Nurturing active citizenship and innovative mindsets through project work.
By Chua Ying Hwee
Chairman, Curriculum Research and Innovation Committee
Chung Cheng High (Main) School, Singapore
A.
Background:
In 1999, Ministry of Education, Singapore introduced the Project Work
Curriculum to secondary schools with four main objectives1:
1. To promote independent learning in students
2. To encourage interdisciplinary knowledge applications
3. To encourage collaborative learning and teamwork
4. To increase students’ capacities to express and communicate their ideas.
With this, schools were given autonomy to ensure that students are given the
opportunity to acquire generic skills required in any project work as well as receiving
advice on their end product.
This paper will primarily focus on the evolution of the project work programme in
Chung Cheng High Main School to its current status. This programme has been
spearheaded by the school’s Curriculum Research and Innovation Committee
(formerly Thinking programme and Project Work Committee) The paper will cover
the evolution of the programme from its first implementation in 2000 to its current
year of implementation that provided the structure for nurturing active citizenship and
innovative mindsets.
Project Work 2000 Implementation and Review
In the year 2000, interdisciplinary project work was introduced to secondary
two students in Chung Cheng High School. There were twelve classes and every two
classes worked on a project with two resource teachers (of different subject
discipline). A total of twelve teachers were involved in the programme and each
teacher served as the supervising teacher for one class of projects. Classes were
assigned to teachers and they had to work on projects crafted by the respective
teachers. Every project task was crafted by a two-teacher team. There were a total of
six different project tasks. An hour per week was allocated during curriculum time
and all project work classes were held simultaneously. The programme lasted
approximately 20 weeks and good student projects were featured at the annual school
exhibition opened to the public.
Some key areas for improvement identified through the programme review
included:
1.
Difficulty in teaching and monitoring the subject as different groups from
each class progress at different pace and there were about 8-10 groups in
each class.
2.
Difficulty in allocating quality time to 8-10 groups. Each week, the
teachers could only sit down to give quality time to at most 3 groups.
1
More commonly known as the four domains of project work. Refer to MOE CPDD Project Work
package for more details.
2
3.
4.
Students were not interested in the projects as there was too much
similarity with other subject projects and they did not have a choice on
their project topics.
There were no grades allocated and thus project work was not the top
priority in a grade-oriented Singapore education system for both staff and
students.
Project Work 2001 Improvements Implementated and Review
During the last quarter of 2000, efforts were made to resolve the above areas for
improvements. Solution came in the form of:
1.
Collaborations with a private agency where 12 other external teachers
were engaged to assist teachers to monitor the development of the projects.
2.
With the additional twelve external teachers, the time-table was
restructured such that at any one time, there were at least one teacher teamteaching with 2 external teachers. This increase in teacher-student ratio
allowed each teacher to be a supervisor to three projects.
3.
Project tasks with no curriculum link were crafted to generate students’
interest while exploring 6 themes focussed on developing character: The
themes were as follows:
 Building Healthy Relationships - a drama project aiming to educate
fellow students on the importance of genuineness, respect, empathy
and warmth in any healthy relationship based on the GREW model by
US psychologist, Gary Sweeten2.
 Art and Maths Trail – a project to create local trails for students to
develop greater appreciation for maths and art.
 Technology and its boundaries – a project exploring the advantages
as well as ethical dilemmas as a result of modern technological
advancement.
 Work Improvement Teams – a project where students are
empowered to make small-step improvements to the school through
problem analysis and solutions generation and implementation.
 Media and Values - a critical study on the media and its influence on
values formation for the current generation.
 Systems of Learning – a critical study of the current processes in place
to facilitate learning in the school with recommendation for
improvements.
4.
The introduction of grades for each of the four domains3 of project work
and the printing of a report card to be added to the student report book was
also introduced.
Some key areas for further improvement identified through the 2001 programme
review are:
1.
Projects were initiated and crafted by the coordinator rather than the
teachers. Some teachers did not feel any ownership to the project topics.
2.
Some of the external facilitators are not experienced teachers and lack
classroom management skills and are not able to keep to the schedule.
2
3
Listen For Heaven’s Sake by Gary Sweeten, Teleias Publications, 1993.
Refer to footnote 1.
3
3.
4.
5.
6.
System does not permit students to make their own choice of projects.
One specific project is allocated for each class of 40 students rather than
student-opted.
Only about 15% of staff is involved in the programme exploring this
important alternative strategy to learning.
Giving grades are not meaningful measurements of learning.
Limited to 6 themes for a one-year’s programme.
In response to the above feedback, the focus for project work 2002 programme
was conceived, that is to do projects that will benefit the school either through event
organisation at both school level as well as community level, participation in national
competition or school improvement projects. However in order to achieve this, a
major revamp of the current structure was required.
B.
Value Creation in the 2002 Programme
This instructional programme, based on the above framework has the
following key learning features:
1.
