Review of Language, Society and Education in Singapore
Chapters/Sections in Part III, Language in Education


Maha Sripathy: Language-Teaching Pedagogies and Cultural Scripts: The Singapore Primary Classroom.

Handout for SARS 523,
Multilingual Education in South/Southeast Asia


  1. Paradigm Shift.
  2. Begins with a focus on paradigm shift in the area of language teaching and learning in the last few years.

  3. Theoretical Framework.
  4. Sripathy claims these assumptions are contestable and culturally inappropriate. She defines literacy as:

    She enumerates various assumptions (that sound good on the surface) but which she finds problematical:

    Big mistake, says MS. This may be fine if home lg. is same as school lg., but when they differ, we have cultural problems. This leads to cultural mismatch. Scholars already cited indicate that different cultures have different practices related to lg. and literacy, and this may lead to school failure. Different groups have different discourses (Gee).

    This is a big problem because at least 25% of Singapore children still know no formal English when they arrive in school. Furthermore, the pedagogic practices associated with teaching of English are also culturally at variance with lived experiences of children and teachers. Interaction, the big theoretical basis of SBR and CDS may be culturally unfamiliar to children in Singapore: this is situated within lives of middle-class, English-dominant, white [why focus on white? hs] cultures. True, more and more families in Singapore are adopting these "white" middle-class attitudes, and reading to their children, interacting with them in their homes.

    Perception of English as neutral. Because English may be perceived as neutral, many researchers etc. may think this is fine. But this may be an attitude, a cultural bias, a feature of (shudder) ORIENTALISM! Western modes of thought may be being adopted lock stock and barrel, without considering the inappropriateness of the model. In Singapore, English is seen as vehicle for economic success, etc.; access to technology etc., without seeing any negative side effects.

    But pedagogic approaches should harness pupils' lived cultural experiences and respond to those experiences. Sripathy quotes her own research (1997b) to show the influence of cultural scripts.

  5. Cultural Scripts, SBA, and CDS.
  6. Cultural scripts defined by Goddard as a reformulation of (Hymes') "Rules of Speaking" i.e. speaking

    "compatible with search for broad generalizations about discourse and with attention to the particularities of individual cultures." (Goddard 1995:5)

    Cultural scripts of various ethnic groups in Singapore---Chinese, Malay, Indian--differ by virtue of ethnic background. Focus here will be on those aspects of the cultural scripts (same as my notion of linguistic culture?: hs] that have relevance for the school environment. Sripathy did her own study of adult-child talk practices during SBA and CDS and compared them with home talk practices in the three main groups. Based on middle-class groups, so perhaps not relevant to all. However, challenges importation of certain pedagogical practices.

These factors found in the research on authority in Chinese families.

In general, Chinese and Indian families differ then from Malay families in their approaches to parent-child linguistic interaction. Home practices not at all like school practices of the CDS and SBA approaches. Saving face, giving instruction, correcting, asking questions about school, but not interactive. Children told to go to school, pay attention, don't talk back to teacher. Teacher know best! (i.e., be more kiasu!

Malay pattern is different; tho respect for age/authority is there, more opportunity to talk. Hierarchy not so much part of the linguistic culture.

But Chinese teachers (in this study) criticized the Malays, found their behavior disruptive and not always relevant to lesson. Malay students' contributions were nonsense. For the Malays, the process approach of SBA and CDS is fine; for Indians and Chinese, not fine. Malays should be expected to do well with this approach.

Bed-time Reading: Bed-time reading is not a cultural practice in homes of most Singaporean children; a western practice. Few exceptions (one Indian family). Others bought encyclopedias for children (to improve their minds!) but children refused. Many of the teachers in the study also had no experience of home reading, bed-time reading.

Learning is a serious pursuit; not for enjoyment! Reading as transmission; careful listening for child; teacher checking understanding. Teachers emphasise question-answer, not spontaneous participation and personal engagement. MS gives examples of transcripts of teacher-pupil interaction: checking for accuracy; yes-no responses. Teacher asks the question, student answers. Accuracy, not enjoyment.

Teachers say they know best what child needs. Emphasis on outcomes, not process. Questions are closed, not open-ended; check on facts, not feelings.

      Thus: the idea of negotiation, collaboration and joint meaning-making ... may not be possible given the cultural perception experiences and expectations teachers and pupils have of reading and writing.

Yes, SBA and CDS have been used in small classrooms, with homogeneous groups, where learning is perceived as developmental, as process of discovery. But this is not what Singapore teachers or most pupils/parents expect. Give worksheets! Productivity! Results!

The problems brought on by importation of foreign models (SBA, CDS) and their expectations, which do not fit the Singapore classroom, need to be addressed. The models need to be adapted. Otherwise, the cultural values of the community are ignored, and the learning style that doesn't fit the imported model is marginalized; this may mean a literacy of disempowerment instead of empowerment through literacy.


haroldfs@ccat.sas.upenn.edu

last modified 4/25/01