Transcript A Study of Language and Literacy in a

A Study of Language and Literacy in a
P1 Classroom in Singapore: Exploring
Teaching and Learning Practices.
Monica Sharma Menon
Outline of Seminar Session
 Introduction
Pre-school scene
 SEED and STELLAR
 Research questions and significance of study
 Literature review
 Deficit theory
Singapore research
 Funds of Knowledge
 Methodology – Case study using Interpretive Inquiry
 Preliminary findings
Current Pre-school Scene
 Pre-school education is not compulsory
 Curriculum framework (MOE) is a guideline
“ the framework is not meant to be prescriptive (…) I
hope the curriculum framework will serve as a useful
reference point to many in the field of early childhood
education in Singapore” (Ms Ho Peng, Director of the
Education Programmes Division, MOE, A Framework
for the Kindergarten Curriculum in Singapore, 2003 )
Current Pre-school Scene
 MOE (kindergartens), MCYS (child care-centres)
 488 kindergartens registered with the MOE, 266 of
them are PCF kindergartens
 67 % send their children to PCF
 28% - Reggio-Emelia, Waldorf –Steiner, Montessori,
Madrasah etc
 remaining 5% - no pre-school education
 Cost factors- 6586 reported cases of families on the
Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (MCYS
Website, 2005).
 concerns about disparity, varying standards
From Pre-school to Primary one –
SEED (Strategies for Effective and Engaged Development)
 part of TLLM initiative (2004)
 Piloted in 2004
Full implementation (in phases) w.e.f 2005
Effective and engaged development
 “age-appropriate” methods
 All subject areas
Schools given autonomy, holistic learning, alternative
assessment etc
STELLAR within SEED
 STELLAR - Strategies for Effective Language
Learning and Reading
 Feedback from lower primary SEED teachers –
greater standardisation, more structure and guidance
 Feedback from EL review committee – EL standards
 STELLAR phase 1 - 2006
 STELLAR phase 2 – 2007
 Total implementation 2009
More about STELLAR…
 Similar to REAP implemented in 1980s– Reading and
English Acquisition Programme
 Big Book titles - REAP
 Activities centered around books – SBA, MLEA and LC - 29
big books in P1, 25 in P2 MLEA, Learning Centres
 Mentor assigned to each school to ensure quality and
standardisation
 5 workshop sessions
 Books, worksheets and guidelines provided
 General Guidelines & Specific Guidelines
 Specific questions are given for each page (sometimes with
expected response)
Some concerns about STELLAR
Researchers caution against carrying out the lesson
procedures in a very technical manner as this may lead to
a situation of “deskilling” of teachers (Apple, 1980,1986;
Breen,1995; Richards 1993, 2006) where “ the teacher’s
role is trivialised and marginalised to that of little more
than a technician” (Richards, 1993,p.48).
Thrust of the SBA approach - “collaborative, negotiated
meaning-making and joint exploration of the text is made
possible by the talk that is generated in an environment
that simulates bedtime reading with its secure,
comfortable and supportive environment” (Sripathy, 1998,
p.271).
Concerns about STELLAR
STELLAR revolves around the structure of questioning,
encouraging talk and negotiated meaning-making
around books. Such an approach, therefore, is going to
privilege children who already possess school-type
literacy practices and who come from middle-class
backgrounds having had the opportunity to attend “high
end pre-schools” or enrichment classes.
What about children without such school-type literacy
experiences?
What is being done to cater for them?
Research Question:
How does a Primary One classroom teacher access
children’s funds of knowledge in her daily practices
in developing literacy?
Defining of “funds of knowledge”
The term “funds of knowledge” will be defined “those
historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of
knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (Moll & Gonzalez, 1994, p.443).
Examples cited by Moll and Gonzalez (1994) include what
“families know about repairs, carpentry…knowledge related
to jobs in the working class segment of the labour
market…cultivation of plants, folk remedies, herbal
cures…archeology, biology…” (p.443). It would therefore be
an accumulation of the “household knowledge…its
origins…family members’ employment, occupations…[and]
household activities” (p. 443).
It would also include knowledge of EL, negotiated learning,
experiences with talk”
Other related questions
At the administration/planning level:
 What do the school administrators (HOD, Principal)
understand by “funds of knowledge”? What is their
view, opinion of it?
