RELC Journal

http://rel.sagepub.com/

English in Singapore: an Insider's Perspective of Syllabus Renewal Through a Genre-Based Approach

Benedict Lin
RELC Journal 2003 34: 223
DOI: 10.1177/003368820303400206

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/34/2/223

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for RELC Journal can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://rel.sagepub.com/content/34/2/223.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 1, 2003

What is This?

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 223-

ENGLISH IN SINGAPORE: AN INSIDER’S PERSPECTIVE OF

SYLLABUS RENEWAL THROUGH A GENRE-BASED APPROACH

Benedict Lin
SEAMEO RELC, Singapore

ABSTRACT
This article presents Singapore’s English Language syllabus for primary
and secondary schools, introduced in 2001, as a case study of syllabus
renewal and implementation, especially in terms of its adoption of a genre-
based approach to language teaching. It offers an insider’s perspective, and
aims to offer insight into the dynamics of syllabus change, while simul-
taneously exemplifying issues connected with trends towards genre-based
approaches (see Derewianka 2003). After providing a brief background of
the use of English and the general linguistic situation in Singapore, it
surveys historically previous EL syllabuses in the light of the central status
of English, to illuminate the concerns driving the developers of the 2001
syllabus. The syllabus is then described in terms of its rationale and aims,
philosophy and principles, and main features. These are shown to be clearly
informed by functional views concerned with language as discourse. Im-
portant implementation measures are also reported. Observations and
reflections on the influences and motivations of the syllabus as well as
issues related to its implementation are then offered in the hope of
stimulating further exploration and suggesting future directions for those
who might find useful connections with their own situations, experiences
and concerns.

Introduction
In 2001, Singapore’s Ministry of Education introduced a new English lan-
guage syllabus for all primary and secondary schools.’ Its implementation
is now being carried out progressively, and is expected to be completed by
2005.

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 224

Syllabus 2001, as I will henceforth call it, presents an interesting case

study not only of syllabus renewal and implementation in general, but also
specifically of the adoption of a genre-based approach in developing a
syllabus and curriculum. It is thus one illustration of the trends and issues
discussed by Derewianka in her article in this issue. It is for this reason
that I will explore Syllabus 2001 and its implementation, from the per-
spective of an insider to the experience of English language teaching and
learning in my country at various levels.’ This is in the hope that what
light this paper sheds on the syllabus’s motivations and influences, as well
as on the issues raised by its implementation, will provide illumination for
those in other situations with similar interests and concerns.
First, however, some brief background about the use of English and the
general linguistic situation in Singapore is severely necessary.

Background
The Status of English in Singapore
Although English is only one of the four official languages of Singapore
(the others being Mandarin, Malay and Tamil), it fills a very special role.
It is the primary language for public administration, education, commerce,
science and technology. Letters from government departments are written
in English (although generic letters such as annual income tax notices do
come with translations into the other three languages); workplace docu-
ments in government departments and major businesses are in English;
business contracts are in English; public signs are in English. Most sal-
iently, since 1979, English has been the medium of instruction for all sub-
jects except the mother tongues (Mandarin, Malay and Tamil languages) at
every level of education.
Clearly, English is of central importance in Singapore, for as can be
seen, it serves many important functions. It would probably be fair to say
that you would be disadvantaged in Singapore if you knew no English, or
if your command of English was not good. Indeed, academic achievement
in Singapore is quite closely related to proficiency in English. On an
everyday level, some of our senior citizens who know no English will find
traveling on our Mass Rapid Transport train system a bewildering experi-
ence because all the signboards are in English (although translations into

one of the other official languages are provided at some stations now).

This leads to the next aspect of language use in Singapore that needs to be
explained: the general linguistic situation.

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 225

The Linguistic Situation in Singapore

It is true that English is also a lingua franca for communication between
Singaporeans from different ethnic and language backgrounds, and, given
its prominence in education and public life, is becoming increasingly an
important language of the home. However, it is still not the first or main
language used by individual Singaporeans. The maj ority of the population
does not speak it at home: the 2000 census reported that only 23 per cent
of Singaporeans regard English as the language most frequently used at
home (Leow 2001 ). Even where it is used outside of work and school, the
English used for informal communication is often not the ’standard’
English found in school textbooks or of the sort that can be used for work
or business purposes, especially in the international or multinational

context so crucial for Singapore. It is often a local variety, which though

fascinating to many, may be difficult to understand for people from other
places. Many Singaporean pupils, in fact, begin primary school with very
little English.
The Importance o, f English Language Instruction in Singapore
Given the central importance of English in Singapore on the one hand, and
the realities of the home language background of the majority of Singa-
poreans, it is clear that English language instruction via the primary and
secondary school system plays a very crucial role in both societal and
personal effectiveness and success in Singapore. However, there are
suggestions that there have been inadequacies in the teaching of English,
and in the English language curriculum for schools. Many are not fully
effective in using English for further academic or real-life purposes after
they leave secondary school, in spite of the fact that English has been the
sole medium of instruction (except in the teaching of other languages)
since 1979. For instance:

.
Employers have complained in the national press that many new
graduates are not able to write effective workplace documents,
such as reports and minutes.
. A fair number of first year undergraduates at our universities
need ’remedial’ English courses or special courses in academic
writing-some have poorer levels of proficiency after 12 years of
education in English than foreign students from EFL countries
such as the People’s Republic of China.
. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many trainee teachers at the
National Institute of Education find difficulty in using English to

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 226

perform simple classroom tasks, such as giving instructions or

explanations, effectively.
. It is also not uncommon to find many who have completed
secondary education and above in English needing help in simple
everyday tasks like writing simple letters to government agencies
or banks in English.

