Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore (Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice, 2) 9811582327, 9789811582325

Citation preview

Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2

Teddy Y. H. Sim  Hwee Hwang Sim Editors

Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore

Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice Volume 2

Series Editors David Hung, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, Singapore Dennis Kwek, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, Singapore Associate Editors A. A. Johannis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, Singapore Siao See Teng, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, Singapore

Changes in education and organisational structure, teacher education, school management, curriculum, and instruction and assessment over the last few decades, and more so in recent years, have contributed significantly to the rapid and systemic improvement in pedagogical quality in Singapore. While the outcomes of Singapore’s success are internationally recognised, the processes, reasons and factors that contribute to pedagogical and systemic improvements have not been systematically captured in a comprehensive manner. The series aims to fill the gap by presenting a Singaporean perspective on pedagogical research and innovation, highlighting how Singapore, drawing on knowledge and research done both internationally and locally, has successfully mobilised resources and efforts to improve learning and teaching across the various subject disciplines and education sectors. The series also aims to present education research that will help propel Singapore’s education system towards its goal of meeting the challenges of the coming Fourth Industrial Revolution. It includes titles that focus on de-emphasising academic performance in favour of deep and soft skills, on de-emphasising knowledge transmission and rote learning in favour of inquiry methods, applied learning and experiential learning, titles that look into tripartite relationships with students, schools and industry to develop updated experiences with apprenticeships and internships, and titles that address the socio-political blind spots in the Singapore education system in terms of gender, racial and class equity, and others. The series includes monographs that examine Singapore pedagogies in terms of policies and practices. It also includes edited volumes that will cover, but not be limited to, the following structure: (a) a state-of-the-art review of research and knowledge in the topics covered by and, an introduction of the purpose and the key issues covered by the volume, (b) international and Singaporean experience in these topics, presented in a series of empirical studies or theoretical/conceptual pieces, (c) comparison and synthesis of Singaporean pedagogical research and innovation experiences, and its applicability to other systems, and (d) directions for future research and practice.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16488

Teddy Y. H. Sim · Hwee Hwang Sim Editors

Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore

Editors Teddy Y. H. Sim National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore

Hwee Hwang Sim National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Singapore

ISSN 2730-9762 ISSN 2730-9770 (electronic) Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice ISBN 978-981-15-8232-5 ISBN 978-981-15-8233-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

This book began with a prospect in publication briefing by the Office of Education Research (NIE)-Springer collaboration to discover projects in brewing that could come from the various academic groups (AGs) at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore. The briefing sparked some discussions among history and history education specialists in attendance about whether an edited volume on fieldwork could emerge to survey the various levels of fieldwork being undertaken in education institutions in Singapore. The discussions revealed, amongst other things, how fieldwork in schools increasingly rides on the inquiry framework, how the various humanities subjects and archaeology have been increasingly collaborating with one another, and how perceptions of fieldwork and their locations might be subjected to shifts in view over time. As fieldwork becomes a more “authentic” form of learning in the new millennium as a way to connect to the real world, there is a need to understand deeply the dynamics and issues of applying a more exploratory, inquiry-based, and/or multi- or interdisciplinary teaching approach outside the classroom. Going beyond the second year since the edited book project began in 2018, the period has been a challenging one for the editors. On top of the sizeable teaching and other duties on the day-to-day basis, the diversity and scope of the essays dealt with in the collection of works solicited (coming from a variety of disciplines) for the project meant that the editors had to read extensively beyond his/her specialization. The editors of the book are very thankful to persons who have helped with the project in one way or another—most notably, the chapter contributors, the chapter reviewers, and those who provided commentary on the essays (Dr. Sandra Wu, Dr. Doreen Tan, A/P Mark Baildon, Dr. Ee Moi Kho, Dr. P. Ananthi, Dr. Chor Boon Goh, Dr. Michael Flecker, A/P Kevin Blackburn, Prof Adrian Vickers, A/P Geok Chin Ivy Tan, Ast/P Jia Jie Zhang, Prof Tai Chee Wong, Mr Lloyd Yeo, reviewers affiliated with the publisher), the coordinating personnel in OER, NIE (Dr. Siao See Teng and Dr. Johannis bin Abdul Aziz) and Springer (Mr. Lawrence Liu, Ms. Grace Ma, Ms. Jayanthi Krishnamoorthi and Ms. Lay Peng Ang) for their faith, patience, and support afforded to the project. The editors are also thankful for the keen and collegial support afforded by contributor members from the Humanities and Social Studies Education (HSSE) AG at the institute. The final stage of the publication of the book coincided with the coronavirus outbreak and lockdown period in Singapore, v

vi

Preface

the editors are greatly appreciative of additional efforts undertaken to facilitate the publication process. Finally, the editors are grateful to their family members and close ones for their sacrifice and unfailing support. Singapore, Singapore June 2019

Dr. Teddy Y. H. Sim Dr. Hwee Hwang Sim

Contents

1

A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters . . . . . . . . . . Teddy Y. H. Sim, Hwee Hwang Sim, and Geok Chin Ivy Tan

Part I 2

1

Pedagogical Frameworks, Practices and Perceptions

Educating the Philosopher-Leader: Fieldtrips, Outdoors, and Wonder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soo Meng Jude Chua

23

3

A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips . . . . . . . . . . . . Esti Asmira and Suyin Tay

45

4

Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam” . . . . Rahil Ismail

73

5

Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History . . . . . . . . . Suhaimi Afandi and Mark Baildon

93

6

Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities and Beyond in Primary Social Studies: Student Teachers’ Understandings, Concerns and Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Hwee Hwang Sim and Shiang Swee Grace Liow

7

US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History Through Fieldtrips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Jeremy Stoddard, Alexandra Hartley, Leah Shy, and Khanh Vo

Part II 8

Role of Archaeology and Anthropology

Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities in Humanities/Social Science Education in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 John N. Miksic and Geok Yian Goh

vii

viii

9

Contents

How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute to the Learning of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Singapore History in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Michael Flecker and Teddy Y. H. Sim

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 D. Kyle Latinis 11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based Fieldtrips in the Teaching of Ancient Singapore History: Teacher Reflections and Student Learning . . . . . 221 Lloyd Yeo, Sazryna Lee Samsudin, Cherie Heng, Ezal bin Sani, and Teddy Y. H. Sim Part III Case Studies in the Field: Mono and Multidisciplinary Dimensions 12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration in Singapore—How Visiting War Memorials Can Contribute to the Learning of the Past for Trainers and Trainees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 John Kwok 13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban Settlement in Southeast Asian History: A Walk About the Town on a Nineteenth Century Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Teddy Y. H. Sim 14 Combining Text and Travel in the Studying of the Dutch East Indies: Incorporating Fieldtrips in the Teaching of a History Course on Southeast Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Teddy Y. H. Sim 15 Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage Space Through Geographical Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Diganta Das and Tricia Seow 16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips Through Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Chin Ee Loh, Tricia Seow, and Chelva Rajah 17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary Trips—A Summative Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Kalyani Chatterjea Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Teddy Y. H. Sim (FRHistS) is currently lecturing at the National Institute of Education in the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He has published on specific involvements of the Portuguese in the East. He is the author of Portuguese Enterprise in the East: Survival in the Years 1707–1757 and editor of Piracy and Surreptitious Activities in the Malay Archipelago and Adjacent Seas 1600–1840 and Maritime Defence of China: Ming General Qi Jiguang and Beyond. Teddy is passionate about fieldtrips in his history courses on South and Southeast Asia. His courses usually feature a local or overseas trip that facilitates as part of the overall study and exploration. Hwee Hwang Sim is a Lecturer in the Humanities and Social Studies Education (HSSE) Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU). Presently, she teaches Primary Social Studies Education to the degree and post-graduate student teachers. She also teaches Action Research for Social Studies Teachers at master level. She received her BA from the National University of Singapore and her MA (in Instructional Design and Technology) and her PhD (in Education) from NIE, NTU. Prior to her NIE appointment, she was a secondary school teacher in Geography and English, a specialist writer in the Secondary Geography Project Team with the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore, the Ministry of Education, and later a curriculum specialist in the Secondary Geography Unit in the Curriculum Planning and Development Division in the same ministry. She became the Head of Department (Humanities) in a secondary school after her stint in the ministry. Her research areas are in mentoring, teacher learning, and education in primary social studies and geography.

ix

x

Editors and Contributors

Contributors Suhaimi Afandi National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Esti Asmira Singapore, Singapore Mark Baildon National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Kalyani Chatterjea National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Soo Meng Jude Chua National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Diganta Das National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Michael Flecker Visiting Fellow, ISEAS, Singapore, Singapore Geok Yian Goh Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Alexandra Hartley Ithaca City Public Schools, New York, NY, USA Cherie Heng CHIJ Secondary School, Singapore, Singapore Rahil Ismail National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore John Kwok Independent Researcher, Singapore, Singapore D. Kyle Latinis Visiting Fellow, ISEAS, Singapore, Singapore Shiang Swee Grace Liow National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Chin Ee Loh National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore John N. Miksic National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Chelva Rajah National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Sazryna Lee Samsudin Seng Kang Secondary School, Singapore, Singapore Ezal bin Sani Fairfield Methodist School, Singapore, Singapore Tricia Seow National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Leah Shy Elementary American School, Tokyo, Japan

Editors and Contributors

xi

Hwee Hwang Sim National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Teddy Y. H. Sim National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Jeremy Stoddard University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA Geok Chin Ivy Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Suyin Tay Singapore, Singapore Khanh Vo College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA Lloyd Yeo The Academy of Singapore Teachers, Singapore, Singapore

Chapter 1

A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters Teddy Y. H. Sim, Hwee Hwang Sim, and Geok Chin Ivy Tan

Abstract The introductory chapter kicks off by exploring what fieldwork is, the types of fieldwork undertaken in the myriad of humanities subjects in Singapore across different levels of education, the value of fieldwork, some issues and challenges arising from such undertaking, and the way forward. It also provides an overview of the three sub-sections of the book—“Pedagogical Framework, Practice, and Perceptions,” “Roles of Archaeology and Anthropology,” and “Case Studies in the Field: Mono- and Multidisciplinary Dimensions”—as well as a brief summary of the individual chapters.

1.1 Introduction The essays contributed to this edited volume by a variety of humanities and social science teacher-educators and specialists such as historians, geographers, archaeologists, and even a philosopher seek to explore how the thinking and techniques of their disciplines can be applied to fieldwork in different educational or training settings. The volume aims to contribute toward ongoing conversations among interested parties regarding effective fieldwork practices and learning in the humanities. It seeks to inform teaching practices, offer possibilities of what can be done in the field, deepen understanding of the issues in planning and implementation, and even suggest solutions to practitioners’ likely challenges.

T. Y. H. Sim (B) · H. H. Sim · G. C. I. Tan National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] H. H. Sim e-mail: [email protected] G. C. I. Tan e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_1

1

2

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

The nature of the collection of essays and the title of this edited volume naturally elicit a much-warranted discussion about the thrust and representation of the subject matters and disciplinary boundaries as well as fieldwork approaches. The rapid and tumultuous events and developments in the 1990s transitioning into the twenty-first century sped up changes in, for instance, the lives of young people, employment, the scarcity of resources, as well as rising new world power influences and tensions. In the meantime, rapidly advancing technology—including the development of the Internet and mobile technologies—and changing paradigms in the human and societal sciences in explaining and analyzing human phenomena are prompting shifts in the disciplines as well as instructional and learning methods (Burrows, 2012). In this context of shifts, learning in the new age is preoccupied with getting students to engage with an environment that prompts them to be more self-driven in inquiry and immersive in engaging with the local community and culture amidst globalization. The learning environment itself is also one that is more complex and interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary, requiring a problem-solving approach for understanding issues and the environment on-site. In the next section, the issues related to fieldwork in humanities will be highlighted: singular, interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary focus/foci; fieldtrips or fieldwork, and fieldwork practices.

1.2 Discussion on Fieldwork 1.2.1 Fieldwork Focus: Singular, Interdisciplinary, or Multidisciplinary Fieldwork can focus on a single discipline or multiple disciplines. From an epistemological point of view, many of the different modern subject disciplines (comprising the acquisition, rhetoric, and discussion of knowledge) supposedly draw on a common Western philosophical base and possess overlapping features in their expression (Adler, 1976). Examples include the use of generic data-gathering techniques, empirical and interpretative methods, etc., in knowledge acquisition. Generally, individual discipline and subject can be defined by its preoccupation with a prevailing focus. History, for instance, is preoccupied with the meaning and interpretation of phenomena in/over-time (Arnold, 2006). Geography is preoccupied with the nature and development of spaces, both natural and man-made; and in the interaction between people and environment, geography is concerned with the effects caused by and to humans (Matthews & Herbert, 2008). Anthropology is preoccupied with the empirical study of human societies, especially of the remote past; and depending on whether the classification is American or British, it is further defined by its sub-foci on the study of culture, linguistics, or objects (archaeology) (Bahn, 2012; Just, 2000). Its counterpart of sociology is more preoccupied with contemporary societies (Bruce, 2018). Another branch of the humanities, literature, is preoccupied with the study of imaginative works of poetry and prose “distinguished by the intentions of their

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

3

authors and their perceived aesthetic excellence” (Rexroth, 2019). Newer fields such as heritage studies and global studies are by nature multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary in themselves. In reality, the different disciplines cannot be readily defined or demarcated. Individual disciplines have evolved new subfields to cope with new problems and areas of study such as globalization. Many disciplines inherently embrace multiple disciplines in their treatment of the subject matter, some more than others. The subjects of anthropology and archaeology have often claimed to be multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary: an archaeologist needs to know the ground s/he is working on no less compared to how a geographer would go about to acquire the information. S/he must know enough of the history of the place, often reading whatever can be provided in textual sources by historians. S/he must also embrace some branches of the hard sciences, such as chemistry and biology, by sending specimens of what are uncovered from the field for tests and analyzes (Bahn, 2012). In studying about a place, geographers, for instance, have evolved sub-fields such as socio-cultural geography, historical geography, and literary geography to understand a space, much like what a sociologist, historian, and researcher in literature would do—although one might detect differences if one probed further into the investigator’s frame of mind. The implication is that the subject matter for fieldwork can therefore be manifested in a mono-disciplinary, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary way. A monodisciplinary approach may embrace methodologies from other subjects. The extent to which different disciplines merge in practice depends on whether the person or persons working on the project are able to embrace the spirit of the respective disciplines. The interdisciplinary approach rates above the multidisciplinary approach because the former attains a “true communication with mutual respect and learning [although no common language or systemic construct might have emerged]” (Collen, 2002, p. 289). The success of higher-level disciplinary collaboration in programs or projects depends on, among other factors, whether a genuine degree of mutual respect and cooperation can be developed between the disciplines (Klein, 2008). This does not belie the fact that issues arising from within the disciplines can be just as “problematic” as interdisciplinary divisions (Youngblood, 2006, p. 3).1

1.2.2 What’s in a Name: Fieldtrip or Fieldwork? In applying the discussion to fieldtrips or fieldwork, one realizes that not all disciplines entail fieldtrips or fieldwork in their research or teaching. Even if they do, they may not be carried out along the same lines. In history research, fieldwork usually refers to a trip to the archives. In history teaching, a (more guided) fieldtrip is carried 1 Occurring

within the scope of an academic discipline or between the people active in such a discipline. See online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed at https://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/intradisciplinary#targetText=Definition%20of%20intradisciplinary,active%20in% 20such%20a%20discipline, 2019, October 27.

4

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

out to assist students in reconstructing an event or development. Between these two categories, there is a continuum of activities that include interest-driven autonomy in exploration on one end and a more guided trip on the other (Lazarakou, 2008; Savenije & Bruijn, 2017; Yilmaz & Bilgi, 2011). From a pedagogical point of view, one need not rush to judge whether “fieldtrip” or “fieldwork” is the more desirable methodology. The decision to be made correlates closely with the intended learning objectives, that is, whether the topic to be studied is exploratory and open-ended, intently specific and focused, or a mixture of both. The beginning of fieldtrips in modern education can be traced to proponents of experiential education, such as John Dewey, who advocated that education be based upon the quality of experience, in turn drawing upon the continuity and interaction of experience (Apple & Teitelhaum, 2001). In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, as education becomes more focused on individual learning and experience, fieldwork rather than guided fieldtrips offered more opportunities for autonomous personal discovery. The term “outdoor education” is used in a similar way but differs from “experiential education” in its focus on the use of games and sporting activities associated at times with the preschool learners. Specific chapters such as Chapters 10 and 17 in this edited book have attempted to use the term “outdoor education” in a broader context that is not restrictive in reference to a specific type of learners or deployment of a certain genre of activities. Fieldtrips/Fieldwork, along with or embedded in other education methodological approaches such as project-based learning, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and place-based learning can offer a more authentic form of engagement and learning (Gorman, 1998; Markham, 2011; Schmidt, 1983; Sobel, 2005).2 Akin to the different disciplines, the different approaches each has its pedagogical focus (problem or place, or generating questions) in helping students utilize particular approaches in analyzing an issue or problem. Whether focusing on a problem or place or generating questions, the approaches highlighted draw upon learning theories such as Constructivist Theory, Multiple Intelligence Theory, Socio-historical Approach, etc. These theories are, in turn, undergirded by an organismic or contextualistic developmental worldview (of learners) that advocates for the more dynamic (rather than passive) world. The outcome is a more holistically cultural model of human development that recognizes responses in different forms of expression outside the text and constructed from the “inside out” (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).3 2 Problem-based

learning—A student-centered pedagogy in which students learn about a subject through the experience of solving an open-ended problem found in trigger material; inquiry-based learning—A form of active learning that starts by posing questions, problems or scenarios to students; rather than presenting known facts; place-based learning—An approach to curriculum development and instruction that directs students’ attention to local culture, phenomena, and issues as the basis for at least some of the learning they encounter in school; project-based learning—A student-centered pedagogy which believes that students acquire a deeper knowledge through active exploration of real-world challenges and problems. 3 Broad worldviews such as the organismic worldview believes that the learning impulse of children emanated from within the child while the developmental contextualistic worldview believes that learning in children is a mixture of impulse from within the child as well as from the external

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

5

1.2.3 Fieldwork Practices From the teaching perspective, there is an urge among educationists for the content and curriculum to be taught via transaction and inquiry rather than transmission (Aldridge & Goldman, 2007).4 Correspondingly, the assessment of students’ responses will probably call for a different input beyond purely factual recall to reflect understanding. What applies to classroom teaching also applies to fieldwork practices in terms of pedagogical development. A comprehensive or uniform survey of the use of fieldtrips/fieldwork in Singapore schools may not be available for all the humanities subjects (Chew, 2008; Tan, 2017). A survey of the state of fieldwork by Chew (2008) as it is deployed in the teaching of geography in schools reveals that despite strong recommendations for more students to experience the benefits derived from fieldwork, it is still a great challenge for many teachers to design and implement it. To be sure, the importance and effectiveness of geography fieldwork in stimulating students’ cognitive and affective domains have been documented by researchers (Boyle et al., 2007; Cook, 2008; Gerber & Goh, 2000; Lai, 1999, 2000; Oost, De Vries & Van der Schee, 2011). Several researchers have cited factors that could discourage teachers from using field-based methods (Chew, 2008; Han & Foskett, 2007; Munday, 2008; Oost et al., 2011). Some of these factors include the lack of time amidst a tight curriculum, lack of monetary resources on the part of the school or students, and a lack of school, departmental, and parental support. Additionally, there are the logistical and administrative challenges faced by teachers when planning and conducting fieldwork. In Singapore, before the 2013 geography syllabus was implemented (SEAB, 2013), teachers would primarily organize “traditional field excursions” with students being tasked to complete field worksheets and record what they heard from their teachers or tour facilitators in the field (Chew, 2008). This, however, changed significantly with the adoption of the inquiry-based approach to the teaching and learning of geography in 2013. One key change was the introduction of geographical investigations through fieldwork in order to enable students to have a deeper and more critical understanding of the complexities of the changing world. In the field, students are involved in the geographical inquiry process of formulating questions, gathering data, and exercising reasoning and reflective thinking (SEAB, 2013). The other salient feature of the 2013 geography syllabus was that the GCE assessment components were modified to assess geographical fieldwork investigations (MOE, 2013). Teachers are now required to create opportunities for students to engage in

environment. Closely overlapping with developmental theories such as the Constructivist Theory, Multiple Intelligence Theory and Sociohistorical Approach, these paradigms advocate that there is autonomy in children, there are multiple intelligences in them or that cultural factors affect their learning more than other inputs. 4 In terms of curriculum approaches, the transaction paradigm see knowledge as “being constructed and reconstructed by participating in the teaching-learning act [coordinated by teachers]” while the transmission paradigm sees knowledge as primarily organized and dispensed by the teachers.

6

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

geographical inquiry in the field in order to prepare them for this component of the examination. With the 2013 syllabus, Tan (2017) examined the National Institute of Education (NIE)’s geography student teachers’ reflections on their initial teaching preparation course on geography fieldwork pedagogy to find out their prior experience or lack of experience in fieldwork, their prior beliefs and conceptions, and their perceived benefits of fieldwork. It was found that very few of the student teachers had fieldwork experience before their initial teaching preparation. For those who had been on fieldtrips, not many had had positive fieldwork experience. Many of the student teachers reflected on their negative memories of field experiences. In fact, they perceived fieldtrips to be ineffective. The geography fieldwork pedagogy course at NIE aims to make-up for the inadequacies at the level of new teachers going into schools.5 The issues and challenges discussed for geography education arising from the current curricula set-up, teachers’ different training backgrounds, as well as different teacher fieldwork experiences led to variations in the intensity in fieldwork engagement in geography in schools (Chew, 2008). In the area of history fieldtrips, academic studies on such activities conducted in Singapore schools are limited probably because the reflection and reporting required of such trips are usually sufficed at the level of internal reporting. What study or survey that might have been performed on conducting history fieldtrips will have to be understood or contextualized carefully vis-a-vis the nature of the history subject as it was taught in school. The teaching of history in school (at the “O” and “A” levels), unlike geography, did not require a direct input from fieldwork. Fieldtrips in history might be perceived as an “enrichment” rather than as a “core curricular” activity. Learning journeys, also dubbed “heritage trails,” which was launched after 1998 and involved specifically designed trips to historical and heritage parts of Singapore, had the potential and indeed overlapped with the study of core curricular subjects when points of intersection could be teased out. A trip to the Chinatown Heritage Center or Thian Hock Keng Temple in or near Chinatown undertaken by schools for example, could serve as source of knowledge for Chinese heritage or early Chinese immigrant history at the upper primary (social studies) or lower secondary level (history) in schools. The learning journeys were attended by thousands of students from all levels of school and sought to “deepen their knowledge and understanding of Singapore’s history, geography and culture” (MOE, 2013, p. 3).6 5 The

geography fieldwork pedagogy course at the National Institute of Education aims to serve purposefully as an important transitional space for these student teachers themselves to acquire the necessary geography pedagogical content knowledge and skills as well as to revisit their conceptions of fieldwork. 6 In an informal survey conducted in 2019 without identifiers on one batch of postgraduate in diploma of education student teachers (N = 11), they were issued seven questions on Google Form. Slightly more than half had gone on a fieldtrip designed specifically for the subject of history (54.5%) (geography is the subject in which students were more likely to experience fieldtrips). Trainees who experienced fieldtrips were more likely to associate them with the agenda of heritage/National Education (NE) trails rather than with the core curriculum subject (of history) (54.5% vs 27.3%). The trips were more experienced as “fieldtrips” than “fieldwork”. As with the student-teachers

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

7

Prior in 2018, J. Stoddard has observed and written about outdoor history education of student teachers studying at the National Institute of Education. Stoddard is a professor in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin Madison. He noted the Historian Lab being conducted at the Institute, which focused on subjective (controversial) history and an inquiry-based approach. Observing lessons of student teachers, Stoddard noted that the walk-through Labrador Park (Pasir Panjang Fort) facilitated a “more balanced perspective of the historical event (of the fall of Singapore)” although he questioned the extent to which “student teachers were able to derive the significance of [war personality] (Yamashita) by taking selfies with his statue” (Stoddard, 2018, pp. 639 and 644). In the new millennium, further efforts and studies have been made to document and explore the use of fieldtrips in teaching, most notably involving the use of archaeology to facilitate students’ understanding of pre-modern Singapore—although volunteers and students took part in excavations at Fort Canning as early as the 1980s (Miksic, 2013).

