Curriculum and Instructional Leadership
in the 21st CenturyA Look at Schools in
Nashville and Singapore
Capstone Paper submitted by:
Bernard Chew
in fulfillment of the requirements for M.Ed. Degree
Preface and acknowledgements
In this capstone paper, I shall attempt to synthesize and apply my diverse learning while
pursuing my M.Ed. Degree at Vanderbilt University. I came to Vanderbilt on a Ministry of Education
(Singapore) scholarship. As a Singaporean educator likely to return to Vice-Principalship in a
Singapore school, I had hoped that my year at Vanderbilt would equip me with the necessary
knowledge and skills to be an effective curriculum and instructional leader when I return to Singapore.
Coming to the end of my time at Vanderbilt (I have two summer courses remaining), I have to say that
the learning experiences I have had have given me much food for thought. The different courses I have
taken (particular those directly related to curriculum and school leadership), as well as the practicum
experience in five different schools in the Greater Nashville area, have provided me with a clearer
vision of what good curriculum and instructional leadership would look like. Thus, I was interested not
only in the theoretical aspects of teaching and learning, and instructional leadership, I also wanted to
have a good idea of how the theories are put into practice. I am thankful that my practicum experience
as well as opportunities in other courses to interview school leaders in the Greater Nashville area has
afforded me the opportunity to see the theories in action. I also had an opportunity to teach in a high
school class as part of my Social Studies methods class. The capstone paper is, therefore, a distillation
of my learning and will also serve to help me organize my thoughts into a coherent whole as I prepare
to return to school.
In the course of my learning, I am indebted to many people- to all my lecturers at VanderbiltProf. Pearl Sims, Prof. Sarah Buchanan, Prof. Naomi Tyler, Prof. Mary Bradshaw, Prof. Lynn Heady,
Prof. Thomas Smith, Prof. Steven Baum, Prof. Mark Cannon and Prof. Leigh Wadsworth, I am grateful
for the generous sharing of your knowledge and experience. You have set high standards for our
learning and given us great support and encouragement along the way. I am also thankful to the school
leaders at Big Picture High School (Mr. Ralph Tagg), Tom Joy Elementary (Ms. Elana Jones),
Hillsboro High School (Mrs. Larue-Lucas), Montgomery Bell Academy (Mr. Alan Coverstone) and
Ravenwood High School (Dr. Pam Vaden and Ms. Lily Leffler) for generously sharing their time to
facilitate my practicum. There are others who have also shared their time in facilitating my learning in
the different courses, such as Ms. Karen Hawkins from the Williamson County District Office,Mr.
Christian Sawyer from Hillsboro High, Ms. Kelly Pitsenburger and Ms. Ellinor Axford at Kenrose
Elementary, and the staff at Saddle Up!. Finally, I am also grateful to Prof. Rich Milner and Prof. Cliff
Hofwolt for their guidance and advice. And of course, to my wife Hsiao Yun and children, Evan and
Chloe, who have made my time in Nashville doubly enjoyable because they are here to share to
adventure with me.
Abstract
Singapore and U.S. schools face similar challenges in preparing students for life in the 21st
Century workplace, home and community. As globalization proceeds apace, future graduates are
expected to possess 21st Century attitudes, skills and knowledge. Schools can help prepare students for
the 21st Century world by adopting responsive and relevant curricula, practicing effective and engaging
pedagogy, and having authentic assessment that drives learning.
However, schools and teachers face many challenges in delivering 21st Century education.
Schools remain accountable for performance in standardized tests and nationalized examinations, and
teachers are struggle to find time to reflect on and improve their instructional and assessment practices.
School leaders, curriculum developers and teachers need a common language too to ensure sound
educational principles guide curriculum design, implementation and assessment. Adopting a good
teaching and learning framework, such as the How People Learn framework or Singapore’s PETALs
framework can help in this regard.
For educational reform movements designed to deliver 21st Century education (such as
Singapore’s Teach Less, Learn More movement or U.S.’s standards-based reforms) to succeed, strong
support from district or national authorities and strategic implementation by school leaders are
necessary. District or national authorities should provide schools with adequate resources and teacher
training, and facilitate the capturing and sharing of best practices among schools. School leaders need
to generate buy-in among teachers, garner and deploy resources (from external stakeholders if
necessary), train and empower teachers and create professional learning communities to sustain
reforms.
As a practicing school leader, I have designed a personal curricular and instructional leadership
plan which includes a two-year training program to equip teachers to design an aligned curricular,
instructional and assessment program (using the Understanding by Design framework) resulting in
teaching for deep understanding, a teacher assessment plan aligned with the curricular, instructional
and assessment objectives, and a plan to establish professional learning communities to promote and
sustain collegial teacher reflection and professional improvement.
With the professional engagement and conscientious application of district or national
administrators, school leaders and teachers, I believe a relevant, effective curriculum can be delivered
to prepare our students for the 21st Century.
Introduction
Many scholars within and outside of the education field agree that curriculum and instruction in
schools in contemporary societies like the U.S. and Singapore need to be responsive to the trends of the
21st Century. The attitudes, skills and knowledge that these students will need for a successful and
fulfilling life at the workplace, at home and in the community are more complex than ever, and, I
would argue, should be developed while they are still in school. However, as Linda Darling-Hammond
(2000) so perceptively pointed out in her discussion on the futures of teaching in American education,
the public education systems around the world are scrambling to keep pace with the changes required
to provide these students with a relevant education for the 21st Century. How leaders of schools in
these systems respond to the challenges posed by the changing trends will, to a large extent, determine
the futures of students today, and have an indirect impact on the economic and social vitality of these
societies.
In this paper, I will examine the challenges 21st Century schools face in adequately preparing
their students for life after graduation, looking at views from within and outside education. I will then
examine three different frameworks that school leaders and curriculum developers can consider
adopting to facilitate their curricular and instructional leadership. I will then explore how school
leaders in Nashville and Singapore have exercised their curricular and instructional leadership, .
Finally, I will briefly describe a personal curricular and instructional plan that I could implement when
I return to a school in Singapore.
Challenges Facing 21st Century Schools- Views from Within and Outside Education
Darling-Hammond (2000) argued that while demands placed on today’s graduates from school
have vastly increased, many schools in the U.S. are still run on a factory-model system designed to
prepare students in the pre-Information Age, when the objective was for the masses to acquire basic
skills in preparation for routine work in assembly lines. U.S. teachers, as I have discovered, teach
about 5 hours a day, leaving little time for lesson preparation, professional development and dialogue
with colleagues. This meant that despite recent efforts to reform curricula in U.S. schools through the
adoption of rigorous standards, teachers are hard-pressed to design meaningful learning experiences
and differentiate instruction for diverse learners (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Given this lack of time,
teachers often resort to focusing on what they believe to be the most salient priorities in the classroomsthe need to boost standardized test scores and “get through” the syllabus. This would sometimes result
in “mentioning”- superficial treatment of important concepts and skills- rather than allowing for indepth exploration and discussion (Alexander, 2006). Even when teachers were motivated to provide
the engaging and relevant learning experiences for students, they were often short of ideas and had
little time to observe their colleagues and learn new approaches, leading to little change in curricula
and instructional methods.
Similarly, Tony Wagner (2008), in an article in the October 2008 issue of Educational
Leadership, suggests that educators’ view of rigor needed to be redefined. He argued that students
today need seven critical survival skills to thrive in the 21st Century:
(a) Critical thinking and problem solving
(b) Collaboration and leadership
(c) Agility and adaptability
(d) Initiative and entrepreneurialism
(e) Effective oral and written communication
(f) Accessing and analyzing information
(g) Curiosity and Imagination
Wagner’s list of survival skills were derived from extensive conversations he had with business,
nonprofit, philanthropic and education leaders. What these leaders felt were necessary skills for
schools to develop in students however, was largely absent in the classrooms that Wagner visited.