Integration with national vision.
It integrates project work with four of the five key thrusts4 in the Singapore21
Vision which is:
 Every Singaporean matters
 Opportunities for all
 Singapore Heartbeat
 Active Citizenship
The programme aimed to cater to the varied interests and abilities of the 463
secondary two students with a wide variety of projects to let them know that their
strengths and inclinations matter to the school and opportunities has been created for
them through the 19 different project topics.
2.
Service-learning leading to active citizenship and a Singapore heartbeat.
In order to develop a heartbeat for Singapore, students are to be given the
opportunity to be an active contributor first in the school and the general community.
Thus 19 project topics that will get them involved in serving the school through
planning and running school events, making improvements and participation in
national competitions to bring honour to the school were designed to give students a
stronger sense of ownership to the school.
3.
Innovations
The nation’s key economic thrust towards innovation and entrepreneurship is also
built into projects, such as the Young Designer’s Award, and Business
Entrepreneurship Competitions, to nurture new mindsets.
Many of the school
improvements projects would also encourage and support innovative efforts.
The only key thrust left out from the Singapore21 Vision was “Strong families, our foundation”
Refer to www.singapore21.org.sg for more details.
4
4
C.
Project Work 2002 – Nurturing active citizenship and innovative
mindsets.
There were two national concerns which the programme aimed to address. One
concern of the Singapore government is how to nurture citizens who would move
beyond their busy work schedules to do community service. Another is how
education can harness students’ creativity for future value-creation inventions and
solutions to give the nation a competitive edge. The focus of the programme in 2002
is to create a generative5 rather than an adaptive system that will allow the nurture of
such mindsets and more.
A Visionary Project Work Programme
Imagine an instructional system whereby:
1.
Students are able to form interest groups, research on topics and do
projects of significance to the community according to their interest areas.
2.
Students are able to work closely with one supervising teacher who will
help them nurture their project to excellence.
3.
Teachers are able to guide students in their own area of specialization or
interest that may not be related to the main subjects that they teach. This
creates another opportunity to impart their knowledge and values to
students.
4.
Instead of involving 15% of staff, if all 80 staff are involved, each teacher
will only need to nurture 4-10 students which is equivalent to one or two
projects.
5.
The school is able to integrate community service, innovative efforts and
preparation for national and international competitions within curriculum
time.
6.
A culture for independent learning. This hour can be set apart where
students can work independently on their projects and make appointments
with teachers for consultation. It can be made compulsory for secondary
two students and optional for the upper secondary students. The reason
why the secondary one students are not involved is that they have to
manage the transition from four subjects in primary school to ten subjects
in secondary school.
Project Work 2002 - The Big Step Improvement.
It was immediately recognised that to eventually achieve the above vision,
there will be a need for transitional steps to take place. The goals and achievements
set for 2002 are as follows:
From “The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations”, Peter Senge, Sloan Management
Review 7, Fall 1990.
5
5
S/No Goals
1
Projects options and deployment to
inject interest6
1a
To allow for up to 25 different project
topics (limited by the number of teachers
who opted to be involved.)
1b
To allow students to opt for the projects
they want to do and 90% to be able to do
projects of their top three choices.
1c
Project tasks crafted to either focus on
innovations or service-learning or both.
2
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
3
3a
3b
6
Staff Training and Mentoring
To ensure that all the 25 teachers
involved, received training for the
Ministry of Education’s Project Work
package.
To create a teachers’ package and
students’ package that would include all
the basic project tools such as templates
for project proposal, criterion-based
decision-making, gantt charts,
information source checklist, assessment
rubrics, marking template and report
template and upload it onto a website for
teachers to use.
To train teachers to use the customised
package created by the committee and to
empower teachers to be free to innovate
along the lines of the learning objectives.
To create a mentor structure to provide
assistance to teachers in the programme
as well as to assist in the facilitation of
the mid-programme review.
To ensure that each teacher supervises an
average of 3-4 projects and not more than
5 projects.
Time-tabling and venue allocation
To allocate suitable venues such as
special rooms and classrooms according
to the different projects needs.
To coordinate the time-table in such a
way that all secondary two classes and
the 25 teachers will be scheduled to teach
during the particular hour.
Refer to Annex A for Project Option Form.
Achievements
19 projects were crafted as some
teachers opted to team-teach the
same topics.
Done with 100% of students
doing projects of their top three
choices.
19 such projects crafted with
many of them linked to national
competitions.
Teachers were trained by Nov
2001.
Achieved
Achieved
Achieved.
Achieved
Altogether 23 rooms were
allocated.
Achieved through working round
the constraints with regards to
staff deployment.
6
Overcoming forcefield amongst staff
Teachers who were originally involved in the programme were excited by the idea
that they could do projects that were relevant and could contribute to the school.
