any way I can help them
[her students] understand the content heavy subject like biology, it will
be during holidays I have to request them to come back to conduct
lessons (sic).
Thus, it was a common practice for Jane to organise remedial classes during the
school holidays to help her students master the content knowledge.
To answer to the call for teachers to teach less, so that students would learn more,
Jane was especially keen to organise student-centred learning activities for her students.
150
She felt that such learning activities would enthuse and engage the students in their
learning. She conducted her tutorial lessons using the collaborative learning approach
for one academic term (equivalent to 10 weeks). During such lessons, she would group
her students according to their academic aptitudes and within each group there would be
at least one student who had good content knowledge in biology. Below is an account
of Janes experience in using collaborative learning in her lessons:
At the end of that term, the students gave me a feedback in the form of
written letter, complaining that I did not do my job as a teacher. So
evidently from that letter, it shows that not only the teachers are
stressed; teachers are not only worried about the time they have to
complete the syllabus, the students are also left feeling very
insecurethat feeling of lack of confidence has apparently set in.
Her students did not respond as favourably to the use of student-centred modes of
learning as she had anticipated. She reflected upon this issue and decided to use
collaborative learning in her lessons occasionally, which she reasoned as follows:
They are ok, say if you dont do it all the timethey feel teachers did
not give them enough supportthey are not sure whether what they
are doing is right or not (sic).
Thus, after one academic term of adopting student-centred pedagogical practices, she
reverted back to the traditional teacher-centred approach to teach her subject content.
She judged that student-centred learning methods were not feasible in junior colleges
especially under the revised curriculum due to the shortage of lesson time and heavy
demands from the new content.
As a result of such experiences, and with the concurrence of her mentor, Jane adopted
the following approach in teaching biology:
151
We drill them with questionsWe just drill and ask the students to
memorise the answersThis is the way, we are teaching them exam
strategywhat we are attempting to do here is just attempting to
expose them to the multitudes of question that can possibly come out
(sic).
Jane faced another new challenge in adopting the drilling approach in the teaching and
learning of her subject. This challenge was the availability of questions to be used as
practice questions especially on the topics newly added to the biology syllabus. She
was not able to find these practice questions from the past examination question papers
due to the change in the curriculum content. She regarded past examination question
papers as important teaching resources to support her teaching method of drilling her
students for the national examinations.
To address this challenge, she purchased, with her own funds, university-based
textbooks on biology. She then modified the selected questions from these textbooks
for her teaching needs. An example of a modified question for teaching the topic on
Genetics is shown in Figure 5.3 below.
152
Figure (a) shows the 50-kb segment of the human T-cell receptor locus while Figure (b)
shows 50-kb segment from the genome of E. coli K12.
With reference to the figures above, state three differences between the eukaryotic and
prokaryotic 50-kb segment.
Figure 5.3
Example of a modified question used for teaching Genetics.
However, she was uncertain if the modified questions were of the right standard to help
her students master the subject content. In this regard, she voiced her concern as
follows:
having to actually form questions is also an uncertain area for me
(sic). Because first of all I am not a very experienced teacherso in
that light, I am also not very skillful.
She did not seek help from her mentor as well as from her colleagues because she
thought no one was able to help her as she was the only teacher who taught the new
topics in the revised curriculum. Furthermore, she felt that the other teachers also had
their own areas of concerns to deal with which she explained as follows:
everybody has their own scheme of work to follow, everybody has
their own topics to teach. So nobody has the time to help you with your
topic, especially when the topic is new.
She intended to improve on the standard of her designed practice questions on her own,
pending the academic results of her students in the national examinations.
153
Jane felt that the approaches she adopted had addressed her concerns especially on the
issue of preparing her students well for the national examinations. She would further
refine these approaches according to the situation during the course of instruction.
Although her main intention in whatever she did was to aid her students in their content
mastery for examinations purpose, she did not formulate any structured plans or
strategies, which she reasoned as follows:
There are so many things that can happen along the week. Different
class has different dynamics... it has to go in accordance to how the
students feel comfortable.
She would review her methods of lesson delivery and the approaches she adopted to
address her concerns with regards to teaching her subject based on the quality of her
students results in the national examinations.
Vignette Two Michael (Physics Teacher)

Michael was a physics teacher with 25 years of teaching experience. He had been
teaching physics in this junior college for the past 20 years. At the time of this study, he
was teaching physics at the H2 level to three classes of Year One science major
students. These Year One students were the second cohort of students that studied
under the revised junior college curriculum. As a veteran teacher, he had mentored and
was mentoring several new physics teachers in the school.
Michael was concerned about the reduction in tutorial time. Based on his experience in
teaching physics before the implementation of the revised curriculum, he recognised a
need to optimise teaching time during tutorials in order to finish teaching the newly
prescribed syllabus. Furthermore, he was aware that under the new revisions, students
were required to study an additional contrasting subject which added to students
154
academic responsibilities. Thus, he judged that his students were not able to focus on
their learning due to their heavy workload which was a result of the implementation of
the revised curriculum. He further believed that his students were unlikely to learn on
their own outside the classrooms unless they were highly motivated and had a passion
for the subject. As such, he saw a need to motivate and arouse his students interests in
learning physics so as to optimise teaching time in his lessons.
In view of the new assessment format which examined students critical thinking ability
and analytical skills, Michael recognised a need to employ a teaching approach that
could impart thinking and analytical skills to his students. He felt the drilling of past
examination questions would not be beneficial to his students in their content mastery in
view of the way the questions were phrased under the new assessment format. In
addition, based on the specimen examination paper on the new assessment format which
was issued to all teachers prior the implementation, he recognised that the phrasing of
the examinations questions had been shifted from quantitative to an open-ended
qualitative style. He saw a need to prepare his students on this change.
While Michael recognised the new challenges in teaching his subject under the new
revisions such as reduction in tutorial time and new assessment format, he wanted his
lessons to be interesting and enjoyable for himself as well as for his students. Having
enjoyed the lessons, he judged that his students would develop a passion in the learning
of physics which would in turn encourage them to learn on their own outside the
classrooms. Such independent mode of learning in students, according to him, would
solve the problem of insufficient teaching time as well as prepare the students for their
future studies in universities.
155
On his own initiative, Michael developed a new teaching strategy that comprised fun
activities, group discussions on thinking questions, and live demonstrations on
physics experiments.
An example of a thinking question Michael used for teaching
Kinematics is shown in Figure 5.4.
A marathon runner runs at a steady 15 km/hr. When the runner is 7.5 km from the
finish line, a bird begins flying from the runner to the finish at 30 km/hr. When
the bird reaches the finish line, it turns around and flies back to the runner, and
then turns around again, repeating the back-and-forth trips until the runner
reaches the finish line. How many kilometers does the bird travel?
A. 10 km
B. 15 km
C. 20 km
D. 30 km
Figure 5.4
Example of a thinking question used for teaching Kinematics.
His intention for adopting such a teaching strategy is further provided below:
...when I am doing this new strategy of introducing activities, live
demonstrations or thinking questions, or guide them along without
telling the answers straightaway, I hope that I can arouse their [the
students] interest. And also in a way raise their thinking level (sic).
He regarded that his new teaching strategy would address the issues of imparting
thinking skills to his students during lessons as well as arousing their interests in the
learning of physics, so that they would engage in independent learning outside the
curriculum time. He formulated this strategy based on his personal belief and past
teaching experience which he reasoned as follows:
156
If a person is interested in something, he will be motivated, then the

thinking process will just followyou dont have to force them to
think, dont have to force them to learn (sic).
However, Michael noted that he was not able to apply his new teaching strategy for all
the physics topics in the curriculum due to time constraints. He made refinements by
applying his new teaching strategy only for topics which his students had difficulties in
understanding. He sought feedback from his students, during the course of instruction,
to determine their foundational knowledge on the physics concepts he was teaching. He
used the students feedback to determine which teaching method to use. In this regard,
he explained as follows:
When I start a new topic I will get the feedback from the
studentsthose concepts they find difficult to understand I try to
introduce some thinking questions or activities, hoping that they will
understand (sic).
For topics which Michael judged that his students were able to understand, such as
Measurements and Physical Quantities, he proceeded to teach directly without the
use of fun activities or thinking questions so as to optimise teaching time. Michael
also noted that while his students responded positively to his new approach of teaching,
they still wanted him to guide and advise them the best way to answer examination
questions. He thus made the following judgment:
When you introduce a new topic, you can always try this method of
injecting fun activities and conducting live demo. Only later on when
you come to revisions, then you can focus more on the drilling part or
how to answer exam questions (sic).
Michael felt that his new teaching strategy had worked well for him in achieving his
intentions of delivering interesting and informative lessons. Based on his classroom
157
interaction with his students, he found that his students had enjoyed and had benefitted
from his lessons. He noted that his students were engaged in analytical thinking when
he probed them with his thinking questions. In this way, he regarded that his students
learned physics better as compared to the direct teaching approach without the use of
probing questions or thinking questions which he had used while teaching the former
curriculum. He also acknowledged that he used such a teaching strategy as he was
teaching the Year One students. He would adopt a more teacher-centred approach if
he was teaching the Year Two students. He commented that he would continue to
develop and refine his new teaching strategy based on his students feedback and
examination results. He had discussed his new teaching strategy with a few colleagues
and he did not think that his teaching strategy would be suitable to all teachers as each
teacher would have a particular situation of teaching and learning to deal with.
Furthermore, he judged that new or beginning teachers would have problems in
designing suitable thinking questions.
Vignette Three Margaret (Physics Teacher)

Margaret was a physics teacher with six years of teaching experience. This junior
college was her first school as a teacher and she had been teaching physics since she
was posted to this school. At the time of this study, she was teaching the Year Two
students. As mentioned earlier, the Year Two students were the first batch of students
to be studying under the revised curriculum. She had three classes of H2 physics
students and a class of H3 physics students. All her students were science major
students.
158
On comparison with the former curriculum, she felt that the removal of certain physics
topics in the revised physics syllabus resulted in an incoherence in the delivery of the
new curriculum content. Her description on this incoherency is provided below:
Given that they have taken out certain aspect of the curriculum, certain
things doesnt seem to flow as well anymoreespecially for the
Thermal part, the Ideal Gasthat may not be required of in their
syllabus but that is what they may need to understand the thing (sic).
She saw a need to teach her students those topics that were no longer part of the
syllabus due to the changes made to the curriculum content, but were essential in
helping her students master the content knowledge.
Another major concern for her was the uncertainty on the breadth and depth of
instruction on the revised curriculum. The following is an account of her doubts in
regards to this issue:
How much do we actually need to teach? The syllabus can be quite
open as in you wouldnt know how much you are supposed to
teachsometimes when you teach at very surface level, the students
would tend to question, but to answer their questions, it can be very
difficult without further going in-depth into it (sic).
Margaret also noted that her students were fixated on the rote-learning style, and that
they were unable to handle abstract information and questions that demanded analysis
and critical thinking. She judged that her students would have difficulties mastering the
content knowledge on the newly added topics as well as answering the examination
questions with such learning habits due to the changes in the format and questioning
style of the examinations.
She saw a need to teach her students the skills and
knowledge on concepts application as well as to expose them to different types of

questions to prepare them for assessment purposes. An example of the conceptual
159
questions which Margaret had used to teach the topic on D.C. Circuits is shown in
Figure 5.5 below.
1. What is the source of electrons flowing in a closed circuit?

2. What does an electric current consist of?
3. Does an electric current get used up in a circuit?
4. Can an electric current flow when the circuit is incomplete?
5. How do the battery in a circuit work to provide the electric current?
6. Is there an e.m.f. across the battery when the circuit is incomplete?
7. Is there a p.d. drop across the load when the circuit is incomplete?
Figure 5.5
Example of conceptual questions used for teaching D.C. Circuits.
To expose her students to a greater variety of assessment questions and to bridge the
gap in the perceived incoherence in delivering the new curriculum, Margaret inserted
additional tutorial questions for discussions in the classrooms.
These additional
questions were prepared by her through consultation with reference books and internet
resources.
Thus, Margaret attempted to teach her students the skill of concepts
application and improve their analytical abilities through the discussion of her designed
questions. This method of teaching physics was Margarets new initiative and it was a
necessary strategy to prepare her students for the national examinations.
Margaret was mindful about the reduction in the curriculum time. She knew that she
could not dwell too much time in discussing with her students on the additional
questions, as compared to teaching under the former curriculum, as this would pose a
problem in completing teaching the prescribed syllabus. To optimise teaching time, she
varied her style of teaching. She looked at the background of the students and the
progress of their learning before she decided on the particular pedagogy to deliver her
160
lessons. She adopted student-centred group-based pedagogical approaches with her

stronger group of students as well as for topics that she perceived to be easy.
Her
group-based learning approach involved students solving tutorial questions in their

groups. The grouping of students was done by her and based on her understanding of
the academic background of her students. For topics that she perceived to be difficult as
well as for her weaker group of students, she made refinements by adopting a teachercentred instructional approach during which she would pose thinking questions to the
whole class to engage them in thinking and analysis about the concepts she was
teaching. Her intention was to inculcate a spirit of inquiry and higher-order thinking in
her students. Thus, she utilised a variety of teaching approaches according to the
classroom situations as well as to the specific physics topic she was teaching with the
main intention of helping her students in their content mastery.
To further help her students in their content mastery on the newly added topics which
she judged that her students would have difficulties understanding, such as Laser,
Margaret spent time reading up textbooks as well as seeking information over the
internet to look for ideas and strategies to teach these topics in a clear and concise
manner. She also adopted the use of ICT teaching tools, such as computer animation
and software, during the course of her instruction of these topics. Her main intention
for utilising such teaching tools was to make these new topics, which she regarded as
abstract and difficult, appreciable to her students for their content mastery which she
explained as follows:
Most of the time when come to these kind of abstract topics is mainly
words, so it actually help if you can find things that simply the entire
topic for the studentsmake it easier for them to visualise (sic).
161
An example of a simulation software which Margaret used to teach the topic on

Laser is shown in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6
Example of a simulation software used
for teaching Laser.
Her decision for adopting such an approach was based on her personal beliefs and
teaching experiences. For example, ICT tools had helped her to visualise physics
when she was a student. She thus believed ICT tools would also help her students in
their learning of physics especially on the new topics.
During the course of teaching the H3 physics curriculum, Margaret judged that she
lacked sufficient content knowledge to engage her students intellectually. She also
observed that her students were having difficulties in learning the H3 physics topics.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter and in Chapter Two, the H3 courses were
intended for in-depth study for the academically strong students. To improve her
content knowledge, she attended in-service courses which were conducted during the
academic term. To follow up on what she had learnt from the in-service courses and to
further acquire teaching materials, she made references to university textbooks on the
physics topics she was teaching. She also consulted the more experienced teachers for
162
clarification in the subject content. She adopted a teacher-centred approach in teaching

the H3 physics topics as she felt that she lacked the content and pedagogical
knowledge to develop other platforms of classroom instruction for this difficult course.
Nonetheless, she mentioned that she would continue to explore ways to improve her
teaching of the H3 physics curriculum.
She adopted a fluid approach in teaching physics and adapted her teaching practices to
the changes brought about by the implementation of the revised curriculum so as to
prepare her students well for the national examinations. She believed that the measures
she had adopted had helped to address her concerns. This judgment was based on her
interaction with her students. She observed that her students were able to visualise the
abstract concepts she was teaching through the use of ICT tools as compared to a mere
verbal discourse. With the use of such instructional tools, she noted that she was able to
engage students in their learning.
Margaret was not sure if other physics teachers had used similar approaches in their
teaching of the revised curriculum. She had no plans to inform her colleagues about her
way of teaching the revised curriculum. She felt that the teaching of the revised
curriculum especially for the H3 physics course had been a situation of experimenting
and learning. She would continue her fluid approach of teaching, and would also
continue to refine and improve on her content knowledge and pedagogical skills.
Vignette Four Martin (Chemistry Teacher)

Martin was a chemistry teacher with six years of teaching experience. Like Margaret,
this junior college was his first school as a teacher and he had been teaching chemistry
since he was posted to this school. At the time of this study, he was teaching the Year
163
Two science major students. He had three classes of H2 chemistry students. He also
taught a component of the H3 chemistry course to another class of Year Two
students. In contrast to the experiences of Jane and Margaret with regards to changes in
curriculum content, Martin did not notice significant changes in terms of the chemistry
content between the new and the former curriculum. The significant changes made
under the new revisions, according to him, were: the removal of some topics; different
allocation of marks; and different style of questioning in the examination papers.
Martin has always been an advocate of independent learning by students. He wanted

his students to be able to understand the principles behind the chemistry concepts taught,
and not merely regurgitate the facts in the examinations. He saw the emphasis on selfdirectedness in students under the new revisions as a reinforcement of his beliefs.
While he had been using student-centred learning approaches in teaching the former
curriculum, he decided to increase the intensity of such learning approaches in teaching
the new curriculum.
However, Martin was cautious in adopting a facilitating style of teaching as he was not
sure if his students were ready to be taught using student-centred learning approaches.
He wanted his students, particularly his classes of H2 chemistry students, to benefit
from the learning process. He adopted a traditional teaching approach at the start of
the academic year and he opted for a more student-centred mode of learning as time
progressed. Martins explanation on why he made changes to his teaching approaches
is provided below:
at the start of the year I would still trying to do some summary
before I move on to the topic itself (sic). But as time goes by, I noticed
that my students, they are quite motivated, so I decide to cut off that
part (sic).
164
fter he had judged that his students were able to handle the learning on their own, he
proceeded to facilitate learning rather than directly presenting facts to his students. The
facilitation process which he adopted in his tutorials consisted of three components.
First, he gave his students a hint sheet which served as guiding answers to the tutorial
questions. With the hint sheet he expected his students to be able to complete the
tutorial questions on their own. As such, he only discussed selected tutorial questions
during his lessons. When he was teaching the former curriculum, he would discuss all
the tutorial questions. However, in teaching the new curriculum, he decided to discuss
only selected questions due to reduction in tutorial time. The questions he chose for
discussion were the more difficult ones. An example of a hint sheet used by Martin to
teach Electrochemistry is provided in Figure 5.7.
3 types of diagrams that you will need to know how to draw

(ii) Pt / I2(aq), I or Fe3+,Fe2+ / Pt
(i) M / Mn+ cell

1.0 M Mn+
salt bridge
salt bridge
1.0 M
I2(aq), I
M
(iii)
Pt
Pt / H2(g) / H (aq) or Pt / Cl2 / Cl (aq)
H2 @ 298K
and 1 atm
salt bridge
1.0 M H+
Pt
Figure 5.7
Example of a hint sheet used for teaching Electrochemistry.

165
Second, he made compulsory for his students to complete an on-line test before his
lessons with them.
This on-line test served as check points on students
understanding of basic concepts. Initially, his students resisted doing the on-line test
as they felt it was a waste of their time. Martin convinced them that the on-line test
was beneficial towards the learning of concepts. As an incentive, he limited the number
of questions in the on-line test to 10. Limiting the number of questions in the on-line
test was a refinement made by him after receiving feedback from his students.
Although his students had good academic background, he recognised that they had
additional responsibilities as they had to study the additional contrasting subject.
Third, he asked his students to formulate their own marking schemes after he had
provided the answers for the tutorial questions. In this way, he hoped to inculcate in his
students an understanding of the ways which marks were allocated by the examiners.
This facilitation process which Martin adopted was his personal initiative and the three
components of facilitation were developed from his past teaching experiences. While
Marin had adopted such modes of learning when teaching the former curriculum, he
made adaptations to the process when teaching the new curriculum. For example, he
only discussed selected tutorial questions and reduced the number of questions in the
on-line test.
In addition to the facilitation process of learning, Martin wanted his students to be

examination ready. He analysed examination questions with his students using past
examination questions as well as the examiners reports on these questions. With
regards to the new assessment format, he prepared his students using the specimen
examination question paper. While Martin had adopted a student-directed approach in
the learning of chemistry content under the revised curriculum, he also resorted to the
166
use of past examination questions in teaching his students to interpret and answer
examination questions skillfully. In this way, he hoped his students would do well in
the national examinations.
Martin felt that his methods and approaches of teaching his subject under the revised
curriculum had worked well for him, based on the students feedback and their
academic grades in the schools summative assessments.
He commented that his
methods and approaches of teaching his subject depended on students motivation,

which he elaborated as follows:
At the moment it worked well for me. It really depends on the
studentsthe students must be motivated themselves because this way
of having tutorial lesson will work only for those students who are
more independent and more eager to learn (sic).
Martin believed that his students in the H2 chemistry course had benefitted from his
manner which he delivered his lessons. Though Martin would adopt similar methods
and approaches to teach his subject for future cohorts of students, he would modify and
refine these methods and approaches according to the situation of teaching and learning
that he would encounter. He had shared with a few of his colleagues on his approach of
teaching chemistry under the new revisions, but he did not think his approach would
benefit all teachers and students due to different dynamics in the classrooms.
Vignette Five Denise (Chemistry Teacher)