While the reasons for such failures are complex and many, one evident
cause, as has been suggested, must be the English language programme.
This is not to say that the policy makers have not been mindful of the need
to make the English language syllabus relevant and effective. In response
to the changing social and language profile and needs of Singaporeans, as
well as to changing understandings of the best ways to teach language,
there have been syllabus revisions every ten years or so, the last two prior
to Syllabus 2001 being in 1991 and 1981. Syllabus 2001 thus represents,
in one sense, just another stage of evolution responding to yet another set
of changes in societal development and language teaching theory.
However, it would appear that what the previous syllabuses lacked were
coherent enough attempts to integrate teaching across levels, as well as
sufficiently explicit ways of making language learning relevant to further
academic work and to real-life use of language. A brief critique of them
follows.

A BYie. f’Review of Previous Curricula

Common Features
Ang (2000) and Lim (2001 ), senior curriculum specialists in the Ministry
of Education, present important historical descriptions of syllabus change
from the 1950s to the present. Common to all the previous syllabuses was
that the syllabus documents for primary and secondary levels were sepa-
rate. What this suggests is that schools at the secondary level worked
without a clear picture of the work that was supposed to have been done at
the primary level, which they might build on. Their only obvious reference
point would have been the national Primary School Leaving Examination
(PSLE), where the English tests have not changed substantially for the last
30 years, in spite of syllabus changes.
Exacerbating the problem was that there was (and continues to be, as at
present) a sharp disjunction between the terminal examinations for English
at the primary level (the PSLE), and at the secondary level (the Singapore-

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 227

Cambridge GCE O’level examination). While the former had a heavy

emphasis on discrete item tests of linguistic accuracy, the latter dispensed
with any such discrete item tests after 1981, placing its major weight on
continuous writing and reading comprehension. Whatever the prevailing
syllabuses, this had important wash-back effects. Primary school teaching
tended to stress regimes of teaching that focused on the ability, for exam-
ple, to fill in the blanks of single isolated sentences with the correct forms
of verbs, or select the ‘right’ word for a blank in a given sentence. Quite
often, however, at secondary school level, suddenly, such ’grammar’ may
all but be forgotten, and ’English’ lessons might consist largely of writing
’compositions’ on topics such as ’An Embarrassing Event’ or reading
’comprehension’ passages on remote islands in the Atlantic and answering
questions on them, and then ’having mistakes corrected or become the
focus of a subsequent lesson. How what is done at primary school forms
the basis of what is done at/secondary school is unclear, nor is it easy to
see how either task can be directly useful for future academic work or for
real life.
Closer examination of Ang’s (2000) and Lim’s (2001 accounts, as well
as the syllabus documents themselves, suggests two even more funda-

mental problems, whatever the prevailing theories and wisdoms influenc-

ing each syllabus. This suggests the basic inadequacies of these theories as
premises on which to build effective pedagogy. One was the separation in
teaching and learning between study and practice of idealized language
forms at the word and sentence level, and experience of ’real’ uses of
language at the text level, whatever the attempts in later syllabuses to be
more ’integrated’. This artificial dichotomy tended to result in the em-

phasis of one over the other at various times, with the consequence that
learners failed to see the relevance of one to the other, and therefore, often
focused on one at the expense of the other. The other problem was that
each syllabus invariably favoured some types of language use or texts over
others, so that any proficiency in those areas not in vogue would have been
a result of factors other than the design of the curriculum.

1959-1981
The first two syllabuses described by Ang and Lim, the 1959 Syllabus for
English in Primary English Schools and the 1961 Syllabus for English in
Secondary English Schools, reveal the continued influence ofprescriptivist
grammar and grammar translation, with their emphasis on explicit teach-
ing of parts of speech and grammatical correctness in writing. The influ-

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 228

ence of approaches based on the more descriptivist work of structural

linguistics was also evidently beginning to take hold, for ’the use of sen-
tence pattern drills and substitution tables were the recommended teaching
methods’ and ’[t]he much quoted authority was A.S. Homby’s Guide to
Patterns and Usage in English’ (Lim 2001: 138).
As Lim describes it, both the syllabuses ’balanced’ such ’language
practice’ and ’study of grammar and syntax’ with other syllabus com-
ponents that emphasized language use. However, what needs to be noted is
the lack of any explicit link showing how language ’study’ had anything to
do with learning how to use language, in terms of coping with or produc-
ing texts encountered in real life. Whether the other components such as
’reading, written English, speech training, poetry, drama, storytelling,
spelling and dictation and oral English activities’ for the primary level
(Lim 2001: 137) were linked in any way to the language ‘study’ and ’prac-
tice’ was a matter left to the teachers. Pupils’ ability to apply one to the
other, it would appear, was otherwise assumed to arise naturally.
Moreover, both Ang’s and Lim’s descriptions suggest that the other
components focused very strongly on literary genres as examples of lan-
guage use to the near exclusion of other more everyday examples that
pupils would have more need to learn. Implicitly, the secondary level
syllabus also appeared to privilege written over oral uses of language.
Both these tendencies, it might be pointed out, would seem to be in fact at
odds with the structural drills that were the focus of language ’practice’,
since the structural linguistics on which the latter would have been built
tended to privilege spoken language.
The next syllabus, the 1971 Syllabus for English (Primary), remained
essentially similar, except that the theoretical influence now seemed more
firmly structuralist: speech was stressed as primary for the Lower Primary
level, and there were ‘detailed guidelines and suggestions for teachers on
how to teach the grammatical items’ through [rr]epetition, drills and rein-
forcement... to ensure mastery of grammar and syntax’ (Lim 2001: 140).
Where language use was concerned, the literary emphasis continued.
Interestingly, this was now guised as ’enrichment’, arguably further em-
phasizing the divorce between learning about the language, and learning to
use the language.