1.3 The Challenge of Fieldtrip/Fieldwork In an age when virtual reality is closing in on creating a simulated experience that approximates (or seeks to replace) the actual experience, there have been debates over the extent to which the “physical” and “virtual” worlds might fuse, bringing a heightened sense of engagement among learners. The discussion of these issues is located in the new sub-field of digital humanities (DH), an area of scholarly activity at the intersection of computing or digital technologies and the disciplines of the humanities that involve the systematic use of digital resources as well as analysis of their application (Drucker, 2013; Terras, 2011). In Singapore, the National Heritage Board included the National Museum in celebrating the bicentennial anniversary of Raffles’ arrival on the island. The event used augmented reality to create a simulated and interactive experience for visitors to the Singapore River, where Raffles landed (The Straits Times, 2017, April 14; The Straits Times, 2019, January 28). Experiments have already been done with primary school students using virtual reality to experience remote, more hazardous, as well as more places (in the classroom) (Bhunia, 2017). The essays in this book will not dwell on DH, as there have been numerous studies published, including series in the Springer publications, from the first decade of the twenty-first century focusing on the debates surrounding its application. There are still persistent and erstwhile issues outside DH that continue to affect the conduct of fieldtrips/fieldwork in the humanities and social sciences and the essays in this book will discuss these in the main. Nevertheless, Chapter 8 has briefly mooted the implications of DH on the development of archaeology in Singapore; Chapters 9 and 11 demonstrate how the latest technologies and connected platforms (Network Learning Community) could help with the uncovering of archaeological structures surveyed in Tan’s study, the interviewees were hopeful that the NIE course would help them design better fieldtrips/fieldwork.

8

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

and sites in the field as well as help teachers share about gaps in learning and improvements in teaching to one another as the museum excursion project was going on with a number of schools. The discussion so far affirms to some extent that the changing nature of technology and knowledge is causing unmistakable reverberations in the ways people go about their daily lives, especially in the way they acquire knowledge, learn, and make sense of their experiences. The next section introduces the essays in the edited book in brief and detail as well as connects them to some of the issues discussed at the beginning of this chapter.

1.4 Discussion of the Chapters 1.4.1 The Chapters in Brief The 17 chapters are grouped into three sections: (1) Pedagogical Frameworks, Practices, and Perceptions, (2) Roles of Anthropology and Archaeology, and (3) Case Studies in the Field: Mono- and Multidisciplinary Dimensions. Section 1 of the book delves into the inquiry framework for humanities fieldwork and the theoretical consideration for planning and implementation which include the fieldwork site, inquiry questions, and activities in the field. The perceptions of pre and in-service teachers regarding fieldwork in the Singapore and US contexts are also included. In Section 2, the disciplines of archaeology and, more broadly, anthropology attempt to engage learning in a way that involves reports on material culture and evidence from middle school (lower secondary) to tertiary levels. Section 3 looks at fieldwork case studies incorporating history, geography, and literature to bring out how collaborations in fieldwork could work out between the subjects—sometimes with a single subject in a more dominant role and at other times a more equitable cooperation.

1.4.2 Issues in Discussion and Book Chapters The different chapters in the book are intertwined with some of the key issues raised in this introduction. This edited volume includes essays from disciplinary and education practitioners who have tried to incorporate fieldtrips and fieldwork in their curriculum across different levels. Overall, the chapters utilize, perhaps not surprisingly, the term fieldwork more than fieldtrip. Chapter 2 attempts to argue for the need for fieldtrips from the first principles of philosophy. Going into the field, one hopes that the logical mind is not distorted by extrinsic and intrinsic factors. In terms of heritage, there is Chapter 4 which specifically looks at the history (and heritage) of Kampong Glam, with five other chapters that are affiliated with a heritage topic—either explicitly expressed in

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

9

the title or discussed in parts of the essay. These are: Chapter 15 on heritage spaces of Little India, Chapters 5 and 12 on the heritage associated with Kranji Memorial Park, Chapters 13 and 14 on the heritage of colonial towns in Singapore as well as the East Indies. The challenges of eliciting heritage are hinged upon sufficient pre-trip contextualization and acquaintance with a set of exploratory or inquiry questions as well as a focused on-site or post-trip discussion. The field of anthropology and archaeology sees four entries, Chapters 8 to 11, on fieldwork at various school levels in Singapore. The challenges of incorporating and executing an element of fieldwork in the curriculum are not limited to constraints in course implementation but include hurdles at the level of government policy pertaining to heritage and excavation issues. The field of geography has two essays, Chapters 16 and 17, that also straddle the disciplines of history and literature. The challenges of collaboration reveal that, as discussed in the section titled “Fieldwork Focus: Singular, Interdisciplinary, or Multidisciplinary,” it is not easy to maintain a balanced treatment between two or more disciplines in an essay write-up. Chapter 16 by C. E. Loh, T. Seow, and C. Rajah attains a more equitable contribution from each discipline than the other chapters, while Chapter 17 by K. Chatterjea presents the historical fort of Mehrangarh in the context of the terrain of the land. It appears that none of the collaboration between disciplines in the chapters has attained an interdisciplinary partnership; the contributory chapters have showcased collaboration that were premised upon a largely monodisciplinary or at most a multidisciplinary focus. Social studies, the junior discipline of social science in schools, incorporates an inquiry-based case study in fieldwork in Chapter 6. The student teachers’ concerns for fieldwork in areas such as more support from school or the non-examinable nature of the subject (social studies) in schools are highlighted. The discipline of history, including its affiliations in history education and military history as well as its collaboration with other disciplines, features in six chapters (four were mentioned earlier: Chapters 5, 12, 16, and 17, the other two are Chapters 13 and 14). This shows the close relationship between the discipline itself and history education when the objective was to probe the discipline’s nature in relation to the fieldwork site, for example, the Kranji Memorial Park. Arranging a fieldtrip to the same site for military cadets and officers using an approach from military school could also achieve the same deep understanding of the subject matter and the site. As discussed in Chapters 13, 14, 16, and 17, collaboration with other subdisciplines or methodologies from other social sciences showed that a diverse, empathetic, and practical outcome could be attained. Fieldtrips and fieldwork do indeed have a role to play in a variety of humanities and social science-affiliated disciplines across different levels of education, although challenges, big and small, are abound in the conception and execution.

10

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

1.4.3 Section 1: Pedagogical Frameworks, Practices, and Perceptions Chapter 2, “Educating the Philosopher Leader: Fieldtrips, Outdoors, and Wonder” by S. M. J. Chua, goes back to “first principles” to argue for the need of the education leader (whether s/he is helming the classroom or leading a school) to incorporate fieldtrip that go back to nature and inspire awe in order to come to an accurate perception about “things” and make the right curricular decisions. The logic and process of this entails one to be able to determine the “essence of things” by taking appropriate or right actions, although these might not always be easy to discern (their traits are not obvious despite thinking deeply about them). Yet there are ways in which one can get to the focal meaning and discern what is important. Chua pointed to J. Finnis (1980) whose considerations are filtered by the principles of speculation and practicality. The process of perceiving the “right things” is sometimes compared to the process of appreciating works of art (for instance, Claude Monet’s “Water Lilies”). This resonates with the ideas raised at the beginning of the essay: going back to nature (physis) and developing a sense of wonder (thaumazein) and detachment can help one recognize the right things to do. Evoking physis and thaumazein in studying history can assist one achieve a “transcendental perception of history” not limited to the understanding associated with a particular stasis or recollection of events of the past. In essence, “doing history” is not different from and might be equated to “doing fieldwork”. The revelation affords the inquirer a broader and deeper meaning of events and human society that can lead to better decision-making in leaders. Aligned with the preceding chapter on the field site as a place to know and experience a sense of wonderment, Chapter 3, entitled “A Case for ‘Everyday Spaces’ in Historical Fieldtrips” by E. Asmira and S. Y. Tay, furthers the discussion by arguing that everyday spaces, commonly associated with mundane day-to-day life, can be tapped into to enhance students’ historical understanding that the past is all around them. Unlike the curated and didactic interpretations commonly associated with museums or historic sites, everyday places can enable learners to construct their historical knowledge during their interactions with the space and people, hence bringing to life historical concepts. At the same time, because everyday spaces allow for the collection of diverse data, they lend themselves naturally to a multidisciplinary approach to learning. Through their case study of Balestier, an unassuming everyday space, as an example, the authors aim to broaden educators’ conception of a field site beyond museums and historical sites to also consider less conventional destinations for history teaching and learning. Chapter 4, entitled “Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the ‘Glam’” by R. Ismail, encourages readers who could also be potential fieldtrip facilitators in schools, to pierce the “surface” of the historical narrative of a place complicated by an array of agendas. The postcolonial narrative of Singapore has hitherto been governed by the rhetorical acronyms of 3Fs (food, fashion, festival), 3Cs (cuisine, costume, celebration), 4Ms (multicultural, multiracial, multireligious, multilingual), CMIO (Chinese Malay Indian Others) etc.; as if all these issues were

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

11

supposed to work harmoniously together. While it might be inevitable for popularly visited localities in a country to be developed into a glamorous place, tourist destination, a consumptive market, and even a theme park; the chapter urges facilitators to critically question the narrative as well as engage the target group in a dialogue that goes beyond the singular dominant narrative and pedagogical framework. Throughout the essay, facilitators are also plodded to question the basis of the heritage and perception of history that pertained to the minority Malay community in Singapore which was supposed to be associated with the place-in-discussion (Kampong Glam). Chapter 5, entitled “Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History” by S. Afandi and M. Baildon, uses inquiry questions and techniques to elicit reflective thoughts from student teachers about selected field sites (in this case a war memorial and cemetery site). The chapter provides different series of questions to help: (1) the teacher probe the site in relation to students’ understanding, (2) students probe generically about the site, (3) students probe about specificities on headstones or structures such as the Cross of Sacrifice, (4) students probe the site in relation to specific historical concepts, for instance, significance, provenance, and perspective, (5) students probe the site in relation to larger events of World War II, and (6) students probe in a way that links to empathy, heritage, symbolic representation, as well as the Day of Remembrance. The process of outdoor learning is complemented by having student teachers work with textual sources at the same time. Overall, the “mythical” nature of school history may be ameliorated if these series of inquiry questions can be brought to bear in getting students to think critically and reflect on-site about the nature and uses of history. Chapter 6, entitled “Inquiry-based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities and Beyond in Primary Social Studies: Student Teachers’ Understandings, Concerns and Suggestions” by H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow, provides the pedagogical framework for inquiry-based fieldwork in the context of primary social studies teaching and learning. The inquiry framework is by no means exclusive to fieldwork in this discipline. It is also seen in the fieldwork or fieldtrips in the other book chapters as well. The inquiry elements as identified by Roberts (2003, 2013) are: (1) creating the need to know, (2) using data, (3) making sense, and (4) reflecting on learning. The authors also introduced Roberts’ (1996) pedagogical approaches for implementation, namely—closed style, framed style, and negotiated style. These approaches exist in a continuum and differ in terms of teacher involvement and student autonomy. None is more superior to the other and the choice is very much dependent on factors such as the curriculum, field site, learning objectives, learners’ profiles, resources, and availability of time. The fieldwork stages from planning to implementation to post fieldwork are also discussed. The results of the authors’ study which focused on the understandings and views of their pre-service teachers regarding inquiry-based fieldwork in primary social studies showed that their student teachers understood what inquiry-based fieldwork is and its benefits; and they were able to identify the key factors that influence effective fieldwork planning and implementation. They acknowledged that the theoretical and practical elements in the fieldwork course had contributed to their understanding and increased their confidence in fieldwork

12

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

conception and conduct. They raised challenges to inquiry-based fieldwork implementation such as time factor, school mindset and support, and trained teachers, and made suggestions of protected time for fieldwork planning, more training, and mentoring to address their fieldwork concerns. Unlike Chapter 6, which focuses on pre-service teachers’ perceptions, Chapter 7, “US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History Through Fieldtrips” by J. Stoddard, A. Hartley, L. Shy, and K. Vo, looks at the views of the USA and Singapore in-service teachers on history teaching through fieldwork. Their views on field site selection and frequency of field-based inquiry teaching strategies, their confidence level in student engagement using field-based inquiry, and the kinds of motivators and barriers to utilizing field-based inquiry. The authors use B. VanSledright and L. Maggioni’s (2016) work to be informed about teachers’ epistemic cognition in history education, and W. Au’s (2007) and S. J. Thornton’s (1991) work for the factors influencing whether—and how—fieldwork may occur. The findings showed that in general for the participants, field-based experience was limited to one per academic year, and the sites most often identified included cultural sites, museums, and heritage sites (Singapore) and memorials and historic sites (USA). Participants were overall confident in utilizing field-based historical inquiry strategies, albeit with some variations. Singapore teachers were focused on curriculum-aligned historical investigations, whereas US teachers’ fieldtrips were more varied, were less structured academically, and included more of an independent inquiry into local topics. The main barrier identified for Singapore teachers was time, and for US teachers it was cost. Important implications on the types of sites identified, beliefs about fieldbased inquiry, and suggestions for the promotion of field-based historical inquiry are discussed.

1.4.4 Section 2: Role of Archaeology and Anthropology Chapter 8, entitled “Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities in Humanities/Social Science Education in Singapore” by J. Miksic and G. Y. Goh, locates fieldtrips as a subfield of experiential learning in the discipline of archaeology. Comparison is made to developments in North America, where the subject of history and archaeology are well-instituted at the school level (equivalent to primary school levels in Singapore). In Singapore, great strides are being made to improve the curriculum and instructional activities undertaken by students at the lower secondary level in schools. The authors took enthusiastic efforts to incorporate archaeology in the tertiary-level Southeast Asian courses they taught at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and National University of Singapore (NUS) as well as establishing an archaeological unit and field school in the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute and a joint training program with another country in Southeast Asia. Archaeological excavations were carried out at the Fort Canning site in the late 1980s. This chapter traces the involvement of the general public and especially student volunteers in the excavations. Late in the second decade of the twenty-first century, archaeology was

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

13

introduced to the public in a big way, especially in conjunction with the celebration of the Singapore Bicentennial event in 2019. Challenges and opportunities remain for the development of the discipline in Singapore, as the subject is still not recognized as a formal unit of study in schools and excavation and storage efforts are undertaken in an ad hoc way, among other difficulties. In the last decades of the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty-first century, archaeology became increasingly important in the understanding and writing of premodern Singapore history. In this process, terrestrial archaeology featured more prominently than its maritime counterpart. Chapter 9, “How Maritime Archaeology can Contribute to the Learning of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Singapore History on Schools” by M. Flecker and T. Sim, makes a case for maritime archaeology in the telling of the premodern Singapore story specifically from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and ends with conjectures about the potential of the subfield. Shipwrecks of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries could contribute to the telling of the story of Singapore in that era, even though evidence might be indirect. The case studies discussed in the essay are the: (1) Binh Thuan Wreck (c. 1608), (2) Wanli Wreck (c. 1625), (3) Vung Tau Wreck (c. 1690), and (4) Ca Mau Wreck (c. 1730). The shipwrecks give a general picture and good snapshot idea of the ports, traders, and commodities interacting during the period. Beyond the period discussed, good use can be made of the maritime artifacts on display in Museum at the Empress Place and the Maritime Museum at Sentosa. Overall, the “up” and “down” periods of Singapore history have a role to play in the consideration and study of the longue durée development of the city-state. The multidisciplinary archaeological field school mooted in J. Miksic and G. Y. Goh’s chapter is expounded in detail in Chapter 10, entitled “Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools” by K. Latinis. Culminating from the collaboration with Nalanda University and sponsored by Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the school offered a model of anthropological/archaeological training for interested participants in the ASEAN region in flexible multidisciplinary subfields of knowledge and skills. Engagement could take a variety of forms, as discussed in the essay, from small assignments based on exploring a heritage site to overseas study trips and involvement in professional projects (that were awarded certificates). In the Singapore context—given the relative lack of emphasis, framework, and infrastructure linking to the practice of archaeology and the ancient history of the island—the school’s role stood out significantly amidst other real challenges such as building teaching skills, given the scarcity of relevant skills in the region, and crafting an authentic program centered on learners and participants rather than merely following a formula. That said, the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre (NSC) model was one of the most promising programs before its hiatus from 2009 to 2018. Chapter 11, entitled “A Case Study of the Incorporation of Museum-Based Fieldtrips in the Teaching of Ancient Singapore History: Teacher Reflection and Student Learning” by L. Yeo, S. Samsudin, E. Sani, C. Heng, and T. Sim, documents the systematic and deep incorporation of archaeological and museum sources in the teaching and learning of the ancient history of Singapore in the schools that participated in the project. More than advocating for the use of such sources in teaching,

14

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

the authors show how the linking of stakeholders within and outside the Networked Learning Community (NLC) demonstrated the multiple benefits of close collaboration. The outcomes of the experience are discussed for the teachers, in terms of their motivation and participation in NLC, and for the students, in terms of ascertaining their familiarity with the ceramic shards as a way of determining their engagement with material culture, which has long been promoted in archaeology. The trialing of various initiatives, whether in the form of incorporation of material evidence in teaching and learning, real-time sharing of good practices in NLC, or collaboration with stakeholders in documenting the process, certainly set a firm ground for the wider implementation of existing programs or future experimentation in new projects.

1.4.5 Section 3: Case Studies in the Field: Mono and Multidisciplinary Dimensions Chapter 12, “Visiting Sites of War Commemoration in Singapore: How Visiting War Memorials Can Contribute to Learning About the Past for Trainers and Trainees” by J. Kwok, shows the results of the staff ride methodology (used in universities and military colleges) to help participants in academic or military courses come to a deeper appreciation of war commemoration sites in Singapore. The characteristics of W. G. Robertson’s (1987) staff ride are that it: (1) it has three phases, (2) it involves many relevant places of visit, (3) it incorporates a reflection on-site, and (4) in today’s context involves a Socratic-inquiry or role-playing approach.7 When the staff ride was undertaken by military officers of the Goh Keng Swee Command and Staff College, the participants were inducted to appreciate the later phases of Singapore’s defense until the point of surrender at the Former Ford Factory. Participants were assigned to role-play key personages such as Winston Churchill and Hideki Tojo and locate themselves in the larger strategic environment of Asia on the eve of 1942, which permitted them to simulate the decision-making process that drove these leaders at a critical time. The “learning journey” mooted at the beginning of the chapter led students to understand one (national) perspective of the commemoration. The study tours to Gallipoli demonstrated that a deeper appreciation could be attained in the commemoration if on-site reflection was elicited from participants as well as academic instructors. Chapter 13, “Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban Settlement in Southeast Asian History: A Walk About Town Following a 19th Century Map” by T. Sim, has part of its focus on aspects of urban history and the history of technology in a course on the colonial history of Southeast Asia. The course enabled students to go on a walk around Singapore using an 1860 map. Students were encouraged to take measurements of objects and structures on the trip as well as utilize photographs and 7A

dialectical method of inquiry and debate by means of a carefully constructed series of leading questions to arrive at logical responses and to stimulate rational thinking.

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

15

paintings (and associated visual methodologies) to analyze traits and developments of the town as a corollary to studying the rise of the British in Southeast Asia. Students were also encouraged to engage in discourses beyond history, in heritage studies, in order to better understand past developments in the context of their change and continuity with contemporary society. T. Sim’s second chapter, Chapter 14 entitled, “Combining Text and Travel in the Studying of the Dutch East Indies: Incorporating Fieldtrips in the Teaching of a History Course on Southeast Asia,” details how the teaching of certain courses on Southeast Asian history at the National Institute of Education (Singapore) has focused on the Malay Archipelago and over the years integrated visits to cities and towns in Indonesia (such as Jakarta, Makassar, Banda Aceh, and Kupang (via Dili)), a politically and culturally complex region. The travels were undertaken to assist in the teaching of themes—such as the extent to which Dutch colonialism evolved overseas and/or the degree to which indigenous or diasporic/intermediate groups adapted in collaborating with or resisting the Dutch colonial encroachment—and assisting students with the understanding of these themes. In the chapter, connections are made between general or niche knowledge in secondary textual sources on the East Indies and what is observed in the fieldtrips. The discussion engages a broad approach embracing field observations and appreciation of heritage beyond the limited coverage of history, which can help participants mitigate the vestiges of time and better understand the past in the context of contemporary society. Chapter 15, “Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage Space Through Geographical Fieldwork” by D. Das and T. Seow, focuses on the changing meanings of space over time in the heritage site of Little India through inquiry-based fieldwork involving student-teachers. Sensory observation, neighborhood walks, and visual methods such as photo taking were utilized on-site. For their two field studies, the authors drew on their conceptual framework based on Henri Lefebvre’s (1991) The Production of Space and right to the city and Nihal Perera’s (2016) conceptual understanding of meanings of public space and vernacular uses in the context of the Global South. The main thesis of their conceptual framework is that the meanings of spaces are shaped and (re)produced by multiple players (not by the dominant power alone) and involve interactions, conflicts, and negotiations that transcend political territorial boundaries. The fieldwork examples affirm that Little India as a place goes beyond the state definition of a tourist space for the consumption of Indian culture. It is a place of diverse, texturized, and complex meanings for its diverse user groups who live and work within its space. It is also a place with changing special meanings and uses over time. Chapter 16, entitled “‘A Sense of Place’: Understanding Fieldtrips Through CrossDisciplinary Perspectives” by C. E. Loh, T. Seow, and C. Rajah, makes a strong case for cross- or multidisciplinary inquiry-based fieldwork in place-based education. Place-based education is about helping learners understand their world and its inhabitants so that more place-conscious decisions can be made to care for the place and its communities. The authors stress that a cross-disciplinary exploration of a single place like Toa Payoh can extend or broaden learners’ perspectives beyond the unique perspectives provided by individual disciplines and bring about new and

16

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

holistic ways of looking at and experiencing places and deepening learners’ sense of place. Learners also develop competencies for interpretation of places that allow for layered, complex, and critical understandings. Although the authors acknowledge that single visits may not build the sense of place that comes from repeated visits and lived experiences, they argue that cross-disciplinary collaborations are necessary in a complex and interconnected world. Chapter 17, entitled “A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary Trips—A Summative Reflection” by K. Chatterjea, sets out to convince that it is possible to combine a main subject discipline with a secondary discipline in a fieldtrip in which the former is assessed more formally. The discussion is located in the context of outdoor education. The author provides advice to increase the probability of such trips: (1) be flexible in planning and teaching such trips, (2) make the entire journey and every moment a chance to acquaint students with disciplines and cultures, (3) get fellow instructors on the trip to come to a common understanding that multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary collaboration in a course is possible and not something to be assumed, and (4) adopt technological devices and aids, for example mGeo, that can assist in the collection of data relevant to the discipline(s). The chapter unravels four sub-case studies spanning different areas of study that look into aspects of conservation, environment, and historical issues—specifically, the protection and conservation of forests, tigers, tribal groups, and forts in the context of the terrain under study.

