Social Science and Human Research Bulletin

This chapter aims to develop an in-depth understanding of the perspectives that secondary school teachers hold regarding the biology curriculum in Singapore. By exploring teachers' views on the curriculum’s design, content, and delivery, the study seeks to provide valuable insights that can inform both educational policy and future research as well as inform the preparation and training of secondary school biology teachers. Specifically, it addresses issues related to the teaching of secondary school biology, including the challenges teachers face in implementing the curriculum. Data for this research was collected between 2015 and 2016 through semi-structured interviews conducted with teachers from randomly selected government secondary schools across Singapore. The data were subsequently analysed using qualitative data analysis methods which facilitated the identification of key themes and patterns in teachers' perspectives. The findings from this study aim to contribute to ongoing discussions about curriculum development and teacher education in Singapore, offering evidence-based recommendations for enhancing the teaching and learning of biology at the secondary level. By highlighting teachers' voices, this research underscores the importance of involving practitioners in curriculum evaluation and reform efforts, ensuring that policy decisions are informed by those who engage directly with students in the classroom.

Teachers’ perspectives, Biology, Curriculum, Professional Development, Secondary school

1. Tan, A.L., Lim, S.S.L., Poon, C.L. (2014). Inquiry into the Singapore Science Classroom, Research and Practices. Singapore: Springer.
2. Goh, C. J., Diong, C. H., & Yeo, C. K. (1989). Trends in biology education. Retrieved from https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/19857/3/STSE-1989-DiongCH.pdf
3. Tan, B. Y. & Yates, S. (2007). A Rasch analysis of the Academic Self-Concept Questionnaire. International Education Journal, 2007, 8(2), 470–484.
4. Fordham, M. (2012). Disciplinary History and the Situation of History Teachers. Education Sciences, 2, 242–253. doi:10.3390/educsci2040242
5. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). United States of America: SAGE.
6. Tan, A. L., & Nashon, S. M. (2015). Promoting teachers’ collaborative exploration of a new science curriculum: The case of a Singapore learning study. Curriculum Journal, 26(3), 396–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1053815
7. Brauer, H., & Wilde, M. (2021). The influence of previous biology lessons on prospective teachers' beliefs about learning. Frontiers in Education, 6, 707746. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.707746
8. Tan, A. L., & Nashon, S. M. (2017). Journey of science teacher education in Singapore: Past, present, and future. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 3(1), 1–13. https://apse-journal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41029-017-0018-8
9. Muhundan, V. N., (2019). Biology teaching in secondary schools in Singapore (Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Australia). https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au
10. Artika, A. (2019). Biology teachers' perspective on change of curriculum policy: A case for implementation of independent curriculum (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas).
11. Svensson, M., & Doumas, K. (2022). Biology teachers’ collaborative experiences: Benefits and difficulties in professional learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-022-10127-2
12. Ndeke, G. C. W., Okere, M. I. O., & Keraro, F. N. (2016). Secondary school biology teachers’ perceptions of scientific creativity. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n1p31
13. National Science Teaching Association. (2022). Examining perspectives of teaching among biology teaching assistants. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(3), 42–49.
14. Schwandt, T. (2001). Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry. (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
15. Woods, P. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: Theory and method. Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. San Diego: Academic Press.
16. O’Donoghue, T. (2007). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist research in education. London: Routledge.
17. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Pearson.
18. Major, C. H., & Baden, M. S. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Abingdon: Routledge.
19. Punch, K. (2014). Introduction to Social Research, Quantitatve & Qualitative Approaches. London: SAGE.
20. Blackledge, D., & Hunt, B. (1985). Sociological interpretations of education. London: Croom Helm Teaching.
21. Kampourakis, K. (2018). Teaching Biology in Schools: Global Research, Issues and Trends. New York: Routledge.
22. Morange, M. (2000). A History of Molecular Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23. Duncan, R. G. & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically different levels: students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 938–959.
24. Teo, C.H. (2003, March 29). Address by RADM Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and second Minister for Defence, at the opening of the DNA Learning Lab at the Singapore Science Centre. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2003/sp20030329_print.htm
25. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy – A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.
26. Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science. In M. Shortland (Ed.), Scientific literacy papers (pp. 1–44). Oxford: Department of External Studies, University of Oxford.
27. Tan, W. H. L., & Subramaniam, R. (2009). Role of scientific academies and scientific societies in promoting science and technology: Experiences from Singapore. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(1-2), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.022674
28. Marbach-Ad, G. & Stavy, R. (2000). Students cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200–210. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655718
29. Tan, A.L. (2018). Journey of science teacher education in Singapore: past, present and future. Asia-Pacific Science Education (4)1, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-017-0018-8
30. Van der Zande, P., Akkerman, S., Brekelmans, M., Waarlo, A. & Vermunt, J. (2012). Expertise for Teaching Biology Situated in the Context of Genetic Testing. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1741-1767. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2012.671557
31. Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M. Den Brok, P., & Van Tartwijk, J.W.F. (2006) An interpersonal perspective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in the Netherlands In Evertson, C., Weinstein, C. S. (Ed.), Handbook of classroom management: research, practice and contemporary issues, (pp. 1161 – 1191) New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874783
32. Lee, S. K., Goh, C.B., Birger, F., & Tan, J-P. (2008). Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965. Washington, DC. : The World Bank; Singapore: National Institute of Education.
33. Chin, C., & Kayalvizhi, G. (2002). Posing problems for open investigations: What questions do pupils ask? Research in Science & Technological Education, 20(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514022000030499
34. Kim, M., Tan, A.L., & Talaue, F. (2011). New Vision and Challenges in Inquiry-Based Curriculum Change in Singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 35(2), 1-23. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2011.636844
35. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.
36. Tan P.H., & Tan AL. (2014) Teachers’ Ideas and Concerns with Assessment Practices in Inquiry Science. In: Tan AL., Poon CL., Lim S. (Ed.) Inquiry into the Singapore Science Classroom. Education Innovation Series. Singapore: Springer.
37. Tan, A.L. (2015). Science as inquiry: Partnership for change in the 21st century. International Journal of Science Educators and Teachers, 1(1), 3-9. Retrieved from http://www.socialscienceasia.nrct.go.th/index.php/SSAsia/article/view/81/71
38. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–71. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0969595980050102
39. Dietz, C. M., & Davis, E. A. (2009). Preservice elementary teachers’ reflection on narrative images of inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(3), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9132-0
40. Moseley, C., Ramsey, S. J., & Ruff, K. (2004). Science buddies: An authentic context for developing preservice teachers’ understandings of learning, teaching, and scientific inquiry. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 16(2), 1–17.
41. Bybee, R.W. & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349 – 352.
42. Luke, A., Freebody, P., Lau, S., & Gopinathan, S. (2005). Towards research-based innovation and reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 5–28.
43. Harlen, W., Brand, J., & Brown, R. (2003). Enhancing inquiry through formative assessment. San Francisco: Exploratorium.
44. Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 701–737.
45. Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 38–63.
46. Randler, C. & Bogner, F.X. (2009). Efficacy of Two Different Instructional Methods Involving Complex Ecological Content. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 7(2), 315-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9117-4
47. Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G. & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students‘ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 500-529.