1981-1991
The influence of structuralism persisted with the next syllabus change in
1981, necessitated in part by the implementation of the New Education

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 229

System in 1979, which introduced some of the most significant policy

changes in Singapore’s educational history. Again, two separate docu-
ments were published-the English Syllabus for the New Education System
(Primary I -6 Normal Course, Primary 4-8 Extended Course and Primary
4-8 Monolingual Course) and the English Language Syllabus (Sec 1-4
Special/Express Course). While the learning of discrete grammatical units
continued to dominate both syllabuses, forming what was called the ’lan-
guage core’, the policy changes contributed to a pendulum swing where
language use was concerned. Focus moved almost entirely away from
literature to the sort of ’functional literacy’ (Lim 2001: 143) necessary to
enable pupils ’to learn the content in Mathematics, Science and other sub-
j ect areas in the curriculum’: indeed, Lim (2001: 143) notes that ‘literary
enrichment’ was not mentioned at all, and calls this a ’reductive syllabus’
in that ’Compared to the syllabuses published before it and those pub-
lished after it, [it] had reduced reading, writing, listening and speaking to
the minimum core skills, which would enable a child to acquire a basic
functional literacy in English’. While it is to be noted that the syllabus,
both at primary and secondary levels, for the first time explicitly called for
a balance of listening, speaking, reading and writing skills to be taught,

what it failed to do was identify what specific uses of each, in terms of

genre, would constitute the ’basic functional literacy’ it sought. It also
failed, again, to make any useful links showing how learning the ‘language
core’ could contribute to learning the necessary skills’: the unsatisfactory
separation of form from function continued.
Outside the syllabus, however, as indicated by both Ang and Lim, other
developments were occurring which would finally lead the curriculum
away from its structuralist leanings. One was the change in 1981 to the
GCE O’level examination that has already been alluded to. The conse-
quences of the disjunction that arose as a result of a lack of a similar
change in the PSLE have also already been discussed. More importantly,
by the mid-1980s, developments elsewhere ’in research in reading and
language pedagogy, such as whole language learning, the Shared Book
Approach and communicative language teaching’ (Lim 2001) began to
have increasing influence in spite of the syllabus. This was reflected in
Ministry of Education initiatives such as the Reading and English Acquisi-
tion Programme (REAP) for lower primary classes, and the Active Com-
municative Teaching (ACT) programme for upper primary classes. It is
clear that these programmes emphasized use and fluency over linguistic
accuracy, but the continued coexistence of the structuralist syllabus and

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 230

discrete item heavy PSLE examination meant that the unhappy neurosis
concerning form and function persisted.
1991-2001
It was with the 1991 English Language Syllabus (Primary) and English
Language Syllabus (Secondary) that the official English curriculum finally
made a major paradigm shift away from its obsession with formal accu-
racy. Both primary and secondary syllabuses touted ’an integrated approach
in the teaching of language’. Themes such as ’The World of Personal
Relationships’ and ’The World of the Imagination’ formed the organi-
zational framework, and several inventories and lists of language skills,
communicative functions, grammar items, and tasks and activities were
provided, from which teachers were to make selections ’to flesh out an
integrated lesson sequence’ within a theme or topic. There was also de-
tailed guidance, with examples, on how to plan integrated lesson sequences
around a theme or topic. As Ang (2000) notes, the syllabus was no longer
prescriptive and structured, and the onus was on schools and teachers to
make choices and plan their own schemes of work. In essence, it was very
much a guide to curriculum planning, rather than a curriculum plan per se.
Most interestingly, the secondary syllabus actually suggests that the
choice of grammar items to be taught should be ’more incidental and
dependant on the lesson stimulus, e.g. the reading passage in a reading
comprehension lesson’. Not only did this dispense with the ’language
core’ of the previous syllabus: it also assumed that all teachers had enough
expertise to discern what grammar needed to be taught-an assumption
open to question since a large number of English teachers had little
specialized training and education in linguistics or language teaching.
Whatever its claims, the syllabus can best be described as eclectic, and
this perhaps proved to be its major difficulty. It abstained from making a
commitment to a clear theoretical position, both with regards to language,
as well as to principles of language learning. All it did was advise that the
choice of any pedagogical approach ’should take into account theoretical
principles about language and language learning’ and then proceed to
outline some theoretical views of each.
Clearly, the intention was to allow for individual convictions and de-
volve decision making to schools and individuals. In so doing, however, it
abdicated responsibility for providing guidance and coherence. There was
no clear or specific direction with respect to goals or destinations, except
in terms of its general aim to ’help pupils develop their linguistic and

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 231

communicative competence to meet both their present and future needs in

the personal, educational, vocational, social and cultural spheres’. This
could mean individual schools developing highly lopsided curricula that
might, for instance, focus only on storytelling where writing was con-
cerned : indeed, there is strong anecdotal evidence that this was the case in
many secondary schools, since the terminal GCE O’ level examination did
necessitate that other types of writing, such as argument, be learnt. Neither
was there any help provided for teachers to see, for example, how particu-
lar ’grammatical items’ might be used for specific ‘communicative func-
tions’ : teachers were expected to know. Except in the hands of the most
able teachers, what tended to happen was that teachers either resorted to
tried and known structuralist ways, or neglected any attention to the role of
grammatical form.
It was not surprising, therefore that, as Lim (2001: 146) notes, ’what the
syllabus writers intended as a feature for choice and variety became a
burden rather than the gateway to teacher autonomy and freedom’. Indeed,
in an earlier article written mainly for teachers in the system, Lim (2000:
9) lists among the reasons for Syllabus 2001 feedback from heads of
departments and teachers that they found the 1991 syllabus too ’unwieldy’
because they had to consult too many lists and inventories. They also did
not know nor want to know how to select from the range of lists.
In short, in trying to address the shortcomings of earlier syllabuses, the
1991 syllabus not only perpetuated the form-function divide, albeit
gravitating the emphasis in the other direction, but also failed to ensure
development of all-round language use. In some ways, it created more
difficulties than it solved.

