Outline of Seminar Session

1. A Study of Language and Literacy in a P1 Classroom in Singapore: Exploring Teaching and Learning Practices. Monica Sharma Menon

2. 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

3. 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 )

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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).

9. 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?

10. Research Question: How does a Primary One classroom teacher access children’s funds of knowledge in her daily practices in developing literacy?

11. 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”

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. 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

15. Literature Review

16. 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).

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. Methodology

23. Methodology • Socio- constructivists framework – socio- constructivism (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.

24. 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).

25. 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?

26. 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?

27. 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?

28. 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

29. Preliminary Findings

30. 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?

31. 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 lessonsor 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.

32. 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.

33. 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?

34. 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

35. 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.

36. 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.29-46). 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.

37. 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

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. Q and A