Keywords

1 The Influence of Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices on Students’ Learning Spaces and Processes: Insights from Singapore

New knowledge and experiences associated with curriculum reforms are often interpreted through teachers’ beliefs concerning learners, classrooms, and teaching/learning materials (Pajares, 1992). Studies have shown that teachers’ beliefs are useful indicators and powerful filters to help direct teachers’ decisions and classroom practices (Belo et al., 2014), and are the determinants of the success of reform initiatives (Bryan, 2012; Yerrick et al., 1997). Our study aims to extend current knowledge on teachers’ beliefs and practices by situating it in a dynamic education system that requires teachers to constantly adapt to new initiatives, teaching practices and assessment methods. The system follows an achievement-based process of placing incoming secondary students to different academic courses, which adopt different curricula and national assessments. Understanding teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices within this less chartered research terrain may yield novel insights and surface concerns for both researchers and practitioners.

The overarching research question for the study is: What are in-service Physics teachers’ beliefs and pedagogical practices of teaching the topic of electricity in the context of Singapore secondary schools?

2 Theoretical Framework and Review

Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning, and their perceptions of their students, have been the subject of a limited and yet expanding body of research that intends to enhance the likelihood of enacting curriculum reforms that promote students’ meaningful learning. Teachers’ beliefs about students’ learning may be categorized in accordance with the constructivist learning paradigm or, its counterpart, the absorptionist learning paradigm. The constructivist learning paradigm, which underpins current reform initiatives in science education, posits that knowledge is constructed by learners through their own conscious and personal efforts; that is, learners need to play an active, rather than passive role for meaningful learning to take place (Kruckeberg, 2006). Viewing learners as active participants in their learning, teachers provide opportunities for students to actively engage in science activities and to increase ownership in what is being learned (Kang & Wallace, 2004). Teachers create environments that are conducive for students’ exploration, dialogues (Yerrick et al., 1997), and exposure to problem-solving, critical thinking and scientific argumentation (McNeill et al., 2016).

In accordance with the absorptionist learning perspective, teachers may perceive learning as a passive activity whereby learners receive knowledge from sources such as textbooks or teachers. Learners are perceived as mere recipients of knowledge and having minimal contribution to the knowledge production (see also Zohar, 2008). The transfer of knowledge from source to learners is viewed as unproblematic – knowledge is regarded as a fixed package that can be delivered to the learner unchanged (Mansour, 2013; Yerrick et al., 1997). Teachers who generally adopt this view of learning tend to emphasize students listening and taking down notes when the teachers present the ideas to be learnt.

Teachers’ beliefs about their students may influence their translation of reform efforts into classroom instruction (Bryan, 2012). Teachers who are regarded as exhibiting pedagogical sensitivity take into consideration students’ characteristics along with other school-related factors in making instructional decisions (Belo et al., 2014). However, teachers’ perceptions of students’ abilities may also limit the amount and type of reform-based practices that are enacted in the classroom (Prawat, 1992). For example, teachers who believe that their students are not capable of solving problems on their own tend to implement less inquiry activities (Lotter et al., 2007). Teachers’ beliefs concerning the need to maintain the rigor of the curriculum (Kang & Wallace, 2004; Lotter et al., 2007) may serve as an obstacle to actualize curricular reforms. Teachers’ motivation to adopt reform-based pedagogical approaches can be negatively affected by the pressure of having to cover content, as well as the need to strike a balance between an obligation to the discipline and to the learners when designing instructional activities (Munby et al., 2000; Yerrick et al., 1997).