Denise was a chemistry teacher with three years of teaching experience. This junior
college was her first school as a teacher and she had been teaching chemistry since her
posting to this school. She was teaching H2 chemistry to three classes of Year One
science major students. She also taught a component of the H1 chemistry curriculum
167
to a class of Year One arts major students. Denises observations with regards to the
new curriculum were the same as Martins in that the significant changes made to the
chemistry curriculum were the allocation of marks as well as the style of questioning in
the new examination format.
Denise felt that the reduction in teaching time due to the implementation of the revised
curriculum affected students in their learning. She observed that her current students
studying the revised curriculum displayed greater difficulties in understanding the
concepts taught. She recounted her experiences in teaching the former curriculum as
follows:
Teaching the last batch that did not take this curriculum was a
breezeit is easier to teach them mainly because we have more
tutorial time so they can clarify their doubts (sic).
According to Denise, the shortened curriculum time reduced the opportunities for
students to ask questions and clarify their doubts in the classrooms which resulted in
students not having sufficient time to understand the concepts taught. This hindered the
students progress of learning.
To optimise teaching time and to help her students cope with the reduction in tutorial
time, Denise structured her lessons in a concise manner. She highlighted the key
concepts that the students were required to know for solving the assigned tutorial
questions.
She kept emphasising and highlighting the key learning points during
lessons, a strategy which she regarded as effective in helping her students learn the
chemistry concepts. She did not use this method of teaching when she was teaching the
former curriculum. She learnt and refined this method of teaching through observations
of other chemistry teachers.
168
Denise also wished to teach her students analytical and thinking skills which she judged
that her students were lacking in. These analytical and thinking skills were important
examinations skills in accordance to the new assessment format as well as essential lifelong skills for the students.
While helping her students to master their content
knowledge for examinations purposes was the main concern of her lessons, she felt that
it was equally important to impart life-long skills during lessons for the holistic
development of her students.
This holistic development of students was also an
emphasis of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum and this was an area which
Denise wished to support as she believed that teaching should not just focus on
examination results.
The manner which Denise taught thinking and analytical skills was through the
discussion of thinking questions which she inserted in her tutorial lessons. This was a
new initiative thought of by Denise and the thinking questions were designed by her.
She observed that her students learned chemistry mainly through rote-learning and
through solving tutorial problems. Thus, she felt that her way of teaching thinking and
analytical skills through the discussion of thinking questions resonated well with her
students learning style and priorities, as her way of teaching analytical skills did not
deviate too steeply from her students main epistemological approach. An example of
the thinking questions Denise used to teach Thermodynamics is shown in Figure 5.8.
169
Chemical processes move in directions in which the products have lower Gibbs free
energy than the reactants. It is possible to establish the relationship between the free
energy change of the chemical reactions with the relative contributions of the
enthalpy change and entropy changes accompanying the reaction.
Comment on the following in the light of the above statement.
(i)
When aqueous sodium hydrogen carbonate is added to dilute hydrochloric

acid at room temperature, the temperature of the reaction mixture drops.
Despite this, the reaction is spontaneous.
(ii)
Camping gas (liquid butane) is used commonly for cooking. It undergoes

combustion spontaneously at room temperature.
Figure 5.8
Example of thinking questions used for teaching Thermodynamics.
Denise adopted a differentiated approach in her teaching. For those students who were
studying chemistry at the H1 level, she made refinements to her usual way of
instruction by going at a slower pace so as to bridge the gap between the students
academic background and the rigorous demands of the curriculum. She reasoned that
since her H1 chemistry students were arts major students, they might not have the
science background to handle the rigour and demand of the subject. She felt that her
H1 students needed more time to master the chemistry content, and to help these
students, she paced her lessons according their academic abilities. Teaching chemistry
to the arts major students was a new experience for her.
Denise knew that her classroom teaching was largely teacher-centred.
With the
intention of supporting the new educational initiative of student-centred learning, she

experimented with hands-on activities in her lessons. However, she found difficulties
in organising such activities on a regular basis as the number of hands-on activities or
interesting stuff was limited.
170
While Denise recognised the merits of using hands-on or fun activities to engage
students in their learning, she felt that it was difficult to incorporate these activities in
her lessons due to the content nature of the chemistry curriculum despite the revamp to
promote self-directedness in students. She would continue to explore opportunities to
provide hands-on or fun activities in support of the new initiative of student-centred
learning but she would continue to employ teacher-centred pedagogical practices in her
lessons which she regarded as more beneficial to her students in their content mastery
and in their preparation for the national examinations.
Denise dealt with the situation of teaching her science subject under the revised junior
college curriculum by delivering structured and concise lessons with an emphasis of
highlighting the key concepts. This was a new initiative designed by her with the main
intention of helping her students in their content mastery and in their preparation for the
national examinations. Rooted in the teacher-centred manner of teaching, she made
further adjustments to her lesson delivery according to the actual classroom situation.
On her own initiative, she studied the methods used by her colleagues in the teaching of
chemistry and refined these methods for her teaching needs. Based on her classroom
interaction with her students, she believed the measures adopted had helped the students
in their learning of chemistry and, in particular, towards preparing the students for the
national examinations.
A STORYLINE ON HOW THE RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS DEALT

WITH THE TEACHING OF THEIR SCIENCE SUBJECTS UNDER THE 2006
REVISED JUNIOR COLLEGE CURRICULUM
This section now offers to readers a storyline to bridge the gap between the
considerations outlined so far in this chapter and the presentation of the developed
171
science under 2006 revised junior college curriculum in the next chapter.
The
storyline is an abstraction of what has been constructed through careful and grounded
analysis of the data (Birks et al., 2009, p.408). The storyline is constructed with the
intent of making the developed theory visible to readers (Birks et al., 2009, p.407).
This technique of providing a storyline before presenting the developed theory to
readers was also adopted by Reilly (2007).
The science teachers depicted in the vignettes dealt with the teaching of their science
subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum in three stages. The first
stage was the individual recognition of hindrances by the science teachers towards
achieving the aims of teaching the revised science curriculum. The revised science
curriculum was viewed as flawed by all the science teachers, principally because the
curriculum was perceived to be more challenging, as compared to the former science
curriculum, towards achieving the desired academic results in the national examinations.
Specific hindrances with regards to teaching their science subjects were identified and
prioritised as issues to be dealt with according to personal and professional
understandings of the participants.
The hindrances that were identified included
insufficient time to finish teaching the prescribed syllabus, a lack of relevant teaching
materials, uncertainty concerning the appropriate scope of instruction for assessment
purposes, the need to prepare students for the new assessment criteria, and the limited
ability of students to cope with the intellectual demands of the new curriculum. There
was also the perception that the addition of new content in the curriculum challenged
the adequacy of professional knowledge to deliver the revised curriculum.
172
The second stage of teaching science under the revised junior college curriculum was
adopting measures to improve the situation of teaching and learning the science subjects.
The study participants individually came up with measures that they perceived would be
useful in overcoming the hindrances that they had identified.
These measures
included acquiring new subject matter content knowledge, consolidating curriculum

materials and adapting pedagogic practices to classroom needs. To help their students
develop the content knowledge for assessment purposes, the participants were found to
have followed the traditional approaches of classroom teaching such as familiarisation
of the trend of examination questions and memorisation of model answers to
examination questions.
Among the participants of the study, there were science
teachers who advocated progressive pedagogical approaches and welcomed the

opportunity presented through the revised science curriculum to implement studentcentred activities. Although this group of science teachers had integrated progressive
pedagogic practices in the classrooms, the traditional way of teaching through drill and
practice of past examinations questions remained an important aspect of the teachers
lessons. When past examination questions were not available for teaching a particular
science topic, the participants would design and construct their own examination
questions based on their individual understanding of the examination format. The
intention to develop students holistically was secondary as compared to the primary
concern of helping students achieve good academic grades in the national examinations.
The third stage of teaching science under the revised junior college curriculum was
refining of measures adopted to improve the situation of teaching and learning.
Refinement of measures was deemed necessary by the participants due to changing
classroom contexts. The participants individually assess the efficacy of the measures
173
they had adopted and individually made refinements to these measures to tailor to the
learning needs of the students.
In essence, the course of action taken by the science teachers depicted in the vignettes
with regards to teaching their science subjects under the revised junior college
curriculum was to make the situation of teaching and learning conducive towards
achieving their aim of achieving quality academic results in the national examinations.
Each participant took measures that they perceived to be useful in teaching their subject
content so as to adequately prepare their students for the national examinations. The
individual personal and professional inclination of the participants played a significant
role in the way they dealt with the teaching of their science subjects under the revised
CONCLUSION
This chapter presented vignettes of five science teachers. These five teachers were
selected and presented based on the particular science subject they were teaching, their
years of teaching experience and their gender. Each vignette highlighted the respective
situation of teaching the revised science curriculum from the teachers perspectives, and
the approach which each teacher dealt with that situation in light of his or her
perspectives.
These vignettes, which served as context for theory development
provided an understanding of the situations of teaching the revised science curriculum

from the teachers perspectives, and the manner which each teacher dealt with that
situation of teaching his or her subject. Following these vignettes, a description on the
common thread in teaching the revised curriculum amongst the science teachers was
furnished.
174
It can be noted in the vignettes that while each teacher had individual concerns
regarding the situation of teaching and learning their science subjects under the revised
junior college curriculum and each teacher had responded individually to the situation,
there was a common pattern in the teachers intentions and approaches towards the
teaching of their science subjects. This common pattern formed the core theory on how
Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the
2006 revised junior college curriculum. The next chapter presents this core theory.
175
CHAPTER SIX
THE CORE THEORY:
A THREE-STAGED INDIVIDUALISED AMELIORATION OF THE
SITUATION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING THE SCIENCE
SUBJECTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the core theory that explains how Singapore junior college science
teachers deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college
curriculum. The theory was developed from the analysis of data pertaining to the
perspectives and approaches of all the study participants in teaching their science
subjects under the revised junior college curriculum, including those identified in the
vignettes. With the provision of relevant details and justifications drawn from the study
findings, this chapter unfolds the theory to readers.
This chapter consists of two main sections. The first section presents an overview of the
core theory to acquaint readers with the big picture of the theory.
A further
delineation of the theory is provided in the second section together with a synthesis of
study findings to support the theory construction.
OVERVIEW OF THE CORE THEORY

The core theory developed in this study is that: Singapore junior college science
curriculum by a three-staged individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching
and learning their science subjects. The first stage of the proposed theory is that
Singapore junior science teachers individually recognise a need to ameliorate the
176
situation of teaching and learning their science subjects due to perceived challenges in
achieving their aims of teaching their science subjects. These challenges are issues
relating to the science teachers professional knowledge, teaching time, teaching
resources, and students progress in learning. The second stage of the theory involves
Singapore junior college science teachers individually adopting measures to address the
perceived challenges. This claim stems from the finding that all the participants in this
study individually adopted measures to address the challenges they encountered. To
further tailor the adopted measures to the classroom needs, Singapore junior college
science teachers individually refine the measures adopted to ameliorate the situation of
teaching and learning their science subjects.
Refining the measures adopted to
ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning their science subjects constitutes the
third stage of the theory. In respect to this claim, the study revealed that all the
participants made refinements to the measures they had adopted to ameliorate the
situation of teaching and learning their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum.
A conceptual map of the core theory of a three-staged
individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the science subjects
is shown in Figure 6.1.
177
A Three-Staged Individualised Amelioration of the Situation of

Teaching and Learning the Science Subjects
First Stage
Recognising a need to
ameliorate the situation
of teaching and learning
the science subjects
Based on perceived challenges
pertaining to the teaching and
learning of the science subjects
Second Stage
Adopting measures to
ameliorate the situation of
teaching and learning the
science subjects
Based on perceived effectiveness of
the measures adopted to address the
challenges pertaining to the teaching
and learning of the science subjects
Third Stage
Figure 6.1
Refining the measures

adopted to ameliorate the
situation of teaching and
learning the science
subjects
Conceptual map of the theory developed.
The next section presents a detailed explanation of the theory, together with evidence
drawn from the study to support the construction of the proposed theory.
DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE CORE THEORY

This section is divided into three sub-sections and each sub-section is concerned with
explaining each stage of the theory. The first sub-section presents a conceptualisation
of challenges Singapore junior college science teachers individually perceive when
teaching their science subjects under the new educational framework. The perceived
178
challenges induce the science teachers in recognising a need to ameliorate the situation
of teaching and learning their science subjects. In the second sub-section, it is argued
that on the basis of assessments that are both personally and professionally determined,
Singapore junior college science teachers individually adopt measures to address the
perceived challenges. A conceptualisation of the measures the science teachers adopt is
proposed in this second sub-section. The third sub-section explicates the theoretical
understanding of the third stage of the theory, when refinements are individually made
by Singapore junior college science teachers to the measures they have put into practice.
A conceptualisation of the refinements to adopted measures the science teachers employ
is also proposed in this third sub-section.
First Stage of the Core Theory

Recognising a Need to Ameliorate the Situation of Teaching and Learning the
Science Subjects
Singapore junior college science teachers recognise a need to ameliorate the situation of
teaching and learning their science subjects under the revised curriculum due to
perceived challenges, and these challenges are regarded by the science teachers as
hindrances towards achieving their primary and secondary aims. The primary aim is
preparing students well for the national examinations. This claim is built on the finding
that the priority objective for all the participants in this study was to ready their
students to achieve quality grades in the national examinations. Secondary aim, as
determined from the study, refers to developing in students an appreciation of science.
The theory further asserts that the perceived challenges are rooted in a triangle of issues
which comprises: issues regarding the revised science curriculum structure; issues
179
regarding students learning and development; and issues regarding the ability to teach
the revised science curriculum. This triangle of issues is depicted in Figure 6.2.
Issues
regarding the
revised science
curriculum
structure
Perceived challenges
in teaching the
revised
science
Issues
curriculum
Issues
regarding the
regarding students
ability to teach the
learning and
revised science
development
curriculum
Figure 6.2
Triangle of issues in which the perceived challenges
are rooted.
There is inter-dependency among these issues. For example, issues pertaining to the
structure of the curriculum (issues regarding the revised science curriculum structure)
give rise to specific issues pertaining to how students learn the subject (issues regarding
students learning and development) as well as certain teaching practices (issues
regarding the ability to teach the revised science curriculum). It is hypothesised that
each issue is further surrounded by a triangle of concerns pertaining to the teaching and
learning of the revised science curriculum. A conceptualisation of all possible issues
Singapore junior college science teachers perceive as challenges towards the teaching
and learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum, as derived
from the study findings, is proposed in Figure 6.3.
180
New
assessment
format
Issues regarding the

revised science
curriculum
Coherence of
structure
Reduction in
the revised
curriculum
curriculum
time
structure
Uncertainty
in the scope
of instruction
Perceived challenges in
revised science curriculum
Issues regarding
the ability to teach
the revised
science
Knowledge
Availability
curriculum
base of
of teaching
teachers
resources
181
Figure 6.3
Develop an
appreciation
of the
subject
Foundation
knowledge of
students
Issues regarding
students
learning and
development
Content
mastery
Conceptualisation of all possible issues Singapore junior college science teachers perceive as challenges towards
181
the teaching and learning of their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
The next part of this sub-section provides justification to these theoretical claims
through an analysis on how each issue and concern (as shown in Figure 6.3) was
recognised by the study participants as a challenge to be addressed.
Analysis of Study Findings to Support the Theoretical Claims in the

First Stage of the Core Theory
Issues Regarding the Revised Science Curriculum Structure
In respect to issues regarding the revised science curriculum structure, all the study
participants expressed the need to address the following concerns: new assessment
format; coherency of the revised curriculum structure; and reduction in curriculum time.
These concerns are discussed below.
New Assessment Format

All the participants in the study felt that their students were not trained to handle the
new assessment format which, in comparison with its predecessor, was more heavily
oriented towards examining students abilities to think critically and to analyse abstract
information. Details of the changes made to the assessment format have been presented
in Chapter Two. In essence, a higher percentage of examination marks was allocated to
handling, applying and evaluating information.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, all the participants were given a copy of a
sample examination question paper which reflected the changes made to the
examination format under the new revisions, and all the participants based their
understanding of the new examination format on this sample examination question
paper. Examples of typical concerns of the participants regarding the new assessment
format are as follows:
182
now more questions are asked not from just one topic but
across different topics, and the questions are synoptic and
very case study based (sic). (Nancy, biology teacher)
For the new assessment criteria, the questions are now being
asked in a more open-ended way, more thinkingbasedsometimes you do not know what is the correct
answer (sic). (Diane, physics teacher)
The synoptic questions troubled the participants because they had to prepare their
students a new set of skills to answer such questions which demanded the ability to
synthesise concepts across topics rather than just mere application of facts and
formulae. An example of a qualitative synoptic question provided by a participant is
given in Figure 6.4.
In physics, we know that every force is an interaction between two objects.

Thus, forces always come in pairs and they all obey Newtons 3rd Law.
Also, during the interaction, the principle of conservation of momentum is
observed. In the following examples, describe briefly how the law and the
principle are observed.
(a) A tennis ball is released from rest, falls vertically to the floor and
bounces back again.
(b) An alpha-particle travels from a great distance directly towards a gold
nucleus, which can be assumed to be stationary. The alpha-particle
returns along the same path without penetrating the nucleus.
Figure 6.4
Example of a qualitative synoptic question.
The participants were strongly of the view that because of their educational histories,
experience and practice, the students would have difficulties in answering these
synoptic questions. The students as perceived by the participants were still much
183
rooted in rote-learning. Terms like unable to apply concepts in different situations,

and dont like unfamiliar things were used by the participants to further describe their
perspectives on the learning modes of their students.
All the participants felt professionally obligated to train their students to answer such
questions in the examinations.
As highlighted in Chapter Three, teaching for
examinations is an entrenched culture in Singapore schools and preparing students for

examinations is regarded by many teachers as an important aspect of their work. The
participants held similar views in this regard.
Coherence of the Revised Curriculum Structure

The participants generally believed that the new revisions had resulted in an incoherent
curriculum content structure and that subject content was not well integrated to form the
complete syllabus. As a consequence, the participants reported that they were not able
to teach strictly to the prescribed guidelines provided by the Ministry of Education of
Singapore. In order to teach effectively to the students for their content mastery, the
participants felt they needed to change the sequence of topics. This view was shared
across the various teaching areas. The participants also believed that new topics
introduced by the revised curriculum often required knowledge of topics that were not
present in the curriculum. They therefore felt that it was their professional duty to
augment syllabus material.
The following comment exemplifies the participants
thinking on this matter:

even though it is only one topic, it requires quite a
significant amount of understanding of other topics which
are not in the syllabusyou need to teach those topics to
enhance students understanding. (Melissa, biology teacher)
184
Terms like poor sequencing of topics, vague guidelines, unclear outcomes, and not
well thought through were applied in descriptions of the revised curriculum structure.
Reduction in Curriculum Time

Of concern to all participants in this study was reduced curriculum time for teaching. In
order to accommodate the increase in the number of subjects for students to study under
the new revisions, the school had reduced the lesson time allocated for teaching the
H2 science subjects. All the participants who taught these subjects experienced what
was described as a shortage of time to teach students the prescribed syllabus and to
sufficiently prepare students for the national examinations. The participants
complained they did not have enough time to have students understand a topic or
appreciate a subject, nor could the participants engage in deep discussions of themes
with their students. Typical of the view, Margaret, a physics teacher remarked we cant
engage the students intellectually due to the shortage of teaching time.
The sense of having to rush the syllabus also meant that participants felt they could not
afford (more) time to practice student-centred learning.
Issues Regarding Students Learning and Development

The three key issues pertaining to students learning and development that were
perceived by the study participants as challenges to be addressed were: foundation
knowledge of students; content mastery; and develop an appreciation of the subject.
These issues are discussed below.
185
Foundation Knowledge of Students

The students were expected by all the participants to have mastered a set of science
concepts in their former secondary schools. This set of concepts formed the prerequisite foundation knowledge needed for continual education in junior colleges under
the revised curriculum.
The following illustrate typical responses of participants
towards their students foundation knowledge:

When I was teaching the topic on Analytical Chemistry, I
found that the students dont really have the foundation for
understanding the principles behind the Electromagnetic
Spectrums and Analytical Techniques. You have to teach
them the basic concepts first before proceeding to teach the
topic. (Martin, chemistry teacher)
I think it is a simple concept but the students take some time

to understand it. Their foundation knowledge is weak.
(Cindy, physics teacher)
The lack of foundational concepts caused interruption to the flow of lesson delivery,
as explained by the following participant:
I assume that they know certain concepts butwhen I
actually proceed, say, halfway through the lesson and then
they tell me that Oh actually, teacher, we have not learn
this (sic). So I actually have to go back and start all over
again. (Diane, physics teacher)
The lack of foundation knowledge was observed in the science major students as well as
the arts major students who were studying the science subjects as contrasting subjects.
A common concern among the study participants who taught science to the arts major
students under the revised curriculum is provided below:
186
As they [arts major students] do not have a science

background, they cannot present the concepts correctly to
the examiners. They may be penalised especially in the
qualitative kind of questions. (Bert, physics teacher)
The participants were thus challenged to bridge the gap between their students
existing knowledge in science and the academic rigour demanded under the new
revisions.
Content Mastery
As mentioned in the previous chapter as well as in Chapter Two, new topics which
informed on recent activity in science research and development were included in the
revised science curriculum. While most of the participants recognised the advantages of
informing students on the latest trends in the field of science research, they felt that
these new topics were beyond the intellectual ability and mental maturity of their
students as these new science topics, such as Diversity and Evolution and Quantum
Physics, were meant for university students and should not be included for study at
junior colleges. The participants generally felt their students were not able to appreciate
such topics, that the topics were too tough for their students, and that from the
students viewpoint, the topics were just something very difficult which they have to
memorise.
In response, all the participants saw a need to adapt their teaching methods to help
their students in the learning of the advanced topics which were to be assessed in the
national examinations.
187
Develop an Appreciation of the Subject

While assisting their students to achieve good academic results in the national
examinations was the primary teaching and learning goal for the participants, there was
also some desire to promote an appreciation of science in the students.
The
development of appreciation in the science subject the students were studying was a
secondary aim among the participants.
This aim was termed secondary as the
participants do not regard this concern as highly important towards preparing students
for the national examinations. For example, Sophie, a participant who had taught
chemistry for more than 20 years, remarked I had students who did not like nor
appreciate chemistry, but they still went on to score distinctions in the exams.
Nonetheless, the participants still hoped that their students would find the subject
relevant in their lives and be able to explain the scientific phenomena around them.
Issues Regarding the Ability to Teach the Revised Science Curriculum

The issues pertaining to the ability to teach the revised science curriculum effectively
that were perceived to be challenges by the participants were: uncertainty in the scope
of instruction; availability of teaching resources; and knowledge base of teachers.
Discussion on these issues is provided below.
Uncertainty in the Scope of Instruction

Faced with a new set of assessment criteria and new teaching content, the participants
expressed uncertainty about the breadth and depth of instruction required in teaching
the revised science curriculum, especially in respect to preparing students for
examinations. What follows are examples of typical questions raised by participants in
regards to the scope of instruction:
for this syllabus requirement, to what extent do we have to teach to
188
satisfy this syllabus requirement how much depth, or what kind of

questions will come out for this particular syllabus requirement (sic)?
(Diane, physics teacher)
With regards to the new format of the exam paper, there are far fewer
Paper 3 questions and this Paper 3 is called Application Paper.
And in this Application Paper, there are 3 structured questions and 1
essay question. And this Application Paper is totally new topics
which happened to be university level topics. And nobody knows what
sort of questions can possibly be asked. (Jane, biology teacher)
Examples of these new topics highlighted by the above-mentioned participant (Jane)

were Organisation and Control of Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Genomes and Isolating,
Cloning and Sequencing DNA.
The affected participants felt a need to clear their uncertainties on the scope of
instruction in order to teach their subjects well to their students and sufficiently prepare
them for the national examinations. They wanted to be sure that they had taught
everything that will be examined.
Availability of Teaching Resources

In terms of resources, all the participants were used to relying heavily on past
examination questions to prepare students for the national examinations.
These
questions were used specifically for routine tests and for tutorial discussions. The
participants recognised that this important resource of past examination questions would
not be available until well after the first round of examinations under the new revisions
had been conducted. The participants thus faced the challenge of finding relevant
questions in preparing tests and tutorials, an especially difficult task in relation to new
topics. A commonly expressed concern among the participants was that without past
189
years examination papers questions, they could not help their students see patterns in
the examination questions.
Knowledge Base of Teachers

Participants who taught the H3 science subjects generally felt that they did not possess
sufficient content knowledge to teach these subjects. As mentioned earlier, the H3
subjects were intended for advanced study. The following illustrates the common
challenge faced by this group of participants towards the teaching of these advanced
subjects:
In the H3 syllabus, there are some topics which I also dont know. I did
not even study these topics when I was in university. There is a need to
improve on content knowledge, otherwise we will not be able to teach
in class. (Cindy, physics teacher)
The following remark by a veteran teacher who participated in this study is presented to
illustrate that participants with many years of teaching experience also felt inadequate
academically to teach the H3 science subjects:
For H3, it has been tough in the preparation of lessons due to lack of
content knowledge. There is a need to improve knowledge base so as
to better deliver the lessons. (Sophie, chemistry teacher)
The participants were thus challenged on their content knowledge to effectively teach
these subjects to their students and to engage the students intellectually.
The measures Singapore junior college science teachers adopt to address the perceived
problems with the revised curriculum are discussed in the next sub-section.
190
Second Stage of the Core Theory

Adopting Measures to Ameliorate the Situation of Teaching and Learning the
Science Subjects
By adopting measures to address the perceived shortfalls in the teaching of science
under the new educational framework, Singapore junior college science teachers hope to
improve the situation of teaching and learning their science subjects in order to achieve
their primary aim of helping students excel in the national examinations. The measures
the science teachers adopt to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning are based
on their individual orientation and understanding of the classroom situation. As derived
from the findings in the study, the measures the science teachers put into practice can be
conceptualised into three facets. The three facets are: knowledge expansion; resource
consolidation; and pedagogical adaptation. Table 6.1 further lists the key assertions
maintained in the theory with regards to these three facets of measures.
Table 6.1
Key Assertions Maintained with regards to the Three Facets of Measures.
Facet of Measures
Key Assertions Maintained With Regards to Each Facet
Knowledge
Knowledge expansion is a measure the science teachers adopt to
Expansion
address the issues pertaining to uncertainty in the scope of

instruction, and knowledge base of teachers.
The science teachers expand their knowledge through three
avenues: consulting reference books; learning from fellow
colleagues; and attending in-service courses.
191
Table 6.1
(Continued)
Resource
Resource consolidation is a measure the science teachers adopt to
Consolidation
address the issues regarding availability of teaching resources,

and coherency of the revised curriculum structure.
The science teachers consolidate resources through three ways:
active referral and utilisation of materials from university-based
textbooks and internet portals for teaching content and planning
instructional activities; compilation of questions for routine
tests and tutorials; and re-fitting and re-assembling of the
syllabus topics into a coherent set of curriculum content.
Pedagogical
Pedagogical adaptation is a measure the science teachers adopt to
Adaptation
address the issues surrounding new assessment format,

reduction in curriculum time, foundation knowledge of
students, content mastery, and develop an appreciation of the
subject.
Pedagogical adaptation results in the science teachers adopting a
variety of teaching methods.
The adopted teaching methods follow four pedagogical domains
which in turn establish four quadrants of pedagogical practices.
The next part of this sub-section provides evidence drawn from the study findings to
justify the theoretical assertions listed in Table 6.1.
192

Second Stage of the Core Theory
Knowledge Expansion
Consulting Reference Books
All the participants consulted reference books to expand their knowledge on the various
topics they were assigned to teach in the revised curriculum. This was especially the
case for teachers who were assigned to teach the H3 subjects. As mentioned before,
these subjects were meant for advanced study. Examples of books referred to by the
study participants are listed in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2
Examples of Books Referred to by the Study Participants.
Science
Books Referred To by the Study Participants
Subject
Physics
Fundamental of Physics by Resnick, Halliday and Walker.

Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by
Serway.
Physics: Principles with applications by Giancoli.
Chemistry
Chemistry for Advanced Level by Cann and Hughes.

A Level Chemistry by Ramsden.
Understanding Chemistry for Advanced Level by Lister and
Renshaw.
Biology
Biology by Campbell and Reece.

Biology: concepts and connections by Campbell and Reece.
Advanced Biology, principles and applications by Clegg and
MacKean.
193
The following remark by a participant is presented to illustrate that it was an extensive

task in reading these reference books to acquire the content knowledge for teaching the
H3 subjects:
I need to refer to so many textbooks and I need to read up a lot,
otherwise I dont know what to teach in class. Reading these books
really takes up a lot of my time. (Sophie, chemistry teacher)
Learning from Fellow Colleagues

A common approach adopted by participants who were unclear about teaching the
revised curriculum was to consult with more experienced teachers. Another form of
learning from fellow colleagues adopted by a few participants was lesson
observation. Figure 6.5 provides an illustration of the process of learning through
lesson observations as documented in a participants Teachers Record Book.
Activities for Term 1 Week 4 (Year 2007)

Monday
Observed Mr Ngs (pseudonym) class - 04/07
Noted: His use of conceptual questions in teaching
Kinematics
Observed Mr Yips (pseudonym) class - 32/07
Noted: His method of explaining Energy Levels
Activities for Term 1 Week 6 (Year 2007)

Tuesday
Observed Ms Ngs (pseudonym) lessons
Noted: Her way of solving Dynamics questions
Figure 6.5
Documentation of lesson observations by a study
participant in her Teachers Record Book.
194
Participants who engaged in lesson observation of fellow colleagues shared a common

conviction that they had to make adaptations to the teaching knowledge learnt from
such observations. The main reason for doing so is provided below:
You cannot follow exactly how the other teachers teach. The dynamics
and background of each class is different. You have to assess and
adjust accordingly what you observed from other teachers. I have
observed teachers using the Expert-Home group learning method.
But I dont think I can use that for my weak classes. There are no
experts in these classes. But I can apply the facilitative skills used by
the other teachers in my teaching. (Marianne, chemistry teacher)
Attending In-Service Courses

The participants generally regarded attending in-service courses as an important
measure towards expanding their knowledge in teaching the revised curriculum, as
illustrated by the following remark:
the first level of things that I will do will be to obviously go for the
in-service courses, H2 and H3 courses, which will give me some idea,
to some extent, on teaching the new syllabus (sic).
(Diane, physics
teacher)
Figure 6.6 shows an example, provided by another participant, of a teaching idea

learnt from an in-service course.
195
The Covalent Bond

Revised 12/01/06
PROCEDURES
The flow chart for this experiment should be a basic outline indicating the topics
that will be covered. A formal write-up with procedures is not required for this
experiment. The experiment title and your name are required at the top of each lab
notebook page with the sketches. You may wish to bring a USB memory stick
with you to save your computer files.
Part A: H s Energy Curves
2
Total Energy Curves

1. Double click on the HYD icon to launch the program.
2. On the red menu bar, double click DETAILED.
3. On the green menu bar, double click
TYPE and then ENERGY.
EXPONENT and then Optimised.
START.
4. Create 1 plot containing the white curves from the 3 plots shown. These are the
energy curves for the CI Ground state. Be sure to label the curves potential,
kinetic, and total. Record the value of R where the arrow () appears.
Figure 6.6
Example of a teaching idea learnt by a study participant from an in-
service course.
These in-service courses, which were jointly taught by the Ministry personnel and
Singapore universities academic staff, provided participants the foundational content
knowledge to discharge their teaching duties. All the participants in this study attended
these courses during the first year of implementation of the revised junior college
curriculum.
Resource Consolidation
Active Referral and Utilisation of Materials from University-Based Textbooks and
Internet Portals for Teaching Content and Planning Instructional Activities
Unable to find ready-made resources to teach their subjects due to curriculum changes,
the participants resorted to consolidate their own teaching materials. The following
196
suggests the typical resources consolidated by the participants with regards to teaching
their science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum:
I will find pictures and diagrams from books and even applets
from the internet to help the students understand the abstract concepts I
am teaching. These diagrams and applets help the students to
visualise the concepts. (Margaret, physics teacher)
Examples of a diagram and an applet used by the above-mentioned participant

(Margaret) for teaching Solid State Physics (a topic newly added to the Science
curriculum) are shown in Figure 6.7a and Figure 6.7b respectively.
Figure 6.7a
Example of a diagram used by a study
participant.
197
Figure 6.7b
Example of a computer applet used by a study participant.
One participant even went to the extent of purchasing with her own funds universitybased textbooks to consolidate the necessary resources for teaching her science subject.
Compilation of Questions for Routine Tests and Tutorials

As discussed, examination questions on the revised curriculum were unavailable until
after the examinations had been conducted. To address the issue of preparing questions
for routine tests and tutorials, the majority of the participants relied on textbooks and
internet portals for the compilation of questions. Examples of such questions prepared
by a participant for a test on the topic of Genetics of Bacteria and Viruses are
provided in Figure 6.8.
198
GENETICS OF BACTERIA & VIRUSES

MULTIPLE- CHOICE QUESTIONS
1. Small circular DNA molecules that are capable of self replication are called
A.
introns
B.
exons
C.
plasmids
D.
transposable elements
(
2. The Ellis-Delbrck experiment demonstrates

A.
the presence of a latent period in bacteriophage reproduction
B.
the presence of an eclipse period in bacteriophage reproduction
C.
that most bactetrial mutatnts are auxotrophic mutants
D.
that wild-type bacteria rarely mutate to auxotrophy
E.
that bacteriophages can lysogenize bacteria
(
3. Plasmids generally code for genetic traits that are

A.
not essential for the survival of the species
B.
essential for the survival of the species
C.
also present in the chromosome
D.
mostly involved in imparting resistance to heavy metals
E.
involved in conjugation
4. If two populations of bacteria cultured in a U-shaped tube are separated by a

membrane filter (which does not allow phage particles to pass), but recombination
takes place anyway, the mechanism of genetic exchange is
A.
specialised transduction
B.
site-specific recombination
C.
conjugation
D.
transformation
E.
generalised transduction
(
)
5. The process (discovered in 1928 by F. Griffith) by which a bacterium acquires new
genes by taking parts of a "naked" DNA molecule from its surroundings is called
A.
transformation
B.
transduction
C.
absorption
D.
conjugation
(
)
6. When a bacteriophage, in its lytic phase, carries some of the bacterium's partially
digested chromosome with it to another host cell, the process is called
A.
ingestion
B.
transduction
C.
transformation
D.
conjugation
(
)
Figure 6.8
Example of test questions prepared by a participant for the topic on
Genetics of Bacteria and Viruses.
199
Figure 6.9 further provides an example of a tutorial question prepared by a participant

on the topic of Chemical Energetics.
Q14
(a)
(b)
Define the term standard enthalpy change of combustion.

An experiment was carried out as follows to determine the standard
enthalpy change of combustion of butane contained in the gas cylinder of
a camping gas stove.
A large beaker of water was placed on the stove and heated. The
temperature rise was recorded. The cylinder was weighed before and after
the experiments to determine the mass of gas used. The following results
were obtained.
Mass of butane used = 3.4 g
mass of water heated = 500 g
temperature rise
= 44 o C
(i)
Write a balanced equation for the combustion of butane.
(ii)
State one precaution you should observe when carrying out an experiment
such as this one in order to gain accurate results.
(iii)
Use the data given to calculate the enthalpy change of combustion of

butane. [Assume the heat capacity of water = 4.2 J K1 cm3.]
(iv)
The standard enthalpy change of combustion of butane is 2877 kJ mol1.

Suggest an explanation for the difference between this and your value in
(iii).
(c)(i)
Use the bond energies given in the Data Booklet to calculate another value
for the standard enthalpy change of combustion of butane.
[Use a value of 805 kJ mol1 for the bond energy of C=O in CO2.]
(ii)
Suggest a reason for the discrepancy between this value and that quoted in
(b)(iv).
Figure 6.9
Example of a tutorial question prepared by a participant for the topic
on Chemical Energetics.
200
The compilation of resources was regarded by the participants as an important aspect of

their work.
A Teaching Resource Team was set up specifically to compile
examination questions for teachers use. The function of this team was to develop
teaching and learning resources through compiling the schools past years examination
question papers and solutions, other schools examination question papers and solutions,
as well as the national examination papers and the examiners reports. Three of the
study participants were members of this team.
Re-Fitting and Re-Assembling of Syllabus Topics into a Coherent Set of Curriculum

Content
The process of re-fitting and re-assembling of the syllabus topics was based on the
participants prior experiences in teaching their subjects as well as their individual
understanding of the actual classroom situation.
A typical reflection on how this
process of re-fitting and re-assembling occurred is offered below:

I do not follow the content sequence laid down by the MOE [Ministry
of Education of Singapore]. I just plan according to what I think will
help the students in their understanding. It also depends on the
students. You can skip certain parts if they know the content, but for
the weaker students you have to teach more, sometimes you have to
teach what is not in the syllabus to help them understand. (Sophie,
chemistry teacher)
Figure 6.10 further provides an example of re-fitting and re-assembling of content by

a participant for the topic on Superposition.
201
Topic: Superposition
Re-Fitting and Re-Assembling of
Content Sequence by a Study
Participant
Content Sequence as
Recommended
by the Ministry of Education
Stationary waves
Diffraction
Interference
Two-source interference patterns
Diffraction grating
Figure 6.10
Stationary waves
Determination of frequency &
wavelength
Interference
Two-source interference patterns
Diffraction
Diffraction grating
Example of re-fitting and re-assembling of content
sequence by a study participant.
While the participants had individual ways of re-fitting and re-assembling the
syllabus topics, the main goal was to teach the topics in a sequence that made more
sense to the students. In addition, all the participants made sure that they had covered
all topics stipulated in the curriculum objectives.
Pedagogical Adaptation
All the participants teaching the revised science curriculum employed pedagogical
adaptation, with innovations varying across the participant group. Table 6.3 below
provides examples of pedagogical adaptation adopted by participants in teaching their
science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
202
Table 6.3
Examples of Pedagogical Adaptation by Study Participants.
Participant
Examples of Pedagogical Adaptation
Jane
Use of National Geographic videos
Michael
Use of self-designed thinking questions
Margaret
Use of ICT tools
Martin
Facilitative teaching
Denise
Emphasis of main points during tutorials
Diane
Student-led presentation of tutorial answers
Nancy
Collaborative learning
Marianne
Teacher-led discussion
Melissa
Use of Mind-maps
Sophie
Teacher-led discussion
Cindy
Socratic questioning
Bert
Demonstration of concepts
The selection of teaching methods and adapted practices were based on participants
personal and professional orientations as well as on their judgment of the levels and
adequacy of background educational knowledge of their students. The adapted teaching
practices of the study participants can be further conceptualised into four pedagogical
domains, namely, Teacher-directed; Student-directed; Knowledge-Transmitter; and
Knowledge-Sythesiser. The attributes and examples of each of these four domains, as
demonstrated by the participants, are shown in Table 6.4.
203
Table 6.4
Attributes and Examples in Each of the Four Domains of Pedagogical Practice.
Pedagogical
Attributes
Examples
Teacher-
Participant played a
Participant personally demonstrated an
directed
central role during
experiment to illustrate concepts in
lessons.
front of the students.
Student-
Students played an active
Students designed their own mark
directed
role in their learning.
schemes and graded their own work.
Knowledge-
Participant integrated
Participant conducted demonstrations,
Synthesiser
different platforms of
posed thinking questions or utilised
learning in lessons with
ICT tools during lessons to enthuse,
the ultimate aim of
motivate, and enhance students
building content
thinking skills and content mastery.
Domain
knowledge.
Knowledge-
Participant was only
Participant explained and provided full
Transmitter
interested in transferring
solutions to tutorial questions in a
content knowledge to
drill and practice fashion.
students.
Extrapolating from the study, these four domains, in turn, can be viewed as established
four quadrants of pedagogical practices, as shown in Figure 6.11.
204
KnowledgeTransmitter
Teacherdirected
Studentdirected
KnowledgeSynthesiser
Figure 6.11
The four quadrants of pedagogical practices.
The Knowledge-Transmitter and Knowledge-Synthesiser formed a bi-polar pair

reflecting the role of the participant, while the Teacher-directed and Student-directed
domains formed another bi-polar pair denoting the nature of the teaching activities
conducted by the participants.
The teaching practices of all the participants were found to be distributed within these
four quadrants. For example, there was a participant who personally demonstrated an
experiment to his students and simultaneously posed thinking questions to them before
explaining the underlying concepts.
practices
located
in
the
This participant demonstrated pedagogical
Knowledge-Synthesiser-Teacher-directed
quadrant.
Similarly, participants who assigned students to draft summaries or draw mind-maps

on the concepts learnt after the participants had delivered the lessons exhibited
pedagogical practices situated in the Knowledge-Transmitter-Student-directed
quadrant.
205
Third Stage of the Core Theory

Refining the Measures Adopted to Ameliorate the Situation of Teaching and
Learning the Science Subjects
To further tailor to their classroom needs, Singapore junior college science teachers are
likely to make refinements to the measures they adopted to ameliorate the situation of
teaching and learning their science subjects. Decisions about refinements are also based
on the science teachers individual understanding of the effectiveness of the particular
measures they have adopted. It is further hypothesised that refining of measures is
addressed in the following three ways: filling up gaps in the knowledge and materials
obtained from the course of knowledge expansion; modifying and filtering teaching
materials obtained through resource consolidation; and pedagogical re-adaptation within
the four quadrants of pedagogical practices.
The following sub-section presents
evidence drawn from the study that sustains these theoretical claims.

Third Stage of the Core Theory
Filling Up Gaps in the Knowledge and Materials Obtained from the Course of
Knowledge Expansion
The participants who had attended the in-service courses were not totally satisfied with
what they had gathered at the courses. For example, one participant, Bert, commented
that the teaching notes he received from the courses were sketchy and he had to patch
up with additional information before he could use these notes for lesson delivery. An
extract of the sketchy notes as mentioned by the above participant (Bert) is shown in
Figure 6.12.
206
TOPIC: PHOTONICS
INTRODUCTION
Even though it is an area of rapid technological advance, this section can be explained
almost exclusively using classical physics. The key to getting to grips with this material is
being able to understand what happens to light when it encounters the boundary between
two media; light can be reflected, absorbed, transmitted or polarised. First of all, if
transmission of light involves a change of speed, it will be refracted.
REFRACTION
Refraction describes the change in direction of waves as they change speed, which has
implications for subjects like seismology as well as accounting for everyday observations.
For example, pools of water appear shallower than they really are while fish and other
objects look as if they are closer to the surface. Mirages are also caused by refraction.
People sometimes believe they are seeing small distant pools of water on a hot tarmac
road. The air just above a road heated by the sun is hot and less dense. Sunlight is refracted
away from the normal so that the blue light from the sky looks to an observer as if it is
coming out of the road. We interpret this as blue sky reflected by puddles in the road. See
figure below.
Figure 6.12
Extract of sketchy notes mentioned by a study participant.
While attending in-service courses was a measure adopted by all the participants to
ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning the science subjects, they felt that the
teaching materials as well as the knowledge acquired were not sufficient or good
enough to teach effectively to their students. They had to fill up the necessary gaps to
the deficient knowledge areas and resources. The participants filled up these gaps,
again, by consulting and making reference to textbooks and internet portals.
207
Modifying and Filtering Teaching Materials Obtained Through Resource

Consolidation
To ensure that the students were not leaning things not required in the syllabus, the
lesson materials the participants consolidated from reference books and internet portals
went through a process of modification and filtration. This was because most of
these resources were meant for educators in the universities and thus the participants
could not mass copy the information, which were to be used as tutorial or practice
questions, from these resources. Modification and filtration of information was
therefore necessary so that these consolidated materials were, in the words of the
participants, at the correct level of study. An example of a modified question from a
university textbook provided by a study participant has been shown in the previous
chapter.
Thus, as the study participants referred to textbooks used in university courses for
teaching the content of their subjects, they also had to carefully select the information
they required, and to translate that information to the level of comprehension suitable
for their students and to the examinations needs.
Pedagogical Re-adaptation within the Four Quadrants of Pedagogical Practices

Most of the study participants experienced a need to re-adapt their pedagogical practices
when teaching their science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum. The
following provides an example of pedagogical re-adaptation by a participant:
I have a class who is very rowdy. When I tried to deliver teachercentred way of teaching for the difficult topics, it couldnt work. I
cannot get the students to focus. So I get them to discuss in groups and
I find that they are able to focus better. Therefore I will use this way of
teaching for that particular class. (Bert, physics teacher)
208
The participants re-adapted their classroom teaching by moving towards or away from a
particular domain of practice, either within a quadrant or across quadrants of
pedagogical practices (the four quadrants shown in Figure 6.11). Figure 6.13 provides a
schematic diagram on the process of pedagogical re-adaptation by moving within or
across pedagogical practices as demonstrated by the study participants.
Teacherdirected
Pedagogical
Re-adaptation
Studentdirected
Figure 6.13
Re-adaptation of teaching practices by moving within a
particular quadrant or across quadrants of pedagogical practices.
The practices of the participant (Bert) illustrate an example of pedagogical re-adaptation

across quadrants. This participant switched from a Teacher-directed to a Studentdirected way of teaching when he perceived that the former approach did not work well
for him and his students.
209
There were also participants who re-adapted their classroom teaching within the same
quadrant of pedagogical practice. An example of such a participant was Denise, a
Chemistry teacher. She described her initial teaching method as follows:
I just go through the answers. Then, if possible develop the concepts
using other questionsI just teach them the concepts to apply to
answer the questions (sic). (Denise, chemistry teacher)
Her initial teaching methods were located in the Knowledge-Transmitter-Teacherdirected quadrant of pedagogical practice. She noticed that her students were still
having difficulties in remembering the concepts taught.
She then re-adapted her
teaching methods, with measures which she described as follows:

The additional things I do now in tutorials are: analysing the tutorial
questions with the students and telling them the main points they must
grasp. I keep emphasising the main points they must know so that they
can remember the concepts better. (Denise, chemistry teacher)
In the example above, the re-adapted teaching method was still located in the same
quadrant of pedagogical practice of Knowledge-Transmitter-Teacher-directed. In
essence, the approach towards pedagogical re-adaptations was determined by individual
teaching experience and understanding of the classroom situation.
CONCLUSION
This chapter presented the core theory that explains how Singapore junior college
science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum. Singapore junior college science teachers do so through a threestaged individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the science
subjects under the revised junior college curriculum. The three stages in the theory are:
recognising a need to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning the science
210
subjects; adopting measures to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning the
science subjects; and refining the measures adopted to ameliorate the situation of
teaching and learning the science subjects. The recognition of the need to ameliorate
teaching and learning is a result of perceived challenges by the science teachers when
teaching their science subjects under the new revisions. The challenges are rooted in a
triangle of issues, and each issue is surrounded by a triangle of concerns pertaining to
teaching and learning. In order to achieve the aims of teaching their science subjects,
the science teachers take measures to address these perceived challenges.
The measures the science teachers adopt can be conceptualised into the following three
facets: knowledge expansion; resource consolidation; and pedagogical adaptation. The
science teachers further refine these adopted measures to meet their classroom needs. It
is also hypothesised that refinements to adopted measures are accomplished in the
following three ways: filling up gaps in the knowledge and materials obtained from
the course of knowledge expansion; modifying and filtering teaching materials obtained
through resource consolidation; and pedagogical re-adaptation. The science teachers
individual teaching experience and understanding of the classroom situation greatly
influence the way they deal with the teaching of science under the revised junior
college curriculum.
Notwithstanding the individuality in the science teachers
concerning all the three stages in the amelioration of the situation of teaching and
learning the science subjects, the concerns and actions of the science teachers can be
conceptualised, thus illuminating the idiosyncrasies of Singapore junior college science
teachers.
211
CHAPTER SEVEN
SUBSIDIARY PROPOSITIONS TO THE CORE THEORY
INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter provided the core theory that explains how Singapore junior
college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised
This chapter presents to readers a set of propositions
subsidiary to the core theory. These propositions are termed subsidiary as their
purpose is to flesh out in the theory the finer details concerning the teaching of science.
While the core theory elucidates the overarching abstract process on the teaching of
science, the subsidiary propositions explicate how the science teachers deal with
specific issues that are intricately connected with delivering their science subjects under
the revised junior college curriculum.
propositions are grounded in data.
As with the core theory, these subsidiary
The organisation of the core theory and the
subsidiary propositions are illustrated in Figure 7.1.
212
Provides an overarching
abstract theory on the
teaching of science under
the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum
Theory of a three-staged
individualised amelioration
of the situation of teaching
and learning the science
subjects
Subsidiary Propositions
First stage
Second stage
Third stage
213
Figure 7.1
ameliorate the
situation of teaching
and learning the
science subjects
ameliorate the
situation of teaching
and learning the
science subjects

adopted to ameliorate
the situation of
teaching and learning
the science subjects
Explains how the science

teachers deal with specific
issues related to teaching
their science subjects under
the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum
Subsidiary
Proposition One
Subsidiary
Proposition Two
Subsidiary
Proposition Five
Subsidiary
Proposition Three
Subsidiary
Proposition Four
Organisation of the core theory and the subsidiary propositions.
213
Five subsidiary propositions are presented in this chapter. The subsidiary propositions
are numerically labelled for the purpose of providing a structured order of discussion
and presentation.
Subsidiary Proposition One states the Singapore junior college
science teachers main intention with regards to teaching their science subjects under
the new revisions. Subsidiary Proposition Two identifies the pedagogical practices of
the science teachers while Subsidiary Proposition Three postulates how the science
teachers handle the issue of professional knowledge. The reflective processes of the
science teachers are asserted in Subsidiary Proposition Four. Subsidiary Proposition
Five posits a particular educational paradigm within which teaching and learning of
science under the revised junior college curriculum transpire.
THE SUBSIDIARY PROPOSITIONS