1.5 Sum-up This edited volume began with a chance invitation from the Office of Education Research and Springer for participants at the briefing session to put up a proposal for an entry in their Singapore education series. In a world where technology is rapidly advancing and paradigms in human and societal sciences are gradually shifting, there is increasing advocacy for learning approaches, whether embedded in the disciplines or highlighted as a pedagogical approach, to engage learners more closely. This volume contains a variety of essays on fieldwork by humanities and social science teacher educators and specialists such as historians, geographers, archaeologists, literature educator and even a philosopher. The essays, whether they involve a fieldtrip or fieldwork, and whether they engage a combination of disciplines, pedagogies, or levels of learner, aim to discover how lessons outside the classroom can be conducted in a more immersive or effective way. Barring brief references to augmented reality/virtual reality or problems relating to technology while on fieldwork, the essays are grouped with respect to the application of particular pedagogical approaches, application of anthropological and archaeological approaches, or the nature and number of disciplines (mono- to interdisciplinary) involved in the particular study.

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

17

References Adler, M. (1976). Great ideas from great books. Washington, DC: Washington Square Press. Aldridge, J., & Goldman, R. (2007). Current issues and trends in education. Boston: Pearson. Apple, M. W., & Teitelhaum, K. (2001). John Dewey. In J. A. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty major thinkers on education: From Confucius to Dewey (pp. 195–198). New York: Routledge. Arnold, J. (2006). History: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Au, W. (2007). High stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. Bahn, P. (2012). Archaeology: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bhunia, P. (2017). Singapore government exploring the use of virtual reality for school education and enhanced clinical training. Open Gov News. Retrieved from: https://www.opengovasia.com/ singapore-government-exploring-the-use-of-virtual-reality-for-school-education-and-enhancedclinical-training/. Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., & Conchie, S. (2007). Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 299–317. Bruce, S. (2018). Sociology: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burrows, M. (2012). Global trends 2030: Alternative worlds. Washington, DC: US Intelligence Council. Chew, E. (2008). Views, values and perceptions in geographical fieldwork in Singapore schools. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(4), 307–329. Collen, A. (2002). Disciplinarity in the pursuit of knowledge. In G. Minati & E. Pessa (Eds.), Emergence in complex, cognitive, social, and biological systems (pp. 285–296). Boston: Springer. Cook, V. (2008). The field as a ‘pedagogical resource’? A critical analysis of students’ affective engagement with the field environment. Environmental Education Research, 14(5), 507–517. Drucker, J. (2013). Intro to digital humanities. UCLA (University of California). Retrieved from: http://dh101.humanities.ucla.edu/?page_id=13. Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gerber, R., & Goh, K. C. (Eds.). (2000). Fieldwork in geography: Reflections, perspectives and actions. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gorman, M. (1998). The structured inquiry is not a contradiction in terms. Teaching History, 92, 20–28. Han, L. F., & Foskett, N. H. (2007). Objectives and constraints in geographical fieldwork: Teachers’ attitudes and perspectives in senior high schools in Taiwan. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 16(1), 5–20. Just, P. (2000). Social and cultural anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 116–123. Lai, K. C. (1999). Freedom to learn: A study of the experiences of secondary school teachers and students in a geography fieldtrip. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8(3), 239–255. Lai, K. C. (2000). Affective-focused geographical fieldwork: What do adventurous experiences during fieldtrips mean to pupils? In R. Gerber & K. C. Goh (Eds.), Fieldwork in geography: Reflections, perspectives and actions (pp. 145–171). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lazarakou, E. (2008). Empathy as a tool for historical understanding: An evaluative approach to the ancient Greek primary history curriculum. International Journal of Social Education, 23(1), 27–50. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Markham, T. (2011). Project based learning. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 38–42. Matthews, J., & Herbert, D. (2008). Geography: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miksic, J. (2013). Singapore and the silk road of the sea, 1300–1800. Singapore: NUS Press.

18

T. Y. H. Sim et al.

MOE. (2013). Geography syllabus, upper secondary. Retrieved from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/ docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/humanities/files/2013-geography-syllabus(upper-secondary)4f5a5c38f22f6eceb9b0ff0000fcc945.pdf. Munday, P. (2008). Teacher perceptions of the role and value of excursions in years 7–10 geography education in Victoria, Australia. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(2), 146–169. Oost, K., De Vries, B., & Van der Schee, J. A. (2011). Enquiry-driven fieldwork as a rich and powerful teaching strategy: School practices in secondary geography education in the Netherlands. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 20(4), 309–325. Perera, N. (Ed.). (2016). People’s spaces: Coping, familiarizing, creating. London: Routledge. Rexroth, K. (2019, October). Literature. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from: https://www.bri tannica.com/art/literature. Roberts, M. (1996). Teaching styles and strategies. In A. Kent, D. Lambert, M. Naish, & F. A. Slater (Eds.), Geography in education: Viewpoints on teaching and learning (pp. 231–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, M. (2003). Learning through enquiry: Making sense of geography in the key stage 3 classroom. Sheffield: The Geographical Association. Roberts, M. (2013). Learning through enquiry: Approaches to teaching and learning in the secondary school. Sheffield: The Geographical Association. Robertson, W. G. (1987). The staff ride. Washington, DC: US Amy Centre of Military History. Savenije, G. M., & de Bruijn, P. (2017). Historical empathy in a museum: Uniting contextualisation and emotional engagement. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(9), 832–845. Schmidt, H. G. (1983). Problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17(1), 11–16. Singapore Examinations and Assessment Branch (SEAB). (2013). Geography GCE Ordinary Level Syllabus 2236. Retrieved from: https://www.seab.gov.sg/docs/default-source/national-examinati ons/syllabus/olevel/2019syllabus/2236_2019.pdf. Sobel, D. (2005). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and communities. Great Barrington: Orion Society. Stoddard, J. (2018). Learning history beyond school. In S. Metzger & L. Harris (Eds.), The wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 631–651). Hoboken: Wiley. Tan, G. C. I. (2017). Reconceptualising experiential learning in the pre-service geography fieldwork module. In O. S. Tan, W. C. Liu, & E. L. Low (Eds.), Teacher education in the 21st century: Singapore’s evolution and innovation (pp. 155–171). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. Terras, M. (2011). Quantifying digital humanities. UCLA (University of California). Retrieved from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/melissa-terras/DigitalHumanitiesInfographic.pdf. The Straits Times. (2017, April 14). National museum of Singapore uses augmented reality to tell building’s history. Retrieved from: https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/arts/national-museumof-singapore-uses-augmented-reality-to-tell-buildings-history. The Straits Times. (2019, January 28). Take a walk down AR trail to experience Singapore’s past. Retrieved from: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-bicentennialtake-a-walk-down-ar-trail-to-experience-singapores-past. Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 237–248). New York: Macmillan. VanSledright, B., & Maggioni, L. (2016). Epistemic cognition in history. In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 128–146). New York: Routledge. Yilmaz, C., & Bilgi, M. (2011). Propective teachers’ view on geography fieldworks. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 11(2), 978–983. Youngblood, D. (2006). Interdisciplinary studies and the bridging disciplines: A matter of process. Journal of Research Practice, 3(2), 1–6.

1 A Brief Discussion of Issues and Summaries of Chapters

19

Teddy Y. H. Sim (FRHistS) is currently lecturing at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He has published on specific involvements of the Portuguese in the East. He is the author of Portuguese Enterprise in the East: Survival in the Years 1707-57 and editor of Piracy and Surreptitious Activities in the Malay Archipelago and Adjacent Seas 1600-1840 and Maritime Defence of China: Ming General Qi Jiguang and Beyond. Teddy is passionate about fieldtrips in his history courses on South and Southeast Asia. His courses usually feature a local or overseas trip that facilitates as part of the overall study and exploration. Hwee Hwang Sim is a lecturer in the Humanities and Social Studies Education (HSSE) Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU). Presently, she teaches Primary Social Studies Education to the degree and post-graduate student teachers. She also teaches Action Research for Social Studies Teachers at master level. She received her BA from the National University of Singapore and her MA (in Instructional Design and Technology) and her PhD (in Education) from NIE, NTU. Prior to her NIE appointment, she was a secondary school teacher in Geography and English, a specialist writer in the Secondary Geography Project Team with the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore, the Ministry of Education, and later a curriculum specialist in the Secondary Geography Unit in the Curriculum Planning and Development Division in the same ministry. She became the Head of Department (Humanities) in a secondary school after her stint in the ministry. Her research areas are in mentoring, teacher learning, and education in primary social studies and geography. Geok Chin Ivy Tan is an Associate Professor at the Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group in the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She has taught as a geography teacher and has been the Head of the Humanities Department in secondary schools. She has also been a Gifted Educational Specialist in the Ministry of Education. She has authored two books: Group Investigation and Student Learning: An Experiment in Singapore Schools (2006, published by Marshall Cavendish) and Organizing Schools for Productive Learning (2008, published by Springer). Presently, she serves as a steering committee member of the International Geographical Union Commission on Geographical Education, a regional representative of the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education, and an executive committee member of the South East Asian Geography Association.

Part I

Pedagogical Frameworks, Practices and Perceptions

Chapter 2

Educating the Philosopher-Leader: Fieldtrips, Outdoors, and Wonder Soo Meng Jude Chua

Abstract Leaders need to be able to think well. Leaders of organizations make decisions that affect the lives of people within the organization, as well as the lives of people who are affected externally by the organization. The way they deliberate and the ideas that they have can do a whole lot of good, or a whole lot of harm. So making sure they are people who think well is important. In this chapter, the author explores what it might mean to think well in terms of the sophisticated grasp of the essences of things over which one might have charge. The author then discusses educational processes that can facilitate the development of such thinking via the historical return to the originary Greek experience. Specifically, the author considers what can help comport the leader to think soundly about important things and concepts, and how fieldtrips involving the engagement with nature (physis) in the outdoors, leading to the experience of wonder (thaumazein), can contribute to that comportment. This essay also retrieves the Greek notion of Being as physis and its relationship to thaumazein, and employs resources in Thomism to engage Heidegger’s readings of the Greeks. “As the Philosopher says, a little error in the beginning leads to distortions of great proportions at the end.” —Thomas Aquinas “Wonder is the arche (translated: beginning) of philosophy…but arche means not mere starting off, but that comportment that accompanies the philosophizing to the end.” —Martin Heidegger “…Nature is never spent; There lies the dearest freshness deep down things…” —Gerard Manley Hopkins

2.1 Introduction: Leaders, Organizations, and Thinking We are all familiar with organizations—very likely we function in one. It is your place of employment—the company you belong to, or school, or University. Or it S. M. J. Chua (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_2

23

24

S. M. J. Chua

is the club or society you go to during leisure. You also interact with these on a daily basis: your bank, the coffee chain, the restaurant, or the mall… Someone made some decisions about that organization so that it is what it is, and it affects how you experience it, and how it relates to you. These decision-makers who influence these organizations at different levels, I call “leaders.” Leaders need to be able to think well. Leaders of organizations make decisions that affect the lives of people within the organization, as well as the lives of people who are affected externally by the organization. The way they deliberate and the ideas that they have can do a whole lot of good, or a whole lot of harm. So making sure they are people who think well is important. In this chapter, I explore what it might mean to think well, and what educational processes facilitate the development of such thinking. Specifically, I consider what can help comport the leader to think soundly about important things and concepts, and how fieldtrips involving the engagement with nature in the outdoors, leading to the experience of wonder, can contribute to that comportment.

2.2 Thinking the Essence of Things The idea that the person in charge should think well is not new. The Greek philosopher Plato had early on suggested that any best society would put a professional thinker in charge of the community as its leader. In the Republic, Plato (1958) proposes a way of organizing society that has the philosopher-king at the top of the political hierarchy directing the rest of the community. The plan was that the philosopher, who had the knowledge of the essential idea of things would be in a position to lead the rest of society to reproduce or recognize the best versions of these things, and everyone would be better off. Knowing the essential idea or “essence” in short, includes knowing what is the shape or form of the best version of that thing. A question regarding the essence of anything answers to the question, “what is it?” Amonge the things that one enquires after includes also the essence of the “good”: what is the “good?” For the Greeks, therefore, the philosopher’s knowledge embraced the essences of all things, including that of the “good.” This was important because it suggested that if the philosopher was to direct the community, he could draw not only on his knowledge of the essences of things, but also rely on his knowledge of (the essence of) the good. Implicitly then, for Plato, the philosopher’s knowledge of essences was employed not only in the promotion of best versions of things, but most crucially, also with a view to the promotion of the good. Thus, although the knowledge of essences would sound to our modern ears to be the study of what things are abstract from normative questions, for the Greeks it would have been a shorthand for the study of what things are and (because including) what the good is. And whatever it is one thinks about putting a professional philosopher in charge, the more general idea in The Republic is undoubtedly a sound one: whoever is in charge ought to be able to “think the essences” of things, that is: to know what

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

25

things are, and to know what the good is. Then, he or she can direct the organization toward the best versions of things with a view to achieving the good. In the light of this, it is fortunate that discussions in the literature of organizational leadership have shifted toward thinking about the essences of things, with a view to informing considerations of the ethical and the good. We can trace this trend in work by James G. March and collaborators. March has for some time argued that leaders and decision-makers at organizations need to address the presence of what he calls a “logic of consequence.” Quite simply, a logic of consequence focuses the leader on the targeted end or goal. Nothing wrong with that in itself, except for the worry that the obsession with targets becomes the only kind of logic that rules. We would say then that there is a dominance of the logic of consequence. Such dominance of the logic of consequence then risks the displacement of other different ways forms of thinking. These other forms of think may not be focused on the consequences, but are nevertheless ethical ways of thinking. (see March & Weil, 2005, pp. 85–86) As an alternative, March has paid quite some attention to what he calls a “logic of appropriateness,” which is a way of thinking that appeals to what is appropriate to the nature or essence of a thing. This means that, rather than think about what produces the best consequences, one should instead consider what the duties related to our being that thing are, and what therefore is appropriate for us to do. Quite importantly, some ethical intuitions we have fit better this logic of appropriateness, rather than the logic of consequence. So for example, somethings we think certain things need to be done, or certain behaviors are appropriate, whatever the consequences may be. Sometimes you need to do the right thing even if it makes you unpopular down the road, for example. Or, if you are a judge then you must act impartially, even if at the personal level you have a bias on an issue, and would prefer a contrary outcome. March’s much-preferred example is Don Quixote of the great Spanish classic Don Quixote de la Mancha, written by Miguel Cervantes. In the story the partly deluded Don Quixote goes on an adventure-seeking knighthood and along the way does more harm than good to those he sought to help. Although Don Quixote quite often messes up from the point of view of the logic of consequence, March suggests he still instantiates something which we need to value. Don Quixote appeals to the logic of appropriateness to warrant his actions and motives: “I am a knight, it is a duty proper to a knight to be chivalrous, and therefore it is appropriate for me as a knight to do these things.” For March, Don Quixote is intuitively charming because he reflects our own intuitive sense that there are important duties in life proper to our roles and which are fitting to fulfill in accordance with our essence (ibid.).

2.3 Difficulties in Discerning the Essence Even then, the consideration of what the essence or nature of something or some role might be, in order to discern duties appropriate to it, quickly runs into some difficulties. Consider the recent attempt by March to contemplate what the essence of “education” is. March ventures on the nature or essence of education in order

26

S. M. J. Chua

to discern, on behalf of the educational leader, what is appropriate to education to promote, facilitate and to aim for. March and Augier (2008, pp. 407–408) points out the importance of learning in order to experience the aesthetics of knowledge, and offers such an aesthetic goal as part of the essence of education. The idea is intuitively attractive. Still the question is begged: “how does one really know the essence of education?” One way to discern the essence of education is of course to identify, by critical reflective thinking, what is common across all instances of what might be called “education.” This way of thinking is also called adduction. This means that one thinks through all that which can be called education, and tries to collect those things which are true of all these “educational” phenomena. This recalls what used to be described as the Bedford Way School of philosophy of education, styled by philosophers of education several of whom hailed from the Institute of Education, London at Bedford Way (see Halpin, 2007, p. 123). Although this is not altogether an indefensible approach, there are at least two issues which diminish the attractiveness of this approach to thinking about the essence of education. Firstly, the worrying tendency is that as one gathers all the instances of what one might think is “education” and tries to discern and abstract the common denominator qualities or properties across all these instantiations of “education,” there is a good chance that what can be found across all these instances turn out to be rather uninsightful and rather trivial. The other objection, which is more serious, is that, in spite of our presumption that there may be such a common property or set of properties across all that we characterize as “education,” the truth may well be that there is in fact none, and so the quest for the essence of education is in fact a wild goose chase. The illusion that there may be such a kind of common denominator may well have been advanced fallaciously by the nature of the notion of education—that “education” is at the end of the day what Wittgenstein calls a “family resemblance concept.” This means to say that the concept of education is a loosely tethered collection of properties. The instances of what we think qualifies as “education” are merely analogues related to each other by some form of association. In this case, some collections of these instances may share several or some common traits but it may well remain true that at the end of the day, there are in fact no common traits across all the instantiations of “education.”

2.4 On the Focal Meaning Does this mean therefore that the project to discern the essence of “education” is doomed? Not quite. It is precisely in relation to these worries that the development of focal meanings becomes relevant. In this regard we have the benefit of more than three decades of reflection since John Finnis’ esteemed Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980). It is to that Aristotelian-Thomistic work that this paper’s discussion of focal meanings is indebted.

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

27

The focal meaning is a more sophisticated way to think about the essence of something that also answers to the question “what is that thing?” It does so by surfacing select instantiations of that thing rather than by merely collecting common attributes of that thing. To understand what the “focal meaning” is, imagine yourself having to choose an “apple” from among a basket of apples. The apples that come in that basket come in different colors (some red, some green, some with black streaks…) and are of varying quality and freshness. Some you expect to be crunchy and others are soft, and some seem flawless whereas a few are rotten. Some have pesticides sprayed all over whereas others appear to be “organic” apples. You would not say that any of these are not apples. At the same time, if you had to have an apple, you would have to choose, and evaluate these options. You would think through what matters most in an apple, and you might refer to that kind of apple you had in mind as the “good apple,” and which of these apples instantiated these things which you think are important for a good apple to have. Certainly you would not imagine for one moment that all the good things you had in mind are instantiated in all the apples. Further, you may search through the lot and also find that that there is no one apple which in fact captures all that you think belongs to that good apple. Yet if you had a chance to grow apples with all the technologies available to you, you might wish to be able to design and construct, and of course, cultivate that good apple you had in mind. The development of the focal meaning is just like this. One thinks through all the instantiations of that concept and chooses from among these possibilities what might constitute that good “what-ever” you were thinking about (see Finnis, 1980, pp. 3–19). So let us consider the strategy of developing the focal meaning of a concept like say “education,” and see how the two objections are overcome. Recall that the identification of the focal meaning proceeds not by collecting common properties across all instances of what is “education” but rather by selecting what from among the instantiations of “education” best qualifies as “education” in order to constitute an important and thus central definition that is more significant in comparative relation to the other (now) less significant and hence peripheral definitions. Meaning: one thinks through what is education, and thinks about all that which we might call education, in order to sort out what might be from among these the “education” that one considers significant and focal. As one does so, one would not be trying to locate what across all which is called education is commonly true (as said earlier, there might be none!). Rather one thinks about what are those educational goals and processes that are important to include for such a very notion of “education.” As we start to populate our description of such a notion of “education” with what are important educational goals and processes, we might soon realize that our concept may not currently enjoy instantiation in all educational phenomenon. That would be fine, because we are not after the common things in all of “education.” Good that we are not doing that too, since there may well be no such collection of things that are common, or if there were, there might be very few and very banal. The latter, if you recall, is a common criticism of the development of definitions by adductive critical thinking. But that is not what we are doing, and so we are immune to this objection. Quite the contrary, from the outset we have intentionally sought to populate our

28

S. M. J. Chua

notion of “education” with truly important things, goals and processes, with a view to arriving at an illuminating and significant concept of “education.” Second, it is this focal concept of education that one might then put up as the exemplar, based on which we can draw inferences to guide our thinking about what education ought to be, and what is proper and appropriate to do given the essence and nature of this concept of education, this focal meaning of education. In this way, the focal meaning of education then supplies educational leaders with insights about what is proper to educational decision-making, as March wishes it would, in order to signal ideas, ends, values and moral duties that might for one reason or other be ignored, displaced, or simply forgotten. Our concept of education then becomes a critical concept, useful for interrogating educational phenomenon that fail to instantiate its qualities and form.

2.5 On the Important Things All well and good. However, in order to develop such a focal meaning, still another question needs to be answered. In order for me to discern and differentiate the focal from the peripheral meanings of education, I need to know what is good and bad, important and unimportant. What are the things or states of affairs that are good, or are important to have and seek? Surely if any notion of education is focal and important, it would be one that would in some way relate with these important things. After all, as my mind turns around and about the concept of education, it should be appreciating and focusing on that notion which educates for goods or states of affairs that are important. So if knowledge is important, it would make sense to think of education that supports knowing. Conversely, if knowledge is important, a conception of education that completely fails to mention education’s relationship with knowledge would be very dissatisfactory. Here is another way to think about it. When one thinks of the sense of “education” that is significant to reflect on, one of the first questions that come to mind is: “what is education for?” Or, we might ask, “what purpose does education serve?” Quite naturally, these issues concern “education” and we think about them in relation to the concept. Let us think about it for one moment. Many different kinds of answers can be given. But what would be the answer you would give, specifically for a notion of “education” that matters? What do you think is a good answer? The answer that you will give will likely very much depend on what you think matters for education to serve. Do you think money is important? Then perhaps education is for giving you the ability to earn lots of money. What if you think knowledge is important? Then perhaps part of your answer would include the suggestion that education also serves the purpose of helping you acquire knowledge. Finally, if like March you think beauty must somehow feature as an important good, then you might suggest that education ought to enable its students not only to make money and acquire knowledge, but also develop the capability to appreciate the beauty of what has been learnt, or to learn how to create beautiful things…and so on.