3 Method

3.1 Context of the Study: Science Education in Singapore

This study is situated in the educational landscape of Singapore, where educational reform efforts are constantly introduced to improve the quality of education. One of the key features of the Singapore educational system is the placement of students into three academic courses – Express, Normal Academic (N[A]) and Normal Technical (N[T]) – based on the aggregate scores obtained at the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). The PSLE is a national examination given at the end of elementary education (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2021).Footnote 1 Students placed in the Express course have higher aggregate PSLE scores (MOE, 2021) and, thus, are frequently perceived as academically stronger than those who qualified for the other courses. The main aims of this placement model in Singapore are to cater to individual strengths and interests of students (MOE, 2021), to help teachers cope with the diverse abilities of students, and to enable students to progress at their own pace (Ong & Dimmock, 2013).Footnote 2 The curricula and assessments are differentiated according to the academic courses (see Table 28.1). Express students take the General Certificate of Education (GCE) Ordinary Level (O-Level) examination while Students in the N(A) or N(T) course take the GCE Normal Level (N-Level) examination suited for their course at the end of Grade 10 (MOE, 2021). Students from the N(A) course who did well in the N-Level examination can opt to go to the next grade and take the GCE Ordinary Level examination at the end of the next school year (MOE, 2021). (Please see Ong & Dimmock, 2013 for details on the potential effects of the examination-based placement model on students and teachers.)

Table 28.1 Science Curricula and National Practical Examinations for the Different Academic Coursesa
Full size table

3.2 Participants

Twelve Physics in-service teachers teaching either students in the Express-Combined Science Course (Luke, Simon, Yin, Ben, Fred, Tim, Wilda, Winnie)Footnote 3 or N(A) Course (Laura, Lucy, Sunny, Zac)2 consented to participate in the study. The teachers, who were between 20–49 years of age, taught in four Singapore public secondary schools and have a diverse range of teaching experiences (five teachers had less than 3 years of teaching experiences and the rest with 6 years or more.) All the teachers have at least a bachelor’s degree, have completed a 2-year teacher education program, and have attended professional development programs focusing on reform-oriented instruction (i.e., inquiry-based teaching).

For each participating teacher, one class that he or she was teaching also participated in the study. There were 161 Express students and 102 N(A) students who participated in the study. The average class size for the Express classes was 20 (range was from 6 to 32) and 26 (range was 15 to 41) for the N(A) classes.

3.3 Data Collection

Researchers examining teachers’ beliefs suggested collecting multiple data sources, particularly those concerning teacher talk and actions (e.g., Chen, 2008; Mansour, 2013; Kagan, 1992; Laplante, 1997; Schmid, 2018). Following the lead of these researchers, we deemed that classroom observations and semi-structured interviews were pertinent data to address the research question for this study.

For the classroom observations, we observed and video-recorded each teacher’s lessons (“research lessons”) while the teachers were enacting classroom lessons on the topic of electricity. During the audio-video recording, a video camera was positioned by a research assistant at the back of the classroom to minimize distraction of students’ attention. We made 86 lesson observations (56 h in total, about 672 five-minute lesson segments), with at least six lessons on electricity recorded per teacher. Field notes were written by the research assistant while doing the video recording. Our field notes included descriptions of the participants’ instruction and student/teacher interactions (e.g., description of simulations carried out by the teachers) in each 5-min lesson segment. We focused on the teachers’ teaching instruction and their interactions with students based on the assumption that teachers’ beliefs can shape their practices (Pajares, 1992) and influence the way they interact with their students (Gilakjani & Sabouri, 2017; Schmid, 2018). The notes also included other aspects of the lessons including class attendance, student behavior, lesson flow and content, which were potentially useful information when constructing the teaching profiles of teachers and contextualizing the enactment of their beliefs.