Subsidiary Proposition One
Subsidiary Proposition One states that: contrary to the emphasis on holistic
development of students by the initiatives underpinning the 2006 revised junior college
curriculum, the science teachers, when delivering their science subjects, focus
primarily on teaching students for examinations and developing students content
knowledge as well as recitational content knowledge. As highlighted in Chapter Two,
the 2006 revised junior college curriculum is a new educational framework
implemented in all Singapore junior colleges to pursue the vision of Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation. Underpinning the revised curriculum are initiatives, such as Teach
Less, Learn More and Innovation and Enterprise, that are designed to promote the
holistic development of junior college students. From the evidence provided by the
theory developed in this study, it is clear that Singapore junior college science teachers,
despite the initiatives emphasis on the use of progressive pedagogies in classrooms,
214
continue to orient the teaching and learning of science to performance in tests and
examinations.
As illustrated in Figure 7.2, eight of the nine issues the science teachers highlight in the
first stage of individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the
science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum involve preparing students
sufficiently for the national examinations.
Uncertainty
in the scope
of instruction
Coherency of
the revised
curriculum
structure
Sufficient
preparation of
students for
national
examinations
Knowledge
base of
teachers
Availability
of teaching
resources
New
assessment
format
Reduction in
curriculum
time
Content
mastery
Foundation
knowledge of
students
Figure 7.2
The eight concerns that relate to preparing students sufficiently
for national examinations.
Moreover, in direct contrast to the approaches emphasised by the initiatives

underpinning the revised junior college curriculum, Singapore junior college science
215
teachers teach to achieve recitational content knowledge, described by Glasgow and

Hicks, (2003, pp.5657) as the ability to recite facts on demand, to recognise correct
answers on multiple-choice tests, to define terms correctly, and to be good test takers.
There is a growing concern that Singapore students lack the skills to handle ambiguity
and think and speak on their feet (The Straits Times, 2006). Such skills cannot be
acquired if the sole purpose of education in schools is academic attainment. A number
of reasons can be used to explain Singapore junior college science teachers continual
practice of teaching for examinations. These reasons are discussed below.
The science teachers common perspective is that the main goal of a junior college
education is to gain admission into universities. This perspective mirrors the realities of
students educational priorities, as the most popular educational aspiration of Singapore
students is to finish university (Tan, C, 2005a, p.448). As explained in Chapter Two,
junior colleges offer the most direct path towards university education. The science
teachers, thus, feel personally and professionally obliged to concentrate their efforts on
helping their students qualify for universities. The admission requirements to the three
local universities in Singapore, namely, National University of Singapore, Nanyang
Technological University, and Singapore Management University, are largely based on
examination grades.
In such an educational climate of high-stakes assessment,
Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to be encouraged to focus on

teaching for examinations. Findings that support such an argument have been reported
by a number of researchers including Au (2007), Valli and Buese, (2007) and Fishman
and Krajcik (2003).
Another likely reason for the science teachers emphasis on teaching for examinations
has to do with the societal notion of success. Examination results are still being used as
216
the main yardstick by Singapore society to measure success in students, teachers as well
as schools. Furthermore, messages on the importance of examinations are still being
sent out to teachers.
The former Minister for Education of Singapore, Tharman
Shanmugaratnam, has remarked that examinations are an anchor to the meritocratic

system of education in Singapore (Ng, 2007, p.243).
Brilliant youths are those who score lots of As and distinctions in the national
examinations (Ng, 2005, p.46). A study by local researcher Ng Pak Tee (Ng, 2004) on
students perception of change in the Singapore education system reveals that the
students are also obsessed with achieving good examination results. Thus, the science
teachers are likely to be influenced by the cultural environment, students educational
priorities and government pronouncements on the importance of examinations. These
factor undermine the science teachers efforts to teach less in order for the students to
learn more.
Furthermore, the banding system under which Singapore schools operate imposes
pressure to achieve high examination results. This system, known as the School
Achievement Tables groups schools based on the average aggregate of their students
academic performance in the national examinations.
Competition between junior
colleges in terms of academic ranking and examination results is very intense as

schools still need to compete with one another to get into, or remain in, the desired
[academic] band (Tan, C, 2006a, p.93).
Singapore junior college science teachers are therefore under a lot of pressure to deliver
quality examinations results. As mentioned in Chapter Five, each teacher participant in
this study was given an academic target in respect of examination grades, and each
217
teacher was expected to achieve value-addedness in the subjects that they were
teaching. Working in such a climate of academic competitiveness, the science teachers
are likely to focus on teaching for the purpose of excelling in examinations. The most
reliable method of teaching for examinations is by way of repetitive practice of model
examination questions that the teachers compile. Students who have excelled in the
national examinations have been reported to have undergone repetitive rounds of mock
examinations prepared by teachers (Tan, C, 2006a; Tan, J, 2005). Therefore, it is
unlikely that the Singapore junior college science teachers will discontinue this proven
method of drilling students. On the contrary, in dealing with the teaching of their
science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum, the science teachers are
likely to organise more rounds of tests and mock examinations to train and familiarise
students for the changes in the subject content and examination format.
Subsidiary Proposition Two

Subsidiary Proposition Two states that: the pedagogical practices of Singapore junior
college science teachers in teaching their science subjects are rooted in the ExpertFormal Authoritative instructional approach, and this approach is externally imposed
rather than intrinsically motivated. As explained in the previous chapter, Pedagogical
Adaptation is one of the key measures the science teachers employ in the second stage
of individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the science
subjects in order to achieve the aims the science teachers have.
Pedagogical
Adaptation further results in establishing four quadrants of pedagogical practices, with

each quadrant associating with a particular approach of teaching the science subjects.
These four quadrants of pedagogical practices are, however, built on the Expert-Formal
Authoritative instructional approach (Grasha, 2002, 1996), as illustrated in Figure 7.3.
That is to say, the teaching practices of Singapore junior college science teachers
218
operate in an environment whereby the teachers hold the authority on what to learn and
how to learn.
219
Teacherdirected
Studentdirected
Four Quadrants of Pedagogical Practices
Expert-Formal Authoritative Instructional Approach
Figure 7.3
The four quadrants of pedagogical practices operating on an Expert-Formal Authoritative
instructional approach.
219
220
The Expert-Formal Authoritative is an instructional approach in which the teacher

assumes the role of an expert knowledge dispenser and maintains a standardised way
of students knowledge acquisition in the classroom. A description of the ExpertFormal Authoritative instructional approach and the parallelism between this approach
and that of the science teachers classroom practices is further provided in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1
The Expert-Formal Authoritative Instructional Approach and Singapore Junior
College Science Teachers Classroom Practices.
Expert-Formal Authoritative
Singapore Junior College Science
Teaching Approach
Teachers Teaching Approach
Teacher possesses knowledge and
Teacher is the undisputed dispenser
expertise students need.
of knowledge which the students

assimilate.
Emphasises on comprehension of
Emphasises on developing students
concepts.
content knowledge in accordance to

examination requirements.
Gives detailed and succinct answers
Provides detailed solutions to tutorial
to assigned tasks.
and past examinations questions.
Maintains a standardised way of
Maintains a specific way of answering
completing assigned tasks.
examination questions (so as to meet

examiners expectations).
Sets clear goals and objectives.
Sets specific academic targets which

are measured by a quantitative
indicator called value-addedness.
Source: Grasha (2002, 1996)
As mentioned in the previous chapter, in the second stage of individualised amelioration

of the situation of teaching and learning the science subjects, the science teachers
221
organise various platforms of classroom activities to meet the learning needs of their
students.
These learning activities which include the use of ICT, mind-maps and
conceptual questions are conducted in the Expert-Formal Authoritative approach, as

the science teachers are still the main dispensers of knowledge and information. Even
in student-directed learning activities (which can be regarded as pedagogical practices
operating in the Knowledge Synthesiser-Student-directed quadrant) such as students
designing their own mark schemes, the science teachers continue to play a pivotal role
in the process of knowledge acquisition. This phenomenon recalls Schuhs (2004)
observation of learner-centred practices being embedded within a teacher-centred
environment.
Roehrig, Kruse and Kern (2007) have classified teachers as Traditional and Inquiry.
Singapore junior college science teachers can also be similarly classified. There are
science teachers who prefer an inquiring way of teaching such as using mind-maps,
games and computer applets in lessons. Nonetheless, on the basis of the evidence
provided by the theory developed in this study and taking into account the pressure to
teach to tests and examinations that has been described earlier in this chapter, it is
reasonable to suggest that these Inquiry science teachers are likely to anchor their
teaching in training students on the correct way to answer examination questions
through routine tests and practice of past examination questions. Regardless of their
intrinsic epistemological orientation, it is highly probable that the Singapore junior
college science teachers will typically consolidate the teaching of their science subjects
by reference to past examination questions and the examiners reports on these
examination papers. Personal epistemological beliefs, according to researchers such as
Roehrig, Kruse and Kern (2007) as well as Smith and Southerland (2007), exert a great
influence on teachers pedagogical choices. These internally constructed beliefs are so
222
powerful that they are able to override the externally imposed aspects of contexts in
shaping pedagogical choices (Smith & Southerland, 2007, p.418). The converse of the
aforementioned statement by Smith and Southerland (2007) holds in the case of
Singapore junior college science teachers: the science teachers adapt their practices
according to contextual situations, and these contextual situations can override the
science teachers preferred choice of pedagogical practice.
Four specific situations are responsible for the use of the Expert-Formal Authoritative
instructional approach in the teaching of science in Singapore junior colleges. These
situations are identified in Figure 7.4.
Time
constraints in
delivering the
prescribed
content
Perceived
students
learning style
ExpertFormal
Authoritative
instructional
approach
High-stakes
unilateral
national
examinations
Demanding
curriculum
Figure 7.4
Four specific situations that promote the use of the Expert-
Formal Authoritative instructional approach.

instructional approach
223
Facing a time constraint to finish delivering the prescribed syllabus, Singapore junior
college science teachers are unlikely to adopt student-centred learning activities which
take up a substantial amount of classroom time (Borich, 2007; Bolhuis & Voeten, 2004).
Furthermore, student-centred practices may not be as effective as teacher-centred
practices in helping students understand the difficult topics introduced to the curriculum.
The Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional approach allows teachers to synthesise
difficult topics into easily digested capsules (Glasgow, 1997, p.32), thus promoting the
development of foundation knowledge in students (Grasha, 2002). As reported in this
study, the students were perceived by the study participants to have difficulties in
understanding the advanced topics added to the revised science curriculum. The
responsibility to help students excel in examinations, which represent the sole gateway
to a university education places, pressure on the science teachers to maintain a teachercontrolled learning environment for lesson delivery. As pointed out by local researcher
Kevin Tan (2006), innovations in teaching and learning have to be accompanied by
appropriate assessment tools. Clearly, Singapore junior college science teachers are not
comfortable with students acquiring knowledge on their own. Another local researcher,
Ng Pak Tee (2007), highlights that it is paradoxical to expect teachers to truly embrace
the spirit of Innovation and Enterprise (one of the new educational initiatives
underpinning the 2006 revised junior college curriculum) when the teachers are
pressured to deliver quality examination results. Other researchers such as Au (2007),
as well as Valli and Buese (2007) have similarly reported teachers using an ExpertFormal Authoritative instructional approach when dealing with the aforementioned
teaching situations.
Singapore junior college science teachers are capable of orchestrating enlightened

educational practices (Ayres, Sawyer & Dinham, 2004, p.161) when teaching their
224
science subjects under the revised curriculum. For example, Socratic questioning
techniques have been used by teachers in their lesson delivery (Contact The Teachers
Digest Issue 02, July 2006). These are cases of teachers operating in the Knowledge
Synthesiser-Student-directed quadrant. However, these practices are likely to be
gravitated towards helping students achieve quality results in the examinations.
Furthermore, the teaching and learning activities that associate with these practices are
likely to reside in the Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional environment.
Subsidiary Proposition Three

Subsidiary Proposition Three states that: Singapore junior college science teachers take
measures to build their craft knowledge to teach the revised science curriculum
effectively, and this knowledge is made up of two other bodies of knowledge, namely
subject matter content knowledge and examination matter content knowledge. Like
many other teachers involved in educational change (Chen, 2008; Niess, 2005;
Windschitl, 2002; Keys & Bryan, 2001), Singapore junior college science teachers
recognise a need to acquire and develop a new set of craft knowledge in order to
implement the initiatives underpinning the revised curriculum. Calderhead (1996, p.717)
defines craft knowledge specifically to the knowledge that teachers acquire within their
own classroom practice and the knowledge that enables teachers to employ the
strategies, tactics, and routines that they do. Van Driel, Verloop and de Vos (1998,
p.674), further posit that craft knowledge is an amalgamation of teachers prior
education and ongoing school activities, and is strongly influenced by the teachers
background and the context of their working environment.
This position is also
supported by other researchers, such as Watson and Manning (2008) as well as Childs
and McNicholl (2007).
225
The craft knowledge Singapore junior college science teachers regard as essential to
delivering their science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum, as
represented in Figure 7.5, comprises two bodies of knowledge, namely, the subject
matter content knowledge and the examination matter content knowledge.
The
former refers to the conceptual knowledge of the science subjects the teachers are
teaching, while the latter is concerned with the format and types of questions that are
likely to be asked in the national examinations as well as the way to answer these
questions to examiners expectations.
Craft knowledge to teach science

under the revised curriculum
Subject matter content

knowledge
Figure 7.5
Examination matter content

knowledge
Components of the craft knowledge needed to teach science
under the revised curriculum.
While subject matter content knowledge has an explicit definition residing in the
literature of educational research (Salloum & BouJaoude, 2008), the term examination
matter content knowledge is hardly used by scholars of education, although this body
of knowledge has been identified as a concern for teachers in some studies. For
example, Pringle and Martin (2005, p.353) report that because the teachers are
unaware of the test format, they expressed feelings of helplessness in preparing their
students for the unknown task, and many teachers expressed frustration with not
226
knowing the levels and the areas of science content knowledge on the test. Such
concerns relate to the teachers examination matter content knowledge.
A good
knowledge in the subject matter and examination matter is perceived by the

Singapore junior college science teachers as essential towards developing students
content knowledge and recitational content knowledge the knowledge necessary to
excel in the national examinations. A schematic diagram of this perspective is provided
in Figure 7.6.
Teachers
Craft knowledge to teach science

under the revised curriculum
Subject matter content

knowledge
Examination matter content

knowledge
To develop
Content knowledge
Students
Figure 7.6
Recitational content
knowledge
Knowledge to excel in national

examinations
Knowledge requirements by teachers and students
(as perceived by the science teachers).

227
Teachers have been reported to resist change (Day, Flores & Viana, 2007; Flores; 2005;
Booyse & Swanepoel, 2004). Singapore junior college science teachers, however, take
an active role to acquire the aforementioned craft knowledge to teach their science
subjects under the new revisions. Knowledge Expansion (in the second stage of
individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the science subjects)
is the specific measure the science teachers employ to develop and acquire their subject
matter content knowledge and examination matter content knowledge. Such attitude
is perhaps a response to the imperative need to achieve good academic results in their
students. Scholars of education, too, maintain the importance of teachers possessing
strong subject content knowledge. However, the scholars basis for teachers having this
body of knowledge differs from that of the Singapore junior college science teachers, as
they (the scholars) maintain that teachers with deep subject content knowledge are then
likely to orchestrate student-centred learning activities for meaningful learning in
classrooms (Glasgow & Hicks, 2003).
Singapore junior college science teachers
pursuit of subject matter content knowledge and examination matter content

knowledge, on the other hand, serve to enhance their instructional effectiveness which
they correlate specifically to the ability to develop students content knowledge and
recitational content knowledge for examination purposes.
Moreover, in a study to measure the alignment between content standard and

standardised tests, Liu et al. (2009) found that there is a misalignment between the
assessment objectives and curriculum objectives in the learning of science in Singapore.
This is likely to result in teachers teaching beyond the syllabus requirements, and such
ambition certainly demands teachers to be proficient in their subject matter content
knowledge and examination matter content knowledge.
228
Researchers, such as Peers, Diezmann and Watters (2003) as well as Schneider and
Krajcik (2002) have identified content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
pedagogical content knowledge as the essential components of teachers craft
knowledge. The science teachers in Singapore junior colleges, however, are not likely
to place emphasis in developing their pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge despite the call to adopt progressive pedagogies in the classrooms. This
deviation in perspectives between the science teachers and the educational researchers
can perhaps be attributed to different teaching environments.
While the science teachers generally acquire the new subject matter content
knowledge through in-service courses as well as by learning from departmental
colleagues, they attain examination matter content knowledge through an analysis of
the sample examination question paper, past examination questions papers and
examiners report.
Even though the science teachers have not seen the actual
examination question paper based on the new format, they still have to teach to the
examination. The reason for this has already been provided in Subsidiary Proposition
One. The science teachers teach to the examinations according to their understanding
of the new assessment requirements and they base this understanding primarily on the
sample examination question paper they received from the Ministry of Education of
Singapore. It is most likely that the science teachers will use the actual examination
question papers on the revised curriculum and the examiners report (both of which they
will receive after the first round of examinations) to enhance their examination matter
content knowledge and strengthen their practice in teaching for examination.
229
Subsidiary Proposition Four

Subsidiary Proposition Four states that: Singapore junior college science teachers
individually evaluate the measures they have adopted to ameliorate the situation of
teaching and learning the science subjects to ensure effectiveness towards developing
students content knowledge and recitational content knowledge, and this selfevaluation eventuates in a refinement of the measures in response to actual classroom
contexts. The way of delivering their science subjects under the 2006 revised junior
college curriculum by Singapore junior college science teachers, in general, follows
similar traits to the implementation models developed by Collet, Menlo and Rosenblatt
(2004); Barab and Luehmann (2003); and Spillane, Reiser and Reimer (2002).
details of these models have been described in Chapter Three.
The
Table 7.2 below
highlights the commonalities between the theoretical propositions developed by the

aforementioned researchers and the way Singapore junior college science teachers
deliver their science subjects under the new revisions.
Table 7.2
Similarities Between the Theoretical Propositions Developed by Other Researchers and
the Way of Delivering their Science Subjects by Singapore Junior College Science
Teachers.
Theoretical Propositions Developed
Way of Delivering their Science
by Other Researchers
Subjects by Singapore Junior College

Science Teachers
The implementation of new
The science teachers assess and respond
educational initiatives by teachers
to the situation of teaching their science
occurs in stages.
subject in stages.
Source: Collet, Menlo &Rosenblatt

(2004)
230
Table 7.2
(Continued)
Theoretical Propositions Developed
Way of Delivering their Science
by Other Researchers
Subjects by Singapore Junior College

Science Teachers
The implementation experience is an
The science teachers adapt their
amalgamation of teachers
pedagogical practices according to their
perceptions, designed curriculum and
personal and professional orientation,
classroom culture (which includes
experiences, knowledge, and classroom
resources, classroom norms, external
situations.
classroom pressures, students

background and role of teachers).
Source: Barab &Luehmann (2003)
Teachers actions towards curriculum
The measures the science teachers adopt
implementation result from an
in the second stage of individualised
interaction between their existing
amelioration of the situation of teaching
cognitive structures (which includes
and learning the science subjects are a
beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and
result of the interaction between the
experiences), their understanding of
teachers existing cognitive structures and
the situation, and their interpretations
their understanding and interpretation of
of the new initiatives.
the teaching and learning situation.
Source: Spillane, Reiser & Reimer

