Tan, Chee Soon

This paper draws from international literature and local studies in Singapore on low progress students to delineate the present state of local knowledge and practice, and suggest future directions for research and policy. The needs of low progress students vary and they may not perform as well as their peers due to a variety of reasons. According to local research, there is a range of learning orientations, motivations and talents, non-academic capabilities and psychological needs among these students, which should be considered in efforts to level them up. Besides individual factors, this paper also recognizes the importance of addressing both school- and education-system-related factors, as well as broader societal factors that could contribute to low progress. However, for the purpose of a more focused discussion, this paper looks more closely at the contributing school- and education-system-related factors to low progress. These factors can be categorized into areas of curriculum, instruction and pedagogy, assessment, teacher quality and attitudes, and school culture and structure. They are examined for constructive ideas, strategies and practices of which implications can inform and better the teaching and learning of local low progress students. We also seek to prepare students to face the new challenges in the 21st century as well as to fulfil the vision of achieving a student-centric education where each student matters and where education is positioned as a means by which meritocracy is implemented and social inequalities mediated. Therefore, this paper proposes that it is timely to revisit some long-held beliefs and practices, from preschool education to teacher education, from education policy to micro-classroom pedagogies and management, from curriculum to assessment, and from the school level to engagement of community and family as stakeholders.

This three-wave longitudinal study underscores the importance of identifying elements in school settings that can help academically at-risk students--those who are likely to follow a trajectory of low achievement or academic failure-- to develop academic resilience. The study utilised both quantitative (i.e., survey questionnaires and standardised achievement tests) and qualitative (i.e., open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews) approaches, and focused on two subject domains--English Language (EL) and Mathematics (Maths). The participants of the study were 1305 students from 22 schools in Singapore. These students were considered as potentially at-risk academically as their aggregate scores in the Primary School Leaving Examination were lower than the cohort’s mean score. From this pool of students, students facing different levels of academic risk (i.e., low, moderate and high) in EL or Maths were identified on the basis of their school grades and scores in standardised achievement tests at the end Secondary One (S1). Low language or numeracy proficiency on entry to secondary school, which is a critical transition phase in students’ life, was considered as a significant risk factor that can directly predispose students towards continued poor academic performance in later years.
The profiles of the students in the three risk groups were compared in relation to their background characteristics and the focal variables of this study: socio-emotional strengths (i.e., emotional awareness, empathy, goal setting, social competence, and emotional regulation), academic motivation (i.e., amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation), perceived relatedness with teachers (i.e., student-to-teacher communication, teacher trust and teacher alienation), and perceived teacher autonomy and competence support. The results of the study suggest that, compared to students facing low academic risk, students facing high academic risk tended to report lower emotional awareness, goal setting and perceived teacher support; and higher amotivation, teacher alienation, and student-to-teacher communication. These variables can be considered as potential foci of interventions that can be implemented before or at the beginning of secondary school in order to preclude students from facing high levels of academic risk or to mitigate the effects of academic risk factors.
This study applied a dual approach in defining academic resilience. Using a trait-based approach, subjective academic resilience was defined as the students’ capacity to effectively handle challenges, adversities, pressures and setbacks in school setting; it was measured using students’ self-ratings on items acting as indicators of trait-based or dispositional form of academic resilience. Using a process- based approach, objective academic resilience was defined as the achievement of positive academic outcomes despite the presence of challenging situations or risk factors (i.e., low achievement on entry to S1). In this study, a positive academic outcome is assessed in Secondary Three (S3): It corresponds to at least a passing grade in EL (or Maths) and/or a score in standardized achievement tests in Reading (or Maths) above the 23rd percentile of the norming population.
Focusing on objective academic resilience, high-risk students who achieved positive academic outcomes in S3 were considered as resilient, and those who remained at a high-risk status were considered as less resilient. Compared to the less resilient students, the resilient students tended to report a greater improvement in goal setting, emotional awareness, and student-to-teacher communication and had a more stable perceived teacher trust over three years. The resilient students tended to have lower amotivation and teacher alienation than their less resilient peers. There were also indications that the resilient students were more competent in setting goals and in working towards their goals; they also tended to frame failure and deal with failure more positively, and to report receiving more competence and relatedness support than their less resilient peers. The key sources of support that helped students deal with academic challenges were mainly peers, followed by family members and teachers.
The results of the study also indicate that student-to-teacher communication and students’ goal-setting ability (particularly, a positive change), perceived teacher competence support, and students’ emotional regulation were the most consistent positive predictors of academic resilience in both objective and subjective forms. The aforementioned factors were found as significant predictors of academic resilience more consistently and strongly in relation to EL than Maths.