Syllabus 2001
Overview
Given these inadequacies of previous curricula, Syllabus 2001 seeks to be
a far more earnest and coherent attempt at better integrating the primary

and secondary school curriculum, and preparing students for tertiary

education and real-life use of the language. For one thing, instead of two
separate syllabuses as in the past, for the first time in Singapore, the sylla-
bus from primary to secondary school levels is conceived as a single
whole and presented as a single document. This, according to the Ministry
of Education, is to ’give all Heads of Department and teachers a birds’ eye
view of language skills and processes taught from Primary 1 to Secondary

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 232

4, and provide for continuity of language teaching’ (Lim 2000: 9). But
more importantly, it articulates a clear controlling philosophy that unifies
and enables shared thinking and principles. It also emphasizes language
in use. now be described in terms of its rationale and aims, its
It will
philosophy and principles, as well as its distinguishing features and how
they aim to help pupils with language in use. Some aspects of its imple-
mentation will also be described.

Rationale and Aims

Syllabus 2001 sees English as vital to Singapore because it is ’the medium
by which most Singaporeans gain access to information and knowledge
from around the world’. Interestingly, it thus sees itself as not just serving
language aims, but also as a means to ’help pupils become independent
lifelong learners, creative thinkers and problem solvers’. This is in a
context where pupils are ’exposed to the cultures in Singapore as well as
to other cultures outside Singapore, and to the different standard varieties
of English spoken in other parts of the world’ (p. 2).
Its stated aims following from this are that at the end of primary and
secondary education, pupils will be able to:
. listen to, read and view with understanding, accuracy and critical
appreciation, a wide range of fiction and non-fiction texts from
print, non-print and electronic sources.
.
speak, write and make presentations in internationally acceptable
English that is grammatical, fluent and appropriate for purpose,
audience, context and culture, [and at] higher levels of pro-
ficiency... speak and write for academic purposes and creative
expression, using language that is inventive and imaginative;
. think through, interpret and evaluate fiction and non-fiction texts
from print and electronic sources to analyse how language is used
to evoke responses and construct meaning; how information is

presented; and how different modes ofpresentation create impact;

. interact effectively with people from their own or different cul-
tures (p. 3).33
I have highlighted by italicization features in the statement that set it
apart from previous syllabuses, and indeed, from many other English
language syllabuses. It is important to note its emphasis on variety of
discourse, context and purpose, critical and analytical abilities, meaning
and effect, and linguistic creativity-themes that recur at every point of

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 233

the syllabus and reflect larger societal and educational concerns.

Philosophy and Principles

The syllabus is set apart from previous syllabuses and many other sylla-
buses because it makes explicit statements about its linguistic philosophy
and pedagogical principles. To begin with, it is clearly informed and
influenced by recent linguistic theories, in particular those connected with
discourse and with the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) of Michael
Halliday and his associates. It states:
The following insights into the nature of language have shaped the
syllabus:
.
Language is a system for making meaning.
. It is a means of communication and expression.
.
Language use is determined by purpose, audience, context and
culture.
.
Language a grammar and linguistic structures and patterns,
has
which be used to create various discourse forms or text types
can

depending on the linguistic choices made. Learners have to be taught

how to make these linguistic choices to suit purpose, audience,
context and culture (p. 3).

Those familiar with Hallidayan linguistics will recognize the very first
statement as one of its central axioms, while the third and fourth state-
ments echo very strongly its emphasis on the relationship of language to
context and culture, as well as on language as a system. In essence, ’The
EL Syllabus 2001 is a language use syllabus’ which seeks to teach pupils
to ’communicate fluently, appropriately and effectively’ as well as ’to
understand how the language system works and how language conventions
vary according to purpose, audience, context and culture’ (Lim 2000: 9).
In terms of teaching and learning, the syllabus sees ideal instruction as
consisting of the following features:
. Learner Centredness, i.e. teaching and materials are ’differentiated
according to learners’ needs and abilities’;
. Process Orientation, i. e. a focus on process skills rather than learning
products;
.
Integration, not just of the four language skills of listening, speaking,
reading and writing, but of materials and lessons with real life use;
~ Contextualization of all language work in terms of real life purposes,
audiences, and situations;
.
Spiral Progression, i. e. constant revisiting of what has been taught at
increasing levels of difficulty and sophistication; and

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 234

. Interaction, referring to learners’ active participation in activities and

discussions with one another and with the teacher (p. 4).
Thesepedagogic principles and approaches are, in fact, not new to
Syllabus 2001 but were ’first introduced in the EL Syllabus 1991’ in that
they were articulated in an English Language Department Handbook
issued to all schools to provide further guidance for implementation of the
syllabus (Lim 2000: 10). They thus represent a main element of continuity
from the old syllabus.

