Lessons on How to "Teach Less, Learn More" in the Singapore Education System
Ministry of Education - CPDD
Singapore

The Problem

Our education system is sound and has attracted international admiration. We have a professional and forward-looking teaching force, rigorous curriculum, and a well-resourced education system. However, we are at the stage where there is no big system-wide solution that can bring us to the next plane. The diverse and complex mix of learner profiles, and the needs and aspirations of our students, parents, teachers and industry leaders, necessitate greater customisation of educational initiatives which is best achieved at school levels rather than at system levels.

That is why the “Teach Less, Learn More” (TLLM) movement focuses on improving the quality of interaction between teachers and learners, so that our learners can be more engaged in learning and better able to achieve the desired outcomes of education. It calls for all educators to teach better, to engage our students and prepare them for life, rather than teach mainly for tests and examinations. It is about transforming learning — shifting the focus from quantity to quality. It is very much a ground-up initiative, where teachers and school leaders are the agents of ideas and change, with MOEHQ providing the support. That is why TLLM must be classroom-based, teacher-owned and school-driven.

Our learners are at the centre of everything we do in education. We have done well in ensuring that our learners have a strong grounding in core academic skills. Going forward, we need to sharpen our focus on developing the important but less tangible qualities like character and values, and pay more attention to developing diverse learner strengths. Even as more options and pathways become available to learners, we need to work on “softer” factors, like motivating learners, enhancing teacher competency in guiding learning for life, and enhancing leadership capacity to manage change. TLLM encapsulates such efforts, with teachers and school leaders at the centre of the action.

TLLM is a system-wide education reform movement that seeks better teaching and learning, and about learning for life for every student, by every teacher, in every school. It is a bold vision and one which takes time, will and the right strategies to realise. Unlike many other education reform movements that are top driven, this TLLM initiative has broken new ground for MOE and schools in many ways, and is itself an interesting example of change management in two ways: (a) incentivising ground up innovations to improve the quality of teaching and learning and (b) focusing the delivery of public service to stakeholders in a landscape of flexibility, diversity and choice. It is also unique amongst many education initiatives in that it embraces a new philosophy for how MOEHQ should work with schools as it recognises that the enthusiasm and vitality for TLLM cannot be conscripted but needs to be incentivised, encouraged and supported.
Since its introduction in 2004, we have come a good way towards realising TLLM outcomes in many of our schools. This report provides an introduction, rationale and summary of the implementation of TLLM in Singapore schools.

Solution and Key Benefits

 What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Since its inception, the TLLM project has achieved early signs of success in meeting the outcome indicators of the TLLM movement, all of which focus on creating better teaching and learning in schools. The main achievements are broadly spelt out below.
The most tangible outcome is facilitating the delivery of higher quality, more responsive and relevant service to our stakeholders where HQ officers and divisions are now much more sensitive and responsive to schools’ needs. The key factor here was the re-perceiving of HQ officers’ roles in supporting schools, not remotely from within MOEHQ, but actively, on the ground, working hand-in-hand with the school as partners, with as much stake in the project as the school. This “dual ownership” approach gave opportunities for the school and its HQ partners to build strong relationships, trust and better understanding of school’s needs and HQ operations, hence the higher levels of responsiveness and relevance in support, leading to better teaching and learning solutions. At time of writing, we have 100 HQ officers and university staff working alongside schools in prototyping their TLLM efforts. This model of support has received tremendous positive feedback from schools as they appreciate the collegiality and the ready advice and help of these officers dedicated to their school. At HQ, officers have also seen the benefits of their work as curriculum partners to these schools as it keeps them in touch with the schools and helps them better understand the curricular, pedagogic and assessment support that schools need.
This also means we have succeeded in transforming the culture of interaction and stakeholder relationship between HQ and schools. This was made possible with the innovation of new concepts and approaches as well as administrative and logistical processes within MOEHQ.
New concepts that were introduced included the development of the PETALS© framework on principles of engaged learning, the Research Activist (RA) Attachment Scheme, the creation of a core pool of TLLM Facilitators drawn from various Divisions, and the Curriculum Partnership Team structure.
The One MOE Approach was a new administrative process which allowed us to streamline processes and reduce time, energy and resources required to channel support to schools. Schools received their necessary support without needing to approach different divisions and could hence focus on their core work of improving teaching and learning. In HQ, this new process gave Divisions greater clarity in their work, officers worked synergistically together as they saw the win-win for schools and their own Divisions, and most importantly, support was delivered to schools in a timely manner.
The One MOE Approach created better synergy and coordination amongst Divisions in their support of schools, and increased effectiveness and efficiency substantially in schools’ TLLM efforts as well as HQ officers’ work in supporting TLLM. 8 divisions in MOE and the prototype schools benefited from this approach which was piloted this year, and will be extended to more schools in future.