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

29

A useful way to visualize this is to draw perhaps a box in the center of a sheet of paper leaving some margins at both sides, and to label it “education.” The task is to populate this box with key ideas that for you represent what is truly important when one thinks about the concept. What will you put or write into the box? “Education” means many things to many people, and there are some things that you don’t agree with or think are really trivial things that people think about when they talk about education. You can write these things outside the box in the margins or the periphery. But what else is education about, and of these, what do you think we need to focus our attention on, think about, discuss, debate?….You can put these into words and populate the box. Obviously education does many things—perhaps write curriculums, run classrooms, build schools…etc., and these things are done to achieve certain ends or goals. Which goals matter? And which processes, which doings, leading to these goals, also therefore matter? You could put them inside the box. What you slowly put into the box to populate the box with would be those important meanings that you would attach to the concept. In sum, our sense of what truly matters will steer our notion of what “education” ought to develop or transmit or communicate…in or to our students. What we think are truly important things will be that which we will want to detail in our focal meaning of “education.” Of course, saying this, one hopes that one is not misinformed about what is important. But what if I had certain biases or prejudices? Or maybe I was too attached to particular preferences? These scenarios could cloud my sense of what is important, and the result is that I might well identify certain values as goods when in fact they are not. Or I might fail to identify those values that truly are goods since I do not consider them. These considerations suggest that perhaps it is more accurate to say not that we should let our sense of what truly matters steer our notion of “education,” but rather that we should let a sound sense of what truly matters steer our notion of what truly matters. In that case, it would not just be a matter of consulting one’s own feelings about what one subjectively desires as important. Rather it would be more objective to consult what reason had to say about what truly matters. John Finnis’ Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) sought to offer such a sound account of what those important things are according to reason. In his account, reason can identify at least seven unique kinds of goods that are good in themselves. If we are to develop a focal concept of education, we ought to relate education in various ways with these goods. We would perhaps develop a definition of education that teaches students to enjoy these goods. The definition could expand on pedagogical strategies given latest research evidence and contexts, but at the least the reflection and discussion should connect up with a discussion of these goods. Finnis calls these goods “basic goods”. They are at least seven: knowledge, friendship, life, skillful play, aesthetic experience, religion and practical reasonableness (Finnis, 1980, pp. 64–89). This theory of basic goods is influenced by the ethical theory of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. According to Aristotle, the mind has two sets of foundational rational principles based on which it thinks intelligently. There are the (a) first principles of speculative reason, which guide our rational operations when we are

30

S. M. J. Chua

primarily interested to know what the truth of things is. These first principles of speculative reason include the principle of non-contradiction and the principle of identity. However, when thinking about what one ought to do, another set of first principles are operative and give guidance. These are (b) the first principles of practical reason, which identify valuable ends worth seeking. These first principles of practical reason are also called the “natural law,” a fitting label given by the medieval Aristotelian commentator Thomas Aquinas who saw in these rational principles a providential source of natural rules giving man governance over himself. Finnis adopts that phrase, “the natural law,” when referring to Aristotle’s first principles of practical reason, as much as he retrieves and builds on the thought of Aquinas. Hence, the natural law identifies for man the important and valuable ends he ought to seek just as he is thinking practically: Aquinas asserts as plainly as possible that the first principles of natural law, which specify the basic forms of good and evil and which can be adequately grasped by anyone of the age of reason (and not just by metaphysicians), are per se nota (self-evident) and indemonstrable. They are not inferred from speculative principles…When discerning what is good and to be pursued, intelligence is operating in a different way, yielding a different logic, from when it is discerning what is the case (historically, scientifically, or metaphysically); …[and] there is no good reason for asserting that the latter operations of intelligence are more rational than the former. (Finnis, 1980, pp. 33–34)

2.6 Textolatry, Showing, and Hidden-Ness Thinking about the precepts of the natural law identifying basic goods is a philosophical reflection. One can read a relevant text to inform one’s philosophical reflection. Besides Finnis’ Natural Law and Natural Rights, there are books and journal papers for that purpose, which are not to be ignored. Nevertheless, the reading of texts—of the word-sign—can be complicated by what might be called “textolatry”. The notion of “textolatry” is borrowed from Vílem Flusser (2000). That means that for a variety of reasons the text does not point well. While it is meant to signal something, the signaling fails to reach that intended goal. There is a kind of idolatry of the text here. An idol seeks to point to a deity, but somehow fails to and ends up pointing back at itself or something else. Similarly textolatry refers to the way in which the text does not sign the intended ideas well. I would suggest that theorizing on natural law theory is hindered by textolatry to some degree. A text is useful for articulating a proof. A string of clear and true propositions, well crafted and validly strung up, effectively entails a sound conclusion. But a text is less effective at changing and calibrating the comportment of the theorist so that he can better think about the natural law. In the case of the natural law, grasping the basic goods is as much a matter of entering a particular state of mind as it is to understand arguments. The reason is because the natural law is self-evident (per se nota) or not inferred and therefore cannot be demonstrably deduced. Instead, the natural law is grasped when one enters the “practical thinking” mode. This means that the theorist must be concerned about what he ought to seek and do, and be thinking with a view

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

31

to answering that practical question. Thinking practically means that one’s primary objective is not to know merely what the truth of things is, but to be interested in what should be pursued and done. It is that mode in which we ask: What ought we choose? What is choice-worthy? This is a very important aspect of the theory which is not well understood, and I would like to spend some time to unpack it. One way to think about understanding the natural law is to consider that the natural law has to be “shown.” I use the word “show” in the way the French philosopher and theologian Jean Luc Marion uses the word. It means “letting appearances appear in such a way that they accomplish their own apparition, so as to be received exactly as they give themselves,” (Marion, 2002, p. 7). The driving idea here is that as a theorist, I respect the way in which things appear and so calibrate myself in whatever way is needed so that the object of interest manifest itself in the way that it does. A useful analogy, is the appreciation of a Monet Water Lilies. This example is adapted from Marion’s discussion of anamorphosis in Being Given, of how “[a surface of] colored pigments…devoid of any recognizable form whatsoever…transforms itself in one fell swoop into a magnificent new form [when the gaze is moved to a precise and unique point]” (Marion, 2002, p. 123).

2.6.1 Consider the Water Lilies Claude Monet, the impressionist painter, interested as the impressionists were in capturing the fleeting play of light, painted a series of these. The impressionist style is characterized by bold and quick strokes of paint, creating an image that consists of spreading dabs of color. The result of this is a painting that does not reveal the subject matter very well unless viewed from an appropriate distance, where the colors merge and the subject matter, that is, the water lilies, become visible. One could say that then, and only then, do they “show,” or “give.” If a person, say someone viewing the Monet for the first time, were to be too close, he might just miss the water lilies and instead see an incoherent mess of colors. The curator would try to tell him that the water lilies are there, only that he is not appropriately distanced or comported in relation to the painting. He needs to recalibrate his distance, to get into the desirable range, and when he does, he will see. Notice here the painting does not change; rather the viewer alters something of himself, viz., his distance from the painting. Prior to the readjustment, we would say that, while the water lilies were there, he was not readied to see them; his epistemic condition did not fit him to receive the water lilies. In relation to the painting, one might say that it is anamorphic, which is to say that it cannot be seen or that it is not visible from any and every angle—or more generally, that it is not visible from any comportment willy nilly. There is a particular way to comport, or to relate to the phenomenon, and until that particular requirement is fulfilled, the phenomenon’s givings cannot be received or visible. I would suggest that the natural law is somewhat like the Water Lilies. This means that the theorist who is trying to grasp the natural law ought to function like someone trying to allow the natural law to “show.” Like the need to calibrate oneself so that

32

S. M. J. Chua

the Water Lilies can be given and be visible, so the natural law needs the agent to be in a certain appropriate comportment in order to be grasped. Specifically, the theorist needs to enter into practical thinking, and to not think merely speculatively. Meaning, he needs to relocate himself cognitively. In this sense the natural law is anamorphic: one cannot willy nilly insist on seeing the natural law while in the theoretical mode of thinking. For if he did, then the agent cannot grasp it. Like the painting, the natural law gives on its own terms. Just as the Monet must be received only at the appropriate distance determined by the painting (which is to say from afar and not too near), so to speak, so also the natural law can be grasped only when one enters into the appropriate mode of thinking (that is, practical rather than merely speculative). Calibrating toward the practical comportment for the natural law to show is to my mind a very important idea. For instance, Finnis has insisted that Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) is a work that expounds natural law, rather than a work about natural law (Finnis, 1980, p. 25). Fundamentals of Ethics follows up this point with opening chapters on the “radical practicality of ethics” (Finnis, 1983, p. 4), seeking to alert readers of the “lure of an incorrigibly contemplative conception of knowledge” (ibid., p. 2); that signals for me his recognition that there was always the danger that thinking about the natural law might risk ending up a merely speculative exercise, in which the first principles of practical reasoning were not enacted (Finnis, 1983, pp. 2–23). Whereas, Joseph Raz’s (2013, p. 20) “Menu of Questions” for the natural lawyer misunderstands the natural law theory on this very point. In that piece, Raz imagines that the natural law is the deliverance of speculative thinking, and so presses for a clear and distinct idea that is in some way logically compelling. John Finnis’ own response to Raz clearly brings out the nature of Raz’s misunderstanding: [NLNR] did not ‘invoke self-evidence to rebut scepticism’; or claim that self-evidence is ‘a source of knowledge’; or follow Descartes and suppose (as Raz counsels) that adequately understanding basic goods is a matter of ‘contemplating a clear and distinct idea’; or appeal to any ‘sense of certainty or feelings of self-evidence.’ (Finnis, 2013, p. 460)

The reference to Descartes signals the existence of an underlying misunderstanding that, like the Cartesian meditations, Finnis’ argument on behalf of the basic goods aims at establishing some kind of speculative indubitability of the precepts prescribing the choice-worthiness of the basic goods; it is symptomatic of a mistaken interpretation that confusedly compares the practical precepts of the natural law with indubitable speculative principles like the “cogito ergo sum,” which defy skepticism once it is clear that denying it leads to a kind of a self-contradiction (in this case, a performative kind), as would be the case when one denies the principle of noncontradiction. In short, the point that the precepts of the natural law are principles of practical reason, and not speculative first principles, and thus need to be shown by entering the practical comportment, escapes Raz. But Raz’s misreading of Finnis is perhaps symptomatic of another deeper problem, perhaps true of the majority of thinkers besides Raz. It is not just a matter of misreading what natural law theory says, as if a re-reading would address that. I suspect that issue has to do with the peculiar agency of the reader, so that even

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

33

when reread the ideas are inclined toward being misunderstood. Martin Heidegger had once worried about the entrenchment of a notion of “self-evidence” as a kind of propositional truth, whereas for him, truth was something to be located in experiences separate from the proposition. Whatever one makes of this Heideggerian insight, the more general point is that at certain epochs, we are inclined to certain habits which viciously obscure that which can otherwise be known. For this reason, quite apart from the good intentions of the theorist, the truth appears to be accompanied by some form of concealment; truth loves hide, as it were. Some such malady is possibly at work here: the natural law loves to hide. Notice how the inquiring discussion in his “Menu of Questions” gravitates toward the begging recommendation for a kind of Cartesian self-evident proposition. This indicates perhaps a certain philosophical habit which naturally assumes that what is to be reliably believed is to be sought in some propositional, linguistic structure that carries with it an irresistible speculative intelligibility, likened to the indubitable “cogito, ergo sum.” The “staying on the speculative” tends ironically to have been aggravated by the very dialectical defenses mustered by Finnis to fend off skepticism about the natural law, with a view to showing how natural law theory is not false. Thus when explaining how the good of truth is a self-evident basic good, it is argued that the denial of the good of truth leads to a performative self-contradiction (Finnis, 1980, pp. 74–75). A person who denies—seriously, that is, and not merely asserts whimsically—the good of truth, Finnis points out, is inconsistent with his own performance of seeking the good of the truth that “the good of truth is not a basic good”, for in so seeking this latter truth, he implicitly affirms that truth is worth seeking. Here the resemblance to the Cartesian first principle is even more acute! For the Cartesian first principle, that “there is thinking,” is considered invincibly reliable because doubting it still entails that one is thinking qua doubting. In which case, any proposal that one might not be thinking when so doubting is immediately contradicted by the fact that one is performatively still thinking by so doubting. Thus the claim to veracity on either side is fundamentally a claim of some kind of performative contradiction when the proposition is denied, entailing modus tollens that the proposition cannot be coherently denied, and so carries within itself some kind of invincible intelligibility. Sure: Finnis is very clear that this is merely a dialectical argument, meant specifically for warding off skeptical arguments about the good of truth, and not really a proof of the good of truth. Yet just by putting out such a dialectical defense, the invitation is for critics to evaluate and hence affirm or deny the speculative validity of the dialectical argument. But this means at once that the interlocutors are then locked into the speculative mode; they are led ironically, to “stay” in the speculative.

2.7 Fieldtrips: Nature (Physis) and Wonder (Thaumazein) From what we have seen, the employment of the textolatrous proposition quite comfortably “houses” the analytical bent in search of the speculative intelligibility of these propositions, when in fact it is the comportment toward practical thinking

34

S. M. J. Chua

that matters, in order to show the natural law. One way to overcome this “staying” in the speculative is to “distance” ourselves from that which hosts the problematic speculative tendencies we are trying to avoid. This can mean engaging in activities which are not primarily mediated by propositions. This does not mean one abandons the text altogether. What it does mean is that we should explore other experiential modes of inquiry to complement the reading and debating of propositional texts. But we would do even better if we not merely leave behind what hinders, but also find ourselves located in the midst of that which actively comports us well practically. It is in this sense that we should speak of “distancing”: at once leaving the mere employment of propositions and relocating ourselves or being led out (educere) into experiences that actively comport us practically. To harken back to the metaphor borrowed from Marion, by “distancing” we are calibrating to show that which can come into a view only when we are properly distanced. This distancing can mean: going outdoors, immersing ourselves in nature (physis), so that we can experience what Heidegger calls the originary Greek experience: that joyful wonder (thaumazein) when addressed by nature-which-emerges-and-passesaway-over-time. Let us unpack this suggestion. Going outdoors, getting to locations where one is suffused with and surrounded by nature means: to be engaged and addressed by nature, and to be relatedly awed and astonished by nature. Of course, it would do no good simply to lug our books out into the garden just so we can read there—here we have not really distanced. Tragically, we might have moved right into the same place: we have dragged along our propositions. This means therefore that more specifically, such “going outdoors” is a kind of fieldtrip. In a fieldtrip, our attention is directed at what phenomenon is in the field. And it is this manner of being outdoors that is relevantly useful for our purposes. Now, when one is on a fieldtrip, one may be asked to focus on specific kinds of field data. A fieldtrip focused on geological learning may require students to be attentive to geological artifacts out in the field. Another fieldtrip focused on architectural learning would focus on architectural artifacts. Different fieldtrips aimed at different learnings will encourage participants to focus their attention on whatever phenomenon is pedagogically relevant for that learning. Similarly, a fieldtrip relevant to leadership learning ought to be focused on nature (physis), among other things. Because: when we are addressed by nature in the outdoors, such as a landscape or animals or plants, all of which in their own way emerge and then pass away, one can be astonished by these. We can be astonished by the subject matter and fascinated by the subject matter. One has a sense of amazement. One is absorbed by one’s engagement with the subject matter. One is drawn toward it. It appeals to you, period. You develop an interest in it, period. That appeal and the interest has no other immediate utility. You are made attentive merely by this wonder (thaumazein)—you pay attention to the subject matter not because of any other typical consideration of its relevance or any other interest. Heidegger called this the “originary Greek experience,” believing that this was experienced by the early Greeks (see Capobianco, 2014a, 2014b). We can detail this somewhat, as we have elsewhere (Chua, 2018), overcoming Heidegger’s sometimes opaque prose. Some think such “wonder” to be merely an

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

35

emotion, like a curiosity, indeed a fear of ignorance. Elsewhere it has also been suggested that with thaumazein man began philosophical inquiry into knowing things for their own sake. indeed it would appear, if we dissect this, that thaumazein is essentially a proto-philosophical event which among other things, marks that point in our consciousness wherein we are able to achieve some measure of detachment and disentanglement from what drives our survival and biological needs and their way of relating our experience of the world. It is a detachment from what semioticians call “cathexis,” which is the perceptive stage that configures the world and its things merely in relation to our biological needs, characterizing them as beneficial, or as harmful, or as things we can safely ignore (Deely, 2009, p. 6). And there could well be emotions attendant or even consequent, whether fear or desire. Yet it remains that thaumazein signals that point where there is a kind of prior suspension of or fracturing of the imperative of desires that drive us to survive and to steer our thinking cathectically to relate our experiences primarily as useful, harmful, or irrelevant to our biological needs and survival. Because: only when there is the fracturing detachment from cathexis, can our attention better “listen” to the foregrounded prescription by our understanding to speculate about the truth of things. In which case the achievement of thaumazein ought not be restricted to the emergence of thinking in the speculative order, of knowing for its own sake, and ultimately the emergence of speculative science. After all, if thaumazein and its detachment from the compulsion of our sense appetites and preferences and their manner of relating the world to ourselves now allows our attention to fall on or be steered by the interest to seek knowledge for its own sake, then this is simply because that event we call thaumazein is, by way of the said detachment, allowing our attention to fall on or be steered by other interests or directives (the quest for knowledge being one of them) besides those relevant to our survival, whatever these other interests or directives may be. This suggests that where there are other intellectual principles or directives at play, these too would now be more visible to our consciousness. These other important first or basic principles in our minds would now foreground. These must include the first principles of practical reason, the natural law. Because: just as the compulsion to know instrumental facts for the sake of survival is loosened and backgrounded, and the quest to know for its own sake is therefore in its place foregrounded, so also, when we experience a greater detachment from other drives instrumental to our biological survival and related principally to our biological needs we then grasp more clearly the normative direction of the natural law or the first principles of practical reason—viz, the gentler but no less important direction to pursue other goods in life for their own sakes and as intelligible ends understood as terminal reasons for action and not as mere emotions or feelings. In a sense, the natural law is “shown,” in the same way the stars show when the brightness of the sun is dimmed. John Finnis, we recall, identified some of these goods: the good of knowledge, of life, of friendship, or the experience of beauty, or the skillful play in work or performance, or the need to experience a moral integration between one’s feelings and reason, or some kind of religious or overarching worldview, to name a few. In short, thaumazein, I think, does not just mark the stage of detachment that clears our way to pursue knowledge for its own sake; it also allows to be brought to

36

S. M. J. Chua

mind those various intelligible goods that makeup human flourishing and hence are worthy of our pursuit if we are to experience fulfillment apart from mere existence. Thaumazein comports us to show the natural law so that practical thinking yields the natural law. Thus comported, our discerning queries into what we ought to seek, i.e., our thinking in the practical mode, would better yield these intelligible goods as answers.

2.8 Physis-Thaumazein: A Neo-Thomistic Retrieval I had said earlier that our encounter with nature (physis) can spark that experience of wonder (thaumazein) with a passing reference to Martin Heidegger. Heidegger called it the originary Greek experience, viz the wonder (thuamazein) or astonishment (ers staunen) when addressed by physis, that leads to the thrust toward knowing for its own sake. For the recent attentiveness to the connection between physis and thaumazein, I draw heavily on Richard Capobianco’s helpful studies of Heidegger’s otherwise apparently pretentiously opaque ramblings about Being. It is Heidegger, as Capobianco’s reading points out, that most clearly reminds us of the way in which wonder follows from our engagement with Being taken as nature or physis, understood as the coming-into-presence-and-then-passing-away-of-things. (see Capobianco, 2014a, pp. 35–36) Capobianco’s (2014b, pp. 34–44) commentary on Heidegger is lucid on this point: We must endeavour, [Heidegger] tells us…to return to the “originary meaning of nature as physis” that prevailed in the ancient Greeks, and accordingly, this means understanding Nature-physis as the “emerging-and-letting-come-to-presence of what is present”…At the core of [the Greeks’] experience of physis ‘…is the overabundance, the excess of what presences. Here one should recall the anecdote of Thales: he is that person so struck by the overabundance of the world of the stars that we was compelled to direct his gaze towards the heavens alone. In the Greek climate, the human is so overwhelmed by the presence of what is present, that he is compelled to the question concerning what is present as what is present. The Greeks name the relation to his thrust of presence thaumazein [wonder, astonishment] (Heidegger, Four Seminars)’ Nature-physis-Being, is this “thrust of presence,” and we are astonished before the “overflow of presence”…Even in Plato and Aristotle, this remained the case, according to Heidegger…”

It is important to grasp that the overflowing or excess of that presencing of things refers not so much to the magnitude or volume of that thing which emerges before us, but refers instead to its infinitude in relation to a limiting meaning or meanings. It appears to escape the confines of our cognitive grasp. Hence Capobianco adds: Furthermore, the presence of things to us is never exhausted by meaning: a friend, the sea, the tree, the flower – all that present themselves to us – are always more than how we present them. Cezanne painted Mont Sainte-Victoire more than sixty times by several accounts, but never once did he think he had exhausted its showing, its manifestation. Similarly, we can never say enough about even one of Cezanne’s paintings of the mountains! All things show themselves to us and address us – again and again – and they are always more than their sense or meaning. Presence always exceeds, overflows, meaning and therefore is not reducible to meaning. (ibid., p. 42)

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

37

Thus, as things come into presence—say a flower entering full bloom, or a child emerging into a toddler from a mere infant—their presencing, their becoming more real and actual no doubt, yet also addressing us again and again, could inspire in us that sense of wonder. At other times, an aesthetic scenery coming into view, attractive and calling our attention, flooding our consciousness in succession and therefore yet another manner of the prescencing of physis—say the long stretch of sand set against the blue waves of a lagoon, or else the landscape of mountains invading one’s consciousness repeatedly as we approach—does the same. The suggestion that the experienced presencing of nature-physis—such as a beautiful landscape coming into view in the great outdoors—can stimulate the experience of thaumazein is a suggestion that may be true in varying degrees from person to person, depending on the character of the person involved, assuming entrenched habits and so forth. Yet if Heidegger’s suggestion and the testimony of Heidegger’s Greeks regarding the co-relating connection between nature-physis and thaumazein is anything to go by then it seems to me the prescencing of a beautiful landscape as it opens up to your consciousness holds much promise for recovering the experience of thaumazein, and with that, the foregrounding of the prescription of the natural law et al., as said above. One should not imagine, however, that this account of the correlation between physis and thaumazein is exclusively Heideggerian. Indeed, as has been argued elsewhere (see Chua, 2019), it is possible to also glean this sense of the relationship between physis and thaumazein in the medieval period—contrary to Heidegger’s own reservations regarding the value of medieval scholasticism. For one, the scholastic Thomas Aquinas may have implicitly assumed this connection in his commentarial preface to the neoplatonic text, the Book of Causes (Liber de Causis). There, Aquinas (1996) makes the point that the study of final causes comes at the end of the study of nature. But the study of final causes is accompanied by a sense of the investigation of something noble and wondrously blinding, and awe-inspiring. Therefore it is possible that, with that, he meant that the continuous project of studying nature till one comes to the first causes, is cradled by that sense of awe, of thaumazein. This then insinuates a kind of correlation between the engagement with nature, and the experience of thaumazein; and here thaumazein shows the good knowledge or religion (taken as an overarching understanding of one’s existence). Admittedly, one might object that this reading is merely possible, but not necessary, since there is nothing to prevent the suggestion that for Aquinas, thaumazein is specific to the metaphysical exploration of final causes, and had not emerged at that point in the beginning when one was concerned with the philosophy of nature. Also, we might be pressed to concede that Aquinas in his commentarial discussion of the beginning of philosophy in the Metaphysics, seems to think, like Aristotle, that thaumazein follows from our puzzlement about nature (if we are absorbed with nature) rather than because of nature itself. Under this Aristotelian take, where there is nothing grasped as puzzling, wonder would not have occurred even if we were addressed by nature (see Aquinas, 1961). These notwithstanding, I am confident that Aquinas would approve the claim that our address by or attention to physis leads to thaumazein. Elsewhere Aquinas

38

S. M. J. Chua

may have agreed with the assumption that the attention to physis is followed by a thaumazein that shows the good of aesthetic experience rather than knowledge. Notice: this is thaumazein nonetheless. Because as said above, thaumazein is not merely some emotion of fear or fascination, or merely the thrust toward knowing, but more fully: the fracturing, bracketing or diming of cathectic perception so that the first principles of reason can show, and what shows would include the first principles (plural!) of practical reason (also the “natural law”), directing us toward the choiceworthiness of goods that include the good of knowledge as well as other goods, such as friendship, life, beauty, skillful play, practical reasonableness, religion (an overarching understanding of our existence)…etc. Thus, notice how Aquinas’ (1997) own select compilation of commentaries on the Gospel of St Matthew (VI: 28–30), has the LORD Jesus and St Jerome amonge others astonished by the “lilies of the field,” and that “even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” While the undergirding thread is God’s providential care, yet the antecedent premise is precisely that nature’s lilies (or other flowers!) are astonishingly and wondrously beautiful, though they are merely temporary, emergent, and then passing away, “which today is, and to morrow is cast into the oven.” Meaning: the attention to physis qua what-emerges-and-then-passes-away is followed by a thaumazein that paves the way to aesthetic experience of a beauty understood as choice-worthy (because beauty is compared to something glorious, except that such beauty is not to be sought with anxiety and through fashion, but by trust in God’s providential care): “GLOSS. And for the greater exaltation of God’s providence in those things that are beyond human industry, He adds, I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. JEROME; For, in sooth, what regal purple, what silk, what web of divers colours from the loom, may vie with flowers? What work of man has the red blush of the rose? The pure white of the lily? How the Tyrian dye yields to the violet, sight alone and not words can express.” (Catena Aurea, St Matt, p. 256)

This (more complete) conception of physis leading to a thaumazein qua an event that shows the other precepts of the natural law (e.g., the precept that prescribes the good of aesthetic experience, among others) besides the precept that prescribes the choice-worthiness of knowledge is more Thomistic than Heideggerian, admittedly. One can, if one may, refer to this as a kind of neo-Thomistic, new natural law and post-Heideggerian retrieval of the originary Greek experience.

