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

1. Paradigm Shift.

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

• Abandonment of Teacher-Centered approaches; importance of correct answers and error correction, teacher as model of correctness.
• New Model:
• Problem-solving,
• risk-taking,
• learner responsibility for checking and correction.
• Focus on literacy from cross-cultural perspective.
• Focus on cognitive consequences of literacy acquisition replaced by focus on literacy as a social practice.
• Debunked dominant view of literary as a neutral or technical skill.
• Instead, conceptualization as "ideological practice embedded in specific cultural meanings and practices." (Street 1995). New dimension to literacy acquisition.

• Place of Culture in language learning has been examined by various people (Heath, Au, Erickson and Mohatt; Philips). Looked at
• Pupil participation patterns in classroom and their lack of congruence with culturally familiar patterns of interaction at home.
• Various studies point to sociocultural embeddedness of ltieracy practices.

• Sripathy looks at two key pedagogic approaches used in lower primary in Singapore and critiques them:
• Shared Book Approach (SBA)
• Language Experience Approach (LEA)

have been in use since 1985. Used to assist children from non-English speaking backgrounds in acquisition of English; form the basis of teaching reading and writing in lower primary in Singapore.

• Shared Book Approach (SBA) was proposed by Holdaway (1982) is based on cycle of behaviors found in bedtime storybook reading and knowledge of spoken language learning. This was seen as a happy, secure time for children and was crucial for their learning of spoken language in infancy, and for their passive understanding of literacy and literate language, and early mastery of other complex tasks.
• allowed children to enjoy challenging, ungraded readings
• open selection of literature
• principles of text repetition
• focus on print
• under control of teacher

Adapted to the classroom, it was done with Big Books

• context of cooperation
• (instead of competition and correction)
• exposure to carefully selected literature
focus on reading ability

• Language Experience Approach (LEA) focussed onstead on the task of developing writing abilities of children. Based on observation that children like to talk abou what they have done; make them write about it! Have them talk about it and then
• guide them to write, construct a story
• interested adult helps
• models appropriate writing strategies and conventions
• writes down their thoughts, expressed in their words,
• children acquire necessary writing skills
• teacher writes the story (Class Dictated Story, SDS) on the board.
• SDS and SBA are the focus of Sripathy's critique.
• These approaches are based on a socio-constructivist view;
• learning as developmental and negotiated collaboration.
• Reading/writing are developmental and best learned in a contextualized, meaningful way with support of knowing adult.
• (Contrasts with view of literacy as
• set of discrete skills,
• decontextualized,
• copying of lifeless letter forms,
• meaning nothing.

Underlying feature is that pupils

• negotiate their understanding of the text and
• relate it to their own experience of word and world.
• Teacher guides them,
• focuses on aspects of language (form?) and
• scaffolds the learning.
• Generates spontaneous interest from pupils because of
• non-competitiveness,
• supportive environment,
• teacher accepts all responses,
• positive feedback.
2. Theoretical Framework.

Sripathy claims these assumptions are contestable and culturally inappropriate. She defines literacy as:

• plurality of sociocultural practices
• demonstrated through use of cultural symbols to enact particular purposes within a context.

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

• The technical "skills and technology connected to immediate occupational needs" approach.
• Literacy as an "event, situated in an interactional context, guided by sociocultural norms" approach.
• Reading and writing as transactional (Vygotsky; Gee: Freebody and Welch; Bakhtin;), i.e. language as social action: socioculturally situated; culturally loaded; constructs reality for the individual (Geertz).
• Focus on culture means that becoming literate means being able to manipulate relevant symbols, words and concepts appropriately. This would define communicative competence in the classroom.
• When language being learned is the home language, classroom is an extension of the home, reinforces home interactional practices.

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.

3. Cultural Scripts, SBA, and CDS.

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.

• Hierarchy problem. In all the 3 communities, there are notions of hierarchy. In Chinese community, superior-inferior structure. Authority important in Chinese families: power, position and gender are factors. Hierarchy dictates behavior patterns:
• Affection not displayed openly: bad for children; if displayed, hard to maintain power, correcting, etc.
• Children not praised for good behavior, achievement. Praise will corrupt them
• Children publicly scolded, slapped for misbehavior.
• Children also threatened for bad behavior
• Keeps children in check, ensures discipline.
• Learning revered: teacher is authority: no back-talk
• Education is not "self-expressive development of ideas" (Scollon 1994)

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

• Cultural Scripts of Indian children.
  • Concepts of maanam (dignity) and mariyaadai (respect).
  • Respect for authority, age and status
  • participation, choice of language, content of communication guided by specific forms of address
  • parents' authority is ultimate; expected to discipline their children; failure to do so brings loss of face; family face must be preserved.
  • outward display of feelings prohibited;
  • restraint is virtue.
  • Notion of veTkam (shame, modesty): parents shame children as form of discipline and punishment.
  • Children are treasured, but made aware of roles and positions in hierarchy.
  • Children not expected to have/express an opinion unless asked.
  • Hierarchy and self-restraint in communicative practices make children reticent.

• Cultural Scripts of Malay Children.

• Malays value kinship sentiments. Children are seen as much as heard; partake in all functions, showered with affection.
• Concept of kasihan (love and concern) dominates their dealings.
• Children addressed affectionately; parent-child interaction prefixed with sayang.
• Practice forgiveness, and do not admonish children. Problems dealt with in discussion/consultation with elders.
• Notion of shaming is abhorred.
• Chattering and bantering are more common.

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.

last modified 4/25/01