Actors and Stakeholders

 Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
3rd Quarter 2004 – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave the call for schools to teach less in order for students to learn more in Singapore schools.
4th Quarter 2004 – 2nd Quarter 2005 – Preparation Phase: TLLM Steering Committee, chaired by 2nd Permanent Secretary and Director-General of Education, formed. Stock Take Phase: The relationship between past MOE initiatives and TLLM was articulated. Committee conducted a stocktake of existing school-based initiatives to realise engaged teaching and learning. The study approach and focus areas were identified. Ideation Phase and Gathering of Ideas: Ideation sessions involving Education Officers from schools and staff from Institutes of Higher Learning were conducted to generate ideas on TLLM, and to highlight their areas of concern. Several Focus Group Discussions were held with different school participants. The Committee reviewed literature on other education systems. Study trips were made to different countries to learn about their education systems. The Committee also drew insights from regular discussion forums on general education issues. Evaluation and Recommendation Phase: The preliminary recommendations were evaluated.
3rd Quarter 2005 – Minister for Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, announced key recommendations proposed by the TLLM Steering Committee, including plans for MOE to work with schools for prototyping of TLLM ideas.
4th Quarter 2005 – TLLM Facilitation Committee set up to look into implementation of TLLM recommendations. At the same time, Curriculum Policy and Pedagogy Unit, a recommendation of the TLLM Steering Committee, was established in Dec 2005 to drive curricular and pedagogic innovations across the system. TLLM Facilitation Committee launches TLLM Engagement Workshops to schools to cascade TLLM principles and philosophy. Schools invited to submit prototype proposals.
1st Quarter 2006 – MOE Divisions worked on rolling out other TLLM recommendations to enable and support schools in TLLM journey, e.g. Structured Mentoring Programme, Socio-Emotional Learning Framework. TLLM Facilitation Committee established new strategies for top down support of ground up initiatives. 8 schools selected for Wave 1 TLLM Prototyping, and 8 Curriculum Partnership Teams formed based on schools’ needs. More than 100 TLLM curriculum partners and facilitators appointed from 5 MOE Divisions, SEAB and NIE. TLLM Facilitation Committee approved One MOE Approach to more effectively support school initiatives. Concurrently, MOE invited 2nd Wave of TLLM prototypes and conducts evaluation and selection exercise.
2nd Quarter 2006 – 21 schools selected in Wave 2 of TLLM prototyping. The 1st Research Activist (RA) Attachment Scheme began. Curriculum Partnership Teams formed for every school; prototyping in Wave 2 schools began. RAs started training in research and worked with HQ partners on refining the research questions for their school projects. Core and customised training for schools began, including PETALS© workshop and modules in a variety of curricular, pedagogic and assessment areas. MOEHQ provided additional manpower to prototype schools to support their work.
3rd Quarter 2006 - Prototyping continued in schools. RAs collected data and conducted both quantitative and qualitative research. Schools continued with customised training. Prototype schools and RAs invited to share at various platforms.
4th Quarter 2006 - 1st phase of prototyping ended. RAs completed 1st cycle of research and submitted research papers. Editing of research papers began and planning for TLLM Seminar started. PETALS© workshops for other schools began.

(a) Strategies

 Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
 a.      What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
At the National Day Rally in Aug 04, PM Lee called for schools and teachers to “teach less” so that students could “learn more”. This “Teach Less, Learn More “(TLLM) call to action came at a timely point as the education landscape was responding to learners’ needs by creating more diverse pathways for educational success, more flexibility and choice for learners, and more autonomy for schools to support teaching and learning.
MOE, under the leadership of a TLLM Steering Committee, then developed a set of TLLM principles to guide schools and HQ in bringing about better teaching and learning to meet learners’ needs. These were announced by Minister for Education at MOE’s Work Plan Seminar 2005.

(b) Implementation

 b.      What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
Philosophy and purpose - The TLLM Steering Committee proposed that the spirit of TLLM should be one that was school-owned, teacher-driven, and classroom-based, with the learner at centre. Hence, innovative, substantive change must “bubble up” from the schools rather than be conscripted or dictated by MOE. This approach to bringing about systemic improvement in teaching and learning without top down systemic structures driving the change in schools and classrooms aimed to engender more ownership and create greater sustainability of innovations. Thus, MOEHQ plays a supportive role in capacity building and providing resources and support rather than take the traditional driver’s seat.
Priorities - The TLLM movement focuses its strategies on 3 groups of people: school leaders, teachers and the learner at the centre (see diagram attached as Annex A). Key initiatives include creating “white space” in the curriculum so teachers could use the time to apply their ideas in teaching better and differently, creating time tabled time for teachers to collaborate and plan better lessons and providing more scaffolding and support for beginning teachers, and focusing on building the capacity of school leaders in educational leadership.

