The NIE Digital Repository aims to organise, preserve and facilitate dissemination of publications and research outputs of the National Institute of Education (NIE)

Research outputs
17138
People
287
Recent Additions
  • Publication
    Metadata only
    非连续性文本纳入新教材《华文伴我行》的编写价值
    (2023)
    Sun, Li
    上世纪九十年代初,美国教育考试服务中心 (ETS)的专家们已提出“非连续性文本”一词(Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)。2000年,经济合作与发展组织 (OECD)首次发起国际学生评估项目(PISA),在阅 读素养测试框架中将文本分为连续性文本和非连续性文 本,被视为该框架的评估内容的核心部分。从此,非连 续性文本逐渐进入世界各国的阅读教学与测试领域,其 高度生活化的特点凸显出多重阅读价值,因而日益受到 人们的关注和重视。 2021年,中学华文教材《华文伴我行》特设阅读板 块“生活空间”,引进真实性语料,以非连续性文本形 式呈现,和其他板块组成教学单元,正式将非连续性文 本的教学纳入课程体系。因此,本文从回顾新教材的编 写指导思想出发,在分析非连续性文本的概念及特点的 基础上,探讨了非连续性文本的学习价值,进而提出非 连续性文本纳入中学华文新教材的编写价值,以及一些 需要思考和探讨的问题。
  • Publication
    Metadata only
    新加坡华文教师专业社团社会功能的嬗变
    (2024)
    Sun, Li
    ;
    新加坡各大华文教师专业社团的正式建立始于二战后,在新加坡的华文教育史上扮演了重要角色。然而,随着时局变化和历史发展,新加坡的政治,经济与社会文化环境发生了巨大改变,华文教育规划与发展逐渐国家化,而各大华文教团所发挥的社会功能因此不断作出调试或改变。本文从历时角度和宏观社会学的视,遵循结构功能主义的思维路径,追华校联合会,华文中学教师会,华校教师总会等三个重要华文教团的发展史,深讨新加坡华文教团社会功能的嬗变及其面临的困境与出路。
  • Publication
    Metadata only
    基于中学生新闻阅读语料的可读性评估
    (2023)
    Sun, Li
    合理地选用新闻语料作为教学资源,必须基于对新闻语料的科学评价。可读性公式作为计算文本难 度的工具,为文本难度测量提供客观的度量方式,能为选用文本阅读者提供客观的依据。本研究选取《联 合早报》《逗号》《8视界新闻》提供中学生阅读的新闻语料样本24篇,以苏启祯的华语二语可读性公式为 依据对语料的难易度进行了客观测量。同时,邀请富有经验的教师对所选新闻样本适合学生阅读的语文水 平进行了鉴定。通过主客观检验和比较,显示可读性公式测量和教师的经验判断的结果总体上一致:《联 合早报》难度最高,《8视界新闻》居中,《逗号》最易,后两者的可读性预测值也较接近,表明华文二语 可读性公式对新闻语料应用于华文教学中的可读性评价具有一定的参考价值。本文研究并提出新闻语料的 语文特质、话题内容、阅读辅助形式对可读性影响的相关问题与建议,以期有助将来可读性在新闻语料应 用于华文教学的研究能进一步深入。
  • Publication
    Metadata only
    Oral history recording for early childhood teacher education
    (2021)
    Karuppiah, Nirmala
    ;
    Sng, Abbie Wei Qin
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
  • Publication
    Restricted
    Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Developing scientific argumentation skills in pre-service chemistry teachers
    (Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Singapore, 2024) ;

    The discipline of science is characterized by the evaluation of knowledge claims that are supported by available evidences. As such, one of the key attributes of a scientist is the ability to discern relevant and orthodoxy evidence from those that are irrelevant and outdated, and use these evidences to construct coherent arguments (Osborne, 2010). Translating this characteristic practice of science into science teaching in schools means that a learner of science must also be able to construct plausible and relevant arguments from available evidences in learning science concepts. This has important implications for science teacher educators as there is now a need to teach and equip pre-service teachers with skills, knowledge and strategies to teach their prospective students in schools how to make sense of evidences and how to construct coherent arguments and at the same time, learn the contents of science (Newton, Driver,& Osborne, 1999).