Main Features of the Syllabus

To realize its philosophy and principles, Syllabus 2001 uses as its organi-
zational framework Areas of Language Use, as opposed to a set of themes
or an inventory of grammatical items or sentence structures. Three broad
Areas of Language Use are specified (p. 5):
.
Language for Information
.
Language for Literary Response and Expression
.
Language for Social Interaction.
Under each of these broad areas, the objectives are stated in terms of
expected attainment targets at the end of the second, fourth and sixth years
of primary school, and at the end of the second and fourth or fifth year of
secondary school, under ten Learning Outcomes. These attainment targets
are stated in terms of language skills, strategies and attitudes.
For example, for Language for Information, under the Learning Out-
come that pupils will be able to ’Listen to/Read/View a variety of texts
and demonstrate understanding of content in oral or written form’; one
attainment target at the end of the second year of primary school is that
pupils can ’Make predictions about content using title, visuals’ (p. 13).
The corresponding target at the end of the sixth year is that pupils can
’Make predictions about content and development of ideas using title,
headings, sub-headings, captions, key words, visuals’ (p. 30). The italics
(mine) highlight what additional teaching and learning should have
occurred in the interim four years, and the example hence illustrates how
the syllabus provides explicit and systematic guidance for teachers to
’make informed decisions about what they have to teach’ (p. 5).
To provide even more explicit guidance, Syllabus 2001, in what is
perhaps its most distinctive feature, then specifies the kinds of texts used
for different purposes with different audiences in real life contexts that
should be taught. These texts are classified under the following categories
of Text Types:

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 235

. ’’Recounts’: texts which re-tell events;

. ’Narratives’: texts which construct fiction to entertain and,
possibly, teach; .

. ’Instruction’: texts which tell what to do

. ’Information Reports’: texts which record or present factual
information
~
’Explanations’: texts which explain how something works or

why something happens: and

.
’Expositions’: texts which take a position and persuade.
Again, for each two-year period, the specific genres’ that should or may
be taught for each area of language use are suggested. A distinction is also
made between those that should be taught only for receptive (listening and
reading) purposes, and those that should be taught for productive (speak-
ing and writing) purposes as well. For example, for the third and fourth
year of secondary school, ’historical accounts’ as an instance of Language
for Information is listed as one kind of ’Recounts’ that should be taught,
for reading as well as writing purposes (pp. 60-61).
Table 1 summarizes the text types and specific genres for the primary
and secondary levels, as synthesized from the ’Scope and Sequence of
Skills, Strategies and Attitudes across the Year Levels’ in the Appendices
to the Guide to the English Language Syllabus 2001 Lower Secondary.
The genres in italics are those which the syllabus suggests should be
taught for both receptive and productive purposes, while those not in
italics it suggests should be taught only for receptive purposes.
The syllabus finally further lists the Grammatical Features of Text
Types, that is, the grammar items conventionally associated with each
particular text type. For example, connectors to do with time or cause-and-
effect, the passive voice, the simple present tense are grammatical features
identified as typical in ’Explanations’ (p. 62).
It is clear that the syllabus gives teachers at every level, through the text
type inventory, very explicit guidance that enables them to select real or
authentic texts to teach. Moreover, through listing the associated gram-
matical features, it also helps them know what specific language points to
highlight in their teaching, so as to achieve the language use aims of the
syllabus. Furthermore, both together provide a clear scope and sequence
that ensures that the principle of spiral progression is adhered to, and hence,
primary and secondary English language teaching is properly integrated.

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 236

Table 1. Text types and genres in Syllabus 2001

Other Genres

1. CONVERSATIONS:
Primary: Making arrangements, giving information about self, making
enquiries, giving information about family, making requests, explaining,
giving information about community, conversing with familiar adults on a
formal occasion
Secondary: Making suggestions, giving information about self, family and
community, giving directions

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 237

2. SHORT FUNCTIONAL TEXTS:

Pri_ mary: Thank you notes, messages, greeting cards, invitations, informal
letters, postcards, e-mail, formal letters, notices
Secondary: Formal and informal letters, postcards, e-mail, notices

It needs to be noted that among the text types listed in the syllabus are
genres which would become increasingly salient at higher levels of
learning. For example, almost all academic writing at the tertiary level
would be forms of’Information Reports’, ’Explanations’ or ’Expositions’.
Without going into detail, the syllabus places increasing emphasis on these
types at higher levels. Hence, the syllabus might be said to be constructed
to prepare pupils for use of English at the tertiary level, and in this sense, it
provides for full integration across levels from primary to tertiary.

Implementation
To ensure that Syllabus 2001’s aims may be met, two specific imple-
mentation measures have been carried out to help prepare the teachers.
The first is a retraining programme for all English language teachers at
both primary and secondary levels in the teaching of grammar in accor-
dance with the new approach. The Ministry of Education, in collaboration
with the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, has
developed a set of materials for training teachers. Teams of trainers from
three institutions, the National Institute of Education, the British Council
and SEAMEO RELC, have carried out the training for the last three years.
This is to familiarize them with the new philosophy, ground them in the
necessary understanding of grammar, and help them learn to evaluate and
design lessons to meet the aims of the syllabus. When all teachers in the
system have been trained, the preparation will be devolved to the pre-
service level for trainee teachers. The training programme, commonly
referred to as the ’Grammar Course’ instead of its full formal title (and
despite the misnomer), is now in its final cycles.
The second measure is the provision of two accompanying guides for
teachers, the Guide to the English Language Syllabus 2001 Primary 1-4
and the Guide to the English Language Syllabus 2001 Lower S&dquo;econdary.
Guides for Primary 5-6 and the upper secondary levels are in preparation.
The guides provide suggestions of specific techniques and activities for
teaching the various skill areas, such as reading comprehension or oral
communication, as well as text types and grammar. They also give advice
on planning the school’s specific instructional programme in accordance
with the syllabus. Thus, the guides are a rich enabling resource.

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 238

Where textbooks are concerned, the implementation of Syllabus 20011

coincided with a general Ministry policy to devolve the responsibility of
textbook writing to the private sector. Thus, publishers were given
previews of the syllabus, and they then subsequently recruited their own
teams of writers. A good number of textbooks, purportedly based on
Syllabus 2001, have been produced, especially for primary schools. Since
textbooks are often the most concrete embodiments of syllabuses,
ostensibly, therefore, schools and teachers have no lack of resources to
facilitate the realization of the syllabus.