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

 c.      What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
Unlike HQ initiatives that are uniformly implemented system-wide, TLLM was school-based in nature, so schools will require more customised support by the various HQ Divisions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. New strategies include:
(1) Top Down Support for Ground Up Initiatives (TDSGUI) - TDSGUI turned things on its head as “top down” traditionally connotes initiatives which HQ rolls out and which schools would support. New top down support were: creation of curriculum “white space” in subjects by reducing content so teachers have more time to cater to different learner needs and developing a PETALS© framework for engaged learning to guide schools in curriculum innovation, including an easy starter kit, PETALS© Toolkit; customised deployment of: HQ Curriculum Partners to match expertise to school needs, resources beyond baseline provisions, training for schools based on needs analysis.
(2) Prototyping approach for school-based curriculum innovation. Prototyping puts an idea into action quickly to assess its viability, improve on it and then transfer the success to other parts of the system. MOE invited schools to apply for prototyping support for their school-based curriculum innovation ideas to ensure greater buy-in and ownership. 117 applications from a possible 358 schools were received. Those selected received Top Down Support. Prototyping is a new and evolutionary approach which departs from the traditional HQ-centred mode of “plan-pilot-refine-roll out”. Thus, Divisions need to support schools differently and more responsively.
(3) One MOE Approach. OneMOE approach created efficiency and effectiveness in the flow of Divisional services to schools. It builds cross divisional synergy, minimises overlaps and plugs gaps in service delivery. Schools needed only to surface their requests to a single contact point in HQ who would do all the backend processing of requests for them, i.e. a central clearinghouse. This clearinghouse was Curriculum Policy and Pedagogy Unit which matched resources to schools’ needs, advocated for schools and helped Divisions better channel support to schools, reducing the number of “transactions” between schools and individual Divisions.
(4) Project Monitoring/Evaluation. A new way of monitoring for accountability, rigour, and evaluation on TLLM prototyping was needed:
• a Research Activist (RA) Attachment Scheme where schools protected time for one teacher (an RA) to research the prototype and give it rigour with research underpinnings. RAs attach to CPPU two days a week for just-in-time research training. This shifted the onus of evaluation from HQ to schools, creating greater ownership and pride in the work on the part of schools, and also developed a new professionalism within the RA community.
• New narrative capture feedback approach which leverages on ICT – a new web-based narrative capture approach was deployed where TLLM prototyping participants provided stories, rather than bald data from surveys. Such information has been found to provide more useful and meaningful feedback as it allowed us to manipulate the dataset in response to a range of hypotheses, and affords trend analysis. Respondents are not burdened with questionnaires and can provide feedback in a transparent, more contextualised and less tedious way.

(d) Use of Resources

 d.      What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
Despite 2006 being the 1st year of TLLM implementation, tangible changes have already been felt. Schools that are involved in TLLM prototyping have created home grown models in curricular, pedagogical and assessment innovation that meet learners’ needs. More than a third of these schools have published and presented research papers at national and international conferences. MOEHQ is also in the process of editing and publishing all the research papers for dissemination to all schools for transfer of ideas and to excite the ground. This is because many other schools have been keen to start their own prototyping. This prototyping process has sparked interest amongst schools keen to see what school prototypes have achieved.
The Research Activist concept has created an awareness and interest in teachers as researchers across MOEHQ and schools. The Minister for Education commended the scheme during MOE’s Work Plan Seminar 2006 as one which contributed to making teaching and learning more reflective and impactful. The RA scheme has been replicated by other MOE projects such as the School-Based Staff Developer Scheme as it was seen as an effective and unique professional development model, and at school level, different Zones and Clusters of schools are beginning to form their own RA groups. This cultural change has already resulted in a greater focus on classroom-based research and levelled up the professionalism of our educators system-wide. When spread across more schools, the effect will be multiplied.
Across all schools, the language and nomenclature of TLLM and PETALS© has caught on system-wide, creating greater focus on the principles of engaged learning. The launch of the PETALS© Toolkit developed by MOEHQ, and development of core workshops on PETALS© and curriculum design has served to cascade these principles to all schools.