(2002)
The interaction mentioned in Table 7.2 transpires in the form of a individual assessment
of teaching effectiveness based on the measures the individual science teachers adopt to
overcome the hindrances to preparing students adequately for the national
examinations. Teaching effectiveness is evaluated in terms of a triangle of components
as depicted in Figure 7.7.
231
Craft
knowledge
Self-evaluation on
teaching effectiveness
based on measures
teachers adopt
Teaching
Resources
Figure 7.7
Teaching
Methods
Triangle of factors in teachers self-assessment of
their teaching effectiveness.
The three concerns shown in Figure 7.7 synchronise to the measures the science
teachers adopt in the second stage of individualised amelioration of teaching and
learning with Craft Knowledge relating to Knowledge Expansion; Teaching
Resources to Resource Consolidation, and Teaching Methods to Pedagogical
Adaptation. Furthermore, as illustrated in Figure 7.8, these concerns correspond to the
conceptualised challenges teachers face when implementing new educational initiatives
as established in the literature reviewed in Chapter Three.
232
Concerns of the science

teachers in regards to
teaching effectively
Challenges teachers face with

regard to implementing
educational initiatives (drawn
from reviewed literature)
Craft
Knowledge
Acquisition and
construction of
new knowledge
Teaching
Methods
Engaging
students
Teaching
Resources
Limited time and

resources
Figure 7.8
Correspondence between the concerns of the science teachers
in regards to teaching effectively and the challenges teachers face when

implementing educational initiatives.
As highlighted by Danielson (cited in Liew, 2005), teachers are always making and
remaking decisions to facilitate teaching and learning in the classrooms in response to
changing situations. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the science teachers would adopt
specific measures (in Stage Two of the theory) and use these measures without any
refinements during the two-year instruction of a cohort of students.
In order to
effectively develop students content knowledge and recitational content knowledge,

refinement of measures is necessary. This is so because to effectively teach the science
subjects under the new revisions, the science teachers are obliged to take into account a
number of factors which include the actual classroom situations, proximity to
examinations as well as the topic that is being taught.
A schematic diagram, shown in Figure 7.9, is provided to illuminate the purpose and
outcome of the process of self-evaluation within the three stages of the theory.
233
Stage One of
the theory
Recognition of hindrances
to preparing students
adequately for national
examinations
Stage Two of
the theory
Take measures to overcome

the hindrances
considering
Factors such as classroom

situations, topic of study,
time of the year, etc
Refinement of measures to
teaching and learning
Self-evaluation on teaching
effectiveness based on these
measures
through
Stage Three of
the theory
through
concerning
Knowledge
Expansion
Resource
Consolidation
Pedagogical
Adaptation
Pedagogical
re-adaptation
Teaching
Methods
Modifying and
filtering teaching
materials
obtained through
resource
consolidation
Filling up gaps
in the knowledge
and materials
obtained from
the course of
knowledge
expansion
Teaching
Resources
Craft
Knowledge
233
Figure 7.9
The purpose and outcome of the process of self-evaluation within the three stages of the theory.
234
Moreover, as explained earlier, there seems to be a misalignment between the

assessment objectives and curriculum objectives in the learning of science. Therefore,
Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to evaluate their teaching
competencies regularly to avoid passing misguided instructions to their students.
Typical examples that showcased the science teachers adopting, reflecting on, as well as
refining the measures to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning their science
subjects have been provided in the previous chapter. It is also important to highlight
that the process of adopting, evaluating and refining measures proceed in an
individualised manner as maintained in the theory. This individualised pattern of
curriculum implementation by teachers is also observed by Drake and Sherin (2006).
They report, in their study, that teachers are constantly engaged in their own distinct
system of reading-evaluating-adapting in lesson preparation and delivery.
Subsidiary Proposition Five

Subsidiary Proposition Five states that: teaching and learning of science under the 2006
revised junior college curriculum transpire in the Realist paradigm of education
punctuated with pockets of Progressivism pedagogies. The first four propositions
have extensively explained the key perspectives of the science teachers and their actions
in light of their perspectives with regards to the teaching of science under the 2006
junior college revised curriculum.
Based on these perspectives and actions, it is
reasonable to posit that teaching and learning of the revised science curriculum transpire
mainly in the Realist paradigm of education. The characteristics of such a paradigm
are provided in Table 7.3.
235
Table 7.3
Characteristics of a Realist Paradigm of Education.
Realist Paradigm of Education
Emphasis on developing students reasoning powers and
cognitive abilities at the expense of other aspects of students
development.
Lesson materials are presented in an orderly and organised
manner, and content is based on facts, reason and practical use.
Clearly defined criteria in subject matter are taught to students,
and students are formally assessed in standardised achievement
tests.
The teacher is an expert in the subject; he or she is skilful in
explaining the contents to the students and in assessing the
students understanding.
Routine tests are used to assess students progress in learning.
Source: Tan, C (2006b, 2006c)
Table 7.1 (presented in Section 7.2.2) has already identified that the Singapore junior
college science teachers adopt the Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional approach
when teaching their science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum.
Figure 7.10 below further amalgamates Tables.7.2 and 7.1, and extrapolates the ExpertFormal Authoritative instructional approach to the Realist educational paradigm.
236
Teaching Approach of the

Science Teachers
The Expert-Formal
Authoritative
Instructional Approach
Teacher is the
undisputed dispenser of
knowledge which the
students assimilate
Teacher possesses
knowledge and
expertise students need
Emphasises on developing
students content
knowledge in accordance to
examination requirements
Emphasises on
comprehension of
concepts
Provides detailed solutions

to tutorial and past
examinations questions
Gives detailed and

succinct answers to
assigned tasks
Maintains a specific way

of answering examination
questions (so as to meet
examiners expectations)
Sets specific academic

targets which are measured
by a quantitative indicator
called value-addedness
236
Figure 7.10
paradigm.
Maintains a
standardised way of
completing assigned
tasks
Sets clear goals and

objectives
Realist Educational
Paradigm
Emphasis on developing
students reasoning powers
and cognitive abilities at the
expense of other aspects of
students development
Lesson materials are presented
in an orderly and organised
manner, and content is based
on facts, reason and practical
use
Clearly defined criteria in
subject matter are taught to
students, and students are
formally assessed in
standardised achievement tests
The teacher is an expert in the
subject; he or she is skilful in
explaining the contents to the
students and in assessing the
d manner, and content is based
students understanding
on facts, reason and practical
use
Routine tests are used to assess
students progress in learning
Extrapolation from the Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional approach to the Realist educational
237
Thus, as clearly shown in Figure 7.10, the individualised amelioration of the situation of
teaching and learning the science subjects involves the use of the Expert-Formal
Authoritative instructional approach, and this approach follows the Realist paradigm
of education.
Notwithstanding the dominancy of a Realist educational paradigm towards the

teaching and learning of science under the revised junior college curriculum, there are
pockets of Progressivism pedagogy being orchestrated by the science teachers in
lesson delivery, albeit confined within the Expert-Formal Authoritative learning
environment. A progressive teacher uses a repertoire of learning activities in lesson
delivery (Tan, C, 2006b, p.34). This repertoire of learning activities the science
teachers use are presented earlier in Chapter Six (in Table 6.5). These activities, located
mainly in the Knowledge-Synthesiser-Student-directed quadrant of pedagogical
practice, include the use of conceptual questions, computer applets, videos and
mind-maps. Thus, it can be surmised that the four quadrants of pedagogical practices
are built on the Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional approach which, in turn, is
established on a Realist educational paradigm punctuated with pockets of
Progressivism pedagogies. Such a pyramidal structure of paradigm, approach, and
practice in the implementation of the revised curriculum is illustrated Figure 7.11. An
integration of the three stages of the core theory and the five subsidiary propositions in
explaining how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of
science under the 2006 junior college revised curriculum is further provided in Figure
7.12.
238
Teacherdirected
Studentdirected
Four quadrants of pedagogical practices
Expert-Formal Authoritative Instructional Approach
Realist Educational Paradigm Punctuated with Pockets of Progressivism Pedagogies
Figure 7.11
238
curriculum.
Pyramidal structure of educational paradigm, approach and practice in the implementation of the 2006 revised junior college
239
Recognition of
hindrances to preparing
students adequately for
national examinations
Stage One
of the theory
Subsidiary
Proposition One
Emphasis on teaching
for examinations
Subsidiary
Proposition Two
Stage Two
of the theory
Take measures to
overcome the
hindrances
Subsidiary
Proposition Three
Subsidiary
Proposition Four
Self-evaluation on
teaching effectiveness
based on these measures
Stage Three
of the theory
Refinement of measures
to ameliorate teaching
and learning
239
Figure 7.12
Adopting a Expert-Formal
Authoritative instructional
approach in response to
contextual situations
Building craft knowledge which is
made up of subject matter content
knowledge and examination
matter content knowledge
Subsidiary
Proposition Five
Transpiration of Realist
educational paradigm
punctuated with pockets of
Progressivism pedagogies
Integral diagram of the three stages of the core theory and the five subsidiary propositions in explaining how Singapore junior
240
college science teachers deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
As explained in Chapter Two, the current educational policy in Singapore adopts a

Pragmatic educational paradigm and such paradigm espouses the use of
Progressivism pedagogies which involves the utilisation of innovative instructional
paradigm in classrooms (Tan, C, 2006b). Although Singapore junior college science
teachers are not likely to fully implement the educational initiatives that underpin the
2006 revised junior college curriculum, there are still instances of innovative
instructional activities (operating in the Knowledge-Synthesiser-Student-directed
quadrant) that follow the ethos of Teach Less, Learn More. The findings of this study,
thus, do not support Kohs (2004, p.338) assertion that the vision of Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation is just a curriculum imagination. The most appropriate conclusion
to make, based on the study findings, is that: the intended educational initiatives (such
as Teach Less, Learn More; Innovation and Enterprise; IT Masterplan) which
underpins the 2006 revised junior college curriculum are partially implemented by the
junior college science teachers in the teaching and learning of the revised science
curriculum, and because of the educational culture in Singapore, the junior college
science teachers continue to focus primarily on helping students achieve quality grades
in the national examinations. Local scholar Jason Tans (2005, p.110) prophecy of the
intended initiatives being adopted in a piecemeal way and being co-opted to suit the
well-entrenched culture of intensive coaching and practice in answering examination
questions has, perhaps, turned out to be accurate in the case of the teaching and
learning of science under the new educational framework in Singapore junior colleges.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has presented five subsidiary propositions. These propositions flesh out in
the core theory the detailed process on how Singapore junior college science teachers
deal with the teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
241
A summary of the five subsidiary propositions presented in this chapter as well as their
association with the respective stages of the core theory is provided in Figure 7.13.
While the core theory presents a macroscopic abstract picture on how Singapore junior
college science teachers deliver their science subjects under the revised junior college
curriculum, the subsidiary propositions furnish a microscopic analysis on the science
teachers perspectives and actions with regards to specific educational issues concerning
the teaching and learning of the science subjects.
The next chapter provides the
conclusion for the thesis.
242
Stages of the Theory

First stage:
science subjects
Subsidiary Propositions
Contrary to the emphasis on holistic development of students by the
initiatives underpinning the 2006 revised junior college curriculum, the
science teachers, when delivering their science subjects, focus primarily on
teaching students for examinations and developing students content
knowledge as well as recitational content knowledge.
Core Theory
Theory of a three-staged
individualised
amelioration of the
learning the science
subjects
Second stage:
science subjects
Third stage:
adopted to ameliorate the
learning the science subjects
The pedagogical practices of Singapore junior college science teachers in

teaching their science subjects are rooted in the Expert-Formal
Authoritative instructional approach, and this approach is externally
imposed rather than intrinsically motivated.
Singapore junior college science teachers take measures to build their craft
knowledge to teach the revised science curriculum effectively, and this
knowledge is made up of two other bodies of knowledge, namely subject
matter content knowledge and examination matter content knowledge.
Singapore junior college science teachers individually evaluate the measures
they have adopted to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning the
science subjects to ensure effectiveness towards developing students
content knowledge and recitational content knowledge, and this selfevaluation eventuates in a refinement of the measures in response to actual
classroom contexts.
Teaching and learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college
curriculum transpire in the Realist paradigm of education punctuated
with pockets of Progressivism pedagogies.
242
Figure 7.13
The core theory, the three stages of the core theory, and the associating subsidiary propositions.
243
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
This concluding chapter is organised in six sections. The first section restates the
purpose of the study as well as outlines the research framework and methodology
employed to achieve this purpose. The second section reiterates the key premises of the
theory generated in the study. Important issues relating to the teaching and learning of
science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum, as identified by the theory,
are also highlighted in this section. Before presenting the theorys contribution for
improving knowledge and practice in education, it is important to communicate clearly
to readers regarding the matter of generalisability of the theory developed. This is done
in the third section of the chapter. The importance of the theory is discussed in terms of
its implications for: bringing about the successful realisation of the Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation vision; improving teaching practice in Singapore junior colleges; and
deepening our understanding of educational change. These implications are examined
in the fourth, fifth and sixth sections respectively.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

There have been reforms in education on an unprecedented scale in many countries
around the world in the last two decades (Bennett, 2003). Singapore has not been
spared from revising its educational policies to compete in a globalised economy. A
new vision for education was unveiled in 1997 to prepare students for the world of work
that is characterised by rapid technical and scientific breakthroughs and
obsolescence of knowledge (Tan, C, 2006a, p.89). This vision, called Thinking
244
Schools, Learning Nation, aims to transform education in Singapore schools from

teacher-centric and textbook-centric to engaged learning and inquiry-oriented
modes of instruction (Tan & Ng, 2005).
To support the realisation of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision, a revised
curriculum was implemented in all Singapore junior colleges with effect from January
2006. There is a general sentiment that junior college students are not being adequately
prepared for the knowledge-intensive economy. The 2006 revised junior college
curriculum, therefore, hopes to inculcate creativity, independent learning and analytical
thinking in the students through the use of progressive pedagogies in the classrooms
(Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2005a).
This study focused on the teaching and learning of science under the new educational
framework in Singapore junior colleges as science education has always been regarded
by Singapore government leaders as instrumental to the economic development of the
nation (Lui, 2006). Science education will continue to play an important role in the next
two decades as Singapore aspires to be an international hub for the research and
development of Biomedical Engineering and Biomedical Sciences, Environmental
and Water Technologies, and Interactive and Digital Media (Masagos, 2007).
Following the revisions, Singapore junior college science teachers are expected to put in
practice initiatives such as Teach Less, Learn More as well as Innovation and
Enterprise. These initiatives favour the use of progressive pedagogical approaches
over the traditional ways of teaching and learning science.
The realisation of the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision in junior colleges, in
essence, entails a re-culturing from an examination-oriented education to one driven
245
by passion for learning. As reported in many empirical studies, to effect successful

educational change, it is imperative that the world of the people most closely involved
in the implementation [that is, the teachers] must be understood (ODonoghue, 2007,
p.63). However, despite much deliberations among local and international researchers
(see, for example, Tan & Ng, 2005; Koh, 2004) on the new educational paradigm in
Singapore junior colleges, no theory on the teachers perspectives and practices
concerning the implementation of initiatives underpinning the Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation was asserted prior to this study. Without theoretical understanding of
the realities under which the teachers work, any attempts to understand and help
teachers implement educational initiatives effectively can only be described as inert
and sterile (Nolan & Meister, 2000, p.223). In light of these considerations, this study
was undertaken to generate substantive theory on how Singapore junior college science
teachers deal with the teaching and learning of their science subjects under the new
educational framework.
The central research question that guided theory development was: how do Singapore
junior college science teachers deal with the teaching and learning of their science
subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum? This study, commenced in
October 2007, utilised the research paradigm of interpretivism. The social theory of
symbolic interactionism was further anchored as the theoretical position of the study.
Grounded theory research methods were employed to answer the central research
question.
Sources of data included qualitative semi-structured interviews, lesson
observations, and documents comprising teachers record books, official records as well
as ministerial releases. The aforementioned research design and strategy was adopted
as this framework best addressed the research aim.
246
KEY PREMISES OF THE THEORY GENERATED

The theory generated was that: Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the
teaching of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum through a threestaged individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the science
subjects. This theory is grounded on the finding that all the study participants perceived
challenges in teaching the revised junior college science curriculum, and addressed
these challenges as their individual personal and professional judgment deemed suitable.
Thus, Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to orient the delivery of the
revised science curriculum in accordance to how they individually perceive the
hindrances in the teaching and learning situation, and how they individually assess the
efficacy of the measures they put in practice to overcome these hindrances so as to
sufficiently prepare their students for the national examinations.
Five subsidiary
propositions were also developed to explain within the theory the finer details
concerning how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching and
learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum.
The theory explains that Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to follow
three sequential stages when teaching their science subjects under the new revisions.
The first stage is that Singapore junior science teachers individually recognise a need to
ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning their science subjects due to perceived
challenges in achieving the aims of the science teachers. The theory further identifies
these challenges as:
preparing students for the new assessment format;
incoherency in the structure of the revised curriculum;
reduction in curriculum time;
weak foundational science knowledge in students;
247
developing content mastery in students;
enhancing subject appreciation in students;
uncertainty in the breadth and depth of instruction;
unavailability of relevant curriculum resources for teaching the new science content
and familiarising students on the new examination format; and
insufficient content knowledge by the science teachers to teach the revised science
curriculum effectively.
Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to regard these challenges as
hindrances towards achieving their primary aim of preparing students sufficiently for
the national examinations. The theory, therefore, identifies a deviation in intentions and
priorities between the policy makers and the junior college science teachers. The
following subsidiary proposition was asserted to illuminate this deviation: Contrary to
the emphasis on holistic development of students by the initiatives underpinning the
2006 revised junior college curriculum, the science teachers, when delivering their
science subjects, focus primarily on teaching students for examinations and developing
students content knowledge as well as recitational content knowledge. The following
reasons were provided to explain why achieving excellent examination results remains
the top priority of Singapore junior college science teachers. First, the science teachers
believe that all junior college students hope to further their studies in universities and
good examination results are essential in realising this goal.
Second, the science
teachers are professionally expected to deliver quality academic results. As presented in

Chapter Five, all the study participants were assessed by the school leaders in terms of
the value-addedness the participants achieved in the science subjects they taught.
248
Singapore junior college science teachers endeavour to overcome the hindrances

towards achieving their primary aim of acquiring quality results in the national
examinations by individually adopting measures to improve the situation of teaching
and learning.
This phenomenon of Singapore junior college science teachers
individually adopting measures to ameliorate the situation of teaching and learning the
science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum constitutes the
second stage of the theory. The theory further identifies the measures Singapore junior
college science teachers put in practice as: Knowledge Expansion; Resource
Consolidation; and Pedagogical Adaptation.
The science teachers expand their knowledge mainly through: consulting reference
books; learning from fellow colleagues; and attending in-service courses. Most of the
reference books the science teachers refer to are university-based textbooks.
The
science teachers consolidate teaching and learning resources through the following three
ways: active referral and utilisation of materials from university-based textbooks and
internet portals for teaching content and planning instructional activities; compilation of
practice questions from past examination papers and examiners reports for routine
tests and tutorials; and re-fitting and re-assembling of the syllabus topics into a
coherent set of curriculum content.
In addition, the science teachers adapt their
pedagogical practices in order to teach the revised science curriculum effectively to

their students. These adapted classroom practices can be described in terms of the roles
the junior college science teachers assume and the approaches they use to teach their
science subjects. The science teachers assume the role of a Knowledge-Transmitter or
Knowledge-Synthesiser in the classrooms, and deliver the science lessons in a
teacher-directed or student-directed manner. These four descriptors further establish
four quadrants of pedagogical practices which map the typical classroom practices of
249
Singapore junior college science teachers in the teaching and learning of the revised
science curriculum.
The theory also identifies that, notwithstanding the variation in classroom activities
during the teaching and learning of the revised science curriculum, Singapore junior
college science teachers are likely to anchor their pedagogical practices on a specific
instructional approach. The following subsidiary proposition was developed to further
explain this assertion: The pedagogical practices of Singapore junior college science
teachers in teaching their science subjects are rooted in the Expert-Formal
Authoritative instructional approach, and this approach is externally imposed rather
than intrinsically motivated. A number of reasons were further provided to explain why
the science teachers establish their teaching on the Expert-Formal Authoritative
approach. First, this approach is less time consuming and hence facilitates the delivery
of a demanding curriculum within a tight teaching schedule. Second, this approach is
perceived by the science teachers to be more effective, as compared to inquiry-based
learning, in helping the students master the content knowledge required for
assessments. Although the Expert-Formal Authoritative instructional approach may
not be the preferred pedagogical choice of Singapore junior college science teachers, it
is likely to be the common approach the science teachers would use as it offers the most
practical way to teach the science subjects under the revised junior college curriculum
based on the reasons provided above.
The theory developed in this study thus
highlights the complications the junior college science teachers experience when
teaching the revised science curriculum.
These complications include insufficient
curriculum time and a demanding curriculum.
250
The theory also identifies Singapore junior college science teachers perceived need to
acquire a new set of craft knowledge to teach the revised science curriculum due to
changes in the curriculum content and examination format. The following subsidiary
proposition was generated to further elucidate this issue: Singapore junior college
science teachers take measures to build their craft knowledge to teach the revised
science curriculum effectively, and this knowledge is made up of two other bodies of
knowledge, namely subject matter content knowledge and examination matter content
knowledge. Subject matter content knowledge refers to the conceptual knowledge of
the science subjects the science teachers are teaching, while examination matter content
knowledge concerns the type of questions that are likely to be asked in the national
examinations as well as the skills to answer these questions to examiners expectations.
The science teachers regard these two bodies of knowledge as essential to develop their
students content knowledge and recitational content knowledge. Furthermore, the
science teachers are likely to acquire the subject matter content knowledge by
attending in-service courses as well as conferring with departmental colleagues.
Examination matter content knowledge is mainly developed through an analysis of the
sample examination question paper, past examination question papers as well as
examiners report.
The third stage of the theory involves Singapore junior college science teachers
individually refining the measures they have adopted to ameliorate the situation of
teaching and learning the science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college
curriculum. The theory further identifies that refining of measures is accomplished
through: filling up gaps in the knowledge and materials obtained from the course of
knowledge expansion; modifying and filtering teaching materials obtained through
resource consolidation; and pedagogical re-adaptation within the four quadrants of
251
pedagogical practices. The following subsidiary proposition was developed to explain

further the processes leading to this refinement of measures: Singapore junior college
science teachers individually evaluate the measures they have adopted to ameliorate the
situation of teaching and learning the science subjects to ensure effectiveness towards
developing students content knowledge and recitational content knowledge, and this
self-evaluation eventuates in a refinement of the measures in response to actual
classroom contexts. Refining of measures is necessary so as to deal with changing
teaching contexts. For example, the science teachers need to improve the resources
they obtain from in-service courses to meet the learning needs of their students. They
also need to ensure that the lesson materials they acquire from print and on-line
resources are pegged at the level expected from the national examinations. The
science teachers are required to further adapt their classroom practices according to the
perceived difficulty of the topic that they are teaching. Proximity to the national
examinations is also a major consideration for the science teachers when re-adapting
their teaching practices. The theory thus illuminates the complexities of the classroom
situation Singapore junior college science teachers have to deal with when
implementing the revised science curriculum.
The theory also identifies a partial implementation of the initiatives that underpin the
revised science curriculum by Singapore junior college science teachers. The following
subsidiary proposition was developed to elucidate this phenomenon: Teaching and
learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum transpire in the
Realist paradigm of education punctuated with pockets of Progressivism
pedagogies. As mentioned earlier, Singapore junior college science teachers teach their
science subjects under the new revisions mainly through the Expert-Formal
Authoritative approach.
This approach is founded on the Realist educational
252
paradigm. However, there are also instances of the science teachers orchestrating
innovative instructional activities that follow the ethos of Teach Less, Learn More and
Innovation and Enterprise. Progressivism elements of teaching, such as mind-maps
and computer applets, are likely to be used only sporadically by the science teachers to
supplement the didactical delivery of the science lessons.
In essence, the theory developed in this study highlights the strong emphasis on
achieving quality examination results by the science teachers when teaching their
science subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum. The theory further
asserts that this emphasis is due to the importance of quality examination results to both
the junior college science teachers and students.
In addition, factors such as lack of
curriculum time and demanding curriculum content impede the science teachers efforts
to promote an inquiry-oriented approach of teaching. The theory also explains that the
science teachers do find opportunities to infuse student-centred learning in classrooms
and this practice eventuates in a partial implementation of the initiatives underpinning
the revised science curriculum.
THE MATTER OF GENERALISABILITY OF THE THEORY GENERATED

