Methodist Girls' School (Secondary)

[manorway]

autolycus\" post_id=\"2112052\" time=\"1688227696\" user_id=\"16143:

Hi manorway!

As an educator in the Singapore milieu, there are at least two competing paradigms:

1) Clear all the exams, quickly, do well, so you can advance quickly in life (howsoever defined).
2) Take a complicated mixture that will develop you in many ways, so that you can find a life regardless.

The two may not be mutually exclusive. This is why when I interview students (and their parents!) I want to know if the student wants to become a more well-rounded (think of a radial plot) or more achieving (think of a linear plot) person. The educator in me would like each student to not just do what they're already inclined to do, but do stuff they would not necessarily want to do (or not think of doing) but which might offer them an alternative way of handling the world.

That's why I think the three disciplines a student should pursue are (minimally), 1) a convergent logical package which includes mathematics at some level; 2) a more divergent humanities package (at least some lit, history is excellent); and 3) some kind of aesthetics (music, art, drama)—although this needn't be exam-level. Also, because every subject is communicated in language, a spread of languages is good—most of us are English-users, so an east or south Asian language, Arabic, or a Romance language are possible wide-use enhancements.

There are many things people aren't keen about, but it's not always what the student wants, but what the student might find useful despite not really being keen about it. Think of it as a portfolio diversity hedge, if you will. Or broadening the gene pool to ensure survival.

A student with HCL O-levels can still do CL for IB in Group 2 at SL. Can do it at HL, or not do it at all so as to choose another language. There is only an advantage if the student finds it advantageous. Different people think in different ways, after all. Some drop it to do O-level CL and then IB CL again, because it's safe. Not sure how useful long term, but definitely safe short term. Again, different people have different risk profiles.

My personal suggestion is that students go for max tolerable (each individual assesses this differently) risk now. They'll have time to absorb the risk. Counter-argument: it gets harder to learn vastly different things later on, but they will also have more resources if they still have risk appetite. I was a humanities student in secondary school but switched to pure science when I realised you don't easily find laboratory training later in life. I switched back to humanities after becoming a science teacher!

Thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to explain and share your views! I LOVE LOVE this post.

I share your views wholeheartedly. Too many parents and young folks I have met in SG will simply do things to help them score and all for the sake of JUST completing exams quickly to move to the next level. I encourage my kids to see education differently and always seize the opportunity to be educated, rather than just to score. By focusing on the former, we found out that our outcomes are not any worse than those who focus on the latter. Our education experiences are vastly different from others because of our willingness to take some risks to be exposed to subjects that we may not think we are good at YET. I cannot agree with you more on the three disciplines!

Noted on the CL/HCL in IB. Makes some difference to some kids' decisions.

PS:
I wanted to add a LIKE for this post but I just realised there is no LIKE button to click.
Anyone can explain why please? I know I can like some people's posts, but not sure why there is no button for this one.

[autolycus]

bbbay\" post_id=\"2112082\" time=\"1688284670\" user_id=\"175278:

Going back to the earlier discussion on breath vs depth of subjects. What is the reason IB syllabus is still not more widely adopted in Singapore?

We have a national education system, with SEAB running exams. The IB is an international system not controlled by MOE. The OSA probably prevents me from divulging details, but you can certainly guess at some of the reasons.

However, do note that since the early 2000s, the local SG-Cambridge A-levels have moved towards being more IB-like.

[autolycus]

manorway\" post_id=\"2112132\" time=\"1688310441\" user_id=\"9303:

Thank you SO MUCH for taking the time to explain and share your views! I LOVE LOVE this post.

I share your views wholeheartedly. Too many parents and young folks I have met in SG will simply do things to help them score and all for the sake of JUST completing exams quickly to move to the next level. I encourage my kids to see education differently and always seize the opportunity to be educated, rather than just to score. By focusing on the former, we found out that our outcomes are not any worse than those who focus on the latter. Our education experiences are vastly different from others because of our willingness to take some risks to be exposed to subjects that we may not think we are good at YET. I cannot agree with you more on the three disciplines!

Noted on the CL/HCL in IB. Makes some difference to some kids' decisions.

PS:
I wanted to add a LIKE for this post but I just realised there is no LIKE button to click.
Anyone can explain why please? I know I can like some people's posts, but not sure why there is no button for this one.

Thanks very much for that positive response! I can only share what my personal learning journey has taught me, although it isn't necessarily what other people may think. I do believe that my experiences have covered a broad swathe of the local education system in terms of policy and practice, so that might be useful. All the best!