    The nature of science and paradigm shift in science teacher education asserts that argumentation should be central in science education. The paradigm shift referred to here is the need to move our attention from focusing on acquisition of content knowledge to understanding and appreciating the process by which scientific knowledge is formed. As such, we argue here that argumentation is one of the key scientific practices to enable this change to take place and hence, to enable learners of science to learn science in an authentic manner, science teachers need to know how to position the content that they are teaching in a manner that will open up a space for students to discuss and argue. Yet, in reality, the opportunity for students to engage in argumentation discourse is rarely seen in science classroom practice (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Roth, et al., 2006). Thus, we argue that if cultivating students’ involvement in the practice of argumentation is a goal to achieve, then the current culture of science classrooms, which is largely dominated by didactic monologues from the teacher, must be altered. Current research indicates that the teacher plays a fundamental role in any reform effort because curriculum implementation and classroom instruction are often shaped by them (Bybee, 1993; Lotter, Harwood, & Bonner, 2007; Sampson & Blanchard, 2012). As such, one of the key platforms to advocate and promote this kind of curricular and pedagogical reform is through initial teacher education programs.

    To facilitate the change process, we need to understand what pre-service teachers know about scientific argumentation and to what extent they value its role in the teaching and learning of science. Current research that focusses on pre-service teachers’ perceptions and ideas about science as a form of inquiry highlighted the difficulties they faced in enacting science as inquiry in classroom (e.g., Biggers & Forbes, 2012; Crawford, 2007; Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Haefner & Zembal-Saul, 2004). The similarity between practice of science as inquiry and argumentation is likely to be due to the fact that argumentation is a prerequisite skill for learners of science to be engaged in science as inquiry. Despite the wealth of research into practices of science as inquiry, few studies in inquiry classroom examine the embedded argumentation explicitly. By embedded argumentation, we refer to the nature of the tasks that inherently has tenets that are debatable. These would generally be scientific theories and ideas that scientists are still seeking evidences for. The only difference between embedded argumentation and argumentation that stems from socioscientific issues is the reliance of embedded argumentation on empirical evidence rather than affective perspective. There is hence limited research on how pre-service teachers participate in argumentation as well as explore on their knowledge and views of the use of argumentation (Kaya, 2013; Ozdem, Ertepinar, Cakiroglu, & Erduran, 2013; Sadler, 2006). As early as the late 1990s, researchers such as Newton, Driver, and Osborne (1999) were already arguing that argumentation should form part of the pedagogical repertoire of science teachers and hence their knowledge in this area should be developed. McNeil and Knight (2013), in their study of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in argumentation highlighted that in-service teachers faced challenges with understanding the structural and dialogic characteristics of argumentation. They also struggled with designing tasks that are argumentation-centric. As such, research into the development of argumentation skills is important not only for students learning science in schools, but also for teachers, both in-service as well as pre-service, engaged in teaching science.

  • Publication
    Restricted
    Partnership for change towards science inquiry in elementary science classrooms: Collective responsibility of teachers and students
    (Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Singapore, 2024) ;
    Talaue, Frederick
    ;
    This report details the three keys aspects of the project ─ (a) the ideas and motivation of teachers to carry out inquiry, (b) students ideas about science learning in school, and (c) factors that could enhance science teacher professional development to carry out inquiry. In elementary science classrooms, we showed that: (1) while teachers express moderate to strong intention to teach science through inquiry they are constrained by numerous components in their classroom context, including goals of instruction, curriculum integration, learning environment, lesson strategies, student disposition and teacher disposition; (2) students value hands-on and collaborative experiences for learning science, suggesting a pedagogy characterized by clear learning goals and valuing a sense of community among learners; and (3) further training should focus on how to, more than why, teach through inquiry, adopting a paradigm that is responsive to different contexts.