Observations and Reflections

Influences and Motivations

It is clear that Syllabus 2001 is an instance of the trend towards genre-
based approaches Derewianka refers to in her article in this issue. Specific-
ally, it appears to have been closely influenced by the particular approach
and model she focuses on. I have already highlighted how the syllabus
echoes Halliday and SFL. In addition, its text type categories described
earlier are remarkably similar to those in her table of genres (see p. 137).
Her book, Exploring How Texts Work (Derewianka 1990), which has been
highly influential in the Australian primary school English curriculum, is
often cited in the guides to the syllabus, as well as in the course materials
of the training programme for teachers described (i.e. the Grammar
Course).
This is not surprising considering that in the late 1980s and throughout
the 1990s, Halliday and other systemic functional linguists taught at the
National University of Singapore (NUS) and other institutions such as
SEAMEO RELC. It is likely that students who graduated from their
courses at the NUS and became teachers eventually, as well as the many
in-service teachers and curriculum developers who attended postgraduate
or in-service courses at all these institutions, would have had fair influence
on the development of Syllabus 2001. Systemic functional linguists and
educationists who have applied SFL to pedagogy have also featured
prominently in many seminars and conferences held in Singapore, and
again, these would have been attended by serving or prospective teachers
and curriculum developers. Interestingly, in 1999, at about the time of
writing of the syllabus, the 26th International Systemic Functional Insti-
tute and Congress was held in Singapore Among the key speakers was
Derewianka, whose institute session introducing SFL and its approach to

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 239

genre had largely such an audience. Finally, genre-based Australian school

textbooks such as Anderson and Anderson’s (1997) series were readily
available and used by schools and teachers as resource material even
before Syllabus 2001.
What is more important, however, is to understand the adoption of such
an approach from the point of view of the motivations for the syllabus.
The central role of English in society and education, the inadequacies
of previous syllabuses in preparing pupils to use English for education
and real-life purposes, and the stated aims of the syllabus-all already
described-make clear what these motivations are.
Derewianka’s account (this issue) of the principles underlying the genre-
based approach, which I have shown to underpin Syllabus 2001, makes it
easy to understand why, in the light of these motivations, it has been used:
. Its focus on text means that pupils will have to constantly engage
with instances of real-life discourse, which do not consist merely
of ’discrete instances of language’ at the sentence level. It is the
ability to participate in such discourse effectively that English
teaching in Singapore is very highly concerned with.
. Its focus on purpose or social goals in its definition of genres
enables clarity for the planners in specifying more precisely what
should constitute the ’wide range of fiction and non-fiction texts’
the general aims of the syllabus refer to. The selection of genres
to be taught can be based on the uses and purposes that the
planners envisage the pupils will need English for. It can be seen
from Table 1 how this also helps ensure an appropriate balance
that previous syllabuses, as I have shown, failed to ensure.
. Its focus on meaning and choice, where vocabulary and grammar
are concerned, not only attempts to bridge the divide between
form and function afflicting previous syllabuses, but also promises
to make the learning of both more immediately relevant and
applicable to real-life use. This perspective, because it empha-
sizes choosing from the system of resources which it sees lexis
and grammar as constituting, inherently encourages thinking,
since choice necessarily involves thought, and this meets a key
imperative of the syllabus aims. Further, because this choosing is
seen as directed towards creating or constructing meaning to
achieve the purposes, it offers the promise of achieving the
syllabus aim for pupils to become ’inventive’ in language use.
The development of thinking and creativity, indeed, are not

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 240

concerns of the English syllabus alone, but part of the larger

imperatives of education in this country, as public discourse and
many Ministry of Education documents will reveal.
. Its emphasis on cultural and social context in constructing and
being constructed by language use address directly the need the
syllabus sees for appropriate and effective communication across
cultures and situations.

might, of course, be argued that it was this particular vein of genre

It
theory that in the first place influenced Syllabus 2001 in its aims, since the
stated aims themselves might be said to reflect its philosophy. However,
given the background that I have sketched at the beginning, it is more
likely that the theory found consonance with existing concerns, and thus
rather helped in the articulation of the aims.
Informal feedback that I have received from teachers has largely vindi-
cated the choice of such an approach. Most felt Syllabus 2001 gave them
much more security in that there was clear direction and purpose com-
pared to the previous syllabus. While grappling with what was for them a
rather new notion, text types, many nonetheless acknowledged that the
new syllabus had made them aware of imbalances in their previous teach-

ing that might have disadvantaged their pupils: their focus on story-type
genres had, for instance, neglected the more factual genres which they
would have done well to teach more, to help the pupils in other areas of the
curriculum. Grammar teaching had also become more meaningful to them.
Returning to the question of influences, it should be noted that in one
very important respect, Syllabus 2001 departs from the SFL-based model:
instead of employing Halliday’s functionally oriented categories of gram-
mar (or what he calls the ‘lexico-grammar’) and its metalinguistic labels,
the syllabus retains traditional categories and labels. Indeed, the grammar
reference sections of the course materials for the Grammar Course can be
found to contain terminology and explanations belonging to ancient, more
prescriptive traditions!
The reason for the adoption of traditional terminology appears to be a
pragmatic one: while many teachers would be familiar with such a gram-
mar, it would perhaps have been over-ambitious to introduce a few thou-
sand teachers to a new syllabus with a new approach and to a ’new’
grammar at the same time. Moreover, it is not likely that all in positions of
influence, including the syllabus writers and teacher trainers who would
have to conduct the Grammar Course, would know or subscribe to Halli-