It is not possible to claim generalisability for the theory generated in the same sense as
understood by quantitative researchers. However, this is not to argue that the theory
developed in this study has no generalisability. In this regard, Strauss and Corbin (1994)
provide the following explanation:
Insofar as theory that is developed through this methodology is able to
specify consequences and their related conditions, the theorist can
claim predictability for it, in the limited sense that if elsewhere
approximately similar conditions obtain, then approximately similar
consequences should follow. (p.278)
253
Thus, it is possible that the various component elements of the theory generated can be
of application and relevance to primary and secondary schools in Singapore.
The vision of Thinking Schools, Learning Nation affects Singapore teachers at all
levels, and educational initiatives were also introduced in primary and secondary
schools. One such initiative was the introduction of Advanced Elective Modules in
selected secondary schools in 2006 (Ministry of Education of Singapore, 2009b). The
theory generated in this study, therefore, has the potential to explain how Singapore
primary school and secondary school teachers deal with the implementation of these
educational initiatives intended to support the vision of Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation.
The theory is presented in accordance to Lincoln and Gubas (1985) concept of

transferability. They maintain that unlike researchers who operate in the positivist
tradition and who are concerned with ensuring external validity, those operating in the
interpretivist paradigm cannot specify the external validity of their research.
Transferability judgments are made by readers of interpretivist studies and it is the duty
of the researcher to provide thick descriptions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.316) for
such judgments to occur.
Thus, the presentation of the theory generated is both
conceptually dense and heavily interlaced with evidence from study findings. Strauss
and Corbin (1990) also cite theoretical density as an essential criterion to judge the
adequacy of a substantive theory inductively developed from empirical data.
The theory of a three-staged individualised amelioration of teaching and learning can be

viewed as generalisable in the sense that readers may relate to the theory and perhaps
acquire an understanding of their own or others situation. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
254
refer to this phenomenon as reader or user generalisability. Singapore junior college

science teachers, other than the research participants, should be able to transfer the
theory developed in this study to their own teaching situations, using the theory to
compare and contrast their circumstances, perspectives and practices with those of the
research participants, clarifying their own understanding of their own situation, and
using such understanding as a basis to begin to think intelligently about how they
deal with the teaching of the revised science curriculum. Thus, the theory offers a
common language for junior college science teachers in Singapore to communicate
regarding their perspectives and practices under the new revisions.
IMPLICATIONS OF THEORY GENERATED FOR REALISING THE

THINKING SCHOOLS, LEARNING NATION VISION IN SINGAPORE
JUNIOR COLLEGES
According to Strauss and Corbin (1994), substantive theory which is grounded in the
actions and interactions of individuals can assist policy makers in understanding and
reviewing the outcomes of the implementation of educational initiatives. The theory
developed in this study has the potential to inform policymakers on the current
educational landscape in Singapore junior colleges especially in regards to the pursuit of
the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision. The theory, in particular, identifies
that the current educational system in Singapore junior colleges is contradictory, in
three aspects, to the successful realisation of this vision. These aspects are discussed
below.
Importance of Examination Results

Teaching and learning of the revised science curriculum is still primarily driven by the
desire to excel in the national examinations. The previous chapter has already provided
255
the reasons for this imperative need. Thus, as highlighted by the theory developed in
this study, initiatives such as Teach Less, Learn More and Innovation and Enterprise
which underpin the new educational framework in Singapore junior colleges are
difficult to be realised if examination grades continue to serve as the sole determinant of
both the teachers and students capabilities. As Ng (2004, p.89) contends, regardless
what the rhetoric may be about creativity (and innovation), to the teachers and
students, mugging for examinations will still bear more material fruits than
spending time on exploratory work, since at the end of the day, it is the examination
that counts.
The theory developed in this study reinforces local educators (for example, Tan & Ng,
2005) call for more efforts and attention to be channelled towards broadening the
definition of success in education. Non-academic talents, as Charlene Tan (2005a,
2005b) argues, should be respected and valued. Therefore, a recommendation for
Singapore policy makers would be to expand local universities admission criteria to also
include junior college students non-academic achievements.
Assessment Method
Currently, students in Singapore junior colleges are formally assess by a unilateral
written examination system. In addition, the examination is episodic, which means
that the examination is performed on a single occasion and in a controlled
environment (Tan, K, 2006, p.118). As explained in the theory developed in this study,
such traditional examination system induces Singapore junior college science teachers
to orient their teaching by training students, through routine tests, for the examinations.
Rennie, Goodrum and Hackling (2001, p.493) also posit that traditional assessment
leads teacher to teach traditionally.
Thus, the current examination system is a
256
significant barrier to the adoption of student-centred and inquiry-oriented instructional

approaches in the teaching and learning of science in Singapore junior colleges.
Therefore, policy makers could consider alternative forms of assessments.
Local
researcher Kelvin Tan (2006) have proposed the use of extended assessment, that is,
assessing students over an extended period of time.
An example of an extended
assessment is students portfolios. According to Tan and co-workers (2003, p.463),

portfolio assessment is a form of authentic assessment in which systematically
compiled collections of student work are reviewed by teachers and compared to a
present criterion. Portfolio assessment involves students self-assessing their own
work and such involvement has the potential to develop the attributes desired by the
new educational paradigm in Singapore (Tan, K, 2006).
Curriculum Content
The theory developed in this study also identifies that heavy and demanding curriculum
content discourages Singapore junior college science teachers from adopting inquiryoriented instructional approaches. Under the new revisions, the science teachers need to
teach three sets of syllabus, as compared to one under the former curriculum.
Furthermore, as explained by the theory, the infusion of advanced topics to the junior
college science curriculum is not likely to enhance the quality of interaction between
teachers and students. Teachers and students feel comfortable to engage in inquiryoriented instructional activities only when the topics that are being learnt can be easily
digested by the students. The practice of focusing on developing students content
knowledge and recitational content knowledge by the science teachers in teaching the
revised science curriculum, as highlighted in the theory, exemplifies what McCain
257
(2005, p.14) means by: teachers have little choice but to focus on content delivery
when dealing with a massive curriculum.
Thus, Singapore junior college science teachers experiences in the implementation of

the revised curriculum, as identified in the theory, recall Kennedys (2005, p.234)
observation that reform ideals sometimes conflict with another. The theory developed
illuminates the complications the science teachers are struggling with under the new
revisions and such insights will certainly be useful to the policy makers in formulating
the strategies to support the junior college science teachers in teaching less (for
examinations) so that students can learn more (for developing the desired attributes
espoused in the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision).
IMPLICATIONS OF THEORY GENERATED FOR IMPROVING

TEACHING PRACTICE IN SINGAPORE JUNIOR COLLEGES
The theory generated in this study may also have implications for improving the
practices of the science teachers working in Singapore junior colleges. At least three
specific areas suggest themselves in this regard, namely, augmenting students
involvement in their learning, enhancing the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, and
advancing the integration of Realist and Progressive elements in lesson delivery.
These areas are discussed below.
Augmenting Students Involvement in their Learning

As identified by the theory developed in this study, the exigency of preparing students
sufficiently for the national examinations undermines Singapore junior college science
teachers efforts to promote student-directed learning.
There are, however, other
methods of promoting self-directed learning in students besides pedagogical techniques.
258
Having students reflect on their own academic performances is an effective way of

augmenting students involvement in their learning (Glasgow & Hicks, 2003). A Goal
Setting and Monitoring on Academic Performance form, as proposed in Figure 8.1,
may greatly help students in their process of self-reflection. This form is constructed
based on Aldermans (cited in Glasgow & Hicks, 2003) model of student reflection.
259
Goal Setting and Monitoring on Academic Performance

Name: _________________________________ Class: ________
O Level Physics/Chemistry/Biology Grade: _______
Date of
Test
Figure 8.1
Topics Tested
Target
Grade Set
for the Test
Actual Grade
Achieved in
the Test
A Level Physics/Chemistry/Biology Expected Grade: ______
Valueaddedness
Self-Reflection on Test Performance and Follow Up Actions
Proposed academic goal setting and monitoring form to augment students involvement in their learning.
259
260
Since both the junior college science teachers and students have similar priorities in
education, the setting of academic goals and monitoring of performance will augur well
for the teaching and learning of science under the revised junior college curriculum. As
identified in this study, Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to use
assessments regularly to develop students content knowledge and recitational content
knowledge.
According to Glasgow and Hicks (2003, p.99), assessments are most
effective when it also includes students self-monitoring and self-evaluating so that

they can regulate or manage their own learning. The Goal Setting and Monitoring on
Academic Performance Form proposed in Figure 8.1 provides such avenues for selfmonitoring and self-evaluation by the students.
Furthermore, the process of setting academic goals and monitoring of academic

performance provides opportunities for students to engage in error analysis of their
performances in the assessments. Error analysis is a systematic approach for using
feedback metacognitively to improve ones future performance and this practice
involves obtaining strategic metacognitive knowledge about ones mistakes and
recycling that knowledge for self-improvement (Glasgow & Hicks, 2003, p.100).
Table 8.1 below summarises the benefits of error analysis and proposes ways which
Singapore junior college science teachers can leverage on these benefits when teaching
the revised science curriculum.
261
Table 8.1
Benefits of Error Analysis and How Singapore Junior College Science Teachers
Can Leverage on these Benefits.
Benefits of Error Analysis
Proposed Ways to Leverage on the

Benefits of Error Analysis
Provides a second opportunity for
Singapore junior college science
students to master important material.
teachers can use this opportunity to

enhance students content knowledge
and recitational content knowledge.
Develops students metacognition,
both strategic knowledge and
executive management, as students
inculcate in students critical and
evaluate their test performance,
analytical thinking skills which are the
identify errors and possible error
intended outcomes of the 2006
patterns, and plan for the future.
Helps internalise students
attributions so that they recognise
that their educational outcomes
promote students self-directedness
(grades) are a result of their own
and sense of responsibility which are
efforts, actions, and strategies, which
key intentions of the 2006 revised
are factors within their control.
Source: Glasgow & Hicks (2003)
Thus, while it may not be possible for Singapore junior college science teachers to
jettison the use of routine tests when delivering the revised science curriculum, they
can certainly develop students self-directedness in an assessment-driven educational
system through the practice of goal-setting and academic performance monitoring.
262
Enhancing the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

This study reveals that Singapore junior college science teachers typically use the
value-added model to evaluate their teaching effectiveness. This model correlates
students test score gains to teaching effectiveness. One major weakness of this model
is that the value-added scores tell teachers nothing about their contributions or
impediments to students learning (Goe, Bell & Olivia, 2008).
Thus, the science
teachers can consider adopting other evaluation models to assess their effectiveness in
helping students in their learning.
One other useful tool for teachers to evaluate
teaching effectiveness is a student survey, which is easy to administer and is able to

provide a lot of insights about rapport-building skills, teacher communication, and
effectiveness (Magno, 2009, p.77).
However, caution has to be exercised when
students are involved in evaluating teaching effectiveness of teachers because students

usually lack the maturity and knowledge to rate teachers on professional knowledge as
well as classroom management (Goe, Bell & Olivia, 2008). Thus, instead of students
assessing on teachers teaching effectiveness, students can be asked to reflect on their
learning effectiveness during lessons. Such information will be useful to teachers in
enhancing their evaluation of their teaching practices while addressing the concern that
students are unable to offer reliable information on the professional practices of teachers.
An example of a simple yet informative survey on students learning effectiveness is
proposed in Figure 8.2. The survey items are adapted from the The College Student
Report, an instrument designed to provide information on how to improve teaching
practice and to enhance students learning experience (Carini, Kuh & Klein, 2006).
263
Survey on Students' Learning Effectiveness During Tutorials

Questions
Strong Agree
Agree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1 The pace of the lessons is suitable

for my learning.
2 I am able to learn effectively from
the way the tutorials are conducted
3 I am able to understand the
concepts taught.
4 I can contribute ideas and clarify
doubts.
5 I am encouraged to engage in
critical thinking.
6 I am able to benefit from the
comments and feedback provided
by my teacher.
7 I am encouraged to develop a
passion and to find out more the
subject.
8 I am able to meet the learning
expectations set by my teacher.
9 Overall, I am able to gain
significant knowledge.
Figure 8.2
Proposed survey on students learning effectiveness to enhance the
science teachers evaluation on their teaching effectiveness.
This survey on students learning effectiveness, when used together with the
information provided in the students self-assessment on their academic performances
as presented earlier, constitutes a set of strong evaluation tools for Singapore junior
college science teachers to utilise in assessing their teaching effectiveness.
264
Advancing the Integration of Realist and

Progressive Elements in Lesson Delivery
As explained in the theory developed in this study, Singapore junior college science
teachers sporadically infuse progressive pedagogies to supplement their Realist
approach of teaching the revised science curriculum. The science teachers can make
use of a structure to advance the integration of both the Realist and progressive
approaches in lessons. One such structure that could be employed is the Hunter Model
of Planning shown in Figure 8.3.
Steps
Intentions
Focus Set
An activity intended to focus on what the student will learn

during the lesson. It also provides practice of previous
learning and develops readiness for learning.
Objective
Tells the students what they will learn (stating the objective),
shows the purpose of the learning, and indicates the
relevance of learning.
Instructional
objective
Shows what information is needed by the student in order to

achieve the objective and how that information will be
presented.
Modelling
Shows the learner what an acceptable finished product or a

process looks or sounds like, rather than just telling about it.
In other words, the students need to see the teacher do what
the teacher expects students to do.
Check for
understanding
Monitor
This is a validation of learning. It is important that the

teacher does not assume that the students have learned what
has been presented.
The teacher should determine
immediately following the presentation that the information
just presented has been understood by the learners.
Guided practice
This occurs when relevant tasks are practiced with the

teacher and available to help students the moment they need
assurance.
Independent practice
This practice involves unassisted performance by the

students on relevant tasks, which will allow them to develop
fluency of the objective without the teacher.
Figure 8.3
The Hunter Model of Planning.
Source: Tan et al. (2003)
265
As illustrated in Figure 8.4, the pedagogical framework of the Hunter Model, namely
the Modelling, Check for Understanding Monitor, Guided practice, and
Independent Practice elements fit with the four quadrants of pedagogical practices.
The four quadrants of pedagogical practices, a model provided by the theory developed
in this study, maps the classroom practices of Singapore junior college science teachers
(presented in Chapter Six).
Modelling
Check for
Understanding
Monitor
Teacherdirected
Studentdirected
Guided
Practice
Independent
Practice
Figure 8.4
A fit between the pedagogical framework of the Hunter
Model of Planning and the four quadrants of pedagogical practices.
Thus, the use of a structure for planning and delivery that synchronises with their
teaching practices, such as the Hunter Model, may greatly enhance the organisation of
the science teachers lessons, therefore improving the quality of instruction.
266
IMPLICATIONS OF THEORY GENERATED FOR DEEPENING

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE
The theory of a three-staged individualised amelioration of teaching and learning may
have implications for the development of further substantive theory in areas which share
a focus with this particular study, namely, how teachers deal with implementing
curriculum changes. This is consistent with the claim made by Strauss and Corbin
(1990, p.24) that researchers, who develop theory which is grounded in the actions and
interactions of people within substantive areas of study, desire that their theories will
eventually be related to others within their respective disciplines in a cumulative
fashion and that the theorys implications will have beneficial application. Thus, it is
hoped that the theory presented in this thesis may eventuate in the development of a
research agenda through a variety of other studies to uncover a broad range of teachers
perspectives and practices, and thereby deepening our understanding of educational
change. Implications in this regard are discussed in the following sub-sections.
Implications for the Literature on How Teachers Deal With Curriculum Change
In Chapter Three of this thesis, it was established that there are three bodies of empirical
literature that pertain to how teachers deal with the curriculum change. These bodies
of literature are described as: the challenges the teachers face when implementing
curriculum changes; the meanings the teachers ascribe towards the curriculum changes;
and the theoretical propositions and models that explain how teachers implement
curriculum changes. The theorys implications for all these three areas of literature are
presented below.
Curriculum change often demands teachers to acquire new knowledge in content and
pedagogy (Chen, 2008; Niess, 2005; Windschitl, 2002). The theory developed in this
267
study indentifies that Singapore junior college science teachers recognise the
importance of acquiring new craft knowledge for effective teaching. However, the
junior college science teachers emphasise only on acquiring the subject matter content
knowledge as well as the examination matter content knowledge. These two bodies
of knowledge constitute the craft knowledge Singapore junior college science teachers
need to teach the revised science curriculum.
Scholars commonly agree that for
effective teaching, teachers need to be strong in their subject matter content

knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Peers,
Diezmann & Watters, 2003; Schneider & Krajcik, 2002). Singapore junior college
science teachers, on the other hand, regard that a good knowledge in the subject matter
and examination matter is critical for the effective teaching of the revised science
curriculum.
Student engagement in lessons is essential for quality learning as identified by

researchers such as Milne and Otieno (2007) as well as Wu and Huang (2007).
Furthermore, student engagement is dependent on a supportive learning environment
(Rosiek, 2003; Campbell et al., 2001). However, studies on how teachers construct
such an environment are scarce (Rosiek, 2003). The theory generated in this study is
therefore an important contribution to this area of research. As identified by the theory,
Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to engage students in their learning
through organising various instructional activities to prepare them adequately for the
national examinations. Such practice stems from the science teachers perspective that
the best way of supporting students in their learning of the revised science curriculum is
to assure the students that they are ready for the national examinations.
268
Singapore junior college science teachers pedagogical choices seem to support the
position adopted by Wu and Huang (2007) that teachers should vary their instructional
approaches to meet classroom needs. The theory developed in this study points out that
the junior college science teachers are likely to adapt their classroom practices in
response to different teaching contexts. In addition, the science teachers instructional
choices can be described within four quadrants of pedagogical practices. However,
these practices are likely to be anchored on an Expert-Formal Authoritative teaching
approach.
This approach is likely to be regarded by the science teachers as the most
practical way of preparing students for the national examinations.
Insufficient time and lack of resources are commonly cited by researchers as the major
obstacles towards implementing curriculum changes (Bennett, 2003; Peers, Diezmann
& Watters, 2003; Kesidou & Roseman, 2002). Liew (2005) calls for more research on
how teachers deal with these challenges.
The theory generated in this study is
therefore an important contribution to this area of study. The theory identifies that
Singapore junior college science teachers are similarly challenged with insufficient
curriculum time for teaching and with inadequacy of resources for delivery of lessons.
The science teachers deal with these challenges through Pedagogical Adaptation and
Resource Consolidation respectively.
In addition, to tailor to the needs of their
students, the science teachers are likely to re-adapt their pedagogical practices as well
as modify and filter the resources they consolidate.
Studies by Rigano and Ritchie (2003) as well as van den Berg (2002) highlight that the
outcomes of educational change depend on how teachers relate to the meanings of the
educational initiatives. The phenomenon that teachers implement curricula initiatives
according to how they perceive the initiatives benefitting students learning as asserted
269
by researchers such as Owston (2007) as well as Churchill and Williamson (2004) is

supported by the theory generated in this study. Furthermore, the theory reinforces the
position maintained Fishman and Krajcik (2003) that teachers working in high-stakes
examination system are ultimately concerned with the impact of educational initiatives
on students academic grades.
The works of Smith and Southerland (2007) as well as van Veen and Sleegers (2006)
identify that teachers implement curricula changes according to their professional
orientations and personal epistemologies which in turn determine classroom practices.
Roehrig, Kruse and Kern (2007) further classify teachers as Traditional, Mechanistic,
or Inquiry in accordance to the teachers classroom practices. The theory developed in
this study indicates that Singapore junior college science teachers, too, can be classified
as Traditional or Inquiry. However, both the Traditional and Inquiry junior
college science teachers are likely to adopt an Expert-Formal Authoritative
instructional approach to deliver the revised science curriculum regardless of their
personal epistemological beliefs and preferred pedagogies. In this aspect, the theory
does not support the assertion by Smith and Southerland (2007, p.418) that teachers
internally constructed beliefs can override teaching contexts. The Singapore junior
college science teachers preferred classroom practices are likely to be overridden by
the exigency to prepare students for national examinations through the traditional way
of drill and practice of mock examinations.
The literature, in particular the works of Evers and Arat (2004) as well as Vidovich
and ODonoghue (2003) highlights the importance of teachers sense of ownership
towards curricula initiatives for successful implementation. The theory generated in
this study indicates that Singapore junior college science teachers maintain a sense of
270
ownership over their students progress in learning. The science teachers, however, are
not likely to see themselves as owners but rather, implementers of the initiatives that
underpin the revised science curriculum.
In this aspect, the theory supports the
assertion by Nolan and Meister (2000, p.213) that it is the commitment to students and
not the commitment to innovation that determines teacher willingness to implement
an initiative.
Singapore junior college science teachers are likely to demonstrate uncertainty

especially in areas relating to assessments. In particular, the science teachers are unsure
about the breadth and depth of instruction of their science subjects for the purpose of
assessment. Thus, not only do teachers need explicit written curriculum guidelines on
content and pedagogy, as observed by Nolan and Meister (2000), the theory developed
in this study indicates that teachers, especially those working under an educational
system of high-stakes examinations, need clear policy statements on assessments as
well.
The literature, particularly the works of Collet, Menlo and Rosenblatt (2004) as well as
Barab and Luehman (2003), acknowledges the strong impact of classroom and societal
norms on how teachers implement educational initiatives.
This phenomenon is
supported by the theory developed in this study. The educational culture and societal
expectation on Singapore junior college science teachers to deliver quality examination
results undermine their efforts to put in practice initiatives such as Teach Less, Learn
More and Innovation and Enterprise.
The theory generated in this study highlights the individualisation of teachers practices
in the implementation of educational initiatives. This phenomenon is also observed in
271
the studies conducted by Drake and Sherin (2006), and Nolan and Meister (2000). The
model of curriculum use developed by Drake and Sherin (2006) describes teachers
individualised pattern in reading, evaluating and adapting curriculum materials. Nolan
and Meister (2000, p.210) believe that because of teachers individual responsibility to
their subject areas, teachers implement curricula objectives differently.
Implications for the Literature on How Singapore Teachers

Deal With the Implementation of Initiatives Designed to Pursue
the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation Vision
The theory presented in this thesis has the potential to serve as the ground work for
further research in understanding the implementation of educational initiatives intended
to support the vision of Thinking Schools, Learning Nation in Singapore schools.
Implications in this regard are discussed below.
Chapter Three has identified Charlene Tan (2006a, 2006c), Ng Pak Tee (2005a, 2004),
Jason Tan (2005), and Hairon (2003) as the main contributors in examining how
teachers in Singapore schools implement important educational initiatives such as
Teach Less, Learn More and Innovation and Enterprise.
The theory developed in
this study corroborates with some of the works of these local researchers. For example,
the theory supports Jason Tans (2005) belief that the initiatives supporting the vision of
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation are being implemented in a piecemeal fashion.
As identified in the theory, Singapore junior college science teachers sporadically adopt
progressive pedagogies that underpins the 2006 revised junior college curriculum
when teaching their science subjects under the new revisions. The theory also agrees
with Charlene Tans (2006c, p.145) contention that education in Singapore is likely to
remain Realist in its overarching goal to harness the students talents and abilities for
272
the good of the society. In addition, the theory reinforces Ngs (2004) argument that
excessive competition for quality examination grades in Singapore education system
results in the practice of teaching for examinations in Singapore schools.
The theory also has the potential to stimulate further thoughts with regards to some of
the suggestions provided by local researchers. In his analysis on the success of the
Innovation and Enterprise initiative, Ng (2005a, p.49) provides examples of how
Singapore primary school teachers can conduct simple innovative lessons that
develops intellectual curiosity in students. However, as identified in the theory,
Singapore junior college science teachers are not likely to teach with the main intention
of inculcating intellectual curiosity in students. The junior college science teachers
may orchestrate simple innovative instructional activities in lessons (for example,
mind-maps and computer applets), but these activities largely serve to develop content
knowledge and recitational content knowledge for examinations purpose rather than
inculcating a spirit of inquiry and innovation in the students.
In his study on how schools implement initiatives that support the Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation vision, Hairon (2003) recommends that teachers invest time to nurture
a collaborative culture through activities such as peer teaching and group marking.
The theory of a three-staged individualised amelioration of teaching and learning,
however, highlights the individualised culture in Singapore junior college science
teachers. Thus, Hairons call for teachers to break the individualisation culture by
sharing accountabilities and responsibilities may not be easily achieved. As explained
in the theory, teachers may have their individual set of priorities due to different
classroom contexts.
Furthermore, teachers individual professional judgment and
273
personal experience significantly influence how they respond to each classroom

situation and how they deal with these situations.
CONCLUSION
This chapter, in concluding the thesis, has restated the purpose of this study as well as
outlined the research framework and methodology to achieve this purpose. The key
premises of the core theory and subsidiary propositions that were developed to explain
how Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching of their science
subjects under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum are also reiterated. The
contribution of the theory towards improving knowledge and professional practice in
education is also illuminated in this chapter.
In addition, recommendations to policy
makers on how to strengthen Singapore junior college science teachers efforts to realise
the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision are provided.
Educational change is a paradoxical process.
While the policy makers chart the
direction for change, the teachers decide the outcomes of change.
The teachers
decisions and actions in the implementation of educational change can only be

understood through an analysis of their perspectives towards the intended initiatives and
their practices in light of these perspectives. This study, through the development of the
theory of a three-staged amelioration of teaching and learning, has provided such an
analysis on the teaching and learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college
curriculum.
The theory developed in this study has explained that Singapore junior college science
curriculum in three sequential stages.
The theory has also clarified the science
274
teachers intentions, and identified their practices in light of their priorities, concerns as
well as dilemmas in teaching their science subjects under the new revisions. In addition,
impediments to the transformation of Singapore schools into thinking institutions and
the country into a learning nation are illuminated by the theory. Slavin (2001) asks if
research does really provide the knowledge to guide educational policy and practice.
The theory that Singapore junior college science teachers deal with the teaching and
learning of science under the 2006 revised junior college curriculum through a threestaged individualised amelioration of the situation of teaching and learning the science
subjects certainly has the potential to do so.
275
References
Afonso, A. S., and Gilbert, J. K. (2010). Pseudo-science: A meaningful context for

assessing nature of science, International Journal of Science Education, 32(3),
329348.
Anderson, R. D., and Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of
schools: Needed research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 316.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry,
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 112.
Arat, N., and Szemerszky, M. (2004). Teachers in transition: Hungarian perspectives.

