BRMCC Little Lights was authorised to be a IB PYB World School on 1 Aug 2019
There was an interesting study done by the Department of Education of the Deakins University in Australia in 2014 to determine the readiness of IB PYP in preparing the children for primary school in Australia and Singapore. The study was conducted in 4 preschool sites - 2 in Australia (A1 & A2) and 2 in Singapore (S1 & S2). While the study was done in April 2014 when IB PYP was still at its infancy in Singapore, the findings provided some interesting insights.
Here is the Executive Summary of the study:
While there is a growing body of evidence on the processes and outcomes of International Baccalaureate (IB) programmes, the Early Years stage (for preschool children aged 3-6 years) of the Primary Years Programme (PYP) is a new area of research. There is a sense that the best way (or ways) to do Early Years programmes is still an open question. This reflects the wider picture of early childhood education, where new policies and frameworks, and challenges to traditional approaches, are evident in many countries.
Researchers in the School of Education at Deakin University were contracted by the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) to conduct a study into implementation strategies and programme outcomes in Early Years programmes.
The study involved evaluating processes and outcomes in four Early Years programmes, two in Singapore and two in Australia, through intensive mixed methods case studies. Using a Mosaic approach, the researchers aimed to create a detailed picture of each programme from different perspectives. They collected
Rich qualitative data on programme processes and outcomes through classroom observations
Discussions with educators.
Children’s perspectives on learning and activities within their programmes, as expressed through drawings and writing, were collected from the two Singapore sites
There was a particular focus on the following:
Children’s inquiry-led and play based learning;
Development of Learner Profile Attributes;
The quality of the indoor and outdoor learning environments, and their role in supporting children’s learning and development.
Interviews were conducted with educators, coordinators, and parents, to explore their perspectives on the programmes. Quantitative data was also collected through
Assessments of children’s literacy (Early Literacy in English Tools),
Developmental school readiness (Who am I?: Developmental Assessment (de Lemos & Doig, 1999)) and
Learning skills (Learning Skills section of the Social-Emotional Wellbeing Survey (ACER, 2013)).
These data were used for comparison of outcomes between sites and with larger population samples. The study also evaluated how each of the Early Years programmes aligned with relevant national curriculum frameworks in Victoria and Singapore (Victorian Early Years development Framework & Nurturing early learners.
Key findings of the study included the following:
Three of the preschools (two in Australia and one in Singapore) ran Early Years programmes that appeared to support the development of Learner Profile Attributes through inquiry-led learning and play-based approaches.
Learning environments at these preschools were rich and stimulating, and integrated the outdoors and the natural world.
One of the Singapore preschools (S2) had only recently moved to offering the Early Years stage of the PYP, and appeared to be still grappling with the complexities and demands of implementing inquiry-led and play-based approaches. Researcher observations and staff comments suggested that further professional development and support from IBO would better enable staff to fully implement IB PYP principles in their programme.
Using selected Early Literacy in English Tools (ELET) the research team was able to obtain a gauge of the overall literacy skills of the students across the different sites and see how these levels might compare across sites and national settings. Broadly speaking, the literacy levels at all sites were fairly developed. Students from all sites operated at literacy levels at or better than what would typically be expected for their age groups. Preschool students from the Singaporean sites with the average student age of 6 were performing at Prep (5-6 years old, AusVELS Foundation) or Year 1 (6-7 years old, AusVELS Level 1) levels. The preschool students from the Australian sites with the average student age of 5.5 were performing at pre-school (4-5 years old, towards AusVELS Foundation) or Prep (5-6 years old, AusVELS Foundation) levels. The differences between the Singapore and Australian programmes are at least partly attributable to age differences, with Singapore students being on average 6 to 10 months older than the Australian students. Qualitative data, however, suggests that the greater emphasis on literacy in the Singapore programmes also played a role in these findings.
On a test of developmental school readiness, the Who am I: Developmental Assessment (de Lemos & Doig, 1999), children in the PYP Early Years component in both Australia and Singapore performed at levels equal to or better than expected for their age, in comparison with the Who am I Australian normative sample. However, results were not equal across all four programmes, with higher outcomes from the Singapore programmes. Based on qualitative data from classroom observations and educator interviews, the researchers hypothesise the greater emphasis on literacy and numeracy in the Singapore programmes as a factor in this finding.
Teachers’ assessments of children’s learning skills, using a section of the Social-emotional Wellbeing Survey (ACER, 2013) showed that children in both the Australian and Singaporean Early Years programmes were significantly more likely than an All Schools sample to be assessed as having high levels of learning skills. It is notable that the Australian preschool children performed particularly strongly on this measure, designed for children in the first two years of school with a typical age range of 5-7 years.
Educators at three of the preschools were articulate and reflective about their Early Years programmes, valuing inquiry led and play based learning, and confident that they were supporting Learner Profile Attributes, and preparing children for entry to school. Educators at one of the Singapore preschools (S2) were positive about the PYP Early Years programme and inquiry led learning, but expressed some uncertainties about implementing it in practice.
Many of the educators had experience of the Reggio Emilia approach, and saw the PYP Early Years programme and Reggio Emilia as very much aligned. Coordinators, with one exception, held similar views.
Through their drawings and writings, children at one of the Singapore preschools (S1) demonstrated awareness of their own learning and were able to articulate where they were acquiring specific Learner Profile Attributes through programme activities.
Educators described some challenges in their programmes. These included perceived tensions between meeting PYP requirements around implementing units of inquiry, and a desire to be responsive to children’s emerging or changing interests. One educator also raised the issue of having to meet multiple demands in regard to requirements of the PYP and local curriculum and quality frameworks. Educators and parents noted that there was some parental concerns around the capacity of inquiry and play-based approaches to develop children’s formal academic skills in literacy and numeracy, skills that some parents felt were necessary in preparation for entry to school. Educators discussed how they informed parents of the rationales for their programme approaches to literacy and numeracy, but also how they responded to these concerns with practical measures in their programmes. By and large, parent interviewees expressed trust in the educators and programmes to adequately prepare their children for school. This issue was of particular concern in Singapore where children are expected to have some basic academic skills on school entry. The researchers argue there is a role for the IBO in supporting their staff in addressing parent concerns around the effectiveness of Early Years programmes in preparing children for successful transition into formal schooling.
The study found that three of the sites (S1, A1 and A2) demonstrated evidence of strong alignment with relevant national curriculum frameworks in Victoria and Singapore (Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework; Nurturing early learners: A curriculum framework for kindergartens in Singapore). Researcher observations and educator interviews indicated that the Early Years programme at S2 was not fully aligned with all aspects of the Singapore framework, particularly in regard to principles of play-based and inquiry-led learning, and appropriate organisation of the learning environment. While there were limitations to the research, the mixed-method Mosaic approach did appear to be an effective strategy to study the four Early Years programmes. The different perspectives appeared complementary to each other in building a coherent ‘picture’ of the individual programmes and their contexts. The researchers consider that the use of standardised assessment measures alone would have presented a limited picture of processes and outcomes in the four programmes. The qualitative data from the researcher observations and stakeholder interviews provided a more in-depth view of how three of the programmes in particular used inquiry based approaches to support children’s progress in the Learner Profile. The interviews also enabled the identification of stakeholders views of the programmes’ achievements and challenges.
BRMC Little Lights will leverage on these positive findings that the inquiry-based and play-based teaching methods of IB PYP have distinct advantages over standard teaching methods in preparing the preschool students for primary school. BRMC Little Lights is privileged to be the the only faith-based IB PYP authorised world school in Singapore.
On another note, I also read the 2015 results of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Beginning in 2000, and every three years since, the OECD has tested 15-year-olds around the world on math, reading, and science; it also surveys students, principals, teachers, and parents on their social, economic, and attitudinal attributes. Using this rich data set, McKinsey has created five regional (Asia, Europe, Latin America, Middle East and North Africa, and North America) reports that consider the drivers of student performance. I was interested to know how does an inquiry-based pedagogy compared to teacher-directed teaching methods in the PISA scores in these countries.
In Asia, 13 countries and autonomous territories participated in the 2015 PISA. For the analysis, Mckinsey divided these into 3 categories based on performance.
High-performing Asia is composed of China (specifically the cities of Beijing, Guangdong, Jiangsu, and Shanghai), Hong Kong, Japan, Macao, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. High-performing Asia has high yet flat achievement;
Oceania refers to Australia and New Zealand and generally perform well, but scores appear to be declining; and
Developing Asia is composed of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The region is improving, but slowly and from a low base.
It is interesting that inquiry-based and play-based on its own is not as good as in combination with teachers-directed pedagogy. Perhaps that explains why the sites in Singapore did better than those in Australia in literacy and numeracy in the IB PYP study due to the combined methods of teaching.
It's interesting to note that analysis of the PISA scores shows that too much of the inquiry-based methods with little or some teacher-directed produces poor scores. The sweet spot combines both instruction styles.
While the IB PYP program has shown certain advantages, it is not the panacea and is culturally sensitive. Perhaps for SIngapore where there is a long tradition o teacher-directed teaching especially for literacy and numeracy, a combination of teaching styles may be necessary.
QUALITY OF CHILDCARE EDUCATION:
The other critical factor is the quality of childcare education (ECE) as I have mentioned in one of my blogs. Quality childhood education has tremendous impact on the child in future educations.The parent survey data in the PIZA report from three high-performing school systems (Hong Kong, Macao, and South Korea) indicates that children who went to more formal, structured pre-primary programs significantly outscored those who went to less formal programs or had no ECE at all. The data suggests that Asian governments should continue to prioritise providing early childhood education and should carefully monitor the quality of provision. Across Asia, students who report some ECE perform 21 PISA points (over half a school year) better on the PISA science test a decade later than students who attended no ECE, (controlling for socioeconomic status, school type, and location).
Comments