Teachers were instead only delivering, in his words, “one curriculum: test prep”.
While schools seemed relatively stagnant, or to use Eisner’s (1990) more positive term-stable,
demands on students have increased exponentially. The proliferation of information-communication
technology (ICT) and the subsequent globalization of the workplace and society have required that
schools prepare students differently from the past. Don Tapscott (2009), Daniel Pink (2006) and
Thomas Friedman (2007) have all written about the sweeping changes in the workplace and community
brought about by globalization and technological advances, with important ramifications for education.
Friedman (2007) and Pink (2006) cited several trends which would impact students in the U.S.
and Singapore as they prepare for life in the 21st Century workplace. Firstly, the low cost of Internet
connectivity and other related technologies like Voice-Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) has resulted in the
emigration of jobs which used to be done in developed economies like those in the U.S. and Singapore.
Many of the routine administrative functions of companies like preparation of official documents or
even call center functions have been outsourced to English-speaking developing countries like India
and the Philippines. Apart from outsourcing, Pink (2006) also pointed out that automation of many
previously manual work processes has also placed greater demands on the workers of today.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a public-private organization of leaders and educators in
business and education, have succinctly identified in their 2004 report key skillsets and knowledge that
students would need in the 21st Century. Three important skills are seen as critical for students to
develop (for a more detailed explanation of these skills, please refer to Appendix 1):(a) information and communication skills
(b) thinking and problem-solving skills
(c)interpersonal and self-directional skills
Not only is the development of these skills important, the Report also emphasized the
importance of developing these skills using 21st Century information-communication technology (ICT)
tools such as spreadsheets, design software, word processors, emails, Internet search engines and elearning platforms. Given the ubiquity of these ICT tools in the workplace, students should be well-
exposed to them during their time in school. This is especially important for students who may not
have access to computers and the Internet at home. Such students will be at a distinct disadvantage if
they did not have a chance to work with these tools and develop a basic ICT literacy.
In fact, Tapscott (2007) went further to suggest that the use of ICT tools in the classroom not
only prepares students for a brighter future, they are necessary because our students' lives are so
enmeshed with technology that the more traditional chalk-and-talk pedegogy has become extremely
disengaging for them. Teachers, Tapscott argued, need to cut back on lecturing and teaching to the test,
and instead use technology to allow students to learn collaboratively and cultivate lifelong learning
skills.
Finally, the 21st Century Skills report also highlighted the need to focus on the teaching and
learning of 21st century content. The report focused on three general areas of 21st Century Contentglobal awareness, financial, economic and business literacy, and civic literacy. With globalization
leading to similar challenges in developed societies around the world, it is no surprise that these three
areas applied equally well to Singapore and the U.S. Certainly, with many jobs nowadays requiring
extensive regional travel, global awareness should be an important component of any curriculum.
Similarly, financial, economic and business literacy is key to developing a generation of school leavers
who will be in touch with the challenges and opportunities present in today's global workplace. While
these first two areas allow our students to contribute comfortably in the workplace, civic literacy is also
important because that will allow societies to stay cohesive even as our graduates increasingly find
themselves working outside of Singapore (or the U.S.).
Aside from developing 21st Century skills using 21st Century tools and emphasizing 21st
Century content, it is also worthwhile for schools and curriculum developers to consider some of the
other competencies that will stand our students in good stead when they graduate from school. Pink
(2006) argued that the shift from the Information Age to an emerging Conceptual Age will require
students to develop their right-brain capabilities rather than the left-brain ones which dominated the
Information Age. Pink argued that the material abundance, competition from the emerging Asian
giants of China and India, and automation of many jobs meant that it was no longer sufficient for
American graduates to possess the traditional comparative advantages of left-brain capabilities. Instead,
Pink suggested that those with well-developed right-brain abilities, or the “six senses” (Design, Story,
Symphony, Empathy, Play and Meaning) as he called them, will be the ones to set the tempo of life in
the Conceptual Age.
If Pink is to be believed (and he does make a compelling case), then our traditional emphasis on
developing logical abilities in the classroom will not prepare our students adequately for life. Built into
our curricula would have to be opportunities for students to develop important social-emotional
capacities and creative abilities.
With the demands of the workplace, home and community becoming increasingly complex, it is
incumbent upon curriculum developers, school leaders and teachers to be highly reflective about the
curricula and instruction that is being delivered to 21st Century students. Schools and personnel at the
district level (or in Singapore's case, in the Ministry of Education) need to have a teaching and learning
framework that will ensure that there is a relevant curriculum, and effective instruction and assessment.
In the next section, I will briefly examine three frameworks I believe are useful in helping curriculum
developers, school leaders and teachers develop and implement effective curricula for students.
Possible frameworks for curriculum and instructional leadership
How People Learn framework- Bransford, et.al. (2000)
Bransford, et.al. (2000) provided an example of a framework which is responsive to the needs
of 21st Century learners. The How People Learn (HPL) framework emphasizes the importance of 4
perspectives on learning environments- learner-centeredness, knowledge-centeredness, assessmentcenteredness and community centeredness.
Briefly, the framework suggests that a good learning environment should:(a) takes into consideration the knowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs that students bring to the
learning setting;
(b) focus on helping students learn in a way that leads to understanding and subsequent transfer
of knowledge;
(c)include assessment that is consistent with learning goals and which provides students with
useful feedback; and
(d) leverages on community (both within and outside the classroom) to facilitate learning.
The HPL framework is a broad framework that lays out very well the important broad
principles for effective teaching and learning. For curriculum developers and curriculum leaders in
schools, its usefulness lies in the fact that it encompasses all the critical perspectives from which to
understand good teaching and learning, and is well-informed by research about how people learn.
Curriculum developers and school leaders would do well to take all four perspectives offered by this
framework into consideration when designing and implementing curricula. Teachers, too, would
benefit greatly from understanding these principles when delivering the curricula in the classrooms.
However, for curriculum developers and school leaders, to put the framework into practice would
require a fair amount of thought going into how these broad principles can translated into actual
practice. In this sense, a framework that offers a systematic way of translating research-based
principles into a practicable curriculum would be very helpful. Understanding by Design (UbD) which
I will discuss later in the paper, is one such framework.
PETALS framework- Ministry of Education, Singapore.
As part of the larger Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) Movement (see Appendix 2 for a brief
description of TLLM), the PETALSTM Framework was conceived by the Ministry as a tool to help
school leaders and teachers to understand the dynamics between what a teacher does and what a
student experiences. It also provides all educators in Singapore with a common professional language
and vocabulary to use in conversations about curriculum and instruction (Ministry of Education
website: http://www3.moe.edu.sg/press/2008/pr20080108.htm). It is similar to the perspectives
framework in that it is founded upon sound education theories and research. In conceiving the
framework, teachers' experiences and students' feedback were also solicited and incorporated.
PETALS is an acronym which stands for 5 important dimensions of teaching and learning which
teachers should consider when designing their instruction in order to maximize student engagement:
a. PEDAGOGY that considers students' readiness to learn and learning styles;
b. EXPERIENCES OF LEARNING that stretch students' thinking and independent learning, and
promotes inter-connectedness across topics and subject areas;
c. TONE OF ENVIRONMENT which is safe and stimulating;
d. ASSESSMENT practices that are aligned to learning goals and provide information and feedback to
students to improve learning; and
e. LEARNING CONTENT which is relevant and authentic.