We conducted semi-structured individual teacher interviews prior to and after the lesson observations. Each interview lasted about 45 min. The first set of interviews elicited the teachers’ beliefs about teaching and students learning and probed for their knowledge of instructional approaches suited for their students. The second set of interviews clarified the teachers’ classroom practices observed through the audio-video recordings, providing teachers an opportunity to explain how their beliefs influenced their pedagogical decisions. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

3.4 Data Analysis

We implemented a thematic analysis approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Tan & Nashon, 2015) to help characterize the teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices situated in the teaching of the topic of electricity. First, we selected, reduced and organized the data through an interative reading and marking of the interview transcripts as they pertained to the teachers’ views of teaching and learning and to the research question. Next, we constructed teacher profiles by making detailed notes of what the teachers deemed students and their roles to be, how students would learn the topic of electricity, and the teachers’ pedagogical strategies; marked quotes from the interview transcripts were used to construct the profiles (Sandberg, 2005). We complemented the profiles by making detailed notes of the teachers’ teaching instruction for each 5-min segment (672 segments in total) and compared them to the interview transcripts and the field notes. As we were interested in the extent to which teachers enact inquiry-related activities in the classroom, we counted the number of segments in the research lessons during which such activities were enacted. We subsequently constructed themes by looking for recurring commonalities, relationships, overarching patterns, and/or theoretical constructs as captured through words, phrases, common sequences and meanings in the marked parts of the interview transcripts, and as supported by the rest of the data set. The constructed themes were checked against the data set and refined whenever necessary.

In order to minimize bias and to develop a collective interpretation of the data set, we met up frequently to compare individual analyses, engaged in in-depth discussions, scrutinized each other’s analysis and tested concepts together (Stake, 1995). We began the analysis only after the whole study was completed to prevent premature interpretations and construction of themes during the data collection phase (Sandberg, 2005).

4 Results

4.1 Theme 1: Teachers Maintained Tight Control Over Students’ Learning Process

This theme focuses on the general challenges that the teachers faced in teaching the topic and how they improved on the basic aspects of teaching and learning to deal with such challenges. Several teachers whom we interviewed highlighted that students constantly face difficulties in applying different electricity equations to mathematics-related problems, and in understanding abstract scientific terms (e.g., voltage, potential difference and the differences between the two). When the teachers were probed for their teaching strategies, their responses revolved around ideas of maintaining a tight control over the lessons, which manifested in the research lessons as encouraging students to listen attentively in class and giving students explicit instructions of what to copy down (c.f. Yerrick et al., 1997; Zohar, 2008). In several instances, notes were provided by the teachers where students were required to copy down the definitions of scientific terms or the formulae.

(1) …when I start this topic, they must listen and copy down the relevant formulae and definitions…because if they don’t even catch the beginning, it’d be very hard to carry on. (Laura)

In showing simulations and demonstrations, the teachers frequently employed the ‘show-and-tell’ approach. For example, Lucy used an online simulation to show parts of a closed circuit and how electrons move in the circuit. Throughout this simulation sequence (which took about 5 min), she stated what was supposed to be happening in the circuit and what students were supposed to see. The students were seldom probed for their observations, their interpretations of the observations, or the connections they were making to their prior knowledge or to everyday life (c.f. Kuntze, 2012).

(2) I’m going to now measure the potential difference across this first resistor here [while showing a simulation for two resistors arranged in series]. The value now is 4.5 V. (Teacher writes on the board). Now I’m going to measure the potential difference across the second resistor. And you realise the value is also 4.5 V. (Teacher points to the voltmeter connected to the second resistor in the simulation and then writes value on the board). Now from here, (teacher points to the values written on the board), can you see that your EMF is actually equals to V1 + V2? Ok? (Lucy, Lesson 7)

Considering the data drawn from the interview transcripts and classroom observations, it appears to us that the teachers maintained tight control over the students’ learning in order to cope with the challenges of teaching the topic of electricity; the challenges included their perception of students’ attention span as well as concept mastery. Our interpretation is further supported by how the teachers, when prompted to describe students’ key roles in learning the topic, emphasized “listening in class” and “reading the textbook so that they will be able to ask questions and clarify when they are not clear” (Simon) (c.f. Yerrick et al., 1997). The teachers also conceptualized students’ role as “remember[ing] what has been taught” (Yin) and “get[ting] the right answers” (Luke) when solving mathematics-related problems. In a similar vein, Laura asserted that students “listen[ing] and copy[ing] down the relevant formulae and definitions” (Excerpt 1) is critical to them solving mathematics-related problems that were introduced later in the topic.