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 241

day’s grammar sufficiently. Indeed, there are indications to the contrary,

which I will refer to later.
While it makes the introduction of a genre-based approach arguably
much easier, the use of traditional grammatical categories can be said to
have negative potential as well. Because the categories are associated with
a more prescriptivist, rule-driven paradigm rather than a meaning and pur-

pose- or choice-driven one, their use encourages an extension of prescrip-

tive rigidity to the text level. This is a danger that Derewianka warns of in
her article (’the stages of a genre are taught prescriptively as if they were
&dquo;given&dquo;-structures imposed upon a text rather than moves arising
naturally because of their functionality’} and it appears to be coming true,
going by some lesson plans I have seen submitted as assignments for the
Grammar Course.
In part, this is due to pedagogy as well, for it may be observed that
many teachers continue to subscribe implicitly to the behaviourist prac-
tices associated with the structuralist linguistics that have been shown to
dominate Singapore’s English syllabuses for so long. Syllabus 2001,
however, would appear to encourage movement away from this. As is
evident from its six pedagogical principles, it overtly promotes more
progressive constructivist and process-oriented approaches and practices,
and has clear influence from cognitivist theories of language learning.
Those familiar with Jerome Bruner’s ideas, for instance, would recognize
the origins of the notion of spiral progression, while the reference to
interaction is clearly indicative of the interactionist psycholinguistics that
has influenced communicative language teaching.
Derewianka’s article notes that genre pedagogy in countries such as
Australia has been based on Vygotskian learning theory. Here is where
Syllabus 2001, at least in its explicit statements on pedagogy, appears to
differ, for it does not quite emphasize the sociocultural processes and
principles she elaborates on briefly with respect to Vygotsky’s ideas.
However, the curriculum cycle model she describes has been quite widely
advocated-for instance, in the TELL (Teaching of English Language and
Literature) Journal distributed twice yearly to all English teachers by the
Ministry of Education, by a number of trainers on the Grammar Course,
and at workshops connected with Syllabus 2001, including a few which
Derewianka was invited to conduct.
It is not difficult to see that one of the model’s major influences is
clearly Vygotskian theory, particularly as realized in the notion of scaf-
folding pointed out by Derewianka. Again, the support for the model in

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 242

particular and for Vygotskian approaches in general is not surprising

considering that the theory was also widely taught in the English depart-
ment at the NUS in the late 1980s and the 1990s.5 Thus, in practice, the
theory is at least an emerging influence, and therefore needs to be more
vigorously engaged with, as Derewianka suggests. On the one hand,
teachers need to be more widely informed about it to understand the
approach better, and on the other, its profitability should be probed.

Implementation Issues
The last paragraph has referred to one implementation measure that has
already been described, namely the Grammar Course, as well as others
that have not been, namely the workshops and the use of the TELL Journal
for teacher education purposes. It has also indicated how, beyond the
explicit syllabus, these measures do embed more covert movements and
influences. Those convinced of the merits of Vygotskian principles would
no doubt cheer the incipient role they play in Syllabus 2001. However, not
all covert realities might be positively regarded.
Ostensibly, the implementation processes to ensure that the purposes,
agendas and philosophies of Syllabus 2001 are truly shared by all have
been comprehensively and coherently thought out. Control over what
transpires in the massive retraining efforts of the Grammar Course was
exerted through the standard course materials, with the trainers themselves
required to undergo mandatory briefings and training sessions. However,
existing personal philosophies and practices that may be quite different
from the new unifying vision are hard to discard, so that in spite of these
efforts, many teachers still retain the concept of grammar as a set of rules
and patterns which one either gets right or wrong. Worse, for some, as I
have already suggested, this now extends to the level of the text, where
they insist, as a rule, for instance, that all texts of a certain genre must have
such and such a generic structure or organizational pattern, and such and
such grammatical features.
This is, in fact, in some cases perpetuated by the course trainers them-
selves, who may not subscribe fully to or understand the thinking and
approach inscribed in Syllabus 2001. At least a few of my own former
colleagues who have undergone the Grammar Course have reported that
their trainers were imparting rather different outlooks, prescribing more
traditional notions of grammar teaching, augmented to the text level! All
of this, of course points to how shared purposes, agendas and philosophies
are inherently difficult to achieve, given the pre-conceptions and maybe

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 243

even justifiable dissensions that individuals in a large teaching community

would have.
Where the guides to the syllabus are concerned, fertile and instructive as
they are, they appear to be somewhat daunting compendiums that are not
always ideologically consistent. For instance, it can be shown that the
chapter on the teaching of reading owes far more in pedigree to schema
theory than genre theory, and while many of the suggested activities and
techniques can be adapted to a genre-based approach, teachers are left to
do so on their own. Nonetheless, each guide is, overall, a highly valuable
resource for teachers. Unfortunately, though reference copies are distributed

to all schools, it would appear that they have not been publicized or made
readily available to many teachers by their heads of department. The
majority of teachers attending in-service courses I have conducted in the
last year indicate that they are not aware of the existence of the guides.
Perhaps one of the greatest difficulties has been the question of text-
books. While devolving the writing of textbooks to the private sector,
premised on free market principles, was meant to encourage diversity and
choice, thus demanding greater professional discernment from teachers, in
effect, it would appear to have compromised the effective implementation
of the syllabus, for a number of reasons. One was that the writers recruited
did not necessarily understand the thinking and approach of the syllabus.
Moreover, the lead-time publishers gave for these textbooks to be pro-
duced, given their desire to beat the competition, was often inadequate,
particularly in view of the fact that most textbook writers in Singapore are
not full-time materials producers, but are likely to be practising teachers or
academics. Hence, as Teo (2002) demonstrates in her unpublished MA
dissertation, a number of primary school textbooks, while cosmetically
representing the new syllabus, did not in substance provide materials
friendly to its philosophy.
Finally, perhaps the biggest concern with respect to implementation has
to do with testing. As at the time of writing of this article, there has been
no public indication by the Ministry of Education as to how the terminal
PSLE and GCE O’level examinations might be changed, in the light of
Syllabus 2001. Perhaps this is not so crucial for the secondary school
level, for it might be strongly argued that the focus on genre understanding
and production should in fact benefit student performance in the essay
writing and reading comprehension demands that carry the heaviest
weighting in the O’level English Language papers.
However, the all-important PSLE, which in this country determines