To help see how these 5 dimensions might fit together, I have visually re-arranged them:
EXPERIENCE OF
LEARNING:
Students’
Experience
Curricular
and
Instructional
Practices
The
Foundation
Students are effectively engaged and
prepared for life in the 21st Century
LEARNING
CONTENT:
A relevant and
rigorous curriculum
for the 21st Century
PEDAGOGY:
ASSESSMENT:
Relevant, studentfocused pedagogy
to engage 21st
Century learners
Rigorous assessment
requiring students to
demonstrate transfer
of learning
TONE OF ENVIRONMENT:
Positive
teacher-student
relationships
to create a positive learning
Figure
1: Teaching and
Learning Framework
environment
Figure 1- PETALS Framework Rearranged
By rearranging the five dimensions of the framework, I have put the tone of environment as the
foundation of the framework. This is because I believe that the best curriculum, instructional practice
and assessments will not be effectively if a positive tone of environment is not established in a school
or classroom. I have put the three dimensions of Learning content, Pedagogy and Assessment in the
middle of the framework. For teachers, curriculum developers and school leaders, the decisions they
have to make regarding what to teach, how to teach and how to assess learning will be encapsulated in
these dimensions. Importantly, there has to be alignment and consistency throughout these three
dimensions. When the above 4 dimensions are effectively implemented in a school, then students'
Experience of learning will naturally be engaging and effective in preparing them for life in the 21st
Century.
There are many similarities between the PETALs and HPL frameworks. Both are based on
sound educational research, and both take a holistic view of the different elements which make for
engaging and effective learning experiences. There may be subtle differences which arise from the
different contexts in which the frameworks were conceived, such as the emphasis on connections to the
borader community in the HPL model as opposed to the narrower dimension of the tone of
environment in PETALs. As broad guiding frameworks for curricular and instructional leaders,
however, both frameworks are theoretically sound and logical.
Understanding by Design- Wiggins and McTighe (2005)
Key to both the HPL and PETALS frameworks is the emphasis on helping students to develop
understanding and thinking skills rather than simply learning by rote. The Understanding by Design
(UbD) framework takes this emphasis on understanding further by making understanding the central
aim of all teaching and learning. UbD offers curriculum developers, school leaders and teacher a
method to align curriculum, assessment and instruction. This is through a process of backward design,
where curriculum and instructional designers begin with the end in mind- in this case, by considering
the learning goals. A template such as the one in Figure 2 is used to guide them in the conceiving the
curriculum, assessment and instruction for a particular unit of lessons.
Stage 1- Desired Results (Relevance Unit)
Established Goals:
• What relevant goals (e.g., content standards, course or program objectives, learning outcomes) will this
design address?
Understandings:
Essential Questions:
Students will understand that:
• What provocative questions will foster inquiry,
understanding, and transfer of learning?
• What are the big ideas?
• What specific understandings about them are
desired?
• What misunderstandings are predictable?
Students will know:
Students will be able to:
• What key knowledge and skills will students
acquire as a result of this unit?
• What should they eventually be able to do as
a result of such knowledge and skills?
Stage 2: Assessment Evidence
Performance Tasks:
Other Evidence:
• Through what authentic performance tasks
will students demonstrate the desired
understandings?
• By what criteria will performances of
understanding be judged?
• Through what other evidence (e.g., quizzes,
tests,
academic prompts, observations, homework,
journals)
will students demonstrate achievement of
the desired results?
• How will students reflect upon and self-assess
their learning?
Stage 3: Learning Plan
Learning Activities:
What learning experiences and instruction will enable students to achieve the desired results? How will
the design
W = Help the students know Where the unit is going and What is expected? Help the teacher know
Where the
students are coming from (prior knowledge, interests)?
H = Hook all students and Hold their interest?
E = Equip students, help them Experience the key ideas and Explore the issues?
R = Provide opportunities to Rethink and Revise their understandings and work?
E = Allow students to Evaluate their work and its implications?
T = Be Tailored (personalized) to the different needs, interests, and abilities of learners?
O = Be Organized to maximize initial and sustained engagement as well as effective learning?
• What relevant goals (e.g., content standards, course or program objectives, learning outcomes) will this
design address?
Figure 2:- 1-Page UbD Template [Source: Wiggins and McTighe (2005)]
In this framework, learning objectives are listed as Big Ideas (or established goals),
Understandings and Essential Questions. The emphasis on Big Ideas serve to point curriculum
developers and teachers to the umbrella concepts that under-gird much knowledge in the different
disciplines. Big Ideas form the “core” of the subject and are generally abstract and counterintuitive
(Wiggins and McTighe, 2005). By focusing on these Big Ideas as the core of the teaching and learning
experience, curriculum developers can ensure that students are able to make connections across topics
and subjects, and uncover the structures of each subject. This follows Bruner's (1960) thinking:
Grasping the structure of a subject is understanding it in a way that permits many other things
to be related to it meaningfully. To learn structure, in short is to learn how things are related.
The making of such connections also lead to expert knowledge.
Bransford, et. al. (2000) suggest that one evidence of student understanding is the ability to
notice features and meaningful patterns of information, much as an expert in a subject matter does.
The emphasis on making connections, I would argue, plays a critical role in preparing students to
develop the thinking and problem-solving skills needed in the 21st Century.
The Big Ideas are then translated into Understandings and Essential Questions. To help
curriculum developers and teachers understand Understanding, Wiggins and McTighe define six facets
of understanding which can give them clear evidence that students have developed deep understanding
of their subject matter. These six facets are Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Perspective,
Empathy and Self-Knowledge. Interestingly, these facets reflect the importance of developing the
whole brain which Pink (2006) emphasized. Explanation, Interpretation and Application are higherorder left-brain skills, while Perspective, Empathy and Self-Knowledge are right-brain abilities, with
Perspective and Empathy closely mirroring 2 of Pink's six senses (Symphony and Empathy).
Once curriculum developers and teachers have distilled the Big ideas into Understandings, they
then consider the Essential Questions that will then guide the design of assessment and learning
activities.
In UbD, once the learning goals have been identified and distilled into Big Ideas,
Understandings and Essential Questions, the curriculum developers and teachers then consider the
assessment evidence that will help inform if students have gained the desired understanding, before
they consider the learning activities. This is in the form of performance tasks that require students to
demonstrate transfer of learning and other evidence of student learning. Here, it is worthwhile noting
that the emphasis on performance tasks as a critical mode of assessment de-emphasizes the
standardized tests and examinations which are most commonly associated with assessment. In
Singapore, this is consistent with the Ministry's call under TLLM to teach more for “the test of life”,
and less for “a life of tests”. However, in reality, the high-stakes national examinations at the sixth,
tenth and twelfth grades often discourage teachers from adopting assessment modes (such as project
work) which are more aligned to the goals of preparing the 21st Century learner for life. Similarly, in
the schools I have been to in Nashville, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and high-stakes testing have
moved teachers away from authentic performance tasks to teaching for the tests and examinations.