When the teachers’ pedagogies and beliefs are located within the inquiry-based reform in Singapore, it is of interest how the teachers appear to still hold the strong belief that conceptual learning necessarily precedes student-driven activities (see also Tan & Caleon, 2016; Prawat, 1992). What seems to be manifested were the teachers’ strong inclinations to fall back on authoritative views of their roles, which appeared to be consistent with the dominant mode of pedagogy that is “didactic, routined, and teacher fronted” (Kim et al., 2013, p. 294). We have observed the common lesson flow of teachers introducing the electrical components (e.g., batteries, wires, bulb), relating the components to electricity terms (current, voltage and potential difference), and then demonstrating to students how to set up the circuit; only in a few cases do we see students having the opportunities to set up the circuit for themselves prior to the instructional flow described above.

4.2 Theme 2: Teachers’ Pedagogical Decisions Were Influenced by Students’ Course Placement, National Practical Examinations and Curricular Content

The teachers’ perceptions of their students’ abilities, which appeared to be tied to the academic courses that the students attended, affected their (teachers’) pedagogical decisions in teaching the topic of electricity. Teachers of both Express and N(A) students frequently used terms like the more “capable”, “intelligent” and “stronger” to refer to students from different courses. It can be inferred that some teachers considered academically weaker students, such as those attending the N(A) course, as having lower capability to take control and ownership of their own learning (c.f., Kang & Wallace, 2004; Kim et al., 2013). These perceptions resulted in the teachers’ emphasis on students needing to pay attention and copy down teacher-determined notes (see e.g., Excerpt 1). Similarly, when teachers were probed for their limited use of inquiry-based activities in their research lessons, Laura, for example, expressed that:

(3) Scientific investigations [conflated with scientific inquiry in her case] are only feasible for academically stronger students, and thus I will not use investigations in my classes for academically weaker students. (Laura)

This differentiation of students was expressed by the teachers teaching the N(A) and Express courses. We noted how one teacher from the latter group also mentioned about the difference in the “caliber” of students and differentiated his students based on the “more [or least] intelligent ones” (Ben).

Concerning the practical application of scientific concepts and the use of mathematical formulae to solve physics problems, we noted in the transcripts and the research lessons how the teachers took on the responsibility to tell the students how to apply the concepts being taught (as highlighted in Theme 1). The teachers also demonstrated the ‘correct’ connections by showing students how to solve the problems. When probed for the reasons on why the teachers would make the connections for their students, teachers of N(A) students commonly held the perception that their students lacked the academic capacity, often mentioning how “the students cannot do it themselves” (Zac) or are “unable to see the connections” (Lucy, see Excerpt 1). Consequently, the teachers used perceptions of the students’ abilities to justify their choice of pedagogical strategies – primarily the ‘show-and-tell’ approach.

Based on the above findings, it appears that the teachers might risk limiting the learning opportunities provided for the perceived academically weaker students. Our concern was also raised elsewhere (Prawat, 1992; Zohar et al., 2001). In our opinion, the teachers might have interpreted ‘differentiationFootnote 4’ as analogous to implementing instruction based on their perception of students’ capabilities and in accordance to the academic course in which they are placed. This view of teaching and learning is highly restrictive as students’ capacity of growth is often overshadowed by a predetermined view of what they can or should be learning. As a case in point, our findings further suggest that the teachers’ beliefs (such as role perception) and teaching practices were influenced by the practical assessment (that is, the National Practical Assessment; see Table 28.1), where helping students to prepare for the assessment may override their views of good science learning. For example, in perceiving his role as helping students to “score well in the assessment”, Tim elaborated how carrying out scientific investigations in the students’ reduced syllabus is “not so much an investigation but carrying out instructions of the experiments”. What Tim meant was that confirmatory tests were emphasized, and this led him to avoid implementing practical activities that require students to plan and design scientific investigations, “because they don’t have this type of questions in the exams”. Similarly, Sunny omitted the design of scientific investigation from his electricity-based research lessons because it was “deviating from the normal question-answers”.