 What is being done to gather information on pupils’
funds of knowledge within the school/classroom?
 How is the school working with parents/homes to
ensure school success?
More questions
At the implementation/classroom level :
 What is the classroom teacher’s understanding of
“funds of knowledge”? What is her view, opinion,
understanding of it? Beliefs, practices? Knowledge of
the language? Knowledge of skills?
 What opportunities do pupils have in the classroom to
demonstrate and share what they know?
 Why does the teacher teach the way she does?
 How, if at all, does the teacher work with pupils and
parents to optimise their home literacy practices and
make connections in school?
Significance of the study
 Advancement of researcher's own understanding –
more informed, sophisticated – not just about pointing
out teacher talk
 Insights into P1 classroom practices and pedagogy
 The study will document, map and describe common
practices in the classroom.
 Used as a platform to study other P1 classrooms
 Whether implementation of STELLAR needs further
analysis
Literature Review
Literature Review
Deficit Theory
Children from diverse backgrounds, minority groups
and those who come from non-English speaking
homes, who are not acculturated into school-type
literacy practices of the dominant discourse, are facing
some form of “deficit” in language and literacy
acquisition (Au, 1998; Heath, 1994; Luke & Kale, 1997;
McCarthey, 1997; Michaels, 1991; Moll & Gonzalez,
1994; Moll et al, 2005).
“poor not only economically but in terms of quality of
experiences” (Moll, et al, 2005, p. 71) and thus, they
“must be saved or rescued” (Moll & Gonzalez, 1994,
p.444).
Literature Review
Incongruence between home and school
 Heath’s ethnographic study – Roadville, Trackton,
 Michales’ study (“sharing time” - Deena and the
brown coat) – topic centering vs topic associating
 McCarthy – teachers’ focus were on the children who
already had school type literacy practices
 Incongruence between home and school literacy
practices leading to school failure
Research in Singapore
 Reading Skills Project Team – 1984 (REAP) headed by
Ng Seok Moi – looked at home backgrounds with a
purpose to design the curriculum
 REAP first mooted at 1984 RELC Seminar on
Communicative Language Teaching (Cheah, 2003)
 Cheah (1998) has also analysed the English Language
Syllabus and noted that while “learner-centredness” and
an “appreciation of culture” is mentioned, the syllabus is
unclear about focus
Research in Singapore
 Sripathy – cultural scripts (1998, 2007)
“cultural scripts” – “an ethnic DNA that the individual carries
with him by virtue of being born into a community and
family. The individual is taught from birth the values, beliefs
and ways of being within that community, which then
become ingrained. This cultural script represents our
knowledge of actions, meanings, ideas and events. This is
engraved as schemata … and is acquired by children
through participation in social events within that community
and family culture.” (Sripathy, 2007, p.75)
 Research looked at samples of the concepts of learning
and child rearing and values inherent in these Singaporean
cultures.
Research in Singapore
 CRPP - Core, Panel 3 – Classroom practices (2005)
 1200 lessons (primary/secondary) – coding scheme
 TSLN – learner-centred lessons, level of engagement,
teacher talk
 Quantitative
In Singapore, little attention is being given to how teachers
can engage with learners’ cultural experiences and validate
their home/out of school practices by introducing related
literacy events into the classroom.
Funds of Knowledge
 Moll et al (2005) - complex social networks that
intertwine and interconnect people with their social
environments
 what goes on in the homes is highly useful in crafting
lessons in the classroom and extending learning
Moll & Gonzalez (1994) - teacher-researchers made
use of the “repositories of knowledge” (p. 445) gathered
through their home visits to craft themes and modules
for school curriculum
Methodology
Methodology
 Socio- constructivists framework – socioconstructivism (Au, 1998; Corden, 2000; Cazden, 2001;
Lewis, 1999)
 Moll & Gonzalez (2005) have used (Vygotsky’s)
theories of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) in
identifying the cultural resources and “funds of
knowledge” of the home and community to assist
students in maximising learning in school.
Case Study Methodology using Interpretive Inquiry
 Researcher comes to conclusions by interpreting the
messages, symbols and interactions that are present in the
research milieu (Ellis, 1998; Packer & Addison, 1989).