Only after the appropriate assessment evidence has been decided do curriculum developers and
teachers then consider the learning activities that can be carried out to help students fulfill the
performance tasks. By getting curriculum developers and teachers to consider assessment before
instruction (when it is probably more intuitive for teachers to do the reverse), UbD helps ensure that
there is alignment between curriculum, assessment and instruction. In this sense, it is a useful,
practicable model that translates the excellent theory-based intent of both the HPL and the PETALS
frameworks into actual practice in the classroom. Thus, I feel that UbD is an ideal model for school
leaders to consider in driving the curriculum and instruction in a 21st Century school. I will now turn
my attention to considering how a school leader in a 21st Century school can use the ideas above in
his/her curricular and instructional leadership in a school, bearing in mind many of the practical
challenges that will inevitably arise. What I will discuss in the next two sections has largely been
informed by my experiences in Singapore schools, as well as what I have learned from experiences in
schools in the Greater Nashville area.
Challenges to effective curricular and instructional leadership in a 21st Century school
Much has been written about the challenges facing school leaders in translating the good
intentions of various school reforms into actual improvements in the learning experiences of students.
Despite much research pointing to the necessity of reforming instruction in U.S. Schools, most
instructional leaders have found it extremely challenging to implement changes in the way teaching
and learning takes place. Elmore (1996) stated it best:
Innovations that require large changes in the core of educational practice seldom penetrate more than a
small fraction of U.S. Schools and classrooms, and seldom last very long when they do.
To Elmore, part of the problem lies in the absence of incentives.
Certainly, this might well be
the case in the U.S. Context, where teachers' pay is largely tied to the numbers of years in teaching and
to academic qualifications, rather than actual performance in the classrooms. Dr. Pam Vaden, principal
of Ravenwood High, felt that one of the main challenges to good teaching and learning in her school
was the “motivation of teachers after they had been awarded tenure.”
In Singapore, on the other hand, there is a yearly performance bonus paid to teachers. Teachers
can be paid up to four extra months of pay in March if they have done outstanding work the year before.
However, it should be noted that performance of Singapore teachers is measured by several factors, and
does not place much emphasis on the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. The teacher
assessment instrument does not provide much guidance to teachers on what effective teaching looks
like either. Thus, while teachers may be motivated to do well, existing documents do not help teachers
to effectively reflect on their own professional practice.
Aside from teachers' motivation, another challenge to effective instructional leadership is the
difficulty in creating a culture of continuous learning and improvement in a school. Coburn (2003)
suggested that school leaders consider four factors when thinking about how to implement reforms
within their own schools:
(a) depth of change in instructional practice, which may require teachers to undertake a
fundamental reconsideration of their core beliefs about teaching;
(b) sustainability of reform, which requires schools to ensure that the level of resources
allocated allows the reform to continue for an extended period of time;
(c)spread of reform, evidenced by an increasing number of teachers and classrooms being
impacted by the reforms; and
(d) shift in ownership of the reforms to the teachers.
Applying Coburn's principles to instructional leadership in a school would (ideally) require
instructional leaders to establish professional learning communities among teachers. Teachers need to
be given the time, resources and opportunity to carry out professional dialogues with colleagues with a
view to reflecting on, and improving their own instructional practice. Apart from improving individual
teachers' pedagogical and assessment practices, such learning communities can also be the platform for
curricular reform when teachers collaboratively re-design the learning experiences of students. In the
next section, I will review some of the professional learning communities that have been or are being
established in schools in Singapore and Nashville.
A third challenge is creating the room for curricular and instructional reform. If students are to
be given the opportunity to examine the concepts they learn in depth, then the curriculum's breadth
may need to be re-examined. One oft-quoted lament of teachers looking to get students to engage
deeply with the information presented in their subject areas is the need to “cover the content”,
especially when the content is deemed necessary for standardized testing purposes. In this sense, I am
glad that the Ministry of Education in Singapore is constantly looking to reduce the breadth of the
curriculum in order to create the room for teachers to engage students more deeply.
Finally, in both the U.S. and Singapore, the continued emphasis placed on standardized highstakes tests and examinations is a major distraction for curriculum developers and teachers considering
how best they can prepare their students for life in the 21st Century. Unless these tests and
examinations can be improved so that they assess students' abilities to think critically and make
connections, performance on these tests and examinations are unlikely to indicate the students'
readiness for work and life in the 21st Century. Even if such improvements are made, tests and
examinations are still limited in that they do not assess many of the skills and attitudes critical to
students' real-life success in this day and age. Students' interpersonal ability, verbal communication
skills and many of the right-brain aptitudes described earlier cannot be assessed through tests and
examinations. I believe that many educators know this. Yet the challenge remains: how can educators
help important stakeholders such as parents and policy makers (who are looking for a way to keep
schools accountable for the utilization of public resources) understand this imperative?
These challenges notwithstanding, I have seen teachers and administrators in Singapore and
Nashville doing much to ensure that Singaporean and Nashvillian students are prepared to face the
challenges of this century. I will now turn to discussing some of the efforts that schools and
administrators in Singapore and Nashville have made to effect 21st Century curricula and instruction.
Theory into practice in Singapore and Nashville schools
From the administrators' viewpoint- TLLM in Singapore
The TLLM Movement in Singapore offers a good example of how administrators beyond the
school level can help school leaders by creating the right conditions for schools to implement curricular
and instructional reforms to cater to the changing educational needs of 21st Century learners. Mindful
of the challenges facing schools and teachers, Ministry of Education (MOE) policy-makers were
determined to help schools create the necessary conditions to implement curricular and instructional
reforms. As I had the privilege to be a Secretariat member of the national TLLM Facilitation
Committee (TLLM FC), I had the opportunity to understand how MOE went about facilitating the
work of schools in this regard.
Firstly, the TLLM FC envisioned that schools and teachers should own the reforms, working
from the principle of Top-Down Support for Ground-Up Initiatives. This was borne out of the belief
that schools should customize their curricula and instruction to the needs of the unique profiles of
students. To encourage ground-up ownership, the TLLM FC invited interested schools to propose
curricular and instructional reforms within their schools under the TLLM Ignite! scheme for SchoolBased Curriculum Innovation (SBCI). The proposals were assessed by MOE administrators according
to the following criteria:(a) whether the reform was founded upon sound educational theory;
(b) whether the reform was innovative, i.e. The curriculum/ instructional strategies proposed
had not previously been used in any school for the targeted profile of students. (That is not
to say that the curriculum/ instructional strategies had to be entirely novel in Singapore. In
fact, many of the successful applicant schools adopted strategies which had first been used
in Gifted Education programs in other schools and adapted them for the different profile of
students in their schools.)
(c)whether the school as a whole was ready for the reforms. There should be some indication
that school leaders and teachers in the school were prepared for the additional work required
to implement the changes, and that there was a culture of learning already present in the
school.
From the various proposals, senior MOE administrators in the TLLM FC selected 29 schools in
the first instance to be TLLM Ignite! schools. These schools were provided with additional resources
to help them implement their ideas. These included additional staffing, financial resources for smallscale infrastructural development, and additional training and consultancy for teachers. In addition, the
schools would appoint a Research Advocate, who would be trained to carry out action research to study
the impact of these initiatives. These Research Advocates' teaching loads in school were halved to
allow the time to attend training and carry out the research. Schools selected would also be required to
publish the findings from their action research so that other schools could also learn from their
experiences. As well, these schools were asked to share their experiences regularly with other schools
to encourage the proliferation of good curricular and instructional practices.
The success of the TLLM Ignite! approach to encouraging school-based reform was evident in
that while 29 proposals were deemed worthy of additional support in the first phase of evaluations in
early 2006, the second phase of evaluations in 2007 threw up 106 worthy proposals from 100 schools.