Sustainability and Transferability

  Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
SUSTAINABILITY
The TLLM movement is being sustained through several platforms:
More waves of TLLM Prototyping – we are inviting more waves of school applications with ideas for prototyping, and the same approaches of Top Down Support for Ground Up Initiatives, One MOE Approach, and Curriculum Partnership Teams etc would be made available to these next waves of schools.
Curriculum Forum for Principals – 2 Curriculum Forums for Principals are organised each year to encourage conversation and dialogue amongst principals on TLLM issues. Schools involved in prototyping are also invited to share and sustain the enthusiasm across the system. 2 Curriculum Forums were held this year, one in March focusing on school leadership, the other in September on balancing the curriculum and encouraging principals to take the opportunity of TLLM to encourage more holistic learning in their schools.
Continuation of Research Activist Attachment Scheme - For depth and quality of research, MOEHQ will sustain the current RA Attachment Scheme into the 1st half of 2007 with more advanced education research training modules and research collaboration with university researchers. To broaden the coverage and develop the RA concept in a more widespread way, we will launch a second group of RAs in 2007 starting 2nd half of 2007. The longer term plan is for annual cohorts of RAs to be attached and for all schools to eventually have a trained RA amongst their staff, as a research advocate.
PETALS© Workshops for all schools - CPPU is running PETALS© Workshops for all schools on a sign-up basis. This ensures that schools and teachers with the interest and commitment to start on school-based curriculum innovation are the ones prioritised for this support.

TRANSFERABILITY
TLLM School Sharing – to ensure that good school practices are shared and transferred across the system, many opportunities for sharing and presentation have been created for prototype schools and RAs. RAs have been invited by school clusters, and superintendents and principals of other schools to share with their staff, and prototype school teams have shared at various platforms such as conferences, school zonal events and through media publicity and coverage.
TLLM Seminar and Research Publications – an official TLLM Seminar has also been planned for the prototype schools to present their findings to all schools in Singapore. The Seminar is jointly organised by MOE and the Education Research Association in Singapore (ERAS) which has instituted a new annual award for Best Research Activist Paper as well as co-publishing with MOE the research papers from each school. Such recognition platforms also go a long way towards sustaining the new initiatives and their success.
Replication of RA scheme in other HQ initiatives - a key indicator of the transferability TLLM strategies is when other HQ initiatives also adopt the same formats or concepts. For instance, the RA Scheme has been adopted by a new MOE initiative to develop School-Based Staff Developers (SSD) in Singapore schools. The SSD scheme adopts the same concept of 2 days attachment a week at HQ.

Lessons Learned

 What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The key challenges were posed by the new and more ambiguous nature of prototyping (which is experimental and hence open to flexibility and change as the project evolves) as well as the new approach for supporting schools within the One MOE Approach.
As prototypes imply the need to evolve and be iterative in processes, we had to balance the need for fluidity and flexibility of the prototype with the need to address workload issues for those supporting the schools.
A good example is in the sending of teachers to the prototype schools to support their efforts. Whilst MOEHQ tried its best to ensure the timeliness of manpower provision to schools, internal work processes and timelines may not align with when schools need the additional teachers most. HQ may not be able to recruit or train them in time for schools, and getting the right profile of new teachers to the schools so as to support the prototype was not always possible given the fixed schedule for posting cycles. Internally, this was addressed through much discussion and negotiation as well as the cooperation of divisions willing to adjust their timelines. Learning from this, we would do it differently in future by assisting schools to plan ahead their manpower needs to coincide with HQ’s posting cycles.
There were also major resource implications in supporting prototype schools with curriculum partnership as HQ officers are accustomed to knowing their workload ahead of the work year, as well as the scope of work involved. With prototypes, this level of clarity and fine planning was not possible and the ad hoc nature of school requests was often a source of stress for HQ and its resources. We managed this by anticipating schools’ needs through the CPPU project managers, and through putting in place a Curriculum Partnership Team which would be committed to support the school through the prototype. These officers were given more latitude by their divisions in recognition of the nature of their work with prototype schools.
At MOE, we also had to quickly develop new networks and explore alternative means of supporting our schools where HQ resources were stretched too thin. One way of addressing this was in the engaging of retired educators through a special retainer scheme to provide support for schools on a paid basis. Based on their career records, we had confidence in these retired officers and their ability to work with schools in refining the prototypes. Another way was to approach faculty members in the local teacher training institution, the National Institute of Education, who were keen to work with schools and explore opportunities for school-NIE collaboration. A few stepped forward and have proven themselves excellent consultants to our prototype schools.
The One MOE approach was a very new concept, and we had to break Divisional barriers through the structure of a TLLM Facilitation Committee chaired by MOE Senior Management with representatives from Divisions to coordinate and help marshal resources for the projects. This was necessary as the project’s success relied on all Divisions providing support without the complications of addressing individual Divisions’ agendas. The Facilitation Committee structure created clarity, direction and purpose for Divisions.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   Ministry of Education - CPDD
Institution Type:   Government Agency  
Contact Person:   Tan Julie
Title:   Assistant Director, CPDD  
Telephone/ Fax:   68795907
Institution's / Project's Website:   67759503
E-mail:   julie_tan@moe.edu.sg  
Address:   MOE Building
Postal Code:   138675
City:   Singapore
State/Province:   Singapore
Country:   Singapore

          Go Back

Print friendly Page