Our classroom observations revealed that the teachers tended to provide the Express students more opportunities to work with science practical activities (11.5% out of 412 five-minute lesson segments) than their counterparts in the N(A) course (5.2% out of 260 five-minute classroom segments). Overall, our analysis suggests that teachers teaching Express and N(A) classes were utilizing scientific investigations as supplementary activities that were disconnected to their main classroom instruction, instead of using these activities extensively to teach the practices of science and to engage students with the acquisition of scientific knowledge (c.f., Wallace & Kang, 2004). Furthermore, the N(A) teachers tended to leave out scientific investigations from their lessons, noting that practical assessments are excluded from the N(A) curriculum. While Express students are required to (at least) design their investigations and, for some of them, to demonstrate their ability to ‘properly’ carry out the investigations, what has been suggested is that this might not necessarily translate to the larger vision of extensively engaging students in scientific inquiry.

4.3 Theme 3: Teachers’ Awareness of Inconsistencies and Adoption of Flexible Pedagogy

Another theme emerging from the data is the teachers expressing their awareness of the inconsistencies between their actual classroom practices and ideal pedagogical scenarios that are consistent with science reform visions. The rationale for this deviation was articulated by some teachers as a practical way to deal with classroom realities and constraints. For instance, Wilda, who in Excerpt 4 underscored the need to carry out self-discovery activities in her classes, also alluded to how the demands of the national examinations propels her to be “more realistic” in planning her lessons and devote more time to preparing students for the assessments (Excerpt 5).

(4) I think they need to discover and you know, have the epiphany themselves… self-discovery… Let them try some simple things on their own, like in the lab or something. Then I reinforce it with, you know, the theory. And then they do some normal, simple problem solving, calculations. And I ask some questions.

(5) You really become less idealistic because you come up with the idea that students should be…on the path of self-discovery. But then later you learn that…you need to be more realistic. You need to make sure they are able to solve that 80% of the curriculum… They need to perform during the national exams. (Wilda)

Similarly, Yin described how “Ideally, we should have the investigation [inquiry-based investigations] for all [students], but due to time constraints, we fall back on ‘chalk and talk’ [style of teaching]”.

Some teachers, however, tended to demonstrate greater nimbleness when it comes to navigating their ideal and actual realities in teaching. For example, Zac expressed his intentions to adopt a flexible teaching approach to promote conceptual learning and problem-solving skills among his N(A) students. When probed for what he meant by flexible teaching approach, Zac underscored the keeping of learning opportunities open for his N(A) students, which, in the topic of electricity, would manifest as his deliberate inclusion of questions that he regarded as fitting for the academic ability of students from the Express course (“‘O’ level type of question”, “Pure Physics one”). As Zac described his pedagogy, he clearly articulated how the end-goal of his scaffolding strategy was for students to have opportunities to engage with questions of greater complexity and requiring greater analysis (“Pure Physics one”):

(6) I’ll give them [students] a basic N(A) level problem [mathematics-related electricity problem as would be assessed in the N(A) national examinations]... Then next one will be medium level challenge. Then after that I increase to an O-Level type of question [typically used for assessments of Express students], and then if I feel like this class is ready for it...to give you [students] a Pure Physics one [typically used for assessments of high ability Express students]. (Zac)

Within an educational system that utilizes achievement-based placements as a means to cater to students’ diverse needs and abilities, Zac’s efforts suggest the feasibility of employing an instructional approach that expands (rather than limits) students’ learning spaces. It is however noteworthy that despite Zac’s efforts to provide a wide range of learning opportunities for N(A) students, his research lessons were observed to be heavily didactic. This tension draws attention to and underscores the need to be empathetic towards teachers who face challenges in reconciling their beliefs and pedagogical actions (Bryan, 2012). Within the Singaporean educational context, it also supports previous studies that highlighted how Singapore science teachers tend to prefer more authoritative, teacher-centred styles when developing their students’ scientific knowledge (Tan & Hong, 2014; Yeo & Tan, 2010). What is encouraging is that Zac was able to set a good starting point that he and other teachers may follow through with more efforts to deepen their pedagogical awareness and increase their repertoire of pedagogical activities, in order to better cater to their students’ learning needs.