In P. Poppleton and J. Williamson (Eds.), New Realities of Secondary Teachers
Work Lives: An International Comparative Study of the Impact of Educational
Change on the Work Lives of Secondary School Teachers in Nine Countries, (pp.
121136). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Arksey, H., and Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for Social Scientists: An Introductory
Resource with Examples. London: Sage.
Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricula control: A qualitative metasynthesis,

Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258267.
Ayres, P., Sawyer, W., and Dinham, S. (2004). Effective teaching in the context of a
Grade 12 high-stakes external examination in New South Wales, Australia, British
Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 141165.
Balfanz, R., Legters, N., West, T. C., and Weber, L. M. (2007). Are NCLBs measures,
incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nations lowperforming high schools?, American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 559
593.
Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging Practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching

and learning to teach, Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241247.
276
Barab, S. A., and Luehmann, A. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum:

Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation, Science Education, 87, 454
467.
Barnett, J., and Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller
understanding of what good science teachers know, Science Education, 85, 426
453.
Bell, B. (1998). Teacher development in science education. In B. J. Fraser and K. G.

Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, (pp.681693).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon
one's conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study, Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563581.
Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative inquiry
learning: Models, tools, and challenges, International Journal of Science
Education, 32(3), 349377.
Bennett, J. (2003). Teaching and Learning Science: A Guide to Recent Research and Its
Applications. London: Continuum.
Berg, B. L. (1998). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Birks, M., Mills, J., Francis, K., and Chapman, Y. (2009). A thousand words paint a
picture: The use of storyline in grounded theory research, Journal of Research in
Nursing, 14(5), 405417.
277
Bjork, C. (2009). Local implementation of Japans Integrated Studies reform: A

preliminary analysis of efforts to decentralise the curriculum, Comparative
Education, 45(1), 2344.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.
Bogdan, R. C., and Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative Research for Education: An

Introduction to Theory and Methods (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolhuis, S., and Voeten, M. J. M. (2004). Teachers conceptions of student learning and
own learning, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(1), 7798.
Boote, D. N., and Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the
dissertation literature review in research preparation, Educational Researcher,
34(6), 315.
Booyse, J., and Swanepoel, C. (2004). The impact of educational change on teachers of
the Rainbow Nation. In P. Poppleton and J. Williamson (Eds.), New Realities of
Secondary Teachers Work Lives, (pp.173203). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Borich, G. D. (2007). Effective Teaching Methods: Research-Based Practice (6th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Borko, H., and Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner and R. C.

Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, (pp.673708). New York:
Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Bramble, J. (2005). Reshaping their view: Science as liberal arts, New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 103, 5160.
Bray, P. M. (2004). Young women majoring in mathematics and elementary education:

A perspective on enacting liberatory pedagogy, Equity & Excellence in Education,
37(1), 4454.
278
Britner, S. L, and Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy beliefs of middle school

students, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485499.
Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., and Long, B. A. (2010). Teacher inquiry into formative
assessment practices in remedial reading classrooms, Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 4158.
Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., and Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive
identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning, Science
Education, 89, 779802.
Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., and Yu, W. M. (2009).
Assessment for student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers
conceptions and practices of assessment, Assessment in Education: Principles,
Policy & Practice, 16(3), 347363.
Brown, S. C., Stevens Jr, R. A., Troiano, P. F., and Schneider, M. K. (2002). Exploring
complex phenomena: Grounded theory in students affairs research, Journal of
College Student Development, 43(2), 173183.
Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: George

Allen & Unwin.
Bybee, R. W. and Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform
in science and technology education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
43(4), 349352.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner and R. C.

Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, (pp.709725). New York:
Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Campbell, J., Smith, D., Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Burnett, P. C., Carringtion, S.,
and Purdie, N. (2001). Students perceptions of teaching and learning: The
influence of students learning approaches to learning and teachers approaches to
teaching, Teacher and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 7(2), 173187.
279
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., and Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student
learning: Testing the linkages, Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 132.
Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalisation And Educational Reform: What Planners Need To

Know. Paris: UNESCO.
Carnoy, M., and Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalisation mean for educational
change? A comparative approach, Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 19.
Chan, D., and Ng, P. T. (2008). Similar agendas, diverse strategies: The quest for a
regional hub of higher education in Hong Kong and Singapore, Higher Education
Policy, 21, 487503.
Chan, J. K. S. (2010). Teachers responses to curriculum policy implementation:
Colonial constraints for curriculum reform, Educational Research for Policy and
Practice, 9(2), 93106.
Chang, C. Y., and Tsai, C. C. (2005). The interplay between different forms of CAI and
students preferences of learning environment in the secondary science class,
Science Education, 89, 707724.
Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations:
The case of Singapore, Language and Education, 12(3), 192209.
Chen, V. D. T., and Hung, D. W. L. (2003). Learning theories and IT in instruction. In

S. C. Tan and A. F. L. Wong (Eds.), Teaching and Learning with Technology: An
Asia-Pacific Perspective, (pp.7789). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Chen, Y-L. (2008). A mixed-method study of EFL teachers internet use in language
instruction, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 10151028.
Cheung, H. Y. (2008). Measuring the professional identity of Hong Kong in-service

teachers, Journal of In-service Education, 34(3), 375390.
280
Childs, A., and McNicholl, J. (2007). Investigating the relationship between subject
content knowledge and pedagogical practice through the analysis of classroom
discourse, International Journal of Science Education, 29(13), 16291653.
Churchill, R., and Williamson, J. (2004). Teachers work lives in an environment of
continual educational change: Australian perspectives. In P. Poppleton and J.
Williamson (Eds.), New Realities of Secondary Teachers Work Lives: An
International Comparative Study of the Impact of Educational Change on the
Work Lives of Secondary School Teachers in Nine Countries, (pp.2955). Oxford:
Symposium Books.
Coenders, F., Terlouw, C., and Dijkstra, S. (2008). Assessing teachers beliefs to
facilitate the transition to a new chemistry curriculum: What do the teachers
want?, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(4), 317335.
Collet, L., Menlo, A., and Rosenblatt, Z. (2004). How educational change affects
secondary school teachers. In P. Poppleton and J. Williamson (Eds.), New
Realities of Secondary Teachers Work Lives: An International Comparative Study
of the Impact of Educational Change on the Work Lives of Secondary School
Teachers in Nine Countries, (pp.245290). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Colucci-Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., and Gray, D. (2006). From scientific
literacy to sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education, Science
Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 03. (October 2005). TLLM in Perspective:
Transforming Learning, from Quantity to Quality. Singapore: Author.
Contact The Teachers Digest Issue 02. (July 2006). Towards Greater Flexibility and
Diversity in Schools. Singapore: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
281
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative & Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Datnow, A., and Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers responses to success for all: How
beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation, American Educational
Research Journal, 37(3), 775799.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., and Mehan, H. (2002). Extending Educational Reform: From
One School to Many. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Davis, E. A., and Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective
elementary science teaching, Science Education, 93, 745770.
Davis, K. S. (2003). Change is hard: What science teachers are telling us about reform
and teacher learning of innovative practices, Science Education, 87, 330.
Dawson, V., and Venville, G. J. (2008). High-school students informal reasoning and
argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy?,
International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 14211445.
Day, C., Flores, M. A., and Viana, I. (2007). Effects of national policies on teachers'
sense of professionalism: Findings from an empirical study in Portugal and in
England, European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(3), 249265.
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and

contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform, Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582601.
Delaney, T. (2005). Contemporary Social Theory: Investigation and Application. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
282
Delors, J., Mufti, I. A., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., Gorham, W.,
Kornhauser, A., Manley, M., Quero, M. P., Savan, M., Singh, K., Stavenhagen,
R., Myong, W. S., and Zhou, N. (1996). Report to UNESCO of the International
Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century Learning: The Treasure
Within. Paris: UNESCO.
Deng, Z., and Gopinathan, S. (2005). The information technology masterplan. In J. Tan
and P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping Singapores Future: Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation, (pp.2240). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Denzin, N., and Lincoln, Y. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative
research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research,
(pp.119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Department of Education of the United States (2004, July 1). Overview: Four Pillars Of
NCLB. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html
Department of Education of the United States (2007, June 1). Building On Results: A
Blueprint For Strengthening The No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved January 3,
2008 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/buildingonresults.html
Development Education Association of the United Kingdom (2003). Science: The

Global Dimension. Retrieved March 24, 2005 from http://www.dea.org.uk
Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum. In J. Dewey (Ed.), The Child and the
Curriculum, The School and Society, (pp.331). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Donnelly, J. (2001). Contested terrain or unified project? The nature of science in the
national curriculum for England and Wales, International Journal of Science
Education, 23(2) 181195.
283
Drake, C., and Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and
teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform, Curriculum
Inquiry, 36(2), 153187.
Drake, C., Spillane, J. P., and Hufferd-Ackles, K. (2001). Storied identities: Teacher
learning and subject-matter context, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33, 123.
Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific
argumentation in classrooms, Science Education, 84, 287312.
Education Commission of Hong Kong (2006). Progress Report on the Education

Reform
(4).
Retrieved
December
2008
from
http://www.e-
c.edu.hk/eng/reform/Progress%20Report%20(Eng)%202006.pdf
Edwards, R., and Usher, R. (2008). Globalisation and Pedagogy: Space, Place and
Identity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Elizondo-Montemayor, L., Hernndez-Escobar, C., Ayala-Aguirre, F., and Aguilarand,

G. M. (2008). Building a sense of ownership to facilitate change: The new
curriculum, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(1), 83102.
Enyedy, N., Goldberg, J., and Welsh, K. M. (2006). Complex dilemmas of identity and
practice, Science Education, 90, 6893.
Essex, N. L. (2006). What Every Teacher Should Know About No Child Left Behind.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Evers, T., and Arat, N. (2004). What has change got to do with it. Teachers Work
Lives: U.S. perspectives. In P. Poppleton and J. Williamson (Eds.), New Realities
of Secondary Teachers Work Lives, (pp.205220). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Fairbrother, R. (2000). Strategies for learning. In M. Monk and J. Osborne (Eds.), Good
Practice in Science Teaching: What Research has to Say, (pp.724). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
284
Falk, J., and Drayton, B. (2004). State testing and inquiry-based science: Are they
complementary or competing reforms?, Journal of Educational Change, 5(4),
345387.
Felder, R. M., and Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences, Journal of

Engineering Education, 94(1), 5772.
Felder, R. M., and Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the Index
of Learning Styles, International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103
112.
Fensham, P. J. (2006). Science for all: A reflective essay. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Science
Education: Major Themes in Education Vol. II, (pp.934). London: Routledge.
Fink, D., and Stoll, L. (2005). Educational change: Easier said than done. In A.
Hargreaves (Ed.), International Handbook of Educational Change Extending
Educational Change, (pp.1741). Dordrecht: Springer.
Finnigan, K. S., and Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence

teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicagos low-performing schools, American
Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594629.
Fishman, B. J., and Krajcik, J. (2003). What does it mean to create sustainable science
curriculum innovations? A commentary, Science Education, 87, 564573.
Flores, M. A. (2005). Teachers views on recent curriculum changes: Tensions and
challenges, The Curriculum Journal, 16(3), 401413.
Fontana, A., and Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to
negotiated texts. In N. K. Denzin, and L. S. Yvonna (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp.645672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., and Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement:

Potential of the concept, state of the evidence, Review of Educational Research,
74(1), 59109.
285
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problems with answers: An exploration of guided scientific

inquiry teaching, Science Education, 90, 453467.
Glasgow, N. A. (1997). New Curriculum for New Times: A Guide to Student-Centred,

Problem-Based Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glasgow, N. A., and Hicks, C. D. (2003). What Successful Teachers Do: ResearchBased Classroom Strategies for New and Veteran Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Goby, V. P., and Lewis, J. H. (2000). Complementarity of IT and creative thinking in

Singaporean schools, Teaching & Learning, 21(1), 3644.
Goe, L., Bell, C., and Olivia, L. (2008). Approaches to Evaluating Teacher
Effectiveness: A Research Synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive
Centre
for
Teacher
Quality.
Retrieved
March
1,
2009
from
http://tqcenter.learningpt.org/whatworks/WWC08buildingCapacity/resources/
Research_Synthesis.pdf
Goh, C. T. (1997). Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the opening of the 7th
International Conference on Thinking on Monday, 2 June 1997, at 9.00am at the
Suntec City Convention Centre Ballroom. Retrieved March 5, 2007 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1997/020697.htm
Goh, C. T. (2001). Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Teachers Day
Rally, at the Singapore Expo on Friday, 31 August 2001 at 7.30pm. Retrieved
December 17 2007 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2001/sp31082001.htm
Goh, S. C. (2002). Studies on learning environments in Singapore classrooms. In S. C.

Goh and M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in Educational Learning Environments,
(pp.197216). New Jersey: World Scientific.
286
Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In J.

Tan, S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges Facing the Singapore
Education System Today, (pp.317). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Gopinathan, S., and Deng. Z. (2006). Fostering school-based curriculum development in

the context of new educational initiatives in Singapore, Planning and Changing,
37(1 & 2), 93110.
Grber, W., Nentwig, P., Becker, H., Sumfleth, E., Pitton, A., and Wollwebber, K.
(2001). Scientific literacy: From theory to practice. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke,
R. Duit, W. Grber, M. Komorek, A. Kross and P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in
Science Education Past, Present, and Future, (pp.6170). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Press.
Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., and Wideman, H. H.
(2002). Factors contributing to teachers successful implementation of IT, Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 480488.
Grasha, A. F. (1996). Teaching with Style: A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by

Understanding Teaching and Learning Styles. Pittsburg, PA: Alliance Publishers.
Grasha, A. F. (2002). The dynamics of one-on-one teaching, College Teaching, 50(4),

139146.
Green, A (1999). Education and globalisation in Europe and East Asia: Convergent and
divergent trends, Journal of Education Policy, 14(1), 5571.
Green, A (2000). Converging paths or ships passing in the night? An English critique
of Japanese school reform, Comparative Education, 36(4), 417435.
Gregory, K., and Clarke, M. (2003). High-stakes assessment in England and

Singapore, Theory into Practice, 42(1), 6674.
Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of school

reform programs, Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 337363.
287
Hairon, S. (2003). A qualitative study of Singapore primary school teachers

conceptions of educational change, Teaching and Learning, 18(2), 105115.
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Dehaan, R., Gentile,
J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S.M., and Wood, W.B. (2004). Scientific
teaching, Science, 304, 521522.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching, Teaching and Teacher

Education, 14(8), 835854.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the Knowledge Society: Education in the Age of

Insecurity, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., and Hopkins, D. (2005). International
handbook of educational change introduction. In A. Lieberman (Ed.),
International Handbook of Educational Change The Roots of Educational
Change, (pp.viixi). Dordrecht: Springer.
Hargreaves, D. (1993). Whatever happened to symbolic interactionism? In M.

Hammersley (Ed.), Controversies in Classroom Research (2nd ed.), (pp.135152).
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Harlen, W. (2001). The assessment of scientific literacy in the OECD/PISA project. In

H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Grber, M. Komorek, A. Kross and P.
Reiska (Eds.), Research in Science Education Past, Present, and Future, (pp.4960). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of

pedagogical content knowledge, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice,
11(3), 273292.
Heng, M. A. (2001). Rethinking the meaning of school beyond the academic A. In J.
Tan, S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges Facing the Singapore
Education System Today, (pp.108118). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
288
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., and Foard, N. (2006). A Short Introduction to Social
Research. London: Sage.
Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., and Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating
ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change, Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155192.
Henze, I., Van Driel, J., and Verloop, N. (2007). The change of science teachers
personal knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of science
education reform, International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 18191846.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and Learning Science: Towards A Personalised Approach.

Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future,
Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., and Judd, C. M. (2002). Research Methods in Social
Relations (7th ed.). Victoria: Thomson Learning.
Hung, D., Ng, P. T., Koh, T. S., and Lim, S. H. (2009). The social practice of learning:
A craft for the 21st century, Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(2), 205214.
Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education
policies, American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493518.
Jackson, W. (2003). Methods: Doing Social Research (3rd ed.). Toronto: Prentice
Hall.
Johnston, D. M. (2003). Public policy challenges and opportunities: An editorial

introduction. In L. Low and D. M. Johnston (Eds.), Singapore Inc.: Public Policy
Options in the Third Millennium, (pp.115). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
289
Johnston, J., and Ahtee, M. (2006). Comparing primary student teachers attitudes,
subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge needs in a physics activity,
Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 503512.
Kahle, J. B., and Boone, W. (2000). Strategies to improve student science learning:
Implications for science teacher education, Journal of Science Teacher Education,
11(2), 93107.
Kang, N., and Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers use of laboratory
activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices, Science
Kang, T. (2005). Diversification of Singapores upper secondary landscape: Introduction
of the integrated programmes, specialised independent schools and privatelyfunded schools. In J. Tan and P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping Singapores Future:
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (pp.5267). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Kember, D. (2001). Beliefs about knowledge and the process of teaching and learning as
a factor in adjusting to study in higher education, Studies in Higher Education,
26(2), 205221.
Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., and Chan, K. S. J. (2006). Reforming the curriculum in a
post-colonial society: The case of Hong Kong, Planning & Changing, 37(1 & 2),
111130.
Kennedy, M. (2005). Inside Teaching: How Classroom Life Undermines Reform.

London: Harvard University Press.
Kesidou, S., and Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs
measure up? Findings from Project 2061s curriculum review, Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522549.
Keys, C. W., and Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with

teachers: Essential research for lasting reform, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38(6), 631645.
290
Keys, P. M. (2005). Are teachers walking the walk or just talking the talk in science
education?, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(5), 499516.
Kirk, D., and MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum
change, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551567.
Klein, M. (2001). Constructivist practice, pre-service teacher education and change: The
limitations of appealing to hearts and minds, Teacher and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 7(3), 257269.
Ko, P. Y. (2000). From enthusiasm to caution. In B. Adamson, T. Kwan and K. K. Chan

(Eds.), Changing The Curriculum: The Impact of Reform on Primary Schooling in
Hong Kong, (pp.81104). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Koh, A. (2004). Singapore education in new times: Global/local imperatives,
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(3), 335349.
Koh, K., and Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore
schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work, Assessment
in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 291318.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of Educational and Social Science Research: An

Integrated Approach (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Lang, H. G., Stinson, M. S., Kavanagh, F., Liu, Y., and Basile, M. L. (1999). Learning
styles of deaf college students and instructors teaching emphases, Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 4(1), 1627.
Lazarowitz, R., and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1998). Cooperative learning in the science

curriculum. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of
Science Education, (pp.449469). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
LeCompte, M. D., and Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in

ethnographic research, Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 3160.
291
Lee, Y. J., and Yeoh, O. C. (2001). School science and the nature of science. In J. Tan,
S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges Facing the Singapore Education
System Today, (pp.8394). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Lee, Y. P. (2005). Forces shaping the future of teaching and learning of mathematics,
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 4(23), 169179.
Lichtman, M. (2006). Qualitative Research in Education: A Users Guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liew, W. M. (2005). Teachers professional lives in an age of educational reform. In J.
Tan and P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping Singapores Future: Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation, (pp.137166). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverley Hills: Sage.
Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1999). Establishing Trustworthiness. In A. Bryman and R. G.