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 244

what sort of secondary school courses and schools the pupils go to, con-
tinues to have a heavy emphasis on testing discrete sentence- or word-level
linguistic knowledge in ‘Fill-in-the-blanks’ or multiple choice questions.
Teachers thus remain anxious as to whether teaching according to Syllabus
2001 would indeed be ‘practical’. It can only be surmised that since the
first cohort of pupils affected by the syllabus will sit for the PSLE only in
2005, the Ministry of Education is still in the process of redesigning the
test to assess directly the pupils’ ability to listen to, speak, read and write
texts. As the axiomatic notion of back-wash in testing theory suggests, to
change the teaching, we must change the test.

Conclusion

Apart from providing a description of ’English in Singapore’ in curricular

terms, I have attempted to paint a broad canvas of the forces at work in
order to illustrate the dynamics that operate in syllabus renewal. At the
same time, I hope to have exemplified some of the issues that those

observing trends towards genre-based approaches have been concerned

with. It has not been my intention to be categorical with respect to any of
these issues, even if my own leanings are apparent, nor have I attempted to
be definitive about what syllabus renewal involves. My purpose will have
been achieved if this paper has had the salutary effect of stimulating more
extensive reflection on and exploration of potentials and pitfalls, as well as
suggesting directions for any who might care to find useful connections
with their own experiences. As E.M. Forster wrote: ’Only Connect!’

Received March 2003

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, M., and K. Anderson

1997 Text Types in English 1-4 (Melbourne: Macmillan).
Ang, May Yin
2000 ’Developments in the English Language Curriculum in Singapore’, TELL
Journal 16.2 (November): 3-8.
Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore
2001 English Language Syllabus 2001 for Primary & Secondary Schools (Singa-
pore: Ministry of Education). (Also available on the Internet at the following
url address: http://wwwl.moe.edu.sg/syllabuses/doc/English.pdf)
Derewianka, Beverly
1990 Exploring How Texts Work (NSW: Primary English Teaching Association).

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 245

2003 ’Trends and Issues in Genre-based Approaches’, RELC 34.2: 133-54.

The English Unit, Languages and Literature Branch, Curriculum Planning and Development
Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore
2001a Guide to the English Language Syllabus 2001 Primary 1-4 (Singapore:
Ministry of Education).
2001b Guide to the English Language Syllabus 2001 Lower Secondary (Singapore:
Ministry of Education).
Halliday, M.A.K.
1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar (London: Arnold, 2nd edn).
Leow Bee Geok
2001 Census of Population 2000: Advance Data Release (Singapore: Singapore
Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry).
Lim, Christine Suchen
2000 ’The English Language Syllabus 2001: Change and Continuity’, TELL
Journal 16.2 (November): 9-14.
2001 ’Grammar in the English Language Curriculum in Singapore’. (Presented at
the 35th RELC International Seminar April 2001, Singapore).
2003 ’Grammar in the English Language Curriculum in Singapore’, in Joyce E.
James (ed.), Grammar in the Language Classroom (Anthology Series 43;
Singapore: SEAMEO RELC, 2003).
Lin, Benedict
2002 ’Syllabus2001—A Singaporean Perspective on Integrating EL Learning
Levels: What Connections with Japan and Beyond?’ Paper presented
across
as Special Lecture at the 41st Japanese Association of College English
Teachers (JACET) Annual Convention, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo,
September 2002.
Minstry of Education
n.d. Singapore-Cambridge Certificate in the Teaching of Grammar (Singapore:
Ministry of Education).
Teo, Ching Ling
2002 ’A Wider Choice or a Wiser Choice: A Comparative Analysis of the New
English Textbooks for Primary 1 and 2 Pupils in Singapore’ (unpublished
MA thesis SEAMEO RELC, Singapore).

NOTES

1.This syllabus, as well as the syllabuses for the examinations mentioned later,
are fully available on the Ministry of Education’s website at Hhttp://www.moe.edu.sg
and can be accessed by following the appropriate links on the homepage. The specific
webpage for this syllabus is given in the references.
2. I was brought up through the entire education system and am a parent to two
teenage children in the system. In addition, I was an English teacher at secondary
school level for 19 years, and worked through two major national school syllabus
revisions. Finally, I have been a teacher educator for 11 years, and was involved in
conducting the training course for Syllabus 2001, which is mentioned later in this
article.

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013

 246

3. Unless otherwise indicated, page numbers in this paper refer to those of

Syllabus 2001.
4. As Derewianka (2003) suggests, the terms ’genre’ and ’text type’ are used
interchangeably by some, but often have quite distinct meanings among academics. I
apply a distinction here, where ’text types’ refers to six prototypes (’Recounts’,
’Narratives’, etc.) listed in the syllabus, while ’genres’ refers to more specific kinds of
text (e.g. written news reports, poetic ballads, science experiment reports) which
realize one prototype or embed a combination.
5. Information provided in conversation by J.A. Foley, who served as Head of
English at the NUS during the period.

Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at University of Nottingham on August 8, 2013