2.9 The Originary Greek Experience: Fieldwork as History Whatever our labels, here, already one can think of the variations of a “fieldtrip” for leaders viz., going outdoors to be immersed in wonderous nature, to be comported to show the natural law. One thinks immediately of a hiking trip into the mountains, a photographic excursion located about nature, golf among the natural links courses, sailing and availing ourselves to the presence of the ocean, a visit to the zoological or botanical gardens, a trip to paint a landscape, emerging at dawn and passing away

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

39

with the sun… It is these, physis, evoking thaumazein that can help comport us into the practical, to show the natural law. And, it is after such a comporting that we are in better position to answer questions regarding what is to be done, by pointing to the choice-worthy goals that now show. And with a grasp of these important goods, then are we in a better position to discern and develop the focal meanings of terms that are significant in our profession, and for which we can have sound opinion as leaders. Then, would it be fitting, for us to engage in discussions concerning what things are, and what the essence of important professionally relevant concepts can be. Only then can we be competent to evaluatively discern the focal meanings of things, which in turn equip the agent to derive or determine (determinatio) more practical policy plans and initiatives to realize that choice focal blueprint, and resist peripheral instantiations of that concept. With pedagogical imagination, one can design with greater sophistication the immersive experience of nature occurring intermittently or concurrently with the effort to think these focal meanings. Thus photographic expeditions among nature stimulating one’s astonishing wonder and calibrating one’s showing of the natural law can also involve collecting images that one thinks represent an important conception relevant to one’s leadership involvement. Or: a retreat with rounds of golf on the links can be intercepted during breaks with short bursts of writing sessions exploring how the play of golf or aspects of the game can serve as metaphors for what truly matters in one’s professional field or organization. A trip to paint landscapes over several days can be accompanied by the invitation to think through what “art” truly means, and to allow such an ongoingly theorized (focal) concept of “art” to find expression in the artistic choices in one’s later pieces; for example: whether certain themes or narratives are to be made more visible in the later, more reflectively informed frames, with critical justification, based on which to infer analogical ways of shaping one’s organization…and so on. And whatever be the form of these fieldtrips, each is the doing of history. By “history” is not meant the mere recollection of an event in the past in order to give an accounting of that past. No. History is here taken in a performative sense, as a kind of “historical distancing” or “historical return”: one does history by our own encountering of that particular experience that had been experienced by the early Greeks in the past, so that it is as if we had relocated ourselves into the past and had experienced it alongside the Greeks. It is “history” in the sense of making present something past: specifically, making present the originary Greek experience, of thaumazein when addressed by being qua physis qua the-emerging-and-passingaway. Heidegger (2002) puts it like this: What did we seek from this ‘historical reflection’? To obtain a distance from what we take as self-evident, from what lies all too close to us… (6–8) […] “But have we really enacted the historical reflection? Did we really go back?…Is this historical reflection, or is it just a historical recording of earlier concepts and names? Have we really gone back to what happened at the beginning of Western philosophy, and to what is perhaps still happening? No. May we then wonder that we encountered the past only as the present and not as itself, which might perhaps be something different? May we wonder that we did not attain detachment and distance from the present? Perhaps historical reflection is quite different from reporting on the past and fleeing from the present? (8–11) […] “But what is it about historical return?

40

S. M. J. Chua Instead of speaking about it in general terms, we want to attempt it, or in any case a step thereto (9–11)…It suffices that this saying of Heraclitus[, “The holding sway of beings (physis), i.e., being in their being, loves to conceal itself”] expresses the fundamental experience in which and from which is awoken an insight into the essence of truth as the unhiddenness of beings. This saying is as old as western philosophy itself, giving expression to that fundamental experience and orientation of ancient man from which philosophy begins…(14–15) […] “To be sure, we have some intimation (on the basis of Heraclitus’ saying) that something must have happened with man…[W]ith man himself something occurred which is greater and more primordial than his usual activity: an occurrence and history to which we must return, and which we must re-enact if we want to grasp something of the essence of truth (14–17).

This notion of a performative, historical revisiting of the Greek experience of physis and thaumazein, different from the merely giving of a historical account of some experience in the past in Greece, is also affirmed in Capobianco’s lucid discussion of Heidegger. The task before us in doing “history” in this sense is therefore to be found astonished at nature. For Capobianco, such historical return is possible given that the Greek experience is not exclusive to the ancient Greek in the past, but is much in evidence across the centuries. Thus Capobianco, citing more recent examples, writes: …is Heidegger making the further claim that the Greek experience of Nature-physis was so singular that it has not been enjoyed by human beings since? This would be a dubious claim, especially since Heidegger himself appeared to be speaking from out the “Greek experience” and made every effort to recover this experience for all human beings. Further it would seem altogether evident that this kind of close and “immediate” relation to Naturephysis is also to be found after the Greeks, for example, in Virgil’s Eclogues, Beethovan’s Pastoral Symphony, Woodsworth’s and Whitman’s poetry, Thoreau’s meditations, Thomas Cole’s painting, or Ansel Adam’s photography. More reasonably, then, with his appeal to “the Greek experience” (die griechische Erfahrung), Heidegger was principally pointing to the human being’s primordial and authentic experience of Nature-physis and not simply to a historical people and period. (Capobianco, 2014b, pp. 46–47)

2.10 The Way of History: Metaphysics After Physis A caveat to conclude our essay. Now Heideggerian scholars among our readers might be tempted to contrast such a notion of history with metaphysics, the latter of which appears to be a kind of historical accounting (merely!) of something ancient but not repeatable in the present. This is especially true of Thomas Aquinas’ metaphysics as Heidegger sees it. Heidegger’s gripe with Aquinas’ metaphysics is possibly several. But among these, it is certainly possible to characterize his problematizing of Thomistic metaphysical reflection as the rejection of a misleading, red-herring project which obscures the all important historical return to the Greek experience. Indeed it does seem that Thomistic metaphysics, focused as it is with establishing the first cause (prima causa) of all beings, a first cause which Aquinas calls God, is a mere telling of what happened in the distant past from the point of efficient causality. Establishing the first unmoved mover or uncaused cause(r) sounds like an

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

41

accounting of the original source of a big bang that had occurred a long, long time ago. John Caputo’s study of Heidegger’s renunciation of scholasticism captures this sense of Heidegger’s concern, as well as his denunciation of Thomistic metaphysics alongside his valorizing of the ancient Greeks. As Caputo reads him, Heidegger’s medieval thinkers made all of being a done deal—something “finished.” …[the scholastic concepts] existential and actualitas strip [the Greek notion of ongoing/working-presencing in Being] of its alethiological [or manifesting] sense. Even if the primordial essence of presencing (der anfanglische Wesen des Anwesen) (N II 409/10) had congealed in the Platonic and Aristotelian conception of ousia, it nonetheless had retained an alethiological content. It still meant the realm of the open, the manifest, the sphere of the self-presencing. But in the medieval actualitas Being is now understood in terms of making and being made, of causal work. [The Greek notion of “work”] comes to mean opus, factum. This is confirmed by the Scholastic interpretation of the derivation of the word ex-sistere. This word signifies that a thing stands outside of its causes, that it is real or actual in the sense of being really made and finished…Not only has the original presencing hardened into permanent presence; but it has lost its original quality of self-showing manifestness and been turned into what is present as a product, what is objectively present, not what is self-showing but what is made and manufactured. (Caputo, 1982, pp. 88–89)

There are several themes here but insofar as our interest in this paper is on the historical return to the Greek experience, then such a medieval metaphysics so characterized appears disconnected with the former. Yet any such Heideggerian characterization of Thomistic metaphysics as tangential to history, or as unrelated to the historical return to the Greek experience, lacks nuance and would be a straw-man travesty of Aquinas’ true thought on this matter. Rather than see Thomistic metaphysics as a mere historical account of the prima causa, of primary and originating activity in the ancient past, it is more accurate to read in Aquinas’ metaphysics the sharing by an unchanging God of the act of being (esse), ongoingly and presently (and not in the past merely!) holding all beings in existence insofar as they now exist. Randall Smith’s piece puts across this point accurately and beautifully, and I quote at length: Creation…for Thomas Aquinas, must be understood metaphysically as the complete and continual causing of the Being of whatever exists for as long as it exists. To be the complete cause of something’s very existence is not to work on or alter some already existing “material.” If there were a prior “something” that was used in the act of producing the thing, then the agent doing the producing would not be the complete cause of the new being. God not only puts together the ingredients and bakes the cake (so to speak), he makes the ingredients to be; he makes heat to be; indeed the makes the laws of physics by which the cake is “baked” to be. Creation, on this view is not exclusively some distant event that happens once; it is the continual causing of the very being of whatever exists for as long as it continues to exist. If God were not creating the universe right now, at this very moment, then it would not exist. That was true ten minutes ago, ten million years ago; and the same will be true ten million years from now—for as long as the universe continues to exist rather than not exist. “If the sun and moon should doubt,” wrote the poet William Blake, “they’d immediately go out.” Something similar might be said about the Creator. If for a moment God were to “lose his concentration” (to speak in a limited human fashion), then those things that he is “creating”—that is to say, those things that he is making to exist rather than not exist—would cease to exist…[W]hat Thomas’ metaphysics of creation teaches us is the radical truth of the biblical saying that every hair of our heads is numbered. Were God not involved in our very

42

S. M. J. Chua being at each and every moment, then we would cease to exist entirely. There is, indeed, in the universe no atom from which God’s continual, deeply intimate attention could possibly be absent. (Smith, 2014, pp. 102–103)

If so, then history need not be merely the re-enactment of the Greek experience just as we are ourselves presently astonished by physis, but can also include the sustained deepening or stretching out of this wondrous awe just as our astonishment is accompanied by thoughtful metaphysical reflection surfacing the ever-present act of being (esse) that sustains all creation, including physis, in existence. Because: Thomistic metaphysical reflection thus understood is not the recollection of a past event, but a meditative pointing to physis’ standing out of nothingness, and thus physis’ ongoing emerging out of nothingness, thanks to the act of being (esse). Rather than distract and detract from the awe at physis by throwing us off course to think about the distant past, such metaphysical reflection seems to me rather to sustain that awe by drawing our attention to an even more complete account of the emergent movedness of physis. Here we are called to set our gaze at the existential emergence of physis out of nothingness, alongside the essential (or substantial) emergence of physis out of potentiality. Such a view of the emergent movedness of physis qua its essence and its participated existence (esse) can only deepen our awe at physis’ radical emergence, and not shallow out wonder. It is like the swirling of the vintage wine, once released from the bottle, to bring out more fully its bouquet. By deepening and stretching out the Greek experience, Thomistic metaphysical reflection helps us linger in history. Thus history is not something we leap in once-off and then hop out of, but a path or way that one persists in walking. Contra Heidegger, metaphysical contemplation—specifically the contemplation of Thomistic metaphysics—is also part of the complete way of history. Acknowledgements for Amelia (美莲), my lily each day.

References Aquinas, T. (1961). Commentary on the metaphysics of Aristotle (J. P. Rowan trans.) (Vol. 1). Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Aquinas, T. (1996). Commentary on the book of causes. Washington DC: Catholic University Press. Aquinas, T. (1997). Catena aurea: A commentary on the four gospels collected out of the fathers (Vol. 1). London: St Austin Press. Capobianco, R. (2014a). On hölderlin on “nature’s gleaming”. Heidegger’s way of being (pp. 35–36). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Capobianco, R. (2014b). The greek experience of nature-physis-being. Heidegger’s way of being (pp. 38–49). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Caputo, J. (1982). Heidegger and Aquinas: An essay on overcoming metaphysics. New York: Fordham University Press. Chua, J. S. M. (2018). Meta-physis and the natural law: Golf, gardens and good business. Journal of Markets and Morality, 21(2), 369–383. Chua, J. S. M. (2019). Physis, thaumazein and policy thinking: On another time to think educational policy. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 21(4), 265–276.

2 Educating the Philosopher-Leader …

43

Deely, J. (2009). Purely objective reality. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Finnis, J. (1983). Fundamentals of ethics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Finnis, J. (2013). Reflections and responses. In J. Keown & R. P. George (Eds.), Reason, morality and law: The philosophy of John Finnis (pp. 459–584). New York: Oxford University Press. Flusser, V. (2000). Towards a philosophy of photography. London: Reaktion Books. Halpin, D. (2007). Romanticism and education: Love, heroism and imagination in pedagogy. London: Continuum. Heidegger, M. (2002). The essence of truth: On plato’s cave allegory and theatetus (T. Sadler trans.). London: Continuum. March, J. G., & Augier, M. (2008). The pursuit of relevance in management education. In J. G. March (Ed.), Explorations in organizations. Stanford: Stanford University Press. March, J. G., & Weil, T. (2005). On leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marion, J. L. (2002). Being given: Toward a phenomenology of givenness (J. Kosky, trans.). California: Stanford University Press. Plato, (1958). The republic. London: Penguin Books. Raz, J. (2013). A menu of questions. In J. Keown & R. P. George (Eds.), Reason, morality and law: The philosophy of John Finnis (pp. 13–23). New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, R. B. (2014). If philosophy begins in wonder: Aquinas, creation and wonder. Communio: International Catholic Review, 41, 92–111.

Soo Meng Jude Chua (PhD, FRHistS, FCollT) is an Associate Professor and Head of the Policy, Curriculum and Leadership Studies AG, National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Previously he was Asst Dean in the Graduate Programmes Office and Programme Leader for the Dual Award Doctorate in Education that NIE offers with the Institute of Education (IoE), London. He has been Visiting Academic and Hon Research Associate at IoE, University of London and then University College London, and Visiting Research Scholar at the Aquinas Institute, Blackfriars Hall, Oxford University, and Visiting Graduate Fellow, Center for Philosophy of Religion, University of Notre Dame, during which he worked with the eminent natural law theorist John Finnis. His interest is in philosophy of education and the thought of Thomas Aquinas. He won the Novak Award for work in religion and economic liberty in 2003. He is Editor for the Asia Pacific Journal of Education, and Associate Editor for the Journal of Markets and Morality. Recently he delivered the Antonio Gonzalez OP Memorial Lecture at the University of Santo Tomas, Manila. He is a Fellow of the College of Teachers (FCollT), (now College of Teaching), and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (FRHistS), London.

Chapter 3

A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips Esti Asmira and Suyin Tay

Abstract Fieldtrips play a crucial role in students’ learning by providing them with a shared social experience beyond the confines of the classroom. The chapter highlights the value of “everyday spaces” in historical fieldtrips. These spaces are authentic and are more commonly associated with mundane day-to-day living rather than spaces dedicated for historical study such as museums and heritage sites. Nonetheless, they can enhance students’ understanding of history and heighten their awareness that the past is all around them. Reframing such everyday spaces as a platform for history education is empowering—it allows for a diversity of learning experiences and data collection and brings to life historical concepts through a greater degree of interaction between the students and space, as the former become active constructors of historical knowledge. Everyday spaces also lend themselves naturally to a multidisciplinary approach of learning, which consequently provides opportunities for teachers to incorporate other disciplines into the fieldtrip. In this chapter, a fieldtrip to Balestier, a subzone in the central region of Singapore, is presented to illustrate the value and potential of everyday spaces for the teaching and learning of history.

3.1 Introduction In the context of history education, fieldtrips play a crucial role in teaching and learning by providing students with authentic learning tasks as they explore and develop novel insights about the past outside of the classroom. This chapter highlights the value of conducting fieldtrips in “everyday spaces”—authentic spaces where ordinary people live and work—in enhancing students’ understanding of history and how the past continues to feature in their daily lives. Reframing these everyday spaces as sites of history education enables teachers to create unique learning experiences for E. Asmira · S. Tay (B) Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] E. Asmira e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_3

45

46

E. Asmira and S. Tay

students by providing opportunities for them to encounter various historical concepts through their interactions with these spaces and the individuals within them. Much like museums and other designated historic sites (e.g., monuments and places of commemoration), fieldtrips to everyday spaces provide an avenue for experiential learning to take place. In making a case for everyday spaces as an alternative fieldtrip destination for students of history, this chapter seeks to illustrate how appropriating them as a site of historical inquiry offers a learning experience different from what museums or historic sites can offer. As repositories of public knowledge and shared national memories, museums and historic sites are often characterized by carefully curated interpretations of the past, which are not found in everyday spaces where ordinary people go about their daily lives (Atkinson, 2007; Marcus, Levine, & Grenier, 2012). Without the looming presence of these didactic narratives, a visit to everyday spaces enables students to be active constructors of historical knowledge as they engage with the space and those living and working within it. Lastly, these everyday spaces also lend themselves naturally to a multidisciplinary approach of learning. After all, authentic real-world spaces are the very stage on which students can witness first-hand the interplay of academic concepts from various humanities disciplines. This consequently provides opportunities for teachers to incorporate other humanities disciplines such as economics, geography, literature, and social studies into the fieldtrips. We believe that the most effective way to make a case for appropriating everyday spaces as a fieldtrip destination is by presenting a concrete example of how such a site can be used to inculcate historical thinking in students. Balestier, a subzone located in the central region of Singapore which is rich in history, is chosen as the case study. It is selected precisely because it is not the most obvious choice for a field site when contrasted to designated historic districts like Chinatown, Little India, or Kampong Glam. Yet Balestier has much to offer as a historical fieldtrip destination. In choosing Balestier, we hope to illustrate that seemingly unassuming and mundane spaces which are often overlooked by teachers could potentially serve as effective pedagogical sites for the teaching and learning of history. The approaches and activities presented here are by no means the only way history teachers can utilize the Balestier area, let alone other everyday spaces, as field sites. What we hope to achieve through this chapter is to simply broaden the possibilities of what fieldtrips could offer in deepening students’ understanding of history as a discipline by challenging history teachers to consider conducting fieldtrips in less conventional destinations.

3.2 Value of Fieldtrips in History Education Before delving into the details of how a fieldtrip to an everyday space could look like, it is important to first examine existing scholarship on the value of fieldtrips and contextualize it within the larger aims of history education. At its core, history education aims to inculcate historical empathy—the ability to understand and appreciate what life was like for those who lived in very different times, places and cultures—in students, promote their skill and inclination to critically examine individual sources,

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

47

build their aptitude in asking questions, seeking out, and synthesizing alternative points of view (Marcus et al., 2012). Research in the last two decades explains how such goals of historical education can be developed by combining traditional instructional classroom activities with more authentic learning tasks such as activities that require students to manipulate information and ideas learnt to solve issues they encounter first-hand during the fieldtrip (Lesh, 2011; Lévesque, 2009; Wineburg, 2001). Advocates of authentic forms of learning highlight the limitations of traditional classroom activities, which are often designed around artificial contexts for learning, and inadvertently, result in superficial levels of engagement and retention of information among students (Nicaise, Gibney, & Crane, 2000). Within the context of history education, it is therefore unsurprising that fieldtrips to museums or historic sites became a natural platform to promote more authentic means of inculcating historical thinking and learning about the past (Marcus, 2007). The value of fieldtrips has long been recognized before the discourse on authentic forms of learning gains traction in the new millennium. In their book, “Museums: Places of Learning,” Hein, Alexander, and Adams (1998) summarized that “By the 1980s, the value of school visits to all types of museums has been acknowledged, not necessarily for the immediate factual gain but for their benefit as an experience that had a lasting impact” (p. 25). Indeed, museum artifacts, exhibitions, and recreated historical settings can engender experiences for students that complement the teaching and learning that takes place in classrooms (Lenior & Laforest, as cited in Marcus et al., 2012, p. 68). A visit to museums or historic sites allows students to engage with these resources using their senses. This approach to teaching and learning can be particularly effective in developing historical empathy by making the often temporally and geographically distant past less foreign and more accessible to students (Lowenthal, 1999). Simultaneously, students may also be more inspired to engage in critical thinking about primary sources and interpretations of the past when they are confronted by both in such spaces. Finally, museums and historic sites also create opportunities for students to interrogate historical interpretations by critically examining how such spaces are curated to present specific interpretations of the past (Marcus et al., 2012). Aside from promoting historical thinking, fieldtrips to museums and historic sites also present teachers with the opportunity to conduct more exploratory, inquirybased, and/or interdisciplinary teaching approaches to encourage authentic learning. Fieldtrips can serve this purpose by mirroring the complexities and ambiguities that characterize the practice of knowledge construction in history. As a discipline, history is filled with unanswered and unsolved questions, puzzles, and mysteries. Much like detectives working to solve the mystery at hand, a historian’s job involves confronting unaddressed questions and puzzles about the past in order to provide meaning and coherence to the constantly expanding storehouse of information about people and events in history (Bain, 2005, p. 182). A well-designed fieldtrip to a museum or historic site allows students to emulate a historian’s work by being active agents who similarly interact with and make sense of, the information provided by on-site resources in order to formulate hypotheses of their own and address a given question. Such learning experiences stand in stark contrast to traditional instructional

48

E. Asmira and S. Tay

classroom activities where the pedagogy is primarily teacher-centered as teachers define the lesson objectives and drive the learning activities (Nicaise et al., 2000). While the value of fieldtrips as a pedagogical approach in history education is undeniable, existing literature on historical fieldtrips has been understandably focused on those conducted in museums and historic sites. As such, there is presently a gap in the understanding of how fieldtrips to other types of spaces like those commonly associated with mundane day-to-day activities can enhance students’ grasp of history and heighten their awareness and appreciation that the past is around them. Accepting these everyday spaces as an alternative platform for history education is empowering as they allow for a more diverse learning experience distinct from what a visit to a museum or historic site can offer. In the latter, students are often limited to forming hypothesis through observing artifacts on display or speaking to the staff and fellow visitors of these museums and sites. In everyday spaces, however, their hypothesis could be based on data gathered through interviewing individuals who work and/or live in these sites or witnessing first-hand how these individuals and physical spaces organically interact, influence, and alter one another. For this reason, we believe that this chapter would be a useful addition to the existing literature as it highlights the benefits of fieldtrips to everyday spaces, which have thus far been overlooked. These everyday spaces are fundamentally distinct from museums or historic sites given the differing functions they fulfill. Unlike museums and historic sites which serve as bounded places that have been deliberately curated to preserve and present specific narratives about the past (Atkinson, 2007; Marcus et al., 2012), everyday spaces are not inscribed with carefully crafted didactic meanings and narratives. Instead, they developed organically and are constantly reshaped by the quotidian practices and activities of those who inhabit these places. While the past is brought to the foreground in museums and historic sites, traces of the past can also be found in less obvious places including these mundane everyday spaces (Atkinson, 2007). In terms of promoting historical thinking among students, fieldtrips to everyday spaces therefore offer a different approach of teaching and learning compared to conventional visits to museums or historic sites. In the absence of carefully curated interpretations of the past which characterize museums and historic sites, students are empowered to be active constructors of historical knowledge through their interactions with the space and those who inhabit these places. Attempting to learn more about the past through an examination of everyday spaces therefore allows students to gain a first-hand experience in constructing their own historical knowledge vis-à-vis focusing on evaluating or problematizing existing narratives of the past as presented by a museum or historic site. Fieldtrips to everyday spaces also lend themselves naturally to a multidisciplinary approach of teaching and learning. After all, authentic real-world spaces are the very stage on which students can witness first-hand the interplay of academic concepts they have learnt from various humanities disciplines (e.g., how the economic theory of demand-supply played out through different decisions undertaken by individuals/firms against the backdrop of the country’s economic history). Such fieldtrips therefore conform to the place-based educational philosophy that advocates for an

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

49

immersive learning experience that places students in local heritage, cultures, and landscapes and uses these settings as a foundation for the study of various subjects across the curriculum while simultaneously strengthening the students’ sense of belonging to the local community (Gruenewald, 2005; Gruenewald & Smith, 2008).