Burgess (Eds.), Qualitative Research Volume III, (pp.397444). London: Sage.
Linnenbrink, E. A., and Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom, Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19,
119137.
Liston, D. P., and Zeichner, K. (2006). Teacher education and the social context of
schooling: Issues for curriculum development. In D. Hartley and M. Whitehead
(Eds.), Teacher Education: Major Themes in Education Volume III Curriculum
and Change, (pp.403428). London: Routledge.
Liu, X., Zhang, B., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G., Kim, B., and Yuan, H. (2009). Alignment
between the physics content standard and the standardised test: A comparison
among the United States-New York state, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu, Science
Lloyd, J. M., and Rezba, R. J. (2004). Roles and teaching principles of secondary
science teachers, School Science Review, 85(313), 6370.
292
Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., and Berry, A. (2008).
Exploring pedagogical content
knowledge in science teacher education, International Journal of Science

Education, 30(10), 13011320.
Lui, T. Y. (2006). Opening address by Radm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, Minister of State,
Ministry of Education, at the Singapore Mathematical Society annual prize
presentation ceremony at the NUS High School of Mathematics and Science on
Saturday, 2 September, at 10am. Retrieved December 17, 2007 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2006/sp20060902.htm
Luke, A., Freebody, P., Lau, S., and Gopinathan, S. (2005). Towards research-based
innovation and reform: Singapore schooling in transition, Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 25(1), 528.
Magno, C. (2009). A metaevaluation study on the assessment of teacher performance in

an assessment center in the Philippines, The International Journal of Educational
and Psychological Assessment, 25, 7593. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from
http://tijepa.books.officelive.com/Documents/V3_TIJEPA.pdf#page=4
Masagos, Z. (2007). Speech by Mr Masagos Zulkifli, Senior Parliamentary Secretary,

Ministry of Education at the opening ceremony of Singapore International Science
Challenge, 21 May 2007, 10.00am at National Junior College LT5. Retrieved June
21, 2007 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2007/sp20070521.htm
May, T. (2001). Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process (3rd ed.). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Maykut, P., and Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic

and Practical Guide. London: The Falmer Press.
McCain, T. (2005). Teaching for Tomorrow: Teaching Content and Problem-Solving

Skills. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
293
McCaughtry, N. (2005). Elaborating pedagogical content knowledge: What it means to

know students and think about teaching, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 11(4), 379395.
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., and Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the
nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of
Science in Science Education: Rationale and Strategies, (pp.339). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McLaughlin, M. W., and Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building School-Based Teacher Learning

Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Melton, J. (2003). Learning styles and educational technology: An overview, Languages

Issues, 9(1), 6182.
Menon, R. (2000). On my mind: Should the United States emulate Singapores

education system to achieve Singapores success in the TIMSS?, Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School, 5(6), 345347.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating

Diversity with Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Millar, R., and Osborne, J. (2006). Designing a new science curriculum. In J. Gilbert
(Ed.), Science Education: Major Themes in Education Volume I, (pp.412427).
London: Routledge.
Milne, C., and Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: Science demonstrations

and emotional energy, Science Education, 91, 523553.
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2005a, May 5). Report of the Junior College/Upper
Secondary Education Review Committee. Retrieved January 24, 2006 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/jcreview/JC_Upp_Sec_Review_Report.pdf
294
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2005b, May 16). Breadth and Flexibility: The New
A
Level
Curriculum
2006.
Retrieved
January
23,
2006
from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/alevel2006/pdf/brochure.pdf
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2006a, February 15). A Level Subjects at H1, H2,
and H3 Levels for 2006 Curriculum. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/preu_02_print.htm
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2006b). Nurturing Every Child: Flexibility &

Diversity in Singapore Schools. Singapore: Author.
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2006c, September 24). School Achievements in

2006. Retrieved March 3, 2007 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2006/pr20060924.htm
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2007a, December 28). Education Statistics Digest

2007. Retrieved January 2, 2008 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/esd/ESD2007.pdf
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2007b, June 29). Singapore Mission and Vision
Statement. Retrieved December 15, 2007 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/mission_statement_print.htm
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2009a). Primary School Education: Preparing

Your Child for Tomorrow. Singapore: Author.
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2009b). Secondary School Education. Singapore:

Author.
Ministry of Education of Singapore (2009c, October 12). School Information Service.

Retrieved December 20, 2009 from http://app.sis.moe.gov.sg/schinfo/SIS_Search
Results.asp
Mokhtar, I. A. (2005). Education in the information age A preliminary study of the
changing roles of school teachers in Singapore, Educational Research for Policy
and Practice, 4(1), 2745.
295
Monk, M., and Dillon, J. (2000). The nature of scientific knowledge. In M. Monk and J.
Osborne (Eds.), Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research has to Say,
(pp.7287). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Monkman, K., and Baird, M. (2002). Educational change in the context of globalisation,
Comparative Education Review, 46(4), 497508.
Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., and Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the
nature of science, International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771790.
Motani, Y. (2005). Hopes and challenges for progressive educators in Japan:

Assessment of the progressive turn in the 2002 educational reform, Comparative
Education, 41(3), 309327.
Nanwani, D. P., and Ang, D. T. J. (2006, November). Reforming Secondary School

Science Curricula for a Global Singapore: Is there a Need for It. Paper
presented at the International Science Education Conference 2006, Singapore.
Nathan, J. M. (2001). Making Thinking Schools meaningful: Creating thinking
cultures. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges Facing the
Singapore Education System Today, (pp.3549). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
National Centre for Education Statistics. (2004, December 14). Highlights from the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study: TIMSS 2003. Retrieved
December 15, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005005.pdf
National Research Council of the United States. (1997). Science Teaching

Reconsidered: A Handbook. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ng, P. T. (2004). Students perception of change in the Singapore education system,
Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 7792.
296
Ng, P. T. (2005). Innovation and enterprise In J. Tan and P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping

Singapores Future: Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (pp.4151). Singapore:
Prentice Hall.
Ng, P. T. (2007). Quality assurance in the Singapore education system in an era of

diversity and innovation, Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 6(3),
235247.
Ng, P. T., and Chan, D. (2008). A comparative study of Singapores school excellence
model with Hong Kongs school-based management, International Journal of
Educational Management, 22(6), 488505.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with

technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge, Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509523.
Nolan Jr., J., and Meister, D .G. (2000). Teachers and Educational Change: The Lived
Experience of Secondary School Restructuring. New York: State University of
New York Press.
ODonoghue, T. (2007). Planning Your Qualitative Research Project: An Introduction
to Interpretivist Research in Education. London: Routledge.
OECD (2001). What Schools For The Future. Paris: Author.

Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., and Duschl, R. (2003). What ideasabout-science should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert
community, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692720.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation
in school science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(10), 9941020.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., and Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of
the literature and its implications, International Journal of Science Education,
25(9), 10491079.
297
Ostermeier, C., Prenzel, M., and Duit, R. (2010). Improving science and mathematics
instruction: The SINUS project as an example for reform as teacher professional
development, International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 303327.
Owston, R. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using
technology: An international study, Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 6177.
Park, M. (2008). Implementing curriculum integration: The experiences of Korean

elementary teachers, Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(3), 308319.
Parker, J., and Heywood, D. (2000). Exploring the relationship between subject
knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers learning about
forces, International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 89111.
Pederson, J. E., Bonnstetter, R. J., Rioseco, M., Brien-Valero, J. M., Garcia, H., and
OCallaghan, J. (2000). International partnerships as a means of reforming science
teacher education. In S. K. Abell (Ed.), Science Teacher Education: An
International Perspective, (pp.171192). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., and Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns for
teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum
innovation, Research in Science Education, 33(1), 89110.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., and Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes
professional
development
effective?
Strategies
that
foster
curriculum
implementation, American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921958.

Pint, R. (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers
transformations and the design of related teacher education, Science Education,
89, 112.
Poole, P. (2000). Information and communications technology in science education: A

long gestation. In J. Sears and P. Sorensen (Eds.), Issues in Science Teaching,
(pp.209218). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
298
Poppleton, P., and Williamson, J. (2004). The comparative background to educational

change. In P. Poppleton and J. Williamson (Eds.), New Realities of Secondary
Teachers Work Lives: An International Comparative Study of the Impact of
Educational Change on the Work Lives of Secondary School Teachers in Nine
Countries, (pp.925). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Powell, W. W., and Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy, Annual Review of
Sociology, 30, 199220.
Power, C. (2007). Education for the future: An international perspective, Educational

Research for Policy and Practice, 5(2), 165174.
Pringle, R. M., and Martin, S. C. (2005). The potential impacts of upcoming high- stakes
testing on the teaching of science in elementary classrooms, Research in Science
Education, 35(23), 347361.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research Methods: Quantitative and

Qualitative Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reilly, L. (2007). Progressive Modification: How Parents Deal With Home Schooling
Their Children with Intellectual Disabilities. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The
University of Western Australia.
Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., and Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in
Australian schools: Results of a national study, Research in Science Education,
31(4), 455498.
Rigano, D. L., and Ritchie, S. M. (2003). Implementing change within a school science
department: Progressive and dissonant voices, Research in Science Education,
33(3), 299317.
Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., and Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics
and their influence on curriculum implementation, Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 44(7), 883907.
299
Rosenfeld, M., and Rosenfeld, S. (2006). Understanding teacher responses to

constructivist learning environments: Challenges and resolutions, Science
Rosiek, J. (2003). Emotional scaffolding: An exploration of the teacher knowledge at the

intersection of student emotion and the subject matter, Journal of Teacher
Education, 54(5), 399412.
Roth, W., and Dsautels, M. J. (2004). Educating for citizenship: Reappraising the role
of science education, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology
Education, 4(2), 149168. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from
http://www.educ.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/PREPRINTS/Citizenship.pdf
Salloum, S. L., and BouJaoude, S. (2008). Careful! It is H2O? Teachers conceptions of
chemicals, International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 3364.
Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., and Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic

development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research
chemists, Science Education, 90, 468495.
Sanderson, G. (2002). International education developments in Singapore, International

Education Journal, 3(2), 85103.
Schmidt, M., and Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers sense-making about comprehensive
school reform: The influence of emotions, Teaching and Teacher Education,
21(8), 949965.
Schneider, B. L., and Keesler, V. A. (2007). School reform 2007: Transforming

education into a scientific enterprise, Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 197217.
Schneider, R. M., and Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role
of educative curriculum materials, Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3),
221245.
300
Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O. K., and Barker, S. (2003). Epistemological beliefs

across domains using Biglans classification of academic disciplines, Research in
Higher Education, 44(3), 347366.
Schuh, K. L. (2004). Learner-centred principles in teacher-centred practices?, Teaching

and Teacher Education, 20(8), 833846.
Sharpe, L. and Gopinathan, S. (2002). After effectiveness: New directions in the

Singapore school system, Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 151166.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching,

Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 122.
Siew, A. (2006, June 21, 2006). Multi-billion dollar IT plan unveiled. The Straits Times,
p.1.
Simon, S. (2000). Students attitudes towards science. In M. Monk and J. Osborne
(Eds.), Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research has to Say, (pp.104
119). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (2005). 2006 A-Level Examination.

Singapore: Author.
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (2006, March 27). GCE A Level
Examination Exam Syllabus for School Candidates. Retrieved March 27, 2006
from http://www.seab.gov.sg/SEAB/aLevel/syllabus/school/2007_GCE_A_H.html
Singapore Teachers Union (2004). Education in Singapore: Reform and Changes.
Singapore: Author.
301
Slavin, R. E. (2001). Does rigorous research knowledge provide a better base for
improving student achievement than teachers craft knowledge?, Journal of
Education Change, 2(4), 347348.
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies
of engagement: Classroom-based practices, Journal of Engineering Education,
94(1), 87101.
Smith, L. K., and Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms?:

Elementary teachers response to the tools of reform, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 44(3), 396423.
Sorsby, B. (2000). The irresistible rise of the nature of science in the science curricula.
In J. Sears and P. Sorensen (Eds.), Issues in Science Teaching, (pp.2330).
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B-S., and Scherz, Z. (2008). Teaching communication skills in
science: Tracing teacher change, Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 462
477.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., and Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and
cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research, Review of
Educational Research, 72(3), 387431.
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.

Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, (pp.273285).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
302
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement?

Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform, Journal of
Educational Change, 10(23), 211227.
Taitelbaum, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Carmeli, M., and Hofstein, A. (2008). Evidence
for teachers change while participating in a continuous professional development
programme and implementing the inquiry approach in the chemistry laboratory,
Takayama, K. (2008). The politics of international league tables: PISA in Japans
achievement crisis debate, Comparative Education, 44(4), 387407.
Tan, C. (2005a). The potential of Singapores ability driven education to prepare
students for a knowledge economy, International Education Journal, 6(4), 446
453.
Tan, C. (2005b). Driven by pragmatism: Issues and challenges in an ability-driven

education. In J. Tan and P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping Singapores Future: Thinking
Schools, Learning Nation, (pp.519). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, C. (2006a). Creating thinking schools through Knowledge and Inquiry: The
curriculum challenges for Singapore, The Curriculum Journal, 17(1), 89105.
Tan, C. (2006b). Philosophical perspectives on education. In C. Tan, B. Wong, J. S. M.

Chua and T. Kang (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Education: An Introduction,
(pp.2140). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, C. (2006c). Educational developments and reforms in Singapore. In C. Tan, B.

Wong, J. S. M. Chua and T. Kang (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Education: An
Introduction, (pp.133150). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
303
Tan, J. (2005). The marketisation of education in Singapore: What does this mean for
Thinking Schools, Learning Nation?. In J. Tan and P. T. Ng (Eds.), Shaping
Singapores Future: Thinking Schools, Learning Nation, (pp.95111). Singapore:
Prentice Hall.
Tan, J., and Ho, B. T. (2001). A levels or a polytechnic diploma? Malay students
choices of post-secondary options. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho (Eds.),
Challenges Facing the Singapore Education System Today, (pp.207223).
Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, J. & Ng, P. T. (Eds) (2005). Shaping Singapores Future: Thinking Schools,
Learning Nation. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Tan, K. (2006). Assessment. In C. Tan, B. Wong, J. S. M. Chua and T. Kang (Eds.),

Critical Perspectives on Education: An Introduction, (pp.112129). Singapore:
Prentice Hall.
Tan, O. S., Parsons, R. D., Hinson, S. L., and Sardo-Brown, D. (2003). Educational
Psychology: A PractitionerResearcher Approach (An Asian Edition). Singapore:
Thomson.
Teo, C. H. (1999). Speech by RAdm (NS) Teo Chee Hean, Singapores Minister for
Education at the 1999 East Asia Economic Summit Plenary Session, World
Economic Forum on 19 Oct 99 at 10.15am at Suntec City. Retrieved August 31,
2007 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/1999/sp191099.htm
Teo, C. H. (2000). Opening speech by Radm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education
and Second Minister for Defence at the opening of the Exploratory Laboratories
and the launch of the Photonics and Life Sciences Research Programmes at
Raffles Institution on Saturday 22 April 2000 at 9 am. Retrieved December 17,
2007 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2000/sp22042000.htm
304
Teo, C. H. (2002). Opening speech by Radm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education
and Second Minister for Defence on the JC/Upper secondary review committee
recommendations at parliament on 25 Nov 2002. Retrieved January 24, 2006
from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2002/sp27112002.htm
Tham, Y.C. (2006, June 21, 2006). The digital future. The Straits Times, p.H6.
Tharman, S. (2003). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Acting Minister for

Education, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar at Ngee Ann Polytechnic on Thursday,
2 October 2003. Retrieved December 18, 2007 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2003/sp20031002.htm
Tharman, S. (2005a). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education,

at the opening of the conference on Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy,
Practice on Monday, 30 May 2005, 9.00 am, at the National Institute of
Education. Retrieved March 24, 2006 from
http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2005/ sp20050530.htm
Tharman, S. (2005b). Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Minister for Education,

at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2005, on Thursday, 22 September 2005 at 10.00
am at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention Centre. Retrieved March 24, 2006
from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2005/sp20050922.htm
The Straits Times (2 September, 2006). How grads can succeed after graduation, p.S12.
Toh, K. A., and Tsoi, M. F. (2008). The master science teacher, Physics Education,
43(6), 620626.
Towndrow, P. A. (2008). Critical reflective practice as a pivot in transforming science

education: A report of teacher-researcher collaborative interactions in response to
assessment reforms, International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 903922.
Udo, M. K., Ramsey, G. P., and Mallow, J. V. (2004). Science anxiety and gender in
students taking general education science courses, Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 13(4), 435486.
305
Valli, L., and Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes
accountability, American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519558.
van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers meanings regarding educational practice, Review of
Educational Research, 72(4), 577625.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., and de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers
pedagogical content knowledge, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6),
673695.
van Veen, K., and Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers emotions in a
context of change, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1), 85111.
Verjovsky, J., and Waldegg, G. (2005). Analysing beliefs and practices of a Mexican
high school biology teacher, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(4), 465
491.
Vidovich, L., and ODonoghue, T. (2003). Globallocal dynamics of curriculum policy
development: A case-study from Singapore, The Curriculum Journal, 14(3), 351
370.
Wallace, J., and Lounden, W. (1998). Curriculum change in science: Riding the waves
in reform. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of
Science Education, (pp.471485). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Wallace, R. A., and Wolf, A. (1999). Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the
Classical Tradition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Watson, R., and Manning, A. (2008). Factors influencing the transformation of new
teaching approaches from a programme of professional development to the
classroom, International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 689709.
Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of

dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political
challenges facing teachers, Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131175.
306
Wong, P. K. (2003). From leveraging multinational corporations to fostering

technopreneurship. In L. Low and D. M. Johnston (Eds.), Singapore Inc.: Public
Policy Options in the Third Millennium, (pp.3584). Singapore: Eastern
Universities Press.
Woods, P. (1983). Sociology and the School: An Interactionist Viewpoint. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wu, H. K., and Huang, Y. L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centred

and
student-centred
technology-enhanced
learning
environments,
Science

Yerrick, R. K., Pedersen, J. E., and Arnason, J. (1998). We are just spectators: A case
study of science teaching, epistemology, and classroom management, Science
Yip, J. S. K., Eng, S. P., and Yap, J. Y. C. (1997). 25 years of educational reform. In J.
Tan, S. Gopinathan and W. K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore: A Book of
Readings, (pp.332). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Yu, W. M., and Lau, C. K. (2006). Understanding education reform: Insights from
stories of the changing school context, Planning and Changing, 37(3 & 4), 219
233.
Zembylas, M., and Barker, H. B. (2007). Teachers spaces for coping with change in the
context of a reform effort, Journal of Educational Change, 8(3), 235256.
307
Appendix A
Data Collection Questions
1.
What are your experiences with regards to teaching your subject, eg,
i.
Pitching the level of teaching according to the background of students;
ii.
Teaching new content that has been added to the revised curriculum;
iii.
Adopting a more student-centred teaching approach as well as integrating
ICT into teaching;
iv.
Preparing students for new assessment criteria.
2.
What are your views with regards to teaching your subject, eg,
i.
ii.
iii.
ICT into teaching;
iv.
3.
What are your methods/ways of teaching your subject, eg,

i.
ii.
iii.
ICT into teaching;
iv.
4.
Can you tell me how these methods/ways come about?

(e.g. Are they based on previous experiences; personal beliefs; department goals;
school vision etc?)
5.
What obstacles did you encounter or do you foresee from carrying these
methods/ways of teaching? Why?
6.
Which aspect of the revised curriculum has the greatest impact on you? Why?
7.
What other aspects (positive or negative) of the revised curriculum do you feel
strongly about?
8.
With regards to the methods/ways of teaching you have mentioned earlier, what
are the steps/procedures you will adopt to ensure that your methods/ways of
teaching can be executed smoothly?
9.
How did you come up with such steps/procedures?
10.
Are these steps/procedures being used for the first time?

(If yes) How confident are you in using such steps/procedures? Why?
(If no) How successful were these steps/procedures? Can you tell me some of
the incidents whereby they have worked for you? (e.g. Better engagement of
students in learning, maximise time & resources, etc)
308
11.
How are these steps/procedures being organised? (e.g. incorporating these

strategies into the lesson plans; record them in your teachers record book or
diaries; constant reflection, share/discuss with colleagues; feedback from
students, etc)?
12.
How important to you are your methods/ways & steps/procedures of teaching

with regard to teaching in the new curriculum?
Why? (e.g. Better student engagement, maximise time & resources, etc)
13.
In what ways are your methods/ways & steps/procedures aligned to your

principles/beliefs as a teacher?
In what ways are your methods/ways & steps/procedures aligned to the
department goals, school vision etc?
14.
What will you do in order that you can carry out your methods/ways &
steps/procedures?
15.
What sort of structure or pattern will you adopt when you are carrying out your
plans and strategies?
16.
Do you intend to share with your colleagues about your plans and strategies?
Why?
17.
Which of the methods/ways & steps/procedures do you consider to be the most

important to you? Why?
18.
Based on your methods/ways & steps/procedures, what are the outcomes you will
expect to achieve? (Outcomes in terms of student learning, professional
development of teachers, etc)
19.
In what ways are these outcomes aligned to your personal, department, school
goals?
20.
What are the other reasons for achieving these outcomes?
21.
How important to you are these outcomes? Why?
22.
What will be the challenges for you in achieving these outcomes?

Why do you say so?
309

Lim Patrick Tian Huat 2010

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lim Patrick Tian Huat 2010

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

HOW SINGAPORE JUNIOR COLLEGE SCIENCE TEACHERS

DEAL WITH THE TEACHING OF SCIENCE UNDER THE

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Patrick Tian Huat Lim

Graduate School of Education

To realise this vision, many

With the implementation of the revised curriculum, junior

college teachers face new challenges.

In addition to the usual responsibility of

significance in three aspects, namely, enhancing Singapore junior college science

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background and Context

The Need for Educational Change in Singapore

A Paradigm Shift in Teaching and Learning

Junior College Education in Singapore

Overview of the Literature

The Challenge of Working with Insufficient Time and

Benefits to Teaching and Learning

Congruence Between Educational Initiatives and

Teachers Professional Orientations

Promoting Successful Implementation of Educational

Research Design and Methodology

Findings of the Study

Structure of the Thesis

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Globalisation and Educational Change

Educational Change in the United States, Japan and Hong

Educational Change: The Case of Singapore

Constructivist-Based Student-Centred Learning

An Overview of the Structure and Stages of Education in

Pre-University Education in Junior Colleges

A New Vision for Education in Singapore: Thinking Schools,

Innovation and Enterprise

Teach Less, Learn More

The 2006 Revised Junior College Curriculum

CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Challenges Teachers Face When Implementing Educational

Working with Insufficient Time and Limited Resources

Meanings Teachers Ascribe to Educational Initiatives

Benefits to Teaching and Learning

Congruence Between Educational Initiatives and Teachers

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Paradigm Interpretivism

Theoretical Position Symbolic Interactionism

Rationale for Framework

Theoretical Sampling and Selection of Participants

Teachers Record Books

Official Records and Public Documents

Trustworthiness of the Study

Parameters of the Study

CHAPTER FIVE: VIGNETTES OF FIVE SCIENCE TEACHERS

Recapitulation of the 2006 revised junior college curriculum and

the implications for science teachers

The Institutional Setting

Vignette One Jane (Biology Teacher)

Vignette Two Michael (Physics Teacher)

Vignette Three Margaret (Physics Teacher)

Vignette Four Martin (Chemistry Teacher)

Vignette Five Denise (Chemistry Teacher)

A Storyline on How the Research Participants Dealt With the

Teaching of their Science Subjects under the 2006 Revised Junior

CHAPTER SIX: THE CORE THEORY: A THREE-STAGED

Overview of the Core Theory

Detailed Explanation of the Core Theory