Phrased differently, the teachers’ espoused pedagogical intentions could, on one hand, reveal a perceived gap between the ‘practical instruction’ and the ‘ideal instruction’; this could be indicative of the misalignment between the nation’s educational priorities of engaging student in scientific inquiry and the actual practices that are deeply embedded within the content- and assessment-driven nature of the educational system. On the other hand, it also highlights the ways by which teachers are adapting to this nuanced educational setting. Indeed, we share the empathetic view of Lee (2008) arguing that Singapore Science teachers in his study have enacted teaching through ‘in-between spaces’ (Lee, 2008, p. 931): between policies and their own classroom teaching to infuse science learning in ways about which they are passionate. The juxtaposition of teachers’ ideal views, realities and constraints can be a step for teachers towards exerting their agentic control (Brandt, 2012) that best utilizes mandated curriculum to complement their teaching and learning goals.

5 Conclusion and Discussion

In this paper, some interesting insights were drawn from the examination of teachers’ beliefs and classroom actions. Although we limited our exploration to the topic of electricity, the teachers have often responded to our interview questions by describing their practices and beliefs in more general terms, that is, to describe their overall teaching. This enabled us to draw implications both for teaching of the topic and beyond, although we could definitely benefit from more studies to increase the generalizability of the results.

5.1 Considerations for Teaching and Learning

The nuanced understandings that emerged from the study are helpful to further unpack the impact of policies in a tightly coupled system where stipulated curriculum and national examinations are known to have profound influences on teaching and learning. We learned from the study that the participating teachers’ perceptions of students’ academic abilities, which were made more explicit by the placement of students to different courses characterized by differentiated curricula, could cause tensions in the ways by which teachers make their pedagogical choices. This tension is similarly reported in Wallace and Kang’s (2004) study where the teachers held two competing sets of beliefs: beliefs constraining inquiry-based teaching were more public and culturally based (including policy-based decisions), while those that promoted inquiry were more private and based on teachers’ ideas of successful science learning.

Similar to Wallace and Kang (2004), we assert for the need to help teachers resolve this tension. We see glimpses of the teachers’ creative agentic control as they reconcile their own learning goals for their students with mandated ones. As a case in point, we observed how teachers in our study tended towards maintaining tight classroom control. On one hand, this may be interpreted as teachers holding views of the ‘old dichotomy’ (Prawat, 1992), positioning themselves as the key source of knowledge, emphasizing the use of curriculum resources and/or would attempt to deal with difficult aspects of teaching the topic by ensuring that students learn key content and concepts. Within this framing, the inclusion of reform-based (inquiry) skills in national assessment may also be interpreted as being strategic but inadequate to support reform efforts, and thus warrant greater attention. On the other hand, the teachers’ pedagogical decisions could be framed as an artifact of the cultural factors that guide classroom practices (Bryan, 2012), where authoritative figures such as teachers are highly respected in Asian cultures. Within this vein, we align our findings with earlier works, such as Tan and Hong’s (2014), which explained the tight classroom control, a dominant form of classroom teaching in Singapore, as “a tight framing of knowledge” (p. 689) to ensure that scientific knowledge is accurately presented (see also Yeo & Tan, 2010). This could, in turn, be deemed as stemming from the teachers’ private beliefs about good science teaching. Framed this way, the snapshot of the teachers’ beliefs and teaching instruction captured in this study points to a compromise strategy the teachers employed in order to maintain students’ learning spaces in spite of external challenges. We speculate that (in the context of this study) exerting tight classroom control could be a manifestation of the teachers’ sensitivity towards their students’ learning needs, rather than a neglect of them.