3.3 Everyday Spaces and National Efforts to Conserve the Past To understand the importance of Balestier and other similar everyday spaces in Singapore, one should first recognize how everyday spaces have increased in importance due to concerted national-level efforts to ensure that ordinary Singaporeans would remain anchored and connected to the country’s past. The launch of the National Heritage Board (NHB)’s microsite roots.sg in 2014 is a recent significant example of one such national effort. roots.sg aims to “bring the contents of [Singapore’s] national collection, heritage trails, national monuments, historic sites, and other multimedia assets together in a single, one-stop heritage resource portal.” roots.sg embodies the strong national imperative to create a better understanding of national history by “effectively allowing people to co-curate their heritage experience” with NHB (2006). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong articulated this direction when he stated that “heritage will become even more important to us as we look towards the future, because it is clear from the national conversations that Singaporeans not only value economic success but also cultural development” (Lee, 2013). Consequently, in 2013, heritage trails of various themes were developed and made accessible to the public on roots.sg. The microsite educates the public on the young nation’s heritage, featuring the architectural, historical, and cultural significance of various districts across Singapore. Marketed as walking trails by the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and NHB, these heritage trails serve as a form of community outreach to the public in a bid to increase general awareness of Singapore’s heritage. Given such an aim, it is unsurprising that many of these heritage trails are found within everyday spaces to ensure their accessibility and fulfill its goal of engaging ordinary Singaporeans in the heritage-making process. More significantly, the introduction of heritage trails in these everyday spaces signalled an increasing recognition that such seemingly ordinary and mundane sites have a significant role in past and present-day Singapore. Despite national efforts to educate the public on the significance of the conservation and heritage of historically rich neighborhoods and districts across Singapore, history teachers have been slow to embrace the idea that everyday spaces serve as possible sites of historical inquiry. It remains more common for history teachers in Singapore schools to take students to museums or other historic sites when the opportunities for fieldtrips arise. This is a natural outcome of a myriad of reasons that ranges from logistical limitations schools and teachers face to the safety concerns of each field site and its ability to physically accommodate large cohorts of students.

50

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Notwithstanding, the biggest inertia to situate historical learning in such mundane everyday sites is the practical concern that such fieldtrips may not intuitively fit into the content coverage of the national history curriculum or even directly inculcate skills required for students to excel in national examinations. Accommodating trips to such sites within the national history curriculum would require additional time and effort on the part of the teachers to design a fieldtrip package that will help students draw links between the lessons taught in classrooms and the objectives and/or tasks of the fieldtrip. Given the constant time constraints teachers often face in customizing and delivering any national curriculum to suit their students’ interests and abilities, it is natural that fieldtrips to museums or historic sites with more explicit links to the curriculum would make for a more efficient and obvious choice. For example, a fieldtrip to Changi Chapel Museum is an efficient and obvious choice when teaching the chapter which examines people’s experiences of the Japanese Occupation. Nonetheless, we strongly believe that the potential of fieldtrips to less conventional sites in enriching students’ learning about the past and history as a discipline should be not be overlooked even if they may, at first glance, lack direct relevance to a given history curriculum.

3.4 Everyday Spaces and History Education in Singapore A well-designed fieldtrip, be it to an everyday space or otherwise, can be a powerful pedagogy that supports historical inquiry despite the additional effort required to put together such a trip. Historical inquiry refers to the act of “doing history” that historians typically engage in: a cyclical process that begins with asking specific questions about a particular aspect of the past, followed by locating and analyzing historical sources to establish historical evidence, before finally arriving at an informed interpretation about the past (Bain, 2005; Wineburg, 2001). As a pedagogy, historical inquiry encourages students to adopt a learning approach that mirrors this cyclical process. In Singapore, historical inquiry took center stage in the secondary school history curriculum since the introduction of a new history syllabus in 2013. At its core, the move toward integrating the inquiry approach into the history curriculum stemmed from the recognition that effective history teaching should not be based only on the presentation of content knowledge. Instead, it should present students with opportunities to better understand history both as “a body of knowledge” (involving the substantive content about the past) and as “a form of knowledge” (involving historical concepts that structure the discipline) (MOE, 2013, p. 4). As a platform that promotes authentic means of inculcating historical thinking in students while they learn about the past, fieldtrips allow them to develop an appreciation of the past and a critical awareness of the nature of history. The unique advantage that fieldtrips to everyday spaces can offer lies in sharpening students’ ability to make connections between the past and present. Unlike museums and other historic sites where connections between the past and present are often readily presented to visitors in order to support the narratives they strive to convey, everyday spaces are first

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

51

and foremost fully functional places free from similarly didactic messages. There are neither professional curators nor museum staff to define and regulate the narratives that these spaces convey to visitors. If a fieldtrip to a museum or historic site provides students the opportunity to do history by problematising a given historical account, a fieldtrip to an everyday space allows students to do history by requiring them to tease out connections between the past and present by examining the former through the lens of present-day features of the space. These features could include the physical infrastructure of the space, its functions, as well as the day-to-day activities of those who inhabit it. This unique feature of everyday spaces as a field site vis-àvis museums or historic sites is precisely what makes them appealing and effective pedagogical sites in inculcating historical thinking in students.

3.5 Balestier: A Case Study As an example of an everyday space, the possibilities that Balestier offers as a site for historical investigation is compelling. While those who inhabit this space continue to interact with Balestier in a functional and authentic manner, up until 2002, Balestier was still largely observed to be a “[site] that has a long and colourful history that it is unknown to Singaporeans” (URA, 2002). Indeed, Balestier’s significance in Singapore’s history is not immediately apparent. In the absence of an authoritative narrative present in the site, both teachers and students do not readily consider Balestier as a site of historical significance especially since it does not situate itself comfortably within the Singapore secondary history curriculum. Instead, the lower secondary history unit which focuses on the concept of historical significance highlights examples of streets that have been gazetted for conservation or the historical districts of Chinatown, Little India and Kampong Glam in the Raffles Town Plan to illustrate the diversity of experiences under British rule (MOE, 2013). Nonetheless, it is precisely because Balestier is a site that does not have an authoritative historical narrative that authentic learning can take place. A visit to Balestier empowers students to become co-constructors of their own historical knowledge by interacting with the site in an organic way without the looming presence of didactic narratives of historical significance present in museums, historic sites, or the aforementioned popular historical districts. More specifically, it provides an opportunity for students to confront and grapple with the ambiguity of ascribing historical significance to a given space. A fieldtrip to Balestier therefore allows students to learn history by doing in an exercise that addresses Bradshaw’s criticism of how teachers often tell students what is historically significant instead of allowing them to make their own judgments on what should be considered as such. After all, ascribing historical significance involves subjective notions of perspective, meaning, and purpose as it includes an assessment as to why the subject in question mattered in a way that has deep consequences throughout history.

52

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Using the MOE’s prescribed historical inquiry approach in learning the subject through an everyday space allows students to have a hands-on experience in understanding not just historical significance, but also the concept of historical accounts as well as locating and evaluating sources in order to come to a historical interpretation (Table 3.2). It allows students to approach history through the lens of a historian, adopting investigative ways of inquiry, allowing them to become co-creators of their own historical knowledge in a scaffolded and structured way through the guidance of inquiry and sub-inquiry questions designed by their teachers. Leveraging on the skills required of students in understanding historical concepts, this fieldtrip case study is grounded in the historical framework which promotes historical literacy—the ability to engage in discipline-based conceptual reasoning about the past—allowing students to gain a deep understanding of past events and processes through active engagement of historical sources (Seixas & Peck, 2004). Below is an example of how teachers can plan a historical investigation for a unit of study using inquiry in historical instruction and fieldtrip in an everyday space. Situated in Unit 4 of MOE’s 2014 lower secondary history curriculum, the Balestier fieldtrip seeks to answer the unit’s overarching inquiry question, “How did life change after independence?” The steps for the fieldtrip are as follow.

3.5.1 Step 1: Identifying and Understanding the Site When identifying everyday spaces as a potential site for historical learning journeys, teachers are encouraged to look at sites that offer an insight to either the political, economic, or social (e.g., housing) developments in Singapore’s history. Balestier meets this selection criterion as a rich and authentic site where change and continuity can be observed in the areas of economic, urban, and cultural development of Singapore’s history. A subzone (a region that is a part of the Novena district in the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)’s Development Guide Plan which divides Singapore into 55 urban planning divisions) rich in history, Balestier was once a sugar cane plantation in the mid-nineteenth century (“Balestier—The first American businessman in Singapore,” 1967). It was only gazetted in 2004 and recognized by the government as a place of “old world charm” where ties between people and country are most clearly formed. Balestier is an old neighborhood which has become repositories of social memory as generations of residents and entrepreneurs have gathered over time (URA, 2002). Today, Balestier is a district made up of a mixed economy of family businesses and large companies with regional and global reach, intertwined with residential buildings and religious spaces. It is recommended that teachers first deconstruct the chosen everyday space in order to have a clearer understanding of the richness that the site provides. Because of the inherent messiness and ambiguities that an everyday space inadvertently brings, it is important that one categorizes the types of establishments found on-site in order to make sense of the line of inquiry that teachers may eventually choose to adopt. Table 3.1 charts the places of interest in Balestier organized according to types of sites.

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

53

Table 3.1 Places of interest in the Balestier district Types of sites

Date established Site

Description

Economic enterprise (Small-scale businesses with family legacies)

1970s

Lim Kay Khee Optical & Contact Lens Center

Owned by Mr Lim Seah Seng, this optical shop is a second-generation business which was started by Mr Lim’s father

1959

Lam Yeo Coffee Powder Owner Tan Peck Hoe retains the long-standing tradition of roasting coffee beans with sugar and margarine to give them that lusciously black exterior unique to local coffee. While his traditional coffee powder remains an old favourite, Mr Tan has also adapted and started importing gourmet beans from South Africa and Central America. These are roasted plain and ground only upon purchase to ensure freshness

1982

Sing Hon Loong Bakery This small, 24-hour (Ghee Leong) bakery has been producing more than a thousand freshly made traditional brown bread loaves straight from antiquated ovens everyday for the past 50 years or so. Today it supplies traditional bread to popular kaya toast chain such as Killiney Kopitiam and Fun Toast

1970s

Chop Wah Hin Sheet Metal Works

Second generation metal sheet fabricator who produces handcrafted metal works (Ng, 2014) (continued)

54

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Table 3.1 (continued) Types of sites

Date established Site

Description

1953

Loy Kee Best Chicken Rice

Loy Kee has its roots when Mr Loy Nie developed his dish and sold the chicken rice at Raymond Market in 1953. Raymond Market was the predecessor of the Whampoa Market built in early 1980s. The business remains in the family today. It has franchises across Singapore and in Jakarta, Indonesia (Loykee.com.sg, 2019)

2013

Wheeler’s Yard

Warehouse turned cafe and bicycle atelier. Bought in 1985, the warehouse is the property of the Ong family which runs its own businesses in property and cars since 1957 (Seow, 2014)

Shaw Film Studios (Malay Film Productions Ltd.)

The studio produced many hits and launched the careers of Malay film stars such as P. Ramlee The studio closed down in 1967 as interests in Malay movies waned with the advent of imported films and television

Economic 1947 enterprise(Large-scale businesses with regional and global reach)

Opened in 2013

Ramada by Wyndham Hotel establishment Singapore at Zhongshan with global reach Park (Hotel)

Opened in 2012

Days Hotel by Hotel establishment Wyndham at Zhongshan with global reach Park (Hotel)

Opened in 2011

Oasia Hotel Novena, Singapore by Far East Hospitality

Hotel establishment with global reach

Opened in 2017

Courtyard by Marriott Singapore Novena

Hotel establishment with global reach (continued)

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

55

Table 3.1 (continued) Types of sites

Date established Site

Description

Religious sites

1847

Goh Chor Tua Pek Kong Temple

Hokkien laborers who worked on the northern fringes of sugar plantations in Balestier, established the temple in 1847 to house Tua Pek Kong, a Taoist deity popular among the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. The temple also features a freestanding Chinese wayang (opera) stage—one of two that still exists on mainland Singapore

1961

Masjid Hajjah Rahimabi The mosque dates back Kebun Limau when it first had its origins as a prayer hall. It expanded to be a mosque in 1984

1991

Maha Sasanaramsi Burmese Buddhist Temple

1935

Church of St. Alphonsus The Church of St (Novena Church) Alphonsus, popularly referred to as the Novena Church, was established in 1935 by the Redemptorists, a Catholic order dedicated to serving the poor and the abandoned

Maha Sasanaramsi Burmese Buddhist Temple was completed in 1991 and serves Singapore’s Burmese Buddhist community. The temple was originally established in 1878 at Kinta Road off Serangoon Road by a Burmese named U Thar Hnin (also known as Tang Sooay Chin)

(continued)

56

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Table 3.1 (continued) Types of sites

Date established Site

Description

Sites of architectural significance

Built in 1926

Sim Kwong Ho shophouses

A row of shophouse of hybrid architectural style known as “Singapore Eclectic” or “Chinese Baroque” that arose during the rubber boom from the turn of the twenieth century to the 1930

Built in 1928

Kwan Yow Luen

This row of shophouses features extravagantly detailed plaster stucco figures on their facades, including elaborate reliefs of flowers and animals

Built in 1947

Single-storey Terraced Units

The row of single-storey terraced units was developed by Ngee Ann Kongsi, a Teochew self-help organization

Built in 1984

Balestier Point

An apartment and shopping complex Formerly Ruby Theatre (1958–1980s)

Source NHB (2006)

Given the variety of economic enterprises, as well as religious, cultural, and architectural spaces on-site, teachers will find that Balestier is sufficiently rich in history. It would therefore serve as a suitable site to discuss how the economic, cultural, and religious developments of a particular area in Singapore may differ or echo larger national developments post-independence. For the purpose of the discussion, we will explore the economic developments of Balestier by situating the fieldtrip in Singapore’s lower secondary history syllabus. The Balestier district illustrates how economic developments at the national level can impact the lives of individuals and small and large business entities. In the curriculum, there is a large emphasis that Singapore’s economic policies have led to developments that have largely benefited people. Balestier is significant as it highlights both the costs and benefits of these developments. A closer investigation of the site further highlights how economic changes at the national level have impacted economic enterprises, nudging these businesses to adapt on two fronts: (1) it is imperative for businesses to adapt in order to remain viable; and (2) for many small businesses, adaptation efforts involve striking a balance between profit maximization and the preservation of heritage (see Table 3.2).

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

57

Table 3.2 Overview for fieldtrip at Balestier Site

Balestier Road

Learning outcomes

Students should be able to: • Identify the challenges of economic transformation that occurred after 1965, and • Explain how small businesses have adapted to remain economically viable as they navigated these challenges

Historical concepts

• Change and continuity • Historical significance

Enduring understandings

• Singapore needs to continually adapt economically to keep up with the world • Historic sites and ways of life are repositories of social memory that provide us with a sense of belonging and identity • In managing the pace of economic adaptation, it is necessary to weigh heritage potential against economic developmental potential

Suggested key inquiry question for fieldtrip

How did Balestier adapt to the economic transformation in post-independent Singapore?

Pedagogical approaches

This fieldtrip comprises three stations where students engage in activities such as hot seating, visual comparison, and oral investigation. These activities enable them to gather information to craft informed responses to the sub-inquiry questions for each station and subsequently answer the key inquiry question

Historical content for supporting field-based learning

To help students understand Singapore’s economic transformation from a trading port to a diversified economy: • Developing an export-oriented economy • Developing infrastructure • Developing the banking/finance and tourism industries

Key content concepts for supporting field-based learning

• Export-oriented economy • Manufacturing and service industries • Diversification

It is important to note that while this fieldtrip may not teach the prescribed content of understanding Singapore’s larger economic policies such as how Singapore developed strategies to diversify its economy, it allows students to tease out the nuances of how public policies impacted individuals in the country. Furthermore, little is highlighted about the costs of Singapore’s economic pursuits in the prescribed history textbook. In examining an everyday space such as Balestier, students are compelled to ask questions that can deepen their understanding of the intricacies of national policies and how these policies have transformed people’s lives in Singapore.

58

E. Asmira and S. Tay

3.5.2 Step 2: Charting the Fieldtrip Plan The historical inquiry process (Fig. 3.1) is used in the unit of study which incorporates fieldtrip in the everyday space of Balestier. It is a cyclical process which begins with the asking of guiding historical questions (Doolittle, Hicks & Ewing, 2004–2005). As illustrated in Table 3.3, teachers need to equip their students with the necessary prior knowledge of the economic developments in Singapore before they embark on the Balestier fieldtrip. Teachers can spark their students’ curiosity by asking the main inquiry question, “How did Singapore’s economic transformation in postindependent Singapore impact Balestier?” Once the inquiry question is established, students can gather sources through their own research and data from their fieldtrip. This will be followed by the process of “exercising reasoning” conducted after the fieldtrip whereby the students will evaluate and develop arguments based on their gathered data. They will also be encouraged to reflect on their findings. Ultimately, teachers should treat the fieldtrip not as a standalone entity but as part of a unit spanning several lessons. More importantly, the cyclical process throughout the unit allows students to revisit the inquiry question whenever there is a need to address knowledge gaps that occur during their learning process on their own.

Fig. 3.1 Cycle of historical inquiry (Source MOE, 2013)

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

59

Table 3.3 Fieldtrip unit plan Lesson on Singapore’s economic growth Inquiry Question: How did life change after (Post-1965) independence? • Help students understand the economic challenges that Singapore faced upon independence and the strategies employed to overcome them • Have an overview of both the positive and negative impacts of economic transformation Pre-fieldtrip

Inquiry Question: How did Singapore’s economic transformation in postindependent Singapore impact Balestier? • Introduce Balestier as a district steeped in heritage • Give a broad overview of the developments of Balestier since 1965 (This overview is meant to be a scaffolded in order to spark students’ curiosity) • Students are tasked to come up with sub-inquiry questions when deconstructing the inquiry question

Fieldtrip

Inquiry Question: How did Singapore’s economic transformation in post-independent Singapore impact Balestier? Using Balestier as a case study to show: • The benefits and challenges of post-independence economic transformation • How small businesses adapted to remain economically viable Students will be instructed to further their inquiry by researching the sources of evidence and accounts of information that they have observed and recorded (see Fig. 3.3 for station details at Balestier) Possible sub-inquiry questions that students may ask include: • How have businesses in Balestier benefitted from the economic developments in Singapore? • How have businesses in Balestier been challenged by the economic developments in Singapore? • How have businesses around Balestier adapted to changes brought about by developments in Singapore’s economy over the years? (continued)

It is important to note that there is no one prescribed way of conducting each segment of the inquiry process so long as the lesson objectives are met. More importantly, teachers should tailor the unit plan according to the needs of their students, adapting any necessary scaffolds accordingly in order to harness students’ learning within the realistic confines of one’s classroom context. Conceptually, the stages of the fieldtrip should be aligned with the historical inquiry process (Table 3.4). The fieldtrip complements Unit 4 of MOE’s 2014 syllabus, specifically in the prescribed “Secondary two: The making of a nation-state, 1300-1975” textbook which discusses economic transformation of Singapore through national-level

60

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Table 3.3 (continued) Post-fieldtrip

Consolidate the inquiry on how people’s lives have changed since 1965 as a result of economic transformation by reinforcing the following points: • Singapore’s strategies for economic development • Benefits and challenges posed by economic transformation • Adaptation by the state and businesses (both small and with global reach) to problems resulting from economic transformation Students to present their analysis and evaluation of their recorded observation and research in order to answer the inquiry question, “How did Singapore’s economic transformation in post-independent Singapore impact Balestier?”

economic policies, by acting as an extension of the syllabus which allows students to visualize what they have learnt in the real world. By examining Balestier as a site impacted by changes at the national level, a study of this everyday space highlights the lived experiences of the developments and challenges introduced by Singapore’s economic transformation in the postindependence era. To do so, the study of Balestier focuses on how economic developments affect the lives of Singaporeans in ways that are apparent only upon a closer look.

