A Singapore Case Study of Curriculum Innovation in the Twenty-First Century: Demands, Tensions and Deliberations

Abstract

With the ever-pressing twenty-first century demands, such as the need for new knowledge generation and application, schools today are aware of the necessity to change their structures, processes and practices to be relevant. In Singapore's centralized education system, the Ministry has introduced several decentralization initiatives in the hope of promoting flexibility and innovation within schools. One such initiative is the Integrated Programme (IP). IP schools are expected to redefine existing educational structures, redesign teaching and learning processes and reshape classroom practices to generate diverse learning experiences. This paper describes the case of one school that has embarked on the IP to shed light on the processes involved in curriculum innovation. Our findings reveal three significant processes: negotiating the programme with the school's vision, finding common ground for buy-in and investing in preparation time. These are instrumental in the development and enactment of IP by teachers and school leaders. These findings and their implications are deliberated on, providing ways that schools can shape and sustain curricular innovations.

Implicit change leadership, change management, and affective commitment to change

“…A study on educational reform in Singapore (Koh et al, 2014) demonstrated the importance of building buy-in of stakeholders for the new curriculum. This involves constant and detailed communication on the changes and providing stakeholders the opportunity to give feedback and comments on proposed changes.…”

“…This involves constant and detailed communication on the changes and providing stakeholders the opportunity to give feedback and comments on proposed changes. Koh et al (2014) also noted the importance of providing autonomy, empowering teachers and giving them a role in the development of modules. The tensions between the new curriculum and institutional directions were resolved by allowing schools to customize the curriculum to the school vision and social, cultural and historical capital.…”

“…Professional learning sessions and peer mentoring were also identified as important mechanisms for teachers to learn from one another. Finally, the study emphasized the importance of giving schools adequate time to prepare for the change (Koh et al, 2014).…”

“…On the other hand, students' obsession with academic excellence has led to a rise in teen suicide rates, prompting a move to ensure student wellbeing (So and Kang, 2014). In addition, given changing demands, schools have made sweeping reform in educational curriculum to develop new literacies in self-regulated learning, collaboration, critical-thinking and creativity (Koh et al, 2014). Finally, global competition has caused universities to shift from collegial practices to a more professional management approach (Burnes et al, 2014).…”

Teaching Research Group Leaders’ Engagement in Curriculum Leadership: The Principals’ Perspective

“…Under curriculum decentralisation, the locus of CL has recently been transferred from traditional managerial roles to teachers (Koh et al, 2014). Specifically, teachers are empowered with the authority to make both administrative and instructional decisions at the school level, such as planning goals (DeMatthews, 2014), creating a shared vision (Nashashibi & Watters, 2003), building the school climate (Ylimaki & Brunner, 2011), and allocating resources (Lin & Lee, 2013).…”