Objectives This study explores the experiences and coping strategies of secondary students as they engaged in learning activities during the pandemic. It investigated the sources of student stress during the pandemic, and the extent to which the pandemic influenced the stress that they usually experience. Method Semi-structured interviews were used to elicit details of the students’ lived experiences as they navigated learning via an online platform, their coping strategies in managing stress. Results With regards to academic experiences, many students found online learning challenging and ineffective and were concerned about their examinations. Under social experiences, many students shared that they missed social and recreational activities during the “circuit breaker”. However, some students demonstrated resilience and were able to see the benefits of going through the pandemic. More students reported academic-related than social-related stress. The students coped with stress in three ways: (1) disengagement, (2) taking active steps and (3) turning to others. Conclusion Academic concerns were a major source of distress among adolescents. Insights that were drawn from the results of the study can be utilized to support students in managing stress and mitigate its adverse effects on student learning and functioning. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: (1) The pandemic has a more serious impact on adolescents’ mental health and emotional well-being and many adolescents experience anxiety during this period. (2) Positive reappraisal, strengths use and emotional processing are some strategies used by adolescents to cope with stress during the pandemic. What this topic adds: (1) Although many students found online learning stressful and ineffective, some students in this study had meaningful and positive experiences during the period when they had online lessons at home. (2) Despite the challenges, some students demonstrated resilience and were even able to see the benefits arising from going through the pandemic. Others appreciated spending more time with their family members. (3) Adolescents coped with stress experienced during the pandemic in three ways: (1) disengagement, (2) taking active steps and (3) turning to others.

This study examines gifted students' perceptions and attitudes towards the "gifted" label and its effects on their social relationships. A questionnaire was administered to 97 gifted 14 year old students in three secondary schools. Findings suggest that more male gifted students accept the label "gifted" compared to female gifted students. The culture of school where the gifted students are housed appears to be a factor in influencing the perceptions of the gifted adolescents. The students reported personal and academic advantages but pronounced social disadvantages of the "gifted" label. Some of the disadvantages include high expectations from parents and teachers and being discriminated by peers in the mainstream. Results of the case studies parallel these findings.

This research had a two-fold objective. The first objective was to develop an intervention programme that was grounded on positive psychology and tailored for academically at-risk students, that is, students who, by and large, achieved lower aggregate scores than the cohort mean in the national test given at the end of primary education. The second objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of each of the components of the intervention programme in terms of improving positive emotions, well-being, and academic outcomes of academically at-risk students.
Three positive psychology interventions (PPIs) were developed to form the intervention programme. Each PPI comprised five core activities, with a wrap-up session that was conducted after the core activities. The Gratitude PPI comprised the following activities: Gratitude Collage, Counting Blessings, Mental Subtraction, Facing Challenges with Gratitude, and Gratitude Card. The Hope PPI featured activities such as Goal Setting and Goal Mapping, Journaling, Best Possible Self, Savouring Success, and Sharing Formula for Success. The Strengths PPI involved activities such as Identification of Top Strengths, Journaling about Top Strengths, Identification of Signature Strengths, Journaling about Signature Strengths and then Create a Superhero.
The evaluation of the effectiveness of the PPIs involved six sub-studies, with two sub-studies tied to each PPI. For each PPI, the first sub-study, which utilised a quasi-experimental design, served as the first trial to test the impact of the PPI and identify areas for improvement; the second sub-study utilized a split-plot experimental design (i.e., each participating class was randomly split into group A and B and all students in group A formed the intervention group while all students in Group B formed the control group). The six sub-studies involved 305 academically at-risk students.
The results of four sub-studies support the potential of two (i.e., Hope and Gratitude PPIs) out three PPIs in cultivating positive emotions and well-being, and enhancing adaptive motivation and learning strategies. In terms of promoting students’ well-being, the effect of the Gratitude PPI was found to be more consistent and stronger than that of the Hope PPI. Specifically, the Gratitude PPI has generated greater increase in students’ life satisfaction and reduction in depressive symptoms than the control activities did. The Hope PPI seems to be more effective in terms of preventing the worsening of the students’ self-reported depressive symptoms, rather than directly reducing them. Concerning academic achievement, the effects of the PPIs were generally weak.
All the PPIs did not generate a significant effect on academic engagement; however, when it comes to academic motivation, results associated with one PPI was promising. In particular, the Hope PPI was found to have beneficial effects in terms of preventing the decline in students’ intrinsic motivation.
The general results of the present investigation also point to the effectiveness of the Hope PPI, but not the other two PPIs, in increasing students’ use of deep learning and elaboration strategies. The Hope PPI was found to be more effective than the usual CCE activities in enhancing the students’ use of these adaptive learning strategies. The effects of the Hope PPI on these outcomes were not significantly mediated by the students’ academic hope (i.e., positive expectations to achieve school goals). These results suggest that the Hope PPI may operate directly, rather than indirectly through enhancing academic hope levels, in improving adaptive school outcomes.
The benefits that can be derived from the PPIs appear to be stronger and more amenable to measurement when a considerable period has passed after the students’ exposure to PPIs or after booster sessions were conducted. These results suggest that some effects of the PPIs may take a while to manifest and that state-like measures may be more appropriate in capturing the effects of such PPIs accurately.
Overall, the results of the six sub-studies have shown the potential benefits of PPIs, particularly the Hope and Gratitude PPIs, in enhancing adaptive school and well-being outcomes for academically at-risk students in Singapore. The Gratitude PPI appears to have relatively stronger effects on well-being while the Hope PPI seems to be more effective in promoting the use of productive learning strategies and in preventing the decline in intrinsic motivation to study. Educators and interventionists may select the PPIs that suit the needs and profiles of their subjects, or implement the PPIs in combination and in longer duration to generate optimal impact.