Different Types of Tuition in Singapore

It seems that tuition is becoming more prevalent in Singapore. Recent research indicates that over 95% of Singaporean students have some sort of tuition throughout a typical school year. Tuition can not only help a student who is struggling to get over the hump and finally learn a subject that has challenged them, but it can also help with other aspects of learning such as the testing process. Some students may know the material, but just do not test well. Tuition by a proper tutor can help improve overall test scores as well as curriculum knowledge.

There are three main type of tuitions: One on One (or Individual), Group, and Consultation. Here are some specific details about each of these along with the pros and cons of them. 

One on One - Individual

This is arguably the most effective form of tuition. It is also the most expensive since it is usually based on an hourly rate. The rate will differ depending on if you select a part-time tutor, a full-time tutor, a teacher tutor, or a student tutor. Part-time tutors are typically professionals who may have other jobs that they do for their full-time income. Thus they may only be available for tutoring on nights or weekends. A full-time tutor chooses to tutor as their full-time employment, therefore they will likely have more flexibility in the days and hours they are available. A teacher tutor is a wonderful option as they are already experienced in teaching and likely know the curriculum and material very well. But since they are full-time teachers, they may also only be available during limited hours for tutoring. Student tutors may not be professionals, however if they are headed towards a career in education they may be very well versed already in the effective art of tutoring. Additionally they will be closer in age to the student and thus will be able to share in rapport and understanding of what the student may be feeling related to the whole learning process. Any option is a good one, as long as they are a good fit for your student and they are successful in helping them learn the material. 

One on one tuition will only be effective if either the student is participatory, meaning they ask questions and engage in dialogue to enhance their learning; or if the tutor themselves is an expert in tutoring and has an established skill-set that is capable of reaching the struggling student and get them to participate in the learning process. One on One tuition usually occurs in the student’s home. It is especially helpful for a student who feels completely lost in school, or those who have trouble learning in social environments. One negative aspect, besides the high price tag, is that while the student is actually working on their homework or lessons the tutor is sitting idly, costing the parents more in terms of hourly pay for the tutor. There are arguments amongst some students on whether or not individual tuition is beneficial, but research shows that test scores go up exponentially when a student is really struggling in a particular subject and gets one on one tuition.

Group

Group tuition is typically done in learning centres. Several students are grouped together by subject, level, and stream. Class size can range from 8 all the way up to 60. Be aware of the questions to ask a learning centre before entering into a tuition agreement. Ask about class size, how students will be grouped, and their success rate and any guarantees.

Some parents may fear that a group setting won’t give the student enough support in their tutoring. However, if the student is not completely lost in the subject, and just needs some help to better understand the material, a group setting is an ideal way to motivate the student by providing competition amongst peers. It is important to know your child and determine what setting is best for them to excel in. If the tutor in the group setting is a dynamic, inspiring presenter then the student will likely greatly benefit from the experience. If the tutor is lackluster, then the student may feel like they are once again failing at even tutoring and it can create a downward spiral that is not at all related to the student’s abilities to perform. Choose a group setting or learning centre carefully by checking references and testimonials.

Individual Consultation

Consultation tuition occurs in the tutor’s home. The group size is usually less than five students. The tutor will give each student one on one coaching while the others work on their homework or tutoring exercises. One benefit is that the student only spends time working on specific classwork that they need assistance with and the lecture scene typically found in group sessions is not present. Another benefit is that the student will have time to work on their coursework and have to think through the problems before they will have their time with the tutor to ask questions. This may help them solve problems on their own. However, if the student won’t ask questions or is so completely lost in the course then they may need the help of a one on one tutor.

Tuition has been shown to help students improve up to 3 grades in a period of 3-6 months. If you find that this is not the case then you have likely chosen the wrong format for your child’s specific needs. Looking into one of the other tuition methods listed above can help remedy the situation and both you and your student will feel the relief of things starting to come together. If you are exploring a tutor for your student, ask friends or use a tuition agency. Typically the cost of engaging a tuition agency is taken from the tutor’s first month’s tuition fee, thereby not costing you anything to find a suitable tutor program.

Education Recalibration

The recent speech by the Minister of Education Mr Heng Swee Keat goes deeper than the usual arguments about the pros and cons of present education system. One key word that he emphasized in his speech is “fundamental”. We need to go back to the fundamentals of education. An education system does the best when it best fulfills its fundamental missions. Each society has common expectations and values shared by all members of the community. To ensure the continuity of those fundamental spirits, education of the young generation becomes an indispensable tool. Hence we can better evaluate the Singapore education system in light of the fundamentals as a more effective approach of analysis.

First, the society values fairness. In addition to human inherent sense of fairness, Singaporeans appreciate the critical function of fairness in running a racially-diverse society or maximizing the use of talented people in a small population¹. Hence, it suffices to say the idea of fairness has been nailed into the head of Singaporeans. Such an idea is also reflected in Singapore’s education system. Despite the calling for abolishing exams, particularly the PSLE, such a possibility remains distant. Even the minister of education does not endorse the move, as seen in his description of how some countries that used to abolish exams are returning to exam-based systems². Exams, as stressful as they are, set objective standard of comparison. A score of 90 is better than a score of 89. Though it is arguable how much difference does that one mark really makes, the score-based evaluation based on standardized exams has proven to be more reliable and fair than any other alternative: the interview-based assessment, the talent-based assessment where subjective evaluation is involved. The score given to a dance performance by a student applicant is essentially arbitrary, and varies across different assessors, who may themselves be influenced by their own idea of excellence, their experiences and even their “mood” on the day of assessment. Hence, exam scores carry much more weight of authority that appeals to people’s sense of fairness. Hence, it may not be wise to argue for abolishing exams when such a proposal infringes one of the fundamental values people hold dear to.