In addition to TLLM Ignite!, other policies were implemented by MOE to facilitate curricular
and instructional reforms. For example, staffing levels for all schools were gradually increased, with
the teaching force increasing from 27000 to 30000 in the last decade. Other paraprofessional positions
were also added- more school counselors, Special Needs Officers, Allied Educators (in effect, teacher
assistants) and school administrators. The additional manpower allowed schools to reduce the
teaching workload of teachers by 1 hour each weekly. Schools were asked to use this hour gained to
organize teachers into professional learning communities. Schools thus structured into their scheduling
considerations “Timetabled Reflection Time”, where teachers would gather in small teams to reflect on
and improve curricula and instructional practices.
From school leaders' viewpoint- lessons from Nashville schools
Despite the extensive support given by MOE to schools in Singapore, many of the curricular
and instructional practices in Singapore classrooms are still teacher-centered and, in my opinion, not
preparing our students for life in the 21st Century well. Therefore, it was a valuable learning
experience for me to observe many good curricular and instructional practices during my practicum
stint in Nashville schools.
As part of my practicum, I spent 3 days each at five schools in Davidson and Williamson
counties, each with very different student populations and therefore different needs. In this section, I
will highlight some of the best curricular and instructional leadership practices that I observed in these
five schools which I believe can be incorporated into my own leadership practices.
Emphasis on transfer of learning
Compared to schools in Singapore, I observed a much greater emphasis placed on transfer of
learning. Performance-based assessment that required students to demonstrate transfer of knowledge
were often used in the five schools I was at. For example, Ravenwood Runway was a project at
Ravenwood High that required different Career and Technical Education classes to apply the skills they
learned in their various classes collaboratively to put up a modeling show. Students use the fashion
design, marketing, stage management and graphic design skills to design the clothes, market the event,
manage the lights and sounds on stage and design the publicity posters and websites.
At Big Picture High School, authentic learning is achieved through a consistent program of
internships for it students throughout the four years in high school. Teachers are encouraged to help
their students connect what they learned in the classrooms to their internship experiences.
In Hillsboro High School’s career academies and Ravenwood High’s Career and Technical
Education classes, students pick up skills which are valuable in today’s workplace. Students take up
electives in applied areas of study such as digital design, multimedia production, cosmetology,
architecture and virtual enterprise, getting an early immersion into possible college majors and career
choices. This not only keeps students engaged as they are given an opportunity to pursue their interests,
but also help students see how their learning in the traditional subject areas (English, Math, Science,
Social Studies) were useful in their future workplaces as well. Singapore has begun to offer students
electives, but these electives are not full courses but rather non-examinable modules offered for a few
days a year.
Professional learning communities
At Ravenwood High, teachers are organized into subject-area teams which meet every Monday
morning to discuss how the curriculum, assessment and pedagogy in their classrooms can be improved
for an hour weekly. These sessions are facilitated by the department chairs and are made possible by
having students arrive in school an hour late on Mondays.
From the feedback I got from the teachers,
they really appreciated the opportunity to work collaboratively in teams and had learned much from
one another through these communities. While it imposed some inconvenience on students (having to
report to school later on Mondays), Power Mondays have clearly had an impact on the curriculum and
instruction at Ravenwood. Teachers I spoke to pointed out that many of their innovative curricular
ideas, such as geocaching lessons and Project Ravenwood Runway were borne out of discussions on
Power Mondays.
At Montgomery Bell Academy (MBA), professional learning communities are structured
differently. The Academic Dean, Mr. Alan Coverstone facilitates Center for Excellence in Teaching
(CET) sessions, where teachers discuss the latest trends and issues related to curriculum and instruction
while having their lunches. At the CET session I observed, teachers were actively participating in the
discussions on the learning needs of the digital generation, and reflecting on implications for their own
instructional practices.
Apart from encouraging teachers to take ownership of curricular and instructional reforms,
professional learning communities also help instructional leaders overcome another key challenge to
effective instructional leadership- the school leader's own lack of expert pedagogical content
knowledge in all the different subject areas taught in the school (Stein and Nelson, 2003).
Tapping on community resources
When a curriculum is radically different from what has been traditionally offered, as in the case
of Big Picture High, the necessary resources may not exist within the schools. In this case, community
resources may be tapped. Such is the case with internships at Big Picture High, where its principal, Mr.
Ralph Tagg, spends much time networking with community partners such as members of the Nashville
Chamber of Commerce, which help facilitate the internships for the students.
MBA, which relies heavily on the gifts of alumni and parents to maintain the quality of learning
experiences for its students, actually has an entire office of 7 staff devoted to maintaining relations with
its alumni. MBA also works with schools in various countries to run an international exchange
program. The program helps MBA students to gain a global perspective and thus, prepares them early
for life in a globalized environment. Such opportunities are available to students only because the
school has established partnerships with others in the community.
Personal curricular and instructional leadership plan
I am looking forward to applying what I have learned during my time at Vanderbilt when I
return to a school in Singapore. I envision that to exercise effective curricular and instructional
leadership, I will have to carry out three specific leadership roles:
(a) professional development of teachers to help them appreciate the importance of
remembering why they teach, reflecting on what they teach, and reconsidering how they
teach;
(b) assessment of teachers' competencies in preparing students for the 21st Century; and
(c)establishment of professional learning communities to allow teachers to individually and
collectively reflect on what they teach, and how they teach and assess learning.
Professional development of teachers and assessment of teachers' competencies
As part of an assignment for one of my courses, I designed a two-year training program for
teachers to help them effectively teach the 21st Century learner, using the UbD framework. The
training plan centers around the three Big Ideas of Relationships, Relevance and Rigor. The entire
training plan is at Appendix 3.
This first year of training will help teachers better understand the learning needs of 21st Century
learners. Important questions such as “What does a 21st Century graduate need to learn in order to
succeed?”, “How is the digital generation different from older generations? How does this impact their
learning?”, “How should instructional and assessment practices be changed to better meet the needs of
21st Century, digital learners?”, “How do we know that students have truly learned?”, and “What
evidence would be able to tell us that students have truly understood what they learned?” will be
explored in depth so that teachers can see the need to change their established practices in the
classroom.
Only after teachers are able to appreciate the learning needs of the 21st Century learners will
they then be trained in the mechanics of UbD. UbD will then be adopted as the unit design framework
in the school.
The training plan also includes rubrics to assess how well teachers are able to transfer what they
learned during the training sessions to their instructional practice in the classrooms. Aggregated data
from teacher observations will also help me assess the effectiveness and impact of the training.
Establishment of professional learning communities
In order that the reforms may be sustained, professional learning communities should be formed
within the school. I plan to organize teachers into subject-areas teams led by their respective Heads of
Departments. These teams will meet for one hour weekly from the second year onwards to
collaboratively work on re-designing their lesson units. In the long run, these teams will also use
protocols such as the Atlas protocols to examine students' learning artifacts together so that they can
gain deeper insights into whether students are learning effectively. These meetings can also serve as
opportunities for teachers to share their own best practices so that these practices can be replicated in
other classes as well. Another possibility for helping teachers learn from one another in the long run is
to implement lesson study.
Conclusion
My time at Vanderbilt has given me a sharper focus and vision of what effective teaching and
learning is. It has also given me an opportunity to reflect on the challenges that I have faced and will
face as an instructional leader. The courses and my practicum have given me many ideas about how I
can translate the clearer vision of effective teaching and learning into meaningful learning experiences
in the classrooms.
References
Alexander, P. A. (2006). Psychology in Learning and Instruction: Prentice Hall: New Jersey.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and
School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005).
Theories of learning and their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J.
Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What teachers should
learn and be able to do (pp. 40-87). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting
change. Educational Researcher 32, 6 (3-12).