3.5.3 Step 3: Conducting the Fieldtrip To allow students to find purpose in their investigative task, in groups of five or six, students will assume the role of a production team working for a local newspaper for an op-ed on Singapore’s heritage and be tasked with producing a photo journal for Balestier. Based on information they have collected, they will construct a response to the key inquiry question. Pre-fieldtrip lesson. The unit plan begins with first equipping students with the content of Singapore’s development in post-independent Singapore, giving students an understanding of how economic policies at the national level have shaped Singapore in the decades ensuing 1965. This is followed by an overview of Balestier’s history and the developments of the district in broad strokes. While students learn about the district, they are explicitly reminded to consider the economic developments occurring on the national front postindependence. With this, the inquiry question, “How did Singapore’s economic transformation in post-independent Singapore impact Balestier?” is introduced to the class. The teacher should guide students to unpack the key terms in order to understand the demands of the question. Subsequently, teachers should allow students to break into working groups to discuss the economic developments in Balestier, setting students up with sufficient time in the classroom to inquire and make a list of

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

61

Table 3.4 Mapping the fieldtrip structure to the historical inquiry framework Stages in fieldtrip

Inquiry stage

Rationale

Pre-fieldtrip

1. Ask historical guiding questions

Most critical to the inquiry process is the starting point. Teachers can be guided by the following pointers: • Engage students’ interest • Identify the questions to be asked—one broad inquiry question followed by sub-questions • Plan the inquiry process and describe the outcome

Pre-fieldtrip and fieldtrip

2. Identify and locate relevant sources

Students will decide which sources are and are not useful and which will have to be treated with caution (useful for teachers to guide students first with the use of an exemplar) In the field, interactions with people, oral interviews as well as observations of people, architecture, etc., will be used as sources for students’ inquiry

Fieldtrip and post-fieldtrip

3. Construct historical interpretations, evaluate sources, and develop arguments

Students will be required to make notes from their evaluation of sources Through reflection and discussion facilitated by teacher, students should now be able to develop their responses to the main inquiry question for the fieldtrip

Post-fieldtrip and deliverables 4. Check derived interpretations and/or present historical interpretation

Students will show their own extended knowledge and understanding

Adapted from MOE (2013). Lower secondary history teaching learning guide

questions they have about the field site. As students ask questions related to the site, it allows them to seek and sort through evidence to help them formulate arguments which answer the inquiry question during the fieldtrip. Students will also be shown images of Balestier during this period and are tasked to do research about the site prior to the fieldtrip. Fieldtrip lesson. The government’s conservation of Balestier reflects a national anxiety concerned with safeguarding potential cultural loss resulting from economic transformation. Specifically, adaptation efforts in Balestier reveal an inherent

62

E. Asmira and S. Tay

dilemma of maintaining the pace of economic development while simultaneously preventing further loss of cultural heritage. Balestier therefore offers an invaluable case study as shopkeepers seek to find creative ways to ensure their businesses continue to be economically viable and historically relevant. The shops in Balestier embody a spectrum of adaptation strategies and their respective consequences, reflecting both the state’s top-down and small businesses’ bottom-up efforts to keep up with Singapore’s changing economic landscape. Balestier features a unique concentration of: • Businesses that have not adapted, • Businesses that have adapted radically, and • Businesses that have adapted gradually while retaining a significant part of its façade and methods of operation. Students can come to this understanding of Balestier’s economic developments through evidence gathered during the fieldtrip, and based on observations of authentic real-world activities, they compare and contrast current and past sources and oral interviews. This flexibility in employing a variety of data collection methods is made possible through the use of an everyday space as a source. However, there is a need to recognize and circumvent the limitations of an everyday space as a field site. To minimize the disruption of the day to day running of businesses and activities at the site, students will need to be split into groups on a rotational basis to visit Station 1: Jalan Ampas and Station 2: Water Kiosk at Boon Teck Street over the course of the fieldtrip. Additionally, they will only be required to visit one of the businesses allocated to them as a component of their fieldtrip to conduct their oral interview component. See Fig. 3.3 for details of the fieldtrip. Station 1: No. 8 Jalan Ampas. As No. 8 Jalan Ampas is now an empty site being cared for by a caretaker, prior arrangements must be made to gain access to the site. At this station, students will be given sources A, B, C and D (Table 3.5) which illustrates the history of the Malay Film Production Studios since its inception by the Shaw Brothers until its closing in 1967. Students will be asked the sub-inquiry question, “How did the Malay Film Production Studio adapt to Singapore’s economic developments?” The Malay Film Production Studios occupies a historic position as a significant economic unit that produced a plethora of films for local and regional audiences. By answering the sub-inquiry question, students will understand that the key reason for its demise was its inability to adapt to changes caused by economic transformation. Hence, students will understand that adaptation is imperative for businesses to remain economically viable. Some possible questions for students to consider could be: 1. What kind of films were shot here? 2. What made the Malay Film Production studio so successful? 3. Why did the Malay Film Production studios close in 1967? Teachers should also take note to adapt the sources according to the language abilities and capacity of their students while ensuring that the meanings of the sources are not lost. The opportunity for students to make comparisons with such newspapers

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

63

Table 3.5 Sources for Jalan Ampas Station Source

Provenance

Contents

A

Adapted from The Straits Times (4 March 1951)

Singapore to Produce More Malay Films A new sound stage and new cameras and recording machines are some of the latest modern equipment that arrived recently to improve the quality of Malay films produced in Singapore With these additions, the Malay Film Productions Limited, the only company producing films in Singapore at the moment, plans to increase its productions from the six films of last year to 12 this year A spokesman of the M.F.P.I yesterday said that Malay films produced in Singapore have a very bright future because of their increasing popularity and steady market not only in Malaya but also in Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and other parts of Indonesia

B

Adapted from The Straits Times (17 April 1940, p. 10)

Malay Films to Be Made in New Singapore Studios A Singapore carbaret and Singapore sights are to form the setting of the first of a series of Malay talking pictures which Malaya’s first film studio is to produce in about a month’s time Now under construction, the $20,000 studio is being built by Shaw Brothers, Singapore and will go into production immediately once it is ready in about a month

C

Adapted from The Straits Times (19 December 1964, p. 5)

Union’s Three Alternatives for Ending Strike Singapore, Fri.—The Industrial Worker Union today suggested three alternatives to Shaw’s Malay Film to end the 16-day strike by 75 studio technicians over their wage claims They were a 30 percent cut in the union’s wage claims or an interim increment or taking the dispute to arbitration (continued)

reports and what they see in the field allows for a vivid comparison between the past and present, allowing students to hone their enduring understanding of change and continuity. Station 2: Balestier landscape (Compare and contrast). At the intersection of Boon Teck Road and Balestier Road (near the water kiosk) or any space that allows students to look at the Balestier landscape (conserved buildings against the backdrop of high-rise buildings). Students are to compare and contrast the architectural landscape and note down the differences from what was shown in the pre-fieldtrip lesson

64

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Table 3.5 (continued) Source

Provenance

Contents

D

Adapted from The Straits Times (25 October 1967, p. 19)

Notices in the Matter of Companies Ordinance CAP. 174 and Malay Film Productions Limited Notice is hereby given that the creditors of the above name company which is being voluntarily wound up are required on or before 30th November 1967 being the day for that purpose fixed by the undersigned to send their names and addresses and the particulars of their debts or claims, and the names and addresses of their solicitors, if any, to the undersigned, the liquidator of the said company, and if so required by the notice in writing from the undersigned, the creditors or their solicitors, if any, are to come in and prove their said debts or claims at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice or in default thereof they will be excluded from the benefit of any distribution made before such debts are proved

(Fig. 3.2). Students are encouraged to record questions and observations. Teacher should also encourage students to further their research after the fieldtrip. The changing landscape of Balestier is largely influenced by the conservation of the buildings in 2004 and the influx of hotel chains opening their doors since 2011. The inherent dilemma of cultural and heritage value against economic value becomes apparent at this station. As market forces work their ways in the district, students may understand the significance of gazetting parts of Balestier as a heritage site. Station 3: Interview with business owners (of family businesses). Referring to Fig. 3.3, students will conduct oral history interviews with the business owners. Students are also required to make observations about the business such as the architecture and the products being sold. This station is guided by the sub-inquiry question, “How have local businesses around Balestier adapted to changes brought about by developments in Singapore’s economy over the years?” Students will understand that Singapore’s economic transformation brought about challenges which smaller local businesses are still grappling with. Many of these businesses chose to adapt gradually so as to sustain a balance of preserving their personal heritage while still ensuring their economic viability. Post-fieldtrip lesson. After the fieldtrip, students will submit their photo journals of Balestier to illustrate the businesses they have visited during the trip. They will discuss how the businesses in Balestier have changed over time. Better journals may discuss the developments in Balestier vis-a-vis the developments in Singapore. This will culminate in a gallery walk where the students discover what their classmates have learnt from their interviews with different business owners during the fieldtrip.

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

65

Fig. 3.2 View of Balestier landscape (Image courtesy of Tay Suyin and Esti Asmira)

To further encourage students’ active participation, apart from assigning weighted marks for their yearly assessment, teachers may also consider the possibility of facilitating and having students present their photo journals to the business owners they have interviewed as a form of appreciation of their time. As a means to ensure rigor in the learning process, students will be assessed based on the rubric in Table 3.6. Step 4: Fieldtrip evaluation. In examining an everyday site such as Balestier, it is important to make sense of the site by allowing students to understand it through the lens of its present-day state and pursue an inquiry of the site’s evolution across time. Indeed, as highlighted by MOE’s statement of philosophy in history: “Ultimately, the history education in Singapore seeks to develop in students an appreciation of past human experiences, critical awareness of the nature of historical knowledge, and the ability to make connections between the past and present” (MOE, 2013, p. 6). In an everyday site such as Balestier, students not only understand concepts of change and continuity, but in their direct interaction with those who inhabit the sites, develop historical empathy and a deep appreciation for historical inquiry.

66

Fig. 3.3 Station details of the fieldtrip at Balestier

E. Asmira and S. Tay

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

67

Fig. 3.3 (continued)

Nonetheless, as reflective practitioners, it is important for teachers to consider the following for review in the planning and review after each fieldtrip: 1. Logistical considerations a. b. c. d.

Proximity between each station (time and distance) Safety concerns Opening hours of businesses Space of business entity (ensure that business can still run with little disruption) e. Size of student cohort f. Fieldtrip route

2. Pedagogical considerations a. Understanding student learning profiles: Modify tasks and deliverables to suit learners, provide scaffolds where necessary b. Modify the line of inquiry based on students’ interests or teacher’s instructional objectives As Balestier is an everyday space, it is significant to note that the site is organic and dynamic. It constantly changes with time and thus the itinerary of each fieldtrip may differ from year to year, seasons to seasons, or even from day to day. Thus, working with an everyday space requires planning ahead, and teachers should be comfortable with making adjustments in order to adapt the fieldtrip accordingly.

68

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Table 3.6 Suggested rubric for photo journal Band 5 Historical • Understanding and Interpretation: • How well • does the group’s interpretation reveal understanding • of the developments in Balestier? • How well are ideas supported by the research and data collected?

Band 4

Marginal • understanding of developments in Balestier Minimal attention to • details in data collected Photo journal does not convey an understanding • of Balestier’s economic development

Band 3

Some • attempt to offer insight into the economic developments of Balestier Some attention to • details in data collected, • though not always accurate Photo journal somewhat conveys an understanding of Balestier’s economic development

Band 2

Band 1

• • Nuanced Demonstrates Demonstrates understanding an a good of the understanding understanding economic of of developments the economic the economic of Balestier developments developments • Discerning selection of of Balestier of Balestier Attention to • Close details; able to details in attention to pick out data details in significant key collected data information Photo collected and focus on journal • Photo these conveys an journal • Photo journal understanding conveys a clearly of Balestier’s good communicates economic understanding and compares development of Balestier’s Balestier’s economic development development vis-à-vis the nation’s developments

Organization • No • Lacks • Somewhat • Generally • Well& Task organization organization organized organized organized • Partial • Fulfilment of • Majority of • All task Fulfilment: evident • Does not fulfiment of task task requirements • How well fulfill task requirements fulfilled organized demands of met and coherent task is the presentation of ideas? Creativity

• Project • Some visual • Visually lacks appeal appeal appealing in • • Not wella way Conventional • Acceptable presented presentation • Bland, presentation • Can be slip-shod • Neat and deciphered reflects at least some effort

• Visually • Visually appealing creative and and artistic • attractive Unconventional • Good presentation; presentation; well-illustrated makes good use of color, • Pays attention to details and illustrations reflects that are genuine effort helpful • Reflects good effort

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

69

3.6 Conclusion The inquiry questions (main and sub), activities, and places of interest outlined in the case study of Balestier are by no means an exhaustive list that represents the only way history teachers could approach fieldtrips to this place. Neither is Balestier the only everyday space fieldtrip destination that history teachers should consider when they are teaching the history of Singapore. There are many other areas in Singapore which are equally rich in history and relevant to the national history curriculum. For instance, the pioneering satellite towns in Singapore, Queenstown, and Toa Payoh, could potentially be suitable fieldtrip destinations to help students answer one of the key inquiry questions in MOE’s 2014 lower secondary history syllabus, namely the question of how far the lives of the people were transformed after independence as they moved from shophouses, squatters, and kampongs to Housing Development Board (HDB) flats. Visits to these satellite towns would give students the chance to collect the information required to answer this inquiry question by interacting with the residents, particularly those who have lived and worked in these towns for many decades. As a start, history teachers could look at available resources such as the NHB’s roots.sg microsite for ideas of other everyday spaces and fieldtrip activities that would suit the profiles and interests of their students. At first glance, fieldtrips to everyday spaces such as Balestier could appear to be a marked departure from the tried-and-tested fieldtrip destinations of museums and historic sites. However, upon a closer examination, many Singaporean teachers are already conducting fieldtrips to conserve historic districts which could simultaneously be regarded as everyday spaces. Historic districts such as Chinatown, Little India, and Kampong Glam where ordinary people continue to go about their daily lives remain as popular fieldtrip destinations for teachers who wish to examine how life in colonial Singapore was like for various ethnic communities. Through the detailed illustration of an unconventional yet possible field trip to Balestier, we hope that this chapter has served as an encouragement for history teachers to look beyond museums, historic sites, and gazetted historic districts and to consider the suitability of less conventional everyday spaces as their next fieldtrip destination. By embracing the potential that everyday spaces offer in history education, teachers can expose students to a wider range of authentic learning tasks that inculcate enduring understandings of historical concepts. More importantly, fieldtrips to everyday spaces could also sensitize students to the fact that traces of the past are not confined to museums, historic sites, or gazetted historic districts. Rather, they exist all around us.

References Atkinson, D. (2007). Kitsch geographies and the everyday spaces of social memory. Environment and Planning A, 39, 521–540.

70

E. Asmira and S. Tay

Bain, R. B. (2005). “They thought the world was flat?” Applying the principles of how people learn in teaching high school history. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 179–214). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Balestier—The first American businessman in Singapore. (1967, December 17). The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes196712171.2.66. Doolittle, P., Hicks, D., & Ewing, T. (2004–2005). The historical inquiry project. Retrieved from http://historicalinquiry.com. Gruenewald, D. A. (2005). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2008). Introduction: Making room for the local. In D. A. Gruenewald & G. A. Smith (Eds.), Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. xiii–xxiii). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hein, G. E., Alexander, M., & Adams, R. (1998). Museums: Places of learning. Professional Practice Series. Washington, DC: American Associations of Museum. Lee, H. L. (2013). Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the launch of Singapore Heritage Festival 2013. Retrieved from https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/speech-prime-minister-leehsien-loong-launch-singapore-heritage-festival-2013. Lesh, B. A. (2011). “Why won’t you just tell us the answer?” Teaching historical thinking in grades 7–12. Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers. Lévesque, S. (2009). Thinking historically: Educating students for the twenty-first century. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Lowenthal, D. (1999). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Loy, K. (2019). About us. Retrieved from http://www.loykee.com.sg. Malay films to be made in new Singapore studios. (1940, April 17). The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19400417-1.2.60. Marcus, A. S. (2007). Representing the past, reflecting the present: Museums, memorials, and the secondary history classroom. The Social Studies, 98, 105–110. Marcus, A. S., Levine, T. H., & Grenier, R. S. (2012). How secondary history educators use and think about museums: Current practices and untapped promise for promoting historical understanding. Theory & Research in Social Education, 40(1), 66–97. Ministry of Education. (2013). Teaching and learning guide 2014. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education. National Heritage Board (NHB). (2006). Balestier heritage trial. Retrieved from https://roots.sg/ Roots/visit/trails/Balestier-Heritage-Trail-Faith-Film-and-Food. National Heritage Board (NHB). (2014). Roots.sg. Retrieved from https://www.roots.sg/about-us. Ng, J. (2014). Balestier’s Tin Man. Retrieved from https://contented.cc/2014/06/jimmy-chin-oldtrades-balestier-tin-man. Nicaise, M., Gibney, T., & Crane, M. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: Student perception of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 79–94. Notices in the matter of companies ordinance, cap. 174 and malay firm production limited. (1967, October 25). The Straits Times, Page 19 Advertisements Column 2. Retrieved from http://eresou rces.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19671025-1.2.137.2. Seixas, P., & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching historical thinking. In A. Sears & I. Wright (Eds.), Challenges and prospects for Canadian social studies (pp. 109–117). Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press. Seow, E. (2014). The value of enthusiasm. Retrieved from https://thehoneycombers.com/singapore/ wheelers-yard-singapore-tommy-ong. Singapore to produce more malay firms. (1951, March 4). The Straits Times. Retrieved from https:// eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19510304-1.2.106?ST=1&AT= search&k=Singapore%20to%20Produce%20More%20Malay%20Films&QT=singapore,to,pro duce,more,malay,films&oref=article.

3 A Case for “Everyday Spaces” in Historical Fieldtrips

71

Union’s three alternatives for ending a strike. (1964, December 19). The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19641219-1.2.19? ST=1&AT=filter&DF=&DT=&AO=false&NPT=&L=&CTA=&NID=straitstimes&CT=& WC=&YR=&k=Malay+Film+Production+studio%26ka%3dMalay+Film+Production+studio& P=2&Display=0&filterS=0&QT=malay,film,production,studio&oref=article. Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2002). Subject group report on old world charm. Retrieved from https://www.ura.gov.sg/media/User%20Defined/URA%20Online/publications/ research-resources/plans-reports/pwip_old_world_charm.pdf?la=en. Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Teaching the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Esti Asmira is an educator who has taught History and English Language at several secondary schools in Singapore. Her interest in education has brought her around the world, conducting lessons in a South African high school in the Kayamandi township, a K-12 private school overlooking the Statue of Liberty, and over Skype to student-teachers based in the Kon Tum province in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. She enjoys uncovering untold stories through historical research and believes in the intrinsic value of humanities research. The latter led to a stint in the team that oversees the formulation, implementation, and review of policies pertaining to social science and humanities research in Singapore. She holds a BA (First Class Honours) in History jointly awarded by the Australian National University and National University of Singapore and a Postgraduate Diploma in Education from the National Institute of Education. Aside from teaching History in a pre-university institution, she is currently pursuing her MA by research specialising in Southeast Asian Studies. Suyin Tay is an educator, curriculum developer, and social impact advocate. She is deeply passionate about the human condition and how interdisciplinary solutions can drive sustained transformations. Her work in the APAC region includes being a curriculum designer at McKinsey’s Social Initiative: Generation, a non-profit that seeks to connect education to sustainable livelihoods. She is also a certified EQ Practitioner and Educator as part of the Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Network. She formerly taught History and English Literature as a Subject Head and Assistant Year Head at the Ministry of Education. Suyin graduated from the University Scholars Programme (USP) with a BA in Political Science from the National University of Singapore. She was awarded a minor in China Studies as part of the USP-PKU Joint Cultural Immersion Programme at Yale-Yuanpei College, Peking University. She also holds a Postgraduate Diploma in Education from the National Institute of Education. She currently drives social initiatives at the Bettr Group- a social enterprise dedicated to changing lives through coffee.

Chapter 4

Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam” Rahil Ismail

Abstract By 2018, the heritage space of Kampong Glam seems to have found its place in Singapore’s tourist landscape as an attractive enough place for foreign tourists and Singaporeans to comingle with Singapore Malay-Muslim community visiting the area for spiritual and leisure purposes. The impact of conservation efforts since the 1990s had raised concerns on the economic viability of the area as being not “attractive” enough for the modern tourists. 2018 Kampong Glam, especially the main thoroughfare of Bussorah Street, has been transformed with its ethnic minority heritage touristified, commodified, exotified and “showcased” to achieve that right balance of “authenticity” amidst the usual activities that distinguish modern tourism. This is a contested evolution with significant repercussions on history, identity and memory. With Kampong Glam, pupils and students of Singapore history need to look beyond the comfortable descriptive narrative of textbook learning journeys or the triumphalism of heritage sustainability through tourist-centered conservation efforts. Undoubtedly, heritage conservation is a complex process but in appreciating Kampong Glam, there must be the effort to analyze the deep structures of these processes and the tangible and intangible negative outcomes not always included in official narratives or tourist brochures. Heritage management is about power dynamics of defining space and this ultimately resides with the state and state-defined interests. In appreciating Kampong Glam, as with any heritage spaces, pupils and students therefore should be introduced to the interdisciplinary framework of deconstructing conservation, heritage, and identity within competing power dynamics which can result in disempowerment for selected groups.

R. Ismail (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_4

73

74

R. Ismail

4.1 Kampong Glam: Of History and a “Sacred” Heritage Space The Kampong Glam district can be described as a revered place for Singapore’s Malay-Muslim population for its links to the past, especially as the regional center for Muslim pilgrims preparing and stationing themselves before leaving for Mecca (Green, 2006; Shah, 2019, p. 8) and thus fulfilling one of the five pillars of Islam: the Hajj (Green & Daud, 2019). Once a “pilgrim village,” the passage of time meant that the preparatory services and mode of traveling for pilgrims had changed. Kampong Glam however, still bears the indelible importance of its impact with Haji Lane being a significant reminder of this celebrated past together with current services and businesses that cater to Malay-Muslims’ spiritual, emotional, and practical needs. The Kampong Glam district is often identified as part of the 1822 Jackson Plan: colonial spatial, ideological and economic rationalization management of dividing the diverse population into segregated parts. Not always noted is Kampong Glam having a longer history than colonial Singapore starting in 1819. The gelam tree which used to dominate the area probably gave the district its name. A versatile tree with its bark used to caulk boats and its leaves converted to minyak kayu putih (white wood oil), parts of the district were declared historic conservation area in July 1989 (Ismail, 2006). Kampong Glam bears all the hallmarks of a heritage space with the links to the past and present. The physical manifestations such as the Masjid Sultan and the Gedung Kuning (yellow mansion) (Amin, 2010), Islamic-related businesses, Islamic madrasahs, Islamic burial grounds, and the seasonal convergence for Muslims during the month of Ramadan for its famous food bazaar (Ismail, 2006) are all integral parts of the Kampong Glam district. Unquestionably, Muslims from all over the Archipelago and the Middle East before and during the colonial period did make Kampong Glam what it is today and with that imbued the space with Islamic spirituality and identity: a heritage space of profound standing for a Singapore Malay-Muslim ethnic minority. These layers of memories and history are part of the Singapore Muslim community’s heritage with the Masjid Sultan a sturdy anchor of this Islamic heritage space’s claims to the past, present and presumably future (Amin, 2019) (Fig. 4.1). The term “heritage” and what it entails does not have uniformity across the different nations of the globe though there are broad guidelines as instituted by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (Ahmad, 2006; Alzahrani, 2013). The online Cambridge Dictionary (2019) defines heritage as “features belonging to the culture of a particular society, such as traditions, languages, or buildings that were created in the past and still have historical importance” (Heritage, para. 1). With the term cultural heritage, UNESCO’s definition (2019) embraces several main categories of tangible, movable and underwater cultural heritage. In relation to Kampong Glam’s heritage development, the reminder is to place “culture at the heart of development policy” which “constitutes an essential investment in

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

75

Fig. 4.1 Gedung Kuning 2004 (Image courtesy of Rahil Ismail)

the world’s future and a pre-condition to successful globalization processes that take into account the principles of cultural diversity. It is UNESCO’s mission to remind all States of this major issue” (Culture and Development, para. 1). As discussed later in this chapter, the critical deconstruction of the term while engaging with heritage, specifically within the education learning journeys and fieldtrips context, would demand myriad and interconnected deliberations of the issues and consequences of overt, and as described by Edward Said, suppressed “subterranean histories” (Walia, 2001, pp. 18–23). The latter represents historical narratives critical to a more inclusive and complex truth but (un)consciously ignored or excluded by society’s influential decision-makers with a political and economic agenda. With Kampong Glam, this is more than an urgent consideration in unpacking the evolving narratives and with that a critical historical awareness of the past and its relevance to contemporary lives (Yeoh & Huang, 1996). In land scarce and rapidly urbanised Singapore, heritage is inextricably linked to urban planning and with that the conservation-redevelopment of Singapore that has affected all Singaporeans in innumerable ways. The matter of control: features, directions and paces of conservation efforts and with that heritage does not facilitate a “general agreement.” This includes “divergences over specific issues such as the authenticity of the conserved landscape, the degree to which traditional trades and lifestyles can be retained, the level to which public opinions are considered in state planning” (Kong & Yeoh, 1994, p. 247). Contestation in these matters have evolved over the years to include voices not always from the government bodies of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) or the National Heritage Board (NHB) but to include

76

R. Ismail

selected stakeholders with tangible and intangible connections to buildings, crafts, and with that identity. What is meant by heritage in Singapore has evolved into narratives of spatial politics, “cultural justice” (Yeoh, 2005, p. 956), multicultural tokenism, economic displacement, blithe gentrification, “Orientalism mentality” (Amin, 2019, p. 293), “cultural mutilation” (Rashith, 2019), and disrespectful ethnoscapes (Ismail, 2006). As discussed later in this chapter, these are upsetting outcomes for the Malay-Muslim stakeholders who are troubled and distressed by the tangible and intangible impact on Singapore’s only Islamic heritage space. In this development, authenticity as offered by heritage spaces, especially of a minority group due to its marker as a presumably exotic “other” from the “normality” of dominant groups, can and are being mined for its authentic value and economic potential. All this is seemingly facilitated on terms and framework for economic boosterism (Yeoh, 2005) of global and local tourism as framed by state-defined interests and objectives. Haji Lane is therefore gradually erased from memory as a major regional hub for Muslim pilgrims from Southeast Asia in spite of its name, but celebrated as hipster, bohemian paradise recognized by The New York Times (Williams, 2009). In examining the physical changes within the Kampong Glam district, the perceptions have indubitably evolved over the past decade arising from development in global tourism with the marketing of ethnoscapes as “spaces of consumption” (Shaw, 2011) and with that the character and tenor of this once sacred but still spiritually significant district. By 2019, the heritage space of Kampong Glam seems to have found its place in Singapore’s tourist landscape as an attractive enough place for tourists and Singaporeans as “hosts and guests” (Saunders, 2004, p. 445) to comingle with Singapore Malay-Muslim community visiting the area for spiritual and leisure purposes. The main thoroughfare of Bussorah Street has been transformed with its ethnic minority heritage touristified, commodified, exotified, and “showcased” to achieve that “right balance” of manufactured authenticity (Shaw, Bagwell, & Karmowska, 2004). This is amidst the usual activities that distinguish modern, global tourism which is not always and increasingly not in respectful harmony with the Islamic identity of the area (Rashith, 2019, p. B1). The conduct of learning journeys or fieldtrips by Singapore schools will have to consider these developments in their effort to use Kampong Glam as an extension of a history lesson and/or an expression of Singapore’s multiracial dynamism.