Secondly, the skills and values taught in school reflect the social demand for such qualities among students. The schools are generally responsive to social demands due to competition in attracting the best students. The students with the right set of qualities the society wants are more likely to succeed after they graduate. Graduating a successful batch of students enhances the reputation of schools that can attract students with better branding. Hence, the school will aim to equip students with the socially desirable skills and values. The Anglo-Chinese School (Independent), with its unique IB syllabus that emphasizes breath and independent research, is attracting top secondary school students³. The Singapore Management University, because of its unique seminar teaching style and extensive presentation training, makes its graduates highly marketable⁴. Some critics worry about the value education and skill impartation that are compromised by a strong emphasis on exams. However due to competition among schools for diversity and branding, the future of education scene may not be as bleak as some may predict. Schools know that just by producing high scorers will not make their graduates go far, and that will be reflected in testimonials like the graduate employment survey⁵ that parents and prospective students closely examine every year. Hence what the government should do may not be dictating value education from a top-down approach, but rather encourage the diversity and competition among schools while enhancing a series of graduate surveys and research to enhance the information flow, which ultimately incentivizes schools to respond to what society really needs.

Lastly, the undesirable aspects of education may well be reflections of values of general society. As being pointed out by the minister of education, the definition of success in education cannot be changed if the definition of success in society is not changed. If society places a premium on five C (Cash, Condominium, Cars, Credit Card, and Country Club), students, teachers and parents are likely to place a premium on things that are going to lead to the possession of five C in the future. Grades, which determine the branding of school one is entering or the streaming one is placed in, of course become the Holy Grail that people go after. Hence to try to criticize about the over-emphasis on grades while not recognizing the underlying social mentality is to exercise double-standard. If one wants to reduce exam stress and obsession with results, he has to start from society. And some people are actually doing that. For example, the Think Family campaign is good social movement in getting people to value love and togetherness more than materialistic gain. While measures can definitely be taken to reduce exam stress, such as the non-disclosure policy of top scores of PSLE candidates, the fundamental problem lies with society at large. Education is a reflection of social attitude, which we have to take into account to give a fair verdict of the performance of education sector in Singapore.

The speech by the Minister offers fresh perspective on thinking about education. We need to put the issue in a large social context and realize that no policy can be suitably recommended without recognizing the influence of society on education. As problems of education are reflections of problems in society, we need to bear in mind what educators are capable of and give them fair credit that we often forget in the mist of emotional criticism of education.

References:

1.       http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2000/sp24112000_print.htm

2.       http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202055/Tories-We-bring-O-level-boost-exam-standards.html

3.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate_Diploma_Programme

4.       http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=181

5.       http://moe.gov.sg/education/post-secondary/files/ges-nus.pdf

The author is a private educator in Singapore , doing private tuition at www.frankltuition.sg 

Exam Results Oriented Society

Pros and Cons of Exam Result Oriented Teaching

Exam result oriented teaching is basically a concept whereby the instructor knows the exam contents very well and leads the class through the coursework, all the while keeping his/her eye on the fact that the only goal is to help the student achieve high marks on the exam itself – irrespective of the syllabus contents.

There can be many arguments both for and against this method of teaching. The instructor will need to know which topics should be weighted more or less than others and then lead the students down a very carefully constructed path of precise education – with one goal – high exam results.

While there is no arguing that this teaching method achieves the goal of making sure that the vast majority of students will score well on the exams, one must ask again – is this the proper way to educate our children?

In actuality, the system that incorporates an exam result oriented method of teaching is creating a false environment of ‘easy testing.’ This could cause a student who transfers out of this school and into one where a more traditional philosophy is taught to fail miserably because there is no longer a very clear and concise understanding of exactly what to expect when it comes time for exams. In parallel, when a student graduates from high school and enters college, if they happen to attend a college, or a class, where exam result oriented teaching is not the normal practice, they will find it invariably more difficult to succeed in that testing environment. Yet still, besides immersing in an exams-oriented schooling environment, students can implement strategies to do well in examinations.

Exam result oriented teaching creates a false sense of security and confidence in life itself. A student who has gone through an exam result oriented education does not know how to rebound when they have a misstep on an exam; nor do they know how to study hard for the ‘unknown’ of not being able to say with certainty that they already know all of the answers to all of the questions in life to all of the questions that will be on the exam.

While the pros are heavily weighted in the good for the school; for retention of critical funding and for the overall ease of a cookie-cutter curriculum that becomes stale and repeatable, the cons are much more ominous for our children who are not learning the invaluable skill of how to learn on their own, or how to study hard for something they want or need to attain.

When these youth enter the workforce and the real world they may find that the utopia they are used to, this overall sense of entitlement brings with it a harsh realization that life is not fair. That life is not easy. And unfortunately, that they are ill-prepared. This can cause depression, confusion, and despair. This could cause an otherwise average individual to perform sub-par in their careers, and thus create a lifelong path of underachieving; simply because they were not taught during their formative years how to work hard to get what they want, instead of having everything basically handed to them.

However, it is also possible that the confidence that was instilled by a somewhat “easy” education process will serve to give a young adult the confidence to succeed in tougher situations. When presented with an unknown variable, they will feel confident that they can tackle it with finesse and ease, because - after all - they’ve always been able to do so. Therefore, when they enter the workforce and society as an adult, they are a go-getter, because they know they can succeed. It’s been a proven fact of their entire life up to adulthood that they carry with them throughout every challenge they face in life.

The jury may be out on the real impact to society of exam result oriented teaching, but it is clear that we are teaching our children a lesson – whether it is a positive lesson or a negative lesson may not yet be clear.