Another key tension teachers need to resolve stems from how they were very much bound to their obligations to prepare students for practical examinations, despite recent changes in the science curricula and practical examinations. In our opinion, this may not be perceived as an inadequacy on the part of the teacher, as it signals their responsiveness to the needs of their students who are educated within a system that places high currency on academic achievements. A potential area of growth for the teachers is to be aware of how to go beyond this goal and open up learning spaces for students (like what Zac did) to gain the skills being examined as well as other valuable skills that are not necessarily assessed.

Another good starting point for teachers to address the tensions they face in teaching is by articulating the gaps between their goals of teaching and actual classroom practices. In some cases (such as Wilda’s), we noted the possible tension, even discontent, teachers faced as their classroom practices risk narrowing the learning possibilities for the students, especially for academically weaker students. In other cases, such as Zac’s, teachers were able to work within the constraints to find ways to use learning tasks with increasing levels of difficulties. The findings thus allude to the degrees by which different sets of beliefs (e.g., policy-based/public vs. personal) influence the teachers’ pedagogical decisions, and thus determine student learning spaces and processes. This, in turn, highlights the pertinence of building teacher’s capacities, which bears implications for teacher professional development and policy.

5.2 Considerations for Policymaking and Teacher Professional Development

Given the close relationship between teachers’ beliefs and educational policies as is revealed through this study, the findings highlight the benefits of exploring how reform initiatives are communicated through policy documents. First, attention is drawn to the implicit messages in various policy and framework documents that could potentially be misconstrued by teachers. We recognize how the academic placement efforts were purposed to help teachers cope with diverse learning needs of students. However, the achievement-based placement model may result in teachers’ misinterpretation of the model’s original intentions and the unintended consequence of students having limited access to various learning experiences; this is exacerbated by the reduction of curriculum content and national practical assessment formats (and at some point, excluding the practical examinations) in academic courses. The misalignment between policy decisions and the enactment of these policies warrants greater attention to how teachers interpret prescribed curricula and reform-based documents (Tan & Caleon, 2016; Tan & Nashon, 2015). There is also a need for greater coherence and coordination between science curricula, assessment and instruction for both students and teachers, as was asserted by Duschl et al. (2007).

Second, if the intention of the achievement-based placement process is to provide students with varying academic abilities appropriate attention and guidance, it would be imperative to build teachers’ capacity to diversify students’ learning experiences, utilize the resources that students bring into the classroom, and to explore a variety of ways to actively engage students in their science learning. Our findings show that this is feasible (as exemplified by Zac) within an educational setting such as Singapore’s, where professional development is highly supported and often initiated by the Ministry of Education (Somekh & Zeichner, 2009). Recent studies in Singapore have reported on the benefits of teachers collaborating and engaging with research/inquiry within the loci of their own classrooms, which included helping science teachers to meaningfully integrate their beliefs with mandated curricular goals, and to fruitfully utilize the curriculum to promote teachers’ desired visions of student learning (e.g., Tan & Nashon, 2013, 2015).

6 Summary

Although the findings of the present study were drawn from data collected on a small sample of teachers, the study adds to the current literature on teachers’ beliefs and practices pertaining to the implementation of science reform visions, which is sparser when located within the context of a non-Western education culture. The present study paints concrete scenarios illustrating how teachers’ beliefs and practices were influenced by contextual forces, such as curricular content, national assessments, and achievement-based placement process. While such contextual forces may bring about tensions between what teachers set as ideals for teaching and learning and their responsibilities to address the needs of their students, and, in some cases, limitations in the learning experiences offered to students, we have observed indications of teachers adopting a flexible, creative and contextually nuanced pedagogy. The latter serves as a good starting point to better equip teachers in broadening students’ learning spaces and to optimize learning.