Darling-Hammond (2000). Futures of Teaching in American Education. Journal of
Educational Change, 1 (4), 1389-2843.
Eisner, E.W. (1990). Who Decides What Schools Teach? Phi Delta Kappan 71(3), 523-526.
Elmore, R. E. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard
Educational Review 66 (1), 1-26.
Elmore, R. (2000). "Building a New Structure for School Leadership," Shanker
Institute.
Fink, E. & Resnick, L.B. (2001, April). Developing principals as instructional
leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-606.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The World is Flat. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1012.
Pink, D.H. (2005). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers will Rule the Future. New York, NY:
Penguin Group (USA), Inc.
Stein, M. K. & Nelson, B. S. (2003). Leadership Content Knowledge. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (4), 423-448.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Wagner, T. (2008). Rigor Redefined. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 20-24.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005) Understanding by Design (Exp. 2nd Edition). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Electronic Resources
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2002). Learning for the 21st Century. Available:
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/images/stories/otherdocs/p21up_Report.pdf
Ministry of Education Singapore (2005). Teach Less, Learn More. Available:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/cluesky/tllm.htm.
Ministry of Education Singapore (2008). Press Release: More Support for School's "Teach Less, Learn
More" Initiatives. Available: http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2008/01/more-support-for-schoolsteach.php
APPENDIX 1
21st Century Learning Skills
Information and Communication
Skills
Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills
Interpersonal and Self-Directional
Skills
Information and Media Literacy Skills
Analyzing, accessing, managing, integrating, evaluating
and creating information in a variety of forms and media.
Understanding the role of media in society.
Communication Skills
Understanding, managing and creating effective oral,
written and multimedia communication in a variety of
forms and contexts.
Critical Thinking and Systems Thinking
Exercising sound reasoning and making complex
choices, understanding the interconnections among
systems.
Problem Identification, Formulation and Solution
Ability to frame, analyze and solve problems.
Creativity and Intellectual Curiosity
Developing, implementing and communicating new
ideas to others, staying open and responsive to new and
diverse perspectives.
Interpersonal and Collaborative Skills
Demonstrating teamwork and leadership; adapting to
varied roles and responsibilities; working productively
with others; exercising empathy; respecting diverse
perspectives.
Self-Direction
Monitoring one’s own understanding and learning needs,
locating appropriate resources, transferring learning from
one domain to another.
Accountability and Adaptability
Exercising personal responsibility and flexibility in
personal, workplace and community contexts; setting
and meeting high standards and goals for one’s self and
other; tolerating ambiguity.
Social Responsibility
Acting responsibly with the interests of the larger
community in mind; demonstrating ethical behavior in
personal, workplace and community contexts.
APPENDIX 2
Brief description of Teach Less, Learn More
Source: Ministry of Education Bluesky website: http://www3.moe.edu.sg/bluesky/tllm.htm#tllm1
What is Teach Less, Learn More?
Teach Less, Learn More is about teaching better, to engage our learners and prepare them
for life, rather than teaching more, for tests and examinations.

Remember why we teach

Reflect on what we teach

Reconsider how we teach
• TLLM aims to touch the hearts and engage the minds of our learners, to prepare them for life. It
reaches into the core of education - why we teach, what we teach and how we teach.
• It is about shifting the focus from “quantity” to “quality” in education. “More quality” in terms of
classroom interaction, opportunities for expression, the learning of life-long skills and the building of
character through innovative and effective teaching approaches and strategies. “Less quantity” in
terms of rote-learning, repetitive tests, and following prescribed answers and set formulae.
• Teachers, school leaders and MOE all have important roles to play to make Teach Less, Learn More
happen.
It calls on everyone of us to go back to the basics
• Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) was adopted as the vision statement for MOE in 1997. It
continues to be the over-arching descriptor of the transformation in the education system, comprising
changes in all aspects of education. These changes articulate how MOE would strive toward the
Desired Outcomes of Education (DOEs).
• Since 2003, we have focused more on one aspect of our DOEs, i.e. nurturing a spirit of Innovation
and Enterprise (I&E). This will build up a core set of life skills and attitudes that we want in our
students. It promotes the mindsets that we want to see in our students, teacher, school leaders and
beyond.
• TLLM builds on the groundwork laid in place by the systemic and structural improvements under
TSLN, and the mindset changes encouraged in our schools under I&E. It continues the TSLN journey to
improve the quality of interaction between teachers and learners, so that our learners can be more
engaged in learning and better achieve the desired outcomes of education. The relationship between
TSLN, I&E and TLLM is shown in Figure 1 below.
To Remember Why We Teach
• We should keep in mind that we do what we do in education for the learner, his needs, interests and
aspirations, and not simply to cover the content.
• We should encourage our students to learn because they are passionate about learning, and less
because they are afraid of failure.
• We should teach to help our students achieve understanding of essential concepts and ideas, and not
only to dispense information.
• We should teach more to prepare our students for the test of life and less for a life of tests.
To Reflect on What We Teach
• We should focus more on teaching the whole child, in nurturing him holistically across different
domains, and less on teaching our subjects per se.
• We should teach our students the values, attitudes and mindsets that will serve him well in life, and
not only how to score good grades in exams.
• We should focus more on the process of learning, to build confidence and capacity in our students,
and less on the product.
• We should help the students to ask more searching questions, encourage curiosity and critical
thinking, and not only to follow prescribed answers.
To Reconsider How We Teach
• We should encourage more active and engaged learning in our students, and depend less on drill and
practice and rote learning.
• We should do more guiding, facilitating and modelling, to motivate students to take ownership of
their own learning, and do less telling and teacher talk.
• We should recognise and cater better to our students’ differing interests, readiness and modes of
learning, through various differentiated pedagogies, and do less of ‘one-size-fits-all’ instruction.
• We should assess our students more qualitatively, through a wider variety of authentic means, over
a period of time to help in their own learning and
growth, and less quantitatively through one-off and summative examinations.
• We should teach more to encourage a spirit of innovation and enterprise in our students, to nurture
intellectual curiosity, passion, and courage to try new and untested routes, rather than to follow set
formulae and standard answers.
It calls on everyone of us to go back to the basics, to
Remember Why We Teach More…
Less…
For the Learner
To Rush through the Syllabus
To Excite Passion
Out of Fear of Failure
For Understanding
To Dispense Information Only
For the Test of Life
For a Life of Tests
Reflect on What We Teach More…
Less…
The Whole Child
The Subject
Values-centric
Grades-centric
Process
Product
Searching Questions
Textbook Answers
Reconsider How We Teach More…
Less…
Engaged Learning
Drill and Practice
Differentiated Teaching
‘One-size-fits-all’ Instruction
Guiding, Facilitating, Modelling
Telling
Formative and Qualitative Assessing
Summative and Quantitative
Testing
Spirit of innovation and enterprise
Set Formulae, Standard Answers
Appendix 3
Training plan for teachers in a Secondary School (grades 7-10)- Teaching the 21st Century
Learner
The following is a year-long training plan for teachers in a Secondary School in Singapore. The
platforms for training are one-hour slots at alternate monthly staff (faculty) meetings (i.e. 5 one-hour
slots, excluding June and December when there are no staff meetings) and separate lunch-time small
group discussions with about 10 teachers each on a monthly basis (i.e. 10 one-hour small group
discussions).
Big Ideas
Following from the Teach Less, Learn More movement (summary at Appendix 1), the training
plan is designed to help teachers remember why they teach, reflect on what they teach, and reconsider
how they teach.