Teachers who trained students for competitive projects as well as those in charge of
key school events or functions marvelled at the prospect of mentoring students during
curriculum time. A presentation was done during September 2001’s staff meeting to
communicate the new structure to the staff. Several were willing to learn to facilitate
this new learning strategy but were a little fearful of being thrown in the deep end.
Their fears were overcome with the introduction of smaller and more manageable
group size. The number of teachers interested to take part increased from 12 to 25.
The 25 teachers were divided into 6 groups each with a more experienced teacher
serving as mentor for consultation in the initial training and whenever the need arose.
Each project task was crafted with a committee member guiding the new teachers
through the process. The contract with the external vendors was not renewed for
2002 with the additional teachers involved and resulted in an estimated savings of
S$34,000.
Managing students’ motivations through catering to interest and increasing
meaning and purpose.
Through the survey done in 2001, students expressed the belief that if given a
choice of topics, they would be more motivated.
Both teachers and students
expressed that the 20-week programme stretched over nine months was too tedious
for them and they would prefer a more intensive but shorter project. It was thus
decided that the programme be reduced to 15 weeks. If more time was needed for
some projects, it would be done outside of curriculum time. In the review, the
meaningfulness of the allocation of grades was also called into question as they do not
necessarily reflect the amount of learning or indicate the level of excellence students
had achieved in their projects. Thus the grading system was removed and the good
projects were to be included as part of the student’s Character Development Portfolio.
With an open market, teachers who were interested to teach project work were
free to craft their own project tasks that they believe were manageable and interesting
to students, the choice of project increased from six to the current nineteen.
Students indicated their top three choices and these data were analysed and sorted.
After sorting, students’ requests for change of project were entertained on a case-tocase basis to ensure that they were deployed to the correct project task. A lecture to
launch the programme was held to communicate to students the multi-faceted
rationale and purpose of the programme and its impact on them in the short term and
long term. The amount of effort put in to cater to their abilities and interest was also
communicated so that they were able to appreciate the programme better.
7
D.
Beyond 2002
The projects have run more smoothly this year. Teachers, through a progress
update, have given feedback that the current structure is a vast improvement from the
previous. They also reflected higher motivation levels in students on the whole and
those students who are less motivated also know that they are accountable for their
choice. The implementation was successful to a large extent as indicated by the
recent survey conducted in March. Both students and teachers reflected greater
ownership in the programme and agreed that there were many opportunities to serve
the community and to innovate while doing the projects.7 It is likely that there is a
need for at least another transition step before the visionary programme can be
implemented. The next phase of development would be to bring about a clear
understanding of the vision amongst at least 80% of teaching staff. This will require
much training and communication of the advantages and implementability of such a
system.
There is also much scope to explore with regards to the integration of the
curriculum with the co-curricular as well as niche initiatives. It is important that
while students are serving actively and developing innovative mindsets, teachers are
also given the freedom and scope to contribute to the development of such mindsets
both for their students and for themselves.8
For details of the survey, refer to Annex C (Teachers’ Survey Results) and Annex D (Students’
Survey Results).
8
For results of projects to date, refer to Annex B.
7
8
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following colleagues for their support and efforts in
contributing to the success and continuous improvement of the Project Work
Programme:
Mr Yue Lip Sin, Principal, Chung Cheng High (Main) School for his support and
encouragement.
The members of the Curriculum Research and Innovation Committee for their
contributions in the planning, implementation and review of the programme:
 Miss Ng Chuen Yin
 Mr Marcus Kuek
 Miss Nani Rahayu
 Miss Munirah Bte Shaik Kadir
 Miss Lianne Sia
 Miss Chua Sok Ling
 Mdm Prasanthee Rajendram
 Mr Wang Feng
The Project Work teachers for their participation in the programme from 2000-2002:
 Mrs Lim Suet Peng
 Miss Sharmilla Tanapathy
 Mrs Susan Low
 Mr Tan Joon Seng
 Mr Quek Kim Chwee
 Miss Lai Han Wei
 Miss Soh Guat Ee
 Mrs Sulina Perierra
 Mr Peck Hock Huat
 Miss Ng Lee Hua
 Miss Tan Sek Jiau
 Miss Vivien Wong
 Miss Clarissa Cheong
 Mr Yap Kheng Kin
 Mr Leow Wee Giap
 Miss Ho Su Siew
 Miss Ng Mew Yeen
 Miss Eileen Teo
 Miss Choa Boon Hwee
9
Bibliography
Educational Packages:
Project Work Resource Package developed by Curriculum Planning and Development
Division and Research and Testing Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore.
Books:
Listen For Heaven’s Sake by Gary Sweeten, Teleias Publications, 1993.
Articles:
“The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations” by Peter Senge, Sloan
Management Review 7, Fall 1990.
Websites:
Singapore 21 Website:
http://www.singapore21.org.sg