Page 111 - Education in a Digital World

98 Local Variations

country’s leaders “exert[ing] a level of social and political control that is unique among
wealthy nations” (Warschauer 2001, p.309). This notion of highly centralised and
authoritarian control within Singapore is certainly apparent in the state governance
of schools and schooling. Indeed, despite the Singaporean government’s apparent
desire to support the use of potentially ‘disruptive’ digital technologies, the nation’s
schools remain highly disciplined and regulated in all aspects of their conduct –
from issues of student appearance and dress, to matters of time keeping and work
ethic. In particular, Singaporean schooling could be said to be based around a teacher-
centred sense of order and discipline that often precludes the more expansive forms
of technology use associated with technology-based education. In comparison to
Australian students, for example, Singaporean learners have been found to be less
individualistic, less prone to take risks and more prone to be bureaucratic, to prefer
hierarchy and respect for people of perceived higher status (Munro-Smith 2002).
While Singapore may be less tied to traditional cultures and philosophies than some
of its East Asian neighbours, a notable ‘collectivist culture’ persists that mitigates
against the more social aspects of technology-based learning (Munro-Smith 2002).
As Mark Warschauer (2001, p.308) continues, “the traditional teacher-centred
classroom in Singapore is not necessarily compatible with the kinds of project-
oriented group work that exploit the value of information technology and that
Singapore’s leaders are now promoting”.
Perhaps the major local stumbling block to the expansive use of digital technology
is Singapore’s emphasis on external systems of examination, assessment and testing.
Unlike American-influenced systems in the region (in particular that of South
Korea and Taiwan) the post-colonial education system in Singapore retains a strong
legacy of the British system of schooling and its emphasis on ‘high-stakes’ testing.
Lim Cher Ping’s (2007) case study of Singapore’s high-technology-using schools,
for example, concluded that digital technology use was clearly compromised by a
distinctly Singaporean emphasis on exaggeratedly instructional relationships between
teachers and learners, as well as an overt emphasis on eventual success in high-stakes
examinations. As Lim concluded:

the over-emphasis on results in schools may put pressure on teachers to conduct
more remedial and drill-and-practice classes, as well as discuss more exam-
type questions. They may follow the transmission model of teaching when
using ICT to meet the objective of achieving good examination grades.
(Lim 2007, p.112)
Other commentators have also criticised the restrictive nature of the top-down
model of digital technology policymaking that has in practice been pursued
in Singapore. Ng (2010, p.177) points towards “the inadequacies of a linear
Newtonian model of [technology] implementation”– arguing that the successive
‘Masterplans for ICT in Education’ were limited by a tight coupling between fixed
government and school structures. This has perhaps been most noticeable in terms