 An “unfolding of the taken-for-granted ways” (Ellis, 1998)
 Moving backwards and forwards within the “hermeneutic
circle” (Ellis, 1998).
 Forward portion - “projection” - whereby researchers
seek to make some initial sense of the current situation
using their own prejudices and preconceived ideas.
 Backward arc - “evaluation” - seeks to reexamine the
initial interpretations and reflect on the processes, gaps or
inconsistencies (Ellis, 1998).
Case Study Methodology using Interpretive Inquiry –
An illustration
 Earlier study (LSP) - researcher uncovered how the
mainstream curriculum materials imposed expectations on
Primary One pupils. Those who did not posses school type
literacy were “at risk” of failing and slated for Learning
Support intervention. This led to questions such as,
What is being done by classroom teachers to assist
children to acquire school-type literacy so that they do not
end up in LSP classes?
Case Study Methodology using Interpretive Inquiry –
An illustration
Researcher made comparison between the existing
STELLAR curriculum materials and the REAP materials.
REAP was discontinued shortly after the introduction of the
1991 syllabus was implemented. Why then was a
reintroduction of a similar type programme made in 2006?
Case Study Methodology using Interpretive Inquiry
 Spiral effect into the next loop
 Not about validating timeless truth (empirical data,
qualitative analysis)
 Look at researcher's own perspectives
 Acknowledge biases, hunches, wonderings and helps
researcher to reflect on them
 The important feature - Has the concern been advanced?
Data to be examined
 Available documents on curriculum issues
 Implementation of the EL programme in the school
(SEED, STELLAR)
 Lesson observations
 Interview with class teacher and HOD.
 Literacy artefacts in and out of the classroom.
Data Analysis
 Inductive approach, emerging themes and patterns
 What data surfaces
Preliminary Findings
The Teacher and the HOD
 Literacy Experiences of Pupils in Primary 1
I feel that it is very important for me as a language teacher to know what
the child is coming to me with. I personally don’t believe that children
come as blank slates. They do come with a lot of knowledge, a lot of
experience. And every child is at a different starting point in January.
 Working with Parents and Families – school programmes,
activities, teacher initiated
 Communication, Expectations and Cascading –
 MOE, HOD, SEED Coordinator, Level Rep, Class Teacher e.g.
STELLAR all the way to P6?
The Teacher and the HOD
 Support and Resources – differentiation, curriculum customisation
At the moment, the only form of support that we have had is through the
STELLAR workshops. Other than that, we do have level meetings but
through the level meetings there is never any sharing of lessons or
strategies of how to attend to children who need us a bit more. There is
very little help from the coordinator or from the level head or subject head
or HOD because it just seems that the teachers are supposed to just think
for themselves and just do what they think is right. However, when
teachers do not finish the required number of worksheets, which are given,
the teachers are asked why. And it is frowned upon if you do a bit more
than others or if you do things a little differently from others, it’s not really
an accepted or the done thing.
The Teacher and the HOD
 The Strategies, Values and Beliefs of the Teacher
Good literacy practices are those which allow the child to connect his
prior experience, his everyday routine and regime, in the daily lessons
that go on, which allow the child to bring his world into the classroom.
And then take from the classroom what is being given and then, bring it
back into his world to use it in his speech, in his writing. It has to be
relevant.
Classroom Interaction Patterns – Preliminary
Framework for Analysis
The suggested framework is based on the work of Cazden
(2001), Cordon (2000), Tsui (2004) and Wells (1995).
 What patterns and structures of classroom interaction constitute
scaffolding?
 In what way do these patterns and structures demonstrate how
the teacher is scaffolding and extending student learning?
 How does the teacher, as “master craftsman”, demonstrate and
model good literacy practices to ensure that pupils are apprenticed
into being good learners?
 What appropriation strategies does the classroom teacher
employ?
 How does the classroom teacher vary the context through
semantic variation to bring about maximum literacy learning?
Classroom Interaction Patterns – Preliminary
Framework for Analysis
Prior Knowledge and Semantic Variation of the Space
of Learning
 Explicit Teaching
 Modelling and Demonstrating
 Questioning
 Revoicing and Reformulating
 Recapitulation and Extension
 Praise and Affirmation
References
Apple, M.W. (1980). Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routeledge &
Kegan Paul.
Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of
students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research 30 (2),
297-319.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and
learning. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Cheah,Y.M. (2003). English language teaching in Singapore today. In
W.K. Ho, & R.Y.L. Wong, (Eds.), English Language Teaching in East Asia
Today: Changing Policies and Practices (pp351-374). Singapore: Eastern
Universities Press.
Cordon, R. (2000). Literacy and learning through talk: Strategies for the
primary classroom. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2001). English
Language Syllabus: Primary and Secondary. Singapore: Ministry of
Education.
References
Ellis, J.L (1998). Interpretive inquiry as a formal research process. In J.L
Ellis (Ed) Teaching from understanding: Teacher as interpretive inquirer
(pp15-32). New York: Garland Publishing.
Gonzalez, N. (2005). Beyond culture: The hybridity of funds of knowledge.
In Gonzalez, N., Moll, L.C., Amanti, C. (Eds.), Funds of knowledge:
Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms (pp.2946). London: Lawrence Earlbaum Assosciates
Heath, S.B. (1985). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Heath, S.B. (1994). What no bedtime story means. In J.Maybin (Ed).
Language and Literacy in Social Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lewis, C. (2001). Literary practices as Social Acts: Power, Status and
Cultural Norms in the Classroom. London: Lawrence Earlbaum Ass.
Publishers.
References
Luke, A & Kale, J. (1997). Learning through difference: cultural practices in early
childhood language socialization. In E. Gregory (Ed). One child, many worlds:
Early learning in multicultural communities. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Marsh, C.J. & Willis, G. (2007). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing
issues. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
McCarthey, S.J. (1997). Connecting home and school literacy practices in
classrooms with diverse populations. Journal of Literacy Research. 29 (2), pp
145-182.
Michaels, S. (1991). Hearing the connections between children’s oral and
written discourse. In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds). Rewriting literacy: Culture
and the discourse of the other. New York: Berfin and Garvey.
Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports (2005) Statistics –
General. Singapore Social Statistics in Brief 2005. Retrieved 16 February 2007
from http://www.mcys.gov.sg/MCDSFiles/download/social%20stats%202006.pdf
References
Ministry of Education. English Language Syllabus (2001). Curriculum Planning
Division.
Ministry of Education (2006). Recommendations of the English Language
curriculum and pedagogy review. Curriculum Planning Division.
Moll, L.C. & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lesson from research with language-minority
children. Journal of reading behaviour 26 (4), pp 493-456.
Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In
N.Gonzalez, L.C. Moll & C. Amanti (Eds). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing
Practices in Households Communities and Classrooms. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ng, S.M. (Ed). (1987). Research into children’s language and reading
development (January 1983 – December 1986). Institute of Education,
Singapore.
References
Richards, J.C. (1993). Beyond the textbook: The role of commercial materials in
language teaching. Papers of the Department of English, City Polytechnic of
Hong Kong, 5 (1) pp.43-53.
Richards, J.C. (2006). Curriculum development in language teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Saravanan, S. & Sripathy, M. (2002). Literacy Practices in the home. In S.C.
Teng & B.S. Teoh (Eds). Reading in a multilingual context: From theory to
practice (pp 144-152). Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.
Sripathy, M. (1998). Language teaching pedagogies and cultural scripts: The
Singapore primary classroom. In S. Gopinathan. et. al. (Eds). Language society
and education in Singapore: Issues and trends. Singapore: Times Academic.
Sripathy, M. (2007). Cultural Scripts and Literacy Pedagogy: An Analysis of the
English Language syllabus and classroom literacy lessons. In V. Vaish, Y. Liu &
S. Gopinathan (Eds). Language, capital, Culture: Critical studies on language
and education in Singapore (pp 73-102). Netherlands: Sense.
References
Tsui, A.B.M (2004). The semantic enrichment of the space of learning. In F.
Marton & A. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning.
Mahwah,N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vygotsky.L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University press.
Wells, G. (1987). The learning of literacy. In B. Fillion, C. Hedley& E. di Martino
(Eds.), Home and school: Early language and reading (pp27-45). Norwood,N.J:
Ablex.
Wells, G. (1995). Language and the Inquiry-Oriented Curriculum. Curriculum
Inquiry 25 (3) pp. 233-269.
Q and A