[bbbay]

autolycus\" post_id=\"2112139\" time=\"1688315157\" user_id=\"16143:

We have a national education system, with SEAB running exams. The IB is an international system not controlled by MOE. The OSA probably prevents me from divulging details, but you can certainly guess at some of the reasons.

However, do note that since the early 2000s, the local SG-Cambridge A-levels have moved towards being more IB-like.

Could I hear your view on the parent concerns on not able to identify and provide early intervention if needed because of the removal of mid year exam. I know there was a pilot program done in selected levels with the removal of mid year exam, before it is implemented in all levels. What is the reason MOE appear not sharing parents’ concerns?

I read schools will rely on ongoing assessments to gauge students progress. Could you provide any details on why ongoing assessments are good enough to replace mid year exam?

[autolycus]

bbbay\" post_id=\"2112280\" time=\"1688429792\" user_id=\"175278:

Could I hear your view on the parent concerns on not able to identify and provide early intervention if needed because of the removal of mid year exam. I know there was a pilot program done in selected levels with the removal of mid year exam, before it is implemented in all levels. What is the reason MOE appear not sharing parents’ concerns?

I read schools will rely on ongoing assessments to gauge students progress. Could you provide any details on why ongoing assessments are good enough to replace mid year exam?

Here are a couple of points in a very complex situation. (Personally, I got rid of the S3 mid-year exams because they were a waste of time. The S4 mid-year exams were better dealt with by having an earlier prelim exam. Having many really short tests in the double periods, followed by immediate marking and explaining, worked wonders.)

1. A mid-year examination is able to assign about 3-10 minutes per sub-topic per paper. Ongoing tests have a slight advantage, if done properly; you can spend more time per topic without having to cram the whole syllabus by memorisation. You can also spend a whole post-lesson explaining a small group of topics shortly after the test rather than quickly breezing through many topics weeks after the exam. Then you can re-test a single topic that appears weak. It's a spiral curriculum after all.

2. In addition, the old mid-year exams used to waste a lot of time spent revising for the mid-years and setting up the mid-year examination. Teachers in schools will know how much admin overhead and teaching time was wasted having school-wide exams in the middle of the year. Shorter common test sessions sprinkled throughout were more useful and didn't require large-scale disruption of curriculum time. Sometimes, the disruption was so great that some topics weren't taught until after the mid-years, or (even then) not even tested in any way until the final exams.

I think parents' concerns are about inadequate exam prep. But teaching well is the best exam prep, followed by psychological conditioning in efficient/effective test-taking on a smaller scale. It should be less stressful if students are engaged throughout. Sadly, whether we do it by ongoing tests or by large-scale exams, there'll always be the 'cram-into-memory' and 'last-minute mugging' types. Gotta change habits.

In most areas, there is some bias towards past practice. I grew up in a time when the exam syllabus was much denser and more complex (O and A levels in early 80s); the thinking skills required were implicit and high-level. However, now the emphasis is on teaching those thinking skills explicitly and having less ponderous material. It's very different, and unsettling towards those who survived the exams of the 1990s and 2000s, which were easier than the 1980s (see the pass and distinction rates) but tougher to compete in (more people getting As). The children nowadays do fine, though.

Caveat: what if the children don't do well? It's good to approach the school and ask each school how their curriculum testing regime works. If they can explain it to you in a way that you feel addresses your concerns, that's good. If not, ask until they can justify themselves. A good team will do it nicely and effectively. You can tell. It's like asking a healthcare professional—the better ones can often explain to you clearly why certain tests are done or not done, and what the expected outcomes are.

[manorway]

autolycus\" post_id=\"2112297\" time=\"1688433887\" user_id=\"16143:

I think parents' concerns are about inadequate exam prep. But teaching well is the best exam prep, followed by psychological conditioning in efficient/effective test-taking on a smaller scale. It should be less stressful if students are engaged throughout. Sadly, whether we do it by ongoing tests or by large-scale exams, there'll always be the 'cram-into-memory' and 'last-minute mugging' types. Gotta change habits.

If students are engaged throughout class, self motivated and independent enough to do what he needs to learn, ask questions to clarify during and after class, completes his homework and revision consistently, then small tests will suffice to prepare kids for exam.

The only thing left to manage is exam anxiety which can be crippling for some. Telling kids \"don't panic, don't worry\" is ineffective and insufficient. The anxiety can only be reduced if kids believe poor exam outcomes are not going to have a long-lasting negative effect or they have a way to control the outcomes. I know a really smart kid who had extreme exam anxiety in the earlier years. She learnt to manage her exam anxiety only after many years of exam-taking experience. So for kids like this one who will only have 3 times of exam experience before the PSLE, the exam anxiety is a real issue.

