A Comparative Study of the Two Sets of Chinese Textbooks in Singaporean Secondary Schools
From the Perspectives of the Students’ Perception with Diverse Background
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/rtcfl.22907Keywords:
Singapore Mother Tongue Language Textbook, Students Perception on the Teaching Material, Student Survey and QuestionnaireAbstract
In the ethnically heterogeneous and linguistically hybrid Singapore, its bilingualism education is characterised by the mandatory mother tongue policy for its three main ethnic groups. For Chinese students’ language acquisition, this is practised in a way that Chinese language instruction in Singapore has been differentiated into four streams according to their individual differences in language proficiency. This study reports the findings obtained from a public funded large-scale empirical research project with a focus on the Mother Tongue Language curriculum in Singapore secondary schools. The questionnaire survey consists of 4811 students from 24 Singaporean secondary schools categorised on the basis of three key family language backgrounds, namely: Chinese-dominant, Chinese-English mixed, and English dominant. Using a comparative study methodology, the study seeks to juxtapose the perceptions of Secondary 2 and 3 students regarding their current language textbooks (developed in 2011) against the textbooks published in 2002. The survey revealed two key findings which highlight the diverse learning needs of students from varying backgrounds, thus indicating a greater and more complex challenge surrounding the revision of upcoming Mother Tongue Language instructional materials. It is our hope that the details of main findings manifested in this study can shed some light on the future endeavours in innovating Chinese education in other parts of the world with the similar sociolinguistic context.
References
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., and Walker, D. A. (2014). Introduction to Research in Education. Boston, M.A. Cenage Learning, Inc.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research 5 (1): 51–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530805000106
Department of Statistic, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic of Singapore (2015). General Household Survey 2015. Retrieved 6 May 2020 from https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/ghs/ghs2015/ghs2015.pdf
Dong Qi (1992). Psychology and Education Research (Xinlixue yu Jiaoyuxue Yanjiu). Guanzhou: Guangdong Education Press.
Guo Xi (2009). Rethinking the Teaching of Chinese in Singapore (Xinjiapo Huawen jiaoxue zai sikao). Retrieved 16 April 2020 from http://www.chinanews.com/hr/hr-hjsp/news/2009/07-15/1776239.shtml
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22 (140): 55.
Ministry of Education, Singapore (2004). Report by the Committee for the Review of the Chinese Language Curriculum and its Teaching Practices. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education, Singapore (2011). Guidelines for Teaching Chinese in Secondary Schools. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Pakir, A. (1993). Two tongue tied: Bilingualism in Singapore, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 14 (1–2): 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1993.9994521
Rappa, A. L. and Wee, L. (2006). Language Policy and Modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Singapore: Springer.
Wee, L. (2005) Intra-language discrimination and linguistic human rights: The case of Singlish, Applied Linguistics 26 (1): 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh038
Zhao, S. H. & Aw, G. P. (2013). Research for the Evaluation of the Revamped Instructional Materials for Secondary Schools in Singapore, Technical report, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Zhao, S. H., Liu, Y. B. and Hong, H. Q. (2007). Singaporean preschoolers’ oral competence in Mandarin. Language Policy 6 (1): 73–94.
Zhao, S. H. and Liu, Y. B. (2010). Chinese education in Singapore: The constraints of bilingual policy from perspectives of status and prestige planning. Language Problems and Language Planning 34 (3): 236–258.