The big ideas behind the plan are Relationships, Relevance and Rigor (see Scope and Sequence
below). The 3 Rs here present a comprehensive framework to view the essential work of schools in
facilitating the learning of 21st Century learners. Relationships is put first because it forms a firm
foundation for the beginning of the school year as teachers seek to build the conducive learning
environments at the start of the year. Before moving on to Rigor, Relevance is explored as the
question of what to teach must precede how to teach.
As a broad sweep of the different issues related to teaching the 21st Century Learner, the first
year training plan is not meant to help teachers learn all there is to learn about best practices in 21st
Century teaching, but rather to build an initial awareness of important issues. The training plan will be
followed up in the second year with in-depth training in using Understanding by Design as a
framework for redesigning curriculum and improving pedagogy and assessment practices.
JAN
FEB
MAR
Big Idea:
Relationships
Establishing
a Positive
Learning
Environment
EQs:
- What does
a positive
learning
environment
look like?
- How is the
learning
environment
important in
promoting
or
discouraging
learning?
Knowing
your
LearnersLearning
Styles
EQs:
- How do
our own
learning
styles
impact
how we
teach?
Differentiating
Instruction
EQs:
- How can
we cater to
different
learning
styles and
promote
the holistic
developme
nt of
learners?
APR
MAY
JUL
Big Idea:
Relevance
The 21st
The
Century
Digital
Learner
GeneraEQs:
tion
- What
EQs:
does a
- How is
21st
the
Century
digital
graduate generatio
need in
n
terms of different?
Attitudes,
- How
Skills and does this
Knowimpact
ledge to
their
succeed? learning?
Teaching the
21st Century
Learner/
Digital
Natives
EQs:
- What
makes for a
relevant
curriculum
for the 21st
Century,
digital
learner?
- How can
instruction
and assessment cater to
21st century
needs?
AUG
SEP
Big Idea:
Rigor
OCT
NOV
Putting
it
together
Learning
Formative
Teaching
An
with
Assessfor deep
IntroducUnderstandment
understandtion to
ing
EQs:
ing
UbD
EQs:
- What is
EQs:
EQs:
- How do
the role of
- What
How can
we know
assessevidence
we plan our
that
ment in
would we curriculum
students
learning?
need to
and lessons
have truly
- How
know that
so that our
learned?
should we
our
students
- Why is
change
students
can learn
understandour
have
with
ing
assesslearned
understandimportant in
ment
with
ing?
learning?
practices understandto
ing?
maximize
learning?
Essential questions
Relationships
-
What does a positive learning environment look like?
-
How is the learning environment important in promoting or discouraging learning?
-
How do our own learning styles impact how we teach?
-
How can we cater to different learning styles?
Relevance
-
What does a 21st Century graduate need to learn in order to succeed?
-
How is the digital generation different from older generations? How does this impact their
learning?
-
What components should a relevant curriculum in the 21st Century have?
-
How should instructional and assessment practices be changed to better meet the needs of 21st
Century, digital learners?
Rigor
-
How do we know that students have truly learned?
-
How should assessment practices be changed to better help our students learn?
-
What evidence would be able to tell us that students have truly understood what they learned?
Stage 1- Desired Results (Relevance Unit)
Established Goals:
All teachers will apply the concepts of Relationships, Relevance and Rigor to planning their long
range syllabus, units, lessons, instruction and assessment in teaching their students.
Understandings:
Essential Questions:
Teachers will understand that:
1) students need a positive learning environment
and supportive relationships with teachers to
succeed.
2) curriculum has to be made relevant to the 21st
Century learner.
3) a rigorous curriculum results in students
gaining deep understanding of the subjects they
study.
(the essential questions listed here relate
only to the Relevance unit of the training
plan.)
1) What does a 21st Century graduate need
to learn (in terms of knowledge, skills
and attitudes) in order to succeed?
2) How is the digital generation different
from older generations? How does this
impact their learning?
3) To what extent does the current
curriculum, instructional and assessment
practices meeting the needs of the 21st
Century learner and digital generation?
Teachers will be able to:
1) apply the knowledge about the 21st
Century learner and the digital generation in
designing their syllabuses, units, lessons and
assessments.
2) reflect on their own existing instructional
practices and modify them to meet the needs
of the 21st century learner.
Teachers will know:
1) the demands that the 21st Century society and
workplace place on our learners now.
2) the attitudes, skills and knowledge (ASK)
these learners will need to develop while they are
in school.
3) the characteristics of the digital generation
and the opportunities and challenges these
characteristics present for their learning.
4) how the curriculum can address the ASK
students need to develop.
Stage 2: Assessment Evidence
Performance Tasks:
Other Evidence:
1) keep a personal reflection journal detailing
how what they learned about the 21st Century
learner and the digital generation will impact
their instructional and assessment practices.
2) demonstrate application of what they learn in
one lesson to be observed.
1) Teachers use vocabulary learned about the
21st Century learner and digital generation in
their professional conversations.
2) Teachers demonstrate increasing
knowledge and application of the concepts of
21st Century learner and digital generation in
their unit and lesson plans, and assessments.
Stage 3: Learning Plan
Learning Activities:
Staff Meeting in April: Introduction to the 21st Century Learner and the Digital Generation
Teachers view videos on 21st Century Learning Matters: (Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L2XwWq4_BY&feature=PlayList&p=A719A878ECDCA7
84&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1 ) and a Vision of K-12 Students Today: (Available
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AZVCjfWf8&feature=PlayList&p=A719A878ECDCA784&index=0&playnext=1)
Teachers engage in Philosophical Chairs activity in 4 groups of 20 (each facilitated by a Principal
or Assistant Principal and scribed by a Head of Department) on the topics:
(a) “Technology is a boon to education.”;
(b) “We are adequately preparing our students for life in the 21st Century”;
(c) “Teachers are adequately prepared to teach for the 21st Century”; and
(d) “The current assessment system is the biggest obstacle to21st century teaching and
learning”
Round-robin Gallery Walk
April Small Group Lunchtime Discussion on the 21st Century Learner
EQ: - What does a 21st Century graduate need in terms of Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge
to succeed?
Pre-reading: Part 2 of Learning for the 21st Century Report
In Groups of 4, teachers quickly review their reading and take down notes on 1 of the 4
following areas:
(a) 21st Century Learning skills
(b) 21st century tools to develop learning skills
(c) 21st century content
(d) 21st century assessment
After reading and taking notes, teachers will share round-robin.
Wrap-up discussion: 3 things I have learned that I can apply in my instructional/ assessment
practices.
Homework: Reflections
May Small Group Lunchtime Discussion on the Digital Generation
EQs: (a) How is the digital generation different?
(b) How does this impact their learning?
Concept attainment activity comparing Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants
Teachers view short video on Grown Up Digital - The Net Generation is Changing YOUR World
by Don Tapscott (Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoqiRRMQ0fs)
Discussion on what makes the digital generation different and how this impacts their learning.
Homework: Reflections
July Small Group Lunchtime Discussion on Teaching the 21st Century Learner/ Digital Natives
EQs: - (a) What makes for a relevant curriculum for the 21st Century learner/ digital
native? (b) How can instruction and assessment cater to 21st century needs?
(Teachers will be grouped according to the subjects they teach for this discussion).