Also, with the big classes in Primary schools, it is reasonable to find some students in every class who are not engaged, no matter how well the teaching is done. So I am of the view that it is not enough for the teachers to teach well, students also need to take ownership of his own learning. This attitude cannot and should not be just left to school teachers to instill.

[bbbay]

autolycus\" post_id=\"2112297\" time=\"1688433887\" user_id=\"16143:

Here are a couple of points in a very complex situation. (Personally, I got rid of the S3 mid-year exams because they were a waste of time. The S4 mid-year exams were better dealt with by having an earlier prelim exam. Having many really short tests in the double periods, followed by immediate marking and explaining, worked wonders.)

1. A mid-year examination is able to assign about 3-10 minutes per sub-topic per paper. Ongoing tests have a slight advantage, if done properly; you can spend more time per topic without having to cram the whole syllabus by memorisation. You can also spend a whole post-lesson explaining a small group of topics shortly after the test rather than quickly breezing through many topics weeks after the exam. Then you can re-test a single topic that appears weak. It's a spiral curriculum after all.

2. In addition, the old mid-year exams used to waste a lot of time spent revising for the mid-years and setting up the mid-year examination. Teachers in schools will know how much admin overhead and teaching time was wasted having school-wide exams in the middle of the year. Shorter common test sessions sprinkled throughout were more useful and didn't require large-scale disruption of curriculum time. Sometimes, the disruption was so great that some topics weren't taught until after the mid-years, or (even then) not even tested in any way until the final exams.

I think parents' concerns are about inadequate exam prep. But teaching well is the best exam prep, followed by psychological conditioning in efficient/effective test-taking on a smaller scale. It should be less stressful if students are engaged throughout. Sadly, whether we do it by ongoing tests or by large-scale exams, there'll always be the 'cram-into-memory' and 'last-minute mugging' types. Gotta change habits.

In most areas, there is some bias towards past practice. I grew up in a time when the exam syllabus was much denser and more complex (O and A levels in early 80s); the thinking skills required were implicit and high-level. However, now the emphasis is on teaching those thinking skills explicitly and having less ponderous material. It's very different, and unsettling towards those who survived the exams of the 1990s and 2000s, which were easier than the 1980s (see the pass and distinction rates) but tougher to compete in (more people getting As). The children nowadays do fine, though.

Caveat: what if the children don't do well? It's good to approach the school and ask each school how their curriculum testing regime works. If they can explain it to you in a way that you feel addresses your concerns, that's good. If not, ask until they can justify themselves. A good team will do it nicely and effectively. You can tell. It's like asking a healthcare professional—the better ones can often explain to you clearly why certain tests are done or not done, and what the expected outcomes are.

Replacing mid year exam check point with short/ fast feedback assessments, does it translate to same or better academic results ? I presume there are encouraging results that prompted MOE to do away with mid year exam now in all Pri & Sec levels. There are parents who may also argue it is the private tuitions that bridge the assessment gaps.

[00skyblue00]

Exam anxiety is not inborn. Is due to external factor. Comes from expectation exceeded realism. And fear of failure overpowering joy of learning, through trying, success and failing.

Exam anxiety by right should not exist in the first place. But once ingrained, hard to remove. Removing some exams are to reduce chance of developing such anxiety. But parents and schools also play a part.
Is a balancing act: measurement of performance through assessment for optimal aggregate progression but stress out the children or no measurement hence stress free but suboptimal aggregate progression.

[phtthp]

I copied this over, from another thread

carcar\" post_id=\"2112823\" time=\"1688803977\" user_id=\"34574:

Just realized that PSLE cut-off for MGS IP has become 6 (2023) from 7 (2022), indication of higher demand towards IB anticipated from last year's discussion in this forum thread? No change for SJI and ACSI though.

For the parents/students who wants an alternative of local education system, perhaps IB is the one. Would be nice if we have more IP schools that offer IB.

In each batch for the past 3 years ( 2022, 2021, 2020 ),
how many graduates MGS (IB curriculum) girls from ACSI,

scored (42 to 45)
in their exiting final year, Year 6 ACSI (IB) results ?


45 points : is the maximum IB score, for Year 6 (IB)

vs.

70 points : maximum A-level score in Junior Colleges, starting with effect from year 2026 onwards, for university admission.

[anxious789]

Anyone has information on what activities do DSA STEM students do in years 1-years 4? (SEC/ o level stream) My dd got accepted for MGS DSA STEM. Thanks in advance.