4.2 A Dominant Pedagogical Framework Nothing is more complex and contentious in the management of space in multiracial Singapore as related to History and with that History and Social Studies education. An education system noted for its excellent global rankings, the Singapore Ministry of Education’s (MOE) pedagogical approach to education is intrinsic to the political, economic, and social objectives of an “accidental nation” working toward a prosperity

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

77

consensus (Ooi & Shaw, 2004). The pursuit of this prosperity is centrally managed in the symbiotic and integrated political, social and economic strands of government policies toward nation-building. Not surprisingly, the education system was and still is a conduit for this herculean effort with the management of the complexity of race and race issues into an essentialization and reductionist interpretation. This worked toward not only an “efficient” management of race but also of control. Education and the teaching of History and Social Studies are natural vehicles for the management and control of a multiracial society in 1965 and beyond. Unquestionably, the pedagogical approach has evolved but still within a framework of supporting teachers to deliver optimal teaching, and pupils to comprehend their lessons effectively within a national curriculum. Indubitably though, the pedagogical framework is still about reiterating and sustaining the grand narrative of the Singapore Story and that still includes the simplistic and sometimes reductionist assessment of the different ethnic components that makeup Singapore (Ismail, 2010). Notwithstanding the right of a self-governing nation to formulate for itself a pedagogical framework that supports the viability of the nation, a critical pedagogy is also fundamental to an education process and especially so in the teaching of History and Social Studies. Critical theory philosophy predicates an interrogative element focussing on prevailing societal circumstances and how education itself can be occasions and exercises to understanding perspectives of differing groups of people: all this toward a common good befitting humanity’s predisposition in the search for hopefully, a complex rather than a manufactured truth. But this is not how the real world works due to the political nature of education, curriculum (Gounari, 2014, p. 261), and societal-economic hierarchical structures (Banks & Banks, 2005). But then again, this is not an acceptable reason to surrender wholly to the cruel forces of realities. An awareness of the contradictions, complexities, and limitations attending a seemingly interesting learning journey or fieldtrip to a heritage space such as Kampong Glam or any interrogative historical exercise has the potential to ameliorate some of the disconcerting associations and with that the crafting of a learning journey or a fieldtrip. As a pedagogic philosophy and practice, the nature of History and with that History education should find a natural home in critical theory pedagogy in the continual exhortation to question always a narrative. In teaching heritage and heritage spaces, the challenges are amplified in the adoption of a pedagogical framework that does not always produce illuminating insights on how a society really works. More than not, it is a display of dominant existing political, social, and economic selected interests over the site and its narratives. As noted by Panayota Gounari (2014): …premises of critical pedagogy is that education is not neutral; it is inherently political. To see pedagogy as a ‘transparent vehicle of truth’ is to ‘overlook important political issues regarding how canons are historically produced, whose interests they serve as well whose they do not serve, and how they are sustained within specific forms of institutionalised power’. (p. 262)

This is not to claim that there is no value in learning journeys or history fieldtrips to heritage spaces as conducted by History and Social Studies educators in Singapore.

78

R. Ismail

As outlined by noted Singapore educator, the late Yee Sze Onn, “[E]thnic enclaves as teaching and Learning sites” can be an endeavor that produces valued outcomes: “…enrich students’ understanding of social studies, geography, and history. The study of ethnic groups living in distinct enclaves can do so much to build social cohesiveness by helping children, especially those in multiracial societies, gain a better understanding of the diversity of peoples, customs, and cultures” (Yee, 1996, p. 16). Indeed, the History syllabus in the secondary schools do engage significantly in introducing the tools of the Historian’s craft of evaluating sources, deconstructing narratives, and constructing thesis arguments through methodical approaches within and beyond the classrooms. History concepts such as change and continuity and impact and consequences are similarly explored (MOE, 2019a). For this author, the teaching and study of History in secondary schools now has advanced differently since the author’s secondary and Junior College days. History is not only as an examinable subject but aspires to fundamental aspects of an interrogative critical exercise. Nevertheless, learning journeys or fieldtrips emphasize a contact theory approach and a dialogic model of interaction that should be conducted with full cognisant that contact among different groups of people can produce unintended outcomes. Such outcomes include entrenching power structures (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and racial stereotypes between the “dominant” and the “subordinate groups” (Tatum, 2003, pp. 23–28). Learning journeys or fieldtrips can be a means of participating in a democratic process such as nation-building but it can also be limited to “doing” history as distractions from questioning the interconnected mechanics of how our local and global societies are affected: inequities from transglobal tourism and with it the inequitable impact of hyper globalization (Eisenger, 2000). Concomitantly, a learning journey or fieldtrip conducted akin as a National Geography channel programme of observing how the “other” behaves in a “natural setting” of a heritage space does not necessarily work toward a broadening of perspectives (Ismail, 2010, p. 28): a respectful understanding of the “other” or the challenges of living in a multiracial society. A learning journey or fieldtrip geared toward a confirmation of “facts” or “information” of different ethnic groups as found in formal literature and mainstream information is not a critical theory approach to education but one that prioritizes consumption of “approved information.” At worst, it does not work toward a framework of “critique and possibility” (Gounari, 2014, p. 261) but acceptance and, to an extent, obedience (Spring, 2004, p. 21). It complements a fundamental socialization process toward an imagined society (Sim & Print, 2005; Wang, 1968) while sidestepping at times the potential for “transformative conscience raising outcomes” (Ismail, 2017, p. 256) or working toward for example, social or cultural justice (Banks, 2004). The political, economic, and social authority to control a historical narrative past, present, and future should never be underestimated and thus contestations over history curriculum are not new and vary throughout the globe. History is not about the dead or the past: it is about control and influence and in most cases, a History by committee in which the complex truth of History is not always conceived or

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

79

aspired to within a national curriculum. Consequently, this means sometimes ignoring or erasing complexities of a historical narrative for a designated master narrative while marginalizing or ignoring silent voices and invisible groups to produce a “manufactured” narrative more suited to state-defined interests and economic policies. This is an important consideration in the numerical and racial dynamics of an ethnic minority group with complex, enduring relations with the rest of Southeast Asia such as Singapore Malay-Muslim minority (Ismail, 2014). This chapter contends that the evolution and direction of Kampong Glam is an example of how development does not always commend itself to an optimistic prognosis as both an expression of healthy multiculturalism and an example of an affirming school learning journey or a fieldtrip of a heritage space.

4.2.1 Of a Minority Heritage Space and Critical Pedagogy Ideally, intercultural visits to heritage sites as a History or Social Studies project by pupils of various ages should be conducted within a historical realm of continuing historical dialogue and interrogation: a critical theory pedagogy for both educators and facilitators. History or Social Studies learning journeys or fieldtrips can be presented as a dynamic and a form of interrogating history directly and therefore a progressive approach in history education (van Boxtel, Grever, & Klein, 2016, pp. 1–7). These are aspirational hopes as there are interrogative limits in a national History curriculum and the metaknowledge as accumulated by pupils from their early formative years to early adulthood. An interrogative framework of a critical history pedagogy is essential for the introduction and development of critical skills but with respect to Kampong Glam and other various heritage sites, the metaknowledge is not inconsequential. The Singapore Story grand narrative is often expressed through the 4Ms of multicultural, multiracial, multireligious, and multilingual components. The dominant expressions of the 4Ms in schools are through the superficial ornamentalism of the 3Fs: “Food, Fashion and Festival” approach (Ismail, 2010, p. 6). Here, Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Other (CMIO) groups are expected to “showcase” their culture with ethnic minority groups seen, not unpredictably, as the nonnormal “other” as against the normality of a dominant group. Depressingly, the wearing of ethnic clothes, de rigueur such as during Racial Harmony Day celebrations, is seen as traditional “costumes” embedding further the artificiality or exoticism of everyday experiences especially of ethnic minorities through their manner of daily dress. Concurrently, the 3Cs of commodification: “cuisines, costumes and celebrations” (Ismail, 2015) are all part of the “play nice encounters” or “safe” interactions that do not seek to interrogate the deep structures or the complexity and challenges of navigating a multiracial existence. Indubitably, there is a serious (un)intended outcomes of trivializing the rich, complex experience of a community’s life as merely a case of dressing in “costumes”

80

R. Ismail

and eating “food.” Concurrently, it promotes an ignorant “iceberg” understanding among Singaporeans of each other: limited to one-tenth of the surface culture of the 3Fs at the expense of the nine-tenths of the “deep culture” (Bokhorst-Heng, 2007, p. 635) Navigating the challenges of living in multiracial society with its racial and numerical dynamics having differential privileging and marginalization impact on all lives remains unacknowledged. Formidable “out-of-bounds” (OB) markers (Ismail, 2010, pp. 8, 33) in which offending language, view or behavior on race, language, and religion, as defined by governing authorities, are serious fissures and not tolerated in multiracial Singapore. This is a significant socialization process for Singaporeans in general and fundamental in the education curriculum: all toward racial harmony but as state-defined, controlled, and directed. In formal conversations on race, religion, and language, the tendency is to lean toward the “minimalist” exchange buttressed by “passive tolerance” and without “substantial cultural exchanges” (Chua, 2005, p. 18). Significantly, this also sometimes excludes much-needed critique of uncomfortable narratives such as casual everyday racism, unearned privilege and conscious and unconscious bias. Consequently, what it can produce especially within a pedagogical framework for a learning journey or fieldtrip in a heritage space such as Kampong Glam, is interaction that is supposedly “authentic” but ultimately not essentially so. The learning journey or fieldtrip in a heritage space can be one that does not always interrogate historical narratives but can perpetuate stereotypes, while reinforcing official, general, and simplistic assessment of different groups. While it can produce seemingly harmonious photo-opportunities, it is a superficial iceberg understanding (Ismail, 2010) of different groups that can produce a false positive “harmony” while signalling visible and invisible power structures (Ismail, 2017). All Singaporeans have been schooled and disciplined to think of Singapore’s multiracial and multicultural identity through an essentialized and reductionist version of each group through the superficial 3Fs or 3Cs. Singaporeans as administratively essentialized and efficiently categorized into ordered ethnic categories will thus have their historical spatial history reflected as such. This is continuing the socialization process of untroubled “unity within diversity” as extended in an “exotic” learning journey or a fieldtrip of the “other” at times devoid of the necessary context for a critical history pedagogical framework. A learning journey or fieldtrip executed by conforming to the information received through various mainstream channels of each racial groups’ alleged identities has potential instances of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias surfacing during these visits to a heritage space (Waterton & Smith, 2010). This is the broad metaknowledge canvas that educators and pupils will be contingent while visiting heritage spaces. The unfortunate outcome, as noted earlier, is the promotion and dominance of the National Geography channel approach to difference. With Kampong Glam, it is a heritage space in an urban area that had been through several evolutionary phases. The current appropriation is as a “glamorous” place for the global tourist trade and Singaporeans but with just enough “authentic” physical manifestations, for example the Masjid Sultan, to ensure the attendance of the MalayMuslim minority as appropriate “props” to underline its heritage space as somehow

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

81

representing a “native ethnoscape” or a tourist playground. The mosque, the Arab influenced gateways and the madrasahs are all part of the politics of landscapes effective for that superficial photo-opportunity selfie of an exotic Instagram location for the global tourists and even for Singaporeans (Ong, 2019, p. D4). Synchronously, in its mission statement, the NHB (2019) pledges to undertake “the roles of safeguarding and promoting the heritage of our diverse communities, for the purpose of education, nation-building and cultural understanding” and to “preserve and celebrate our shared heritage” for Singaporeans to “know and understand our history, cherish the importance of leaving legacies toward a shared future” (Our Mission and Vision). A government institution that does sterling work in the service of heritage for Singapore, the preservation, conservation, and evolving identity of a heritage space is still embedded in the highly controlled and intertwining hegemonic central control servicing commerce, tourism, and the overall Singapore Story. In this context, Kampong Glam can be perceived ultimately as in service of nation-building and with that possibly marginalizing the attending perils and contestations for certain key stakeholders.

4.3 Kampong Glam: A “Glamorous” Place in Service of Nation-Building Kampong Glam is an example of heritaging an ethnoscape both as an education and tourist destination that has been “authentically” and commercially managed so as to attract international and domestic tourism while retaining its “authenticity.” It is a place for commercial and educational consumption with its physical manifestations and remaining Islamic businesses apparently in service toward the greater good of nation-building. Accordingly, it is implicit in its heritage space role to remain “uncritical and patriotic” (van Boxtel et al., 2016, p. 8). Either as an example of a “holistic destination marketing” (Karamehmedovi´c, 2018, p. 29) or a holistic education destination, Kampong Glam suffers from the unintended outcomes as expressed earlier in the chapter. Observations and “lessons” learned during learning journeys and fieldtrips for educational institutions at various levels do not always result in promoting critical interrogative questions or perspectives for empowering educational outcomes. To reiterate, it can have the discomforting outcome of reinforcing stereotypes and confirming bias but all within the framework of an educational consumption of approved “information” and “facts” but not of the interrogation compulsions of why and how. A learning journey or fieldtrip inquiry framework as done through worksheets or on-site discussions is largely related to information of past trades, historic links, surviving trades and physical reminders of the space. In Kampong Glam, the Islamic identity or Muslims who visit or reside in the area are seen as part of that History and fitting into the neat racial identifiers learned through the 4Ms, the 3Fs and 3Cs. What is not always attempted is deconstructing or unpacking both the historical and the

82

R. Ismail

contemporary narratives of Kampong Glam as an expression of multiracialism that is increasingly presented as “glamorous” and seemingly consensual. Facilitators or educators with fieldwork or worksheets that place a premium on presenting “facts,” and thus information, have marginalized the opportunity to interact with history beyond the textbook by reinforcing information already available in textbooks and other official narratives. Notwithstanding the hegemonic importance of an educational curriculum in which there will be the inevitable gaps between philosophical theory and pragmatic practice, facilitators and educators could still address issues beyond approved facts and information. Consequential matters of spatial politics, cultural justice, multicultural tokenism, economic displacement, class gentrification, and emerging disrespectful ethnoscapes are matters of concern to a community with historical, spiritual, and emotional attachments to Kampong Glam. Being a minority community, the MalayMuslim community has the most to “lose” given Singapore social and economic framework. The touristification, commodification, gentrification and exotification of Kampong Glam has raised discordant narratives on how the space is being disrespected especially with alcohol-serving establishments near the Masjid, the displacement of traditional businesses given the high rentals of market forces (Lee, 1996) that advantage certain exogenous businesses (Amin, 2019), the changes in the business landscape such as in Haji Lane and the recent “cultural mutilation” in the change of use of Gedung Kuning (Rashith, 2019, p. B1). This latest development is a significant tipping point in the balance away from its heritage identity. The concerns expressed so far are not to deny that the activities promoted throughout the year in Kampong Glam (Ng, 2019, p. A16) have raised the profile of the area and with that economic and commercial viability (Lee, 1996). These events included flea markets, fashion shows, and themed events or activities at the Taman Warisan Melayu (Malay Heritage Center) (TWM), which formerly housed the Singapore Malay royal family evicted in 1999. Arguably, the commercial viability of a heritage space is important for its own survival. To an extent, a remaking and remarketing of a space such as of Gedung Kuning as adventure escape room (Amazing Chambers Singapura, 2019) dedicated to interactive gaming technology of is one of the controversial, and for this author abominable, trade-offs. Nevertheless, when a core identity or entity is appropriated and marketed, even via an NHB heritage center of the TWM with Malay-Muslim stakeholders, the loss will not be borne equitably. TWM is ultimately still a government institution center presenting an approved narrative and history of the community through exhibitions, book launches, and cultural events of food, fashion, and festival (Bock, 2019, p. D16). The center, as with museum and similar repositories, is almost always about a managed narrative that does not exist to interrogate power structures or put forward “uncomfortable narratives” of marginalization and dispossession: its role is to affirm the “successful” 4Ms as mandated by a national narrative (Fig. 4.2). If there are trade-offs with a balance sheet of gains and loss, the loss for the community would be that of gradually relinquishing control over the community’s ability to tell their own stories of the past, present and future in both spatial landscapes and

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

83

Fig. 4.2 Gedung Kuning 2019 (Image courtesy of Rahil Ismail)

mainstream narratives. Ultimately, what is marketed as “authentic” is a hegemonic construction (Phua & Berkowitz, 2014, p. 285): politically and bureaucratic directed and ironically promoted as “pockets of individuality” (Saunders, 2004, p. 440). The appropriation of a heritage space for national education and global tourism would require a more interrogative approach to school learning journeys and fieldtrips. Teachers, as trained in teaching institutes, and on-site facilitators can be encouraged to reframe the dominant approach: possibly with the emphasis on improving the quality of interaction with a more critical approach to learning, understanding and with that the application of knowledge. (Ismail, 2017). Elements of this exhortation are echoed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) (2019b): We want to nurture young Singaporeans who ask questions and look for answers, and who are willing to think in new ways, solve new problems and create new opportunities for the future. And, equally important, we want to help our young to build up a set of sound values so that they have the strength of character and resilience to deal with life’s inevitable setbacks without being unduly discouraged, and so that they have the willingness to work hard to achieve their dreams. (Education System, para. 6)

84

R. Ismail

4.4 Beyond the Glam: Question the Narrative! Learning journeys and fieldtrips are to ask questions: is this a celebration of respectful difference or reinforcing relational power difference and with that to effect change and control the narrative (Fincher, Iveson, Leitner, & Preston, 2014)? It is easier to contend that reconciling critical history thinking with an affirming heritage consciousness that is both critical and respectful within the discipline of History or Social Science is an impossibility (van Boxtel et al., 2016, p. 8). For the ultimate sceptic, the critical thinking and heritage consciousness are contradiction in terms, contexts, and objectives. The consumption of heritage through learning journeys or fieldtrips, given structural and inherent limitations of the exercise, is consumption without thought, without question, and without interrogation. Not a “learning” journey but perpetuating an inequitable embedded relatedness between communities or in the case of Singapore, a form of safe approach inimical to critical thinking on matters of multiracialism and multiculturalism and with that History. Conversely, this would be doing a disservice to Singapore teachers who have on their own terms attempt to address the fundamental responsibility of their profession beyond ensuring the continuation of a testocracy (Ismail, 2017, p. 264). These teachers should and can be encouraged to consider the vital exhortation in teaching pupils “how to think” rather than “what to think” even within the constrictions of a national curriculum and the embedded metaknowledge of Singaporean’s perceptions of “race, language and religion.” Collectively, it can be an exercise to assume “responsibility to understand and activate awareness” (Murray, 2018, p. 249) and hopefully leading to other critical paths questioning hegemonic systems of knowledge, existing hierarchical power structures, and with that decolonizing pedagogy. Questioning the narrative may seem a simplistic rallying call but it can be the basis in which worksheets, on-site discussions, and educational takeaways can be revised even amidst approved knowledge and facts of a heritage space. Indubitably, these efforts need to be calibrated accordingly and progressively through the different age groups to ensure appropriate level of introduction and comprehension of the critical issues discussed in this chapter so far. Essentially, for pupils from primary to secondary schools, a more challenging set of fieldtrip questions and framework can be introduced: question the methodological approach in order to question the narrative. With Kampong Glam, pupils and students especially those in secondary schools can be encouraged to consider beyond the comfortable descriptive or factual narrative of textbook learning journeys or the triumphalism of heritage sustainability through tourist-centered conservation. This is an ironic exhortation in stressing the need to learn beyond the textbook while participating in a learning journey or fieldtrip which by its definition is untethered to a textbook. Questions, phrased according to the competence level of the pupils, can be ranged based on the criticisms raised earlier. This includes questions on who decides, who controls and who “owns” the place. Essentially, what have you learned of the space, the people, the sights seen and “understood” from seeing an ethnic minority group

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

85

especially through the “multicultural carnivals and the politics of the spectacle” and pseudo-festivals (Goh, 2013)? Important questions indeed especially if the consumers of the experience have had minimal or no real interaction with the community represented in the heritage space. Abstract questions such as “whose heritage” (Kong & Yeoh, 1994, p. 256) and with that “who owns history” (Foner, 2002) might be overreaching in the attempts to raise awareness among pupils enjoying a day away from the classroom, but this can be the basis of a continuing classroom discussions before and after the learning journey or fieldtrip with interconnected relevance and context with other subjects such as Social Studies and Economics. Fundamentally, a graduated list of questions addresses the major contention that History is about change and continuity over time and space and to understand the mechanics of how this is effected is fundamental to continuing the enquiry into other significant related issues. It is consequently hopefully a critical deconstruction of what is seen, such as apparently harmonious multicultural existence to the superficial and disconnected reliance on seeing the “other” through the 3Fs and 3Cs prisms. The education consumption of Kampong Glam as asserted before, should eschew this view of the “other” in the superficial equivalence of spatial activities as affirmation instead of survival acquiescence or an inescapable participation in “manufacturing consent” (Chomsky & Herman, 1988). Concomitantly, on the question of ‘who owns history” is the interrogation of “who pays.” Amidst the tourists and Singaporeans who seem to appreciate the “native ethnoscape” but seemingly only within the terms of a “selfie” in an exotic background, their actions can inadvertently or blithely, be activities not necessarily respectful and are upsetting to a community with a greater sense of ownership to the space. It is the latter that will reap the costs of the creeping devaluation of their identity. Questioning the narrative must go beyond what Singapore Malay-Muslims eat, wear and celebrate as seen in Kampong Glam but what does it mean to be Malay-Muslims in Singapore and to have its heritage space evolved into a space that indeed has contradictions and tensions not always addressed in mainstream and educational narratives. This includes for example the ever-encroaching massage parlours into the core area, the consumption of alcoholic beverages near the mosque (Amin, 2019, pp. 292– 295) and the aforementioned latest development in the conversion of the Gedung Kuning, once housing Malay royalty, to its new economic use as an interactive gamespace with a self-described “learning journey” component (School Excursion and Learning Journey, 2019). This new space touted as “teknologi jadikan pembelajaran sejarah lebih menariki”: “technology making learning of history more attractive” is described by TWM, in all seriousness, as a “gedung ilmu” or house of knowledge (Hamzah, 2019). This author is not wholly convinced that a game-space Amazing Chambers housed in a heritage building is about “ilmu” or a history learning journey of credible worth. It is a brazen continuing commodification and devaluation of the historical sanctity of the space. But, questioning the why, how, and implications of the conversion could be an invaluable teaching moment in a learning journey or a fieldtrip.

86

R. Ismail

4.5 As a Space of Consumption Essentially, the impact of globalization and global tourism could be factored in questioning the narratives of learning journeys or fieldtrips, not just as affirming spectacles of vibrant multiculturalism or the “success” of a heritage space in the global age (Shaw et al., 2004). Questions need to contextualize tourism within the context of ethnic culture and community as seen either literally performing in cultural shows or simply being their selves in, for example, the popular Kampong Glam coffee shop. Global tourism is seen as “hedonistic rather than utilitarian modes of consumption” