What the Literature Tells Us about Materials Adaptation
Study 8: Loh and Renandya (2016)—Primary Schools in Singapore
This research investigates the perceptions and practices of EL teachers under Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR), a national literacy reform pro- gram, which is the most comprehensive and extensive literacy reform that affects all six levels in the primary education sector in 49 years since Singaporean independence in 1965.
Loh and Renandya provide background information for this curricular innovation.
They provide various official documents both in hard copies and online that show the government view that English should be given the utmost importance to ensure the eco- nomic survival of Singapore and that they consider English to be the language of busi- ness, science, diplomacy and academia. The primary aims of the STELLAR program are to strengthen the primary students’ oral language, grammar and reading skills—”through an employment and a structured combination of research-based teaching strategies, the STELLAR program advanced a systematic way of bringing together a vast array of teach- ing approaches and strategies in the language curriculum”(Loh & Renandya, 2016, p. 96).
The approaches include shared reading; the text-driven approach; the language expe- rience approach; sustained silent reading; a writing process cycle. There were a lot of
4 Materials Adaptation
supporting systems for teachers and schools such as professional development oppor- tunities, mentor allocation in each school, as well as STELLAR funding for resourcing nec- essary materials in all the schools.
This research was conducted with methodological rigor. Purposeful sampling was used to select the two schools (namely: Singa School and Pura School), the former out of 134 government schools and the latter out of 41 government-aided schools (Min- istry of Education, 2015). The government schools were established in the mid-1990s whereas the government aided schools are so called “branded schools,” originally estab- lished in the 1940s to educate children from Chinese clans, well funded and resourced with track records of numerous awards to acknowledge academic and sporting excellence.
The teachers in the two sampled schools were carefully matched in terms of number, gender, age, experience and three ethnic groups (Chinese, Malay and Indian).
The research methods: 1st stage: questionnaire; 2nd stage: observations of the two teachers from each school (25 lessons in Singa Primary school; 21 lessons in Pura Pri- mary School), artefact analyses (for two units of the school’s EL curriculum i.e. lesson plans, teaching resources, school-based curriculum plans, school worksheets, teacher- prepared worksheets), and two rounds of semistructured interviews (transcribed and checked), based on the lesson observations and artefact analysis. The questionnaire investigated firstly perceptions of adequacy of the materials and resources and secondly teachers’ practice in terms of how the teachers adapted the materials.
The data revealed a high satisfaction rate for the materials and the implementation sup- port materials (high 70–80%) in both schools. The teachers in both schools also appre- ciated that the STELLAR program was flexible rather than restrictive.
More than 90% of the teachers in both schools view adaptations as crucial for the acceptance and efficacy of the curriculum. Teachers in both schools make adaptations to both the methods recommended and the materials given, so as to meet the needs of the diverse learners in their classrooms. (Loh & Renandya, 2016, p. 107)
Loh and Renandya (2016) did find that there were distinctive differences between the two schools in terms of approaches to adaptation. Singa (the government school) teach- ers were actively involved with the new program. They added and expanded the mate- rials to enhance their effects and add innovative elements to the original materials. The teachers in Pura (the government-aided school), on the other hand, were restricted in their use of the STELLAR materials as the school had its own parallel exam prepara- tion syllabus and the teachers had to manage and complete both the national (i.e. the STELLAR) and school-based curricular requirements. Clearly, exam washback affected the Pura teachers.
We discussed earlier why some teachers might feel guilty toward adaptation in relation to Bosompem (2014) in Study 6. We also considered the perspectives of curriculum planners, administrators and institutions that expect curriculum fidelity for the sake of quality assurance and standardization. There is a dynamic tension between teacher adaptation and curriculum implementation.
Materials Development for Language Learning
Loh and Renandya (2016) argue that:
Making adjustments or changes to the curriculum should not be viewed as a defi- ciency, nor should it be treated as taboo. When teachers make adaptations to the guidelines or materials, in general, they do so because they want to optimize the learning experience of their pupils. (Loh and Renandya, 2016, pp. 106–107) How do curriculum planners, administrators and institutions know that teachers are making valid adaptations that enact the curriculum? In Tasseron (2017) Study 5 and in Abdel Latif (2017) Study 7, teachers’ strong beliefs about direct grammar teaching for the exam overruled learning theories or national objectives. Loh and Renandya emphasize the importance of teacher education:
Should we not then ensure that teachers are equipped to make adaptations in a principled way, rather than a haphazard way? Hence, in-service professional development activities should include courses to guide teachers to “reflect upon their own practice and identify principles and systematic procedures for mate- rials adaptation” (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2004, p. 11). With teachers having a better understanding of what goes into the considerations of materials adapta- tion, curriculum planners would then be more amenable and accepting of their curriculum being adjusted and modified by teachers. (Loh & Renandya, 2016, p. 107)
Adaptation is a way in which teachers transmit, develop and make curricula. It would be in the interest of both the authorities and the teachers for resources and professional development to be provided to facilitate teacher adaptation.
Any curriculum reform or innovation requires careful implementation plans. Top- down, one-way imposition tends to cause a lot of confusion, damage and resistance and there is a lot of literature on this (e.g. see McDonough et al., 2013, Chapters 1 and 11 regarding the debate for and against communicative language teaching; Craig, 2006 and Menken, 2008 for cases in the United States; Loh, 2010 for primary reform in Singapore).
Bosompen (2014) reports that:
Some Ghanaian teachers, particularly in rural areas, have actually rejected text- books prescribed by school authorities because “the books were not aligned with the children’s reading ability” . . . and “the teachers did not have the skills to adapt the books to the children’s skill levels”. The teachers reverted to writing on the chalkboard since that was the medium of reading and writing familiar to them.
(Bosompen, 2014, p. 105)
Loh and Renandya (2016) recall a very similar case in relation to the previous Singaporean government initiative in 2001:
changes will occur in any implementation, due to the fact that implementers are humans with different sets of beliefs and experiences. This was what happened when the MOE implemented the EL syllabus 2001—the teachers’ “expertise and ability to work with the new curriculum was not sufficiently considered,” and
4 Materials Adaptation
hence, they “reinterpreted the curriculum based on their own previous teach- ing experiences and their understandings of their students’ needs” (Christison &
Murray, 2014, p. 55). Teachers as the main stakeholders of curriculum change implementation must be engaged during implementation, because they are the ones who will enact the curriculum. (Loh & Renandya, 2016, p. 106)
Loh and Renandya inform us how the Singaporean government’s new primary STELLAR program is accompanied by an in-service professional development scheme and by countrywide mentoring and grouping support systems, which are more interac- tive, not top-down, rigid or evaluative. The ongoing evaluation of the 6-year implemen- tation of the new program so far seems to indicate positive changes taking place with innovative adaptations that enhance the STELLAR principles.