Teachers will study examples of good teaching for 21st Century learners in the following subject
areas:
(a) Social studies lesson on Sri Lanka using Zombie music video and primary sources (own
resource) (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam website available at http://eelam.com/) (for
Humanities teachers)
(b) Video of literature lesson on prejudice and personal triumph over adversity (for Language
teachers) – Yvonne Hutchinson (available at
http://www.goingpublicwithteaching.org/yhutchinson)
(c) Math lesson(for Math teachers) – the Border Problem as taught by Jo Boaler (Boaler and
Humphreys, 2005)
(d) Science lesson (for Science teachers)- THINK Cycle (Temasek Junior College, 2007:
available at http://www.schoolbag.sg/archives/2007/07/think-cycle-sets-studentsthin.php)
Teachers will discuss the lessons presented and how they relate to their earlier learning on the
21st Century learner and Digital Native.
Homework: Reflections
Teacher Reflections on Relevance
Teachers will keep a reflection journal as a record of their learning throughout the 3R Training. After
each session, teachers can use the following questions as prompts for their reflections:
1) What new perspectives about our learners have we gained from the session?
2) How well am I catering to the needs of my learners in my current instructional and assessment
practices?
3) What, if any, instructional and assessment practices would I change as a result of what I have learned
today?
Teachers will submit their reflections by email after each session to their Heads of Department the
Monday after the session.
Rubric for teachers’ personal reflection journals:
Criteria
No Evidence of
Understanding
Reflections continue to
center on existing
(traditional) paradigms of
teaching and learning,
with no reference to the
needs of 21st Century
learners.
Developing Competence
Demonstrates Competence
Exceeds expectations
Beginning to use
vocabulary of the 21st
Century learner, with
occasional references to
ASK that learners need to
develop, although
reflections still mixed with
existing paradigms.
Uses the vocabulary of the
21st Century learner
consistently and demonstrates
a broad and deep
understanding of the needs of
these learners. Able to
articulate the ASK that
learners need to develop.
Offers original insights into
the needs of the 21st Century
learners, applying what
teacher knows about the
“world out there” to the needs
of the 21st Century learner.
Able to empathize with the
learning challenges faced by
the 21st Century learner.
Reflections continue to
center on existing
(traditional) paradigms of
teaching and learning,
with no reference to the
needs of digital
generation. Resists the
use of technology in
teaching and learning.
Beginning to use
vocabulary of the digital
generation, indicating an
openness to the use of
technology even when
acknowledging the
personal challenges to
doing so.
Uses the vocabulary of the
digital generation
consistently and demonstrates
a broad and deep
understanding of the
opportunities and challenges
presented by the use of
technology.
Offers original insights into
the challenges and
opportunities presented by
technology. Offers creative
ideas about how technology
could be exploited in
enhancing teaching and
learning. Able to relate
personal experiences with
technology to meet the needs
of the digital generation.
No intention to apply
Impact on
Instructional knowledge of 21st
Century learner or digital
Practices
generation on
instructional practices.
Able to articulate how
existing instructional
practices help meet the
needs of 21st Century
learners and digital
generation, without
evidence of much change
in existing practice.
Intention to apply new
knowledge gained to changes
in instructional practices.
Consistently reflects on how
the needs of the 21st century
learners and digital
generation can be better met
through changes in
instructional practices.
Intention to consistently apply
new knowledge gained to
improve instructional
practices. Instructional
practices consistently stretch
students in the development
of 21st Century skills and
leverages on technology to
create rigorous and engaging
lessons.
Knowledge
of 21st
Century
Learner
Knowledge
of Digital
Generation
Criteria
Impact on
Assessment
Practices
No Evidence of
Understanding
No intention to apply
knowledge of 21st
Century learner or digital
generation on assessment
practices.
Developing Competence
Demonstrates Competence
Exceeds expectations
Able to articulate how
existing assessment
practices help meet the
needs of 21st Century
learners and digital
generation, without
evidence of much change
in existing practice.
Intention to apply new
knowledge gained to changes
in assessment practices.
Consistently reflects on how
the needs of the 21st century
learners and digital
generation can be better met
through changes in
assessment practices.
Intention to consistently apply
new knowledge gained to
improve assessment practices.
Assessment practices
consistently stretch students
and require them to
demonstrate
competence/development of
21st Century skills. Leverages
on technology in assessment
practices.
Rubric for lesson observation (teachers’ competencies are gauged on multiple observations so as to get a more accurate picture of
teacher performance)
Criteria
Teaching 21st
Century
Learning
Skills
No Evidence of
Application
No attempt is made to
incorporate 21st Century
learning skills to
teaching. Emphasis in
lessons is on rote
learning and
memorization. Students
do not have opportunities
to learn or demonstrate
any of the skills.
Developing Competence
Demonstrates Competence
Exceeds expectations
Teacher makes piecemeal
attempts to incorporate
21st Century learning skills
to teaching. Most of the
lesson still focuses on rote
learning of content but
occasional opportunities
are available to students to
pick up the skills
incidentally, either through
the learning activities or
assessments.
Teacher makes explicit
references to 21st Century
Learning skills in teaching
the content. Learning
activities that give students
opportunities to develop the
skills are regularly
interspersed with delivery of
content. Assessments require
students to demonstrate some
learning of these skills.
Students are taught explicit
21st Century learning skills
(thinking/problem solving,
communication, selfdirectional/ interpersonal
skills) in the context of their
subject content. Learning
activities give ample
opportunities for students to
develop these skills (e.g.
cooperative learning
activities to develop
interpersonal skills,
classroom discourse that
promotes critical and creative
thinking). Assessments also
require students to
demonstrate mastery of these
skills.
Criteria
Adapting
Content to
21st Century
Needs
No Evidence of
Application
Content is taught as
standalone knowledge
and no effort is made to
help students see the
relevance of content to
real world contexts.
Assessments focus
entirely on students’
ability to rote learn
content without any need
for them to apply their
learning.
Incorporating There is no evidence of
the use of technology in
Technology
the lesson at all. Teacher
prefers to use textbooks,
worksheets and
whiteboards solely for
their lessons.
Developing Competence
Demonstrates Competence
Exceeds expectations
Teacher consciously tries
to adapt content to real
world contexts, using
occasional examples
where possible to help
students see the real world
relevance of what they are
studying, although the
links may not be
communicated well
enough for students to
transfer their learning
effectively. Assessments
continue to focus on
students’ ability to rotelearn.
Learning activities are
consciously related to 21st
Century real world contexts.
Lessons give opportunities to
students to develop one of
global awareness, financial,
economic and business
literacy, and civic literacy.
Assessments require students
demonstrate these
competencies in addition to
requiring them to
demonstrate mastery of
content.
Learning activities constantly
relate content to 21st Century
workplace, home or
community needs, allowing
opportunities for students to
transfer learning to real world
contexts. Content is adapted
to reflect the global
awareness, financial,
economic and business
literacy, and civic literacy
required for learners to thrive
in the 21st Century.
Assessments also require
students to demonstrate these
competencies in the context
of their subjects.
Teacher is beginning to
use some simple
technology in presentation
of lessons, e.g. using
Powerpoint, although
there is no/marginal
leverage on the technology
to increase engagement or
enhance the effectiveness
of the lesson, e.g.
Powerpoint is an
electronic whiteboard
notes.
Teacher constantly uses
different technological media
to enhance the engagement
and effectiveness of the
lesson. Students enjoy the
opportunities to learn in ways
that they are used to, e.g.
using Internet to do selfdirected research and seek
out primary sources, etc.
Technology is however not
leveraged to create a social
network of learners and
learning is still largely
teacher-directed.
Leverages on technology to
engage digital natives.
Learning skills and ICT tools
are seamlessly integrated in
learning activities to improve
students’ ICT literacy as well
as 21st century skills
(thinking/problem solving,
communication, selfdirectional/ interpersonal
skills). ICT creates a social
network of motivated
learners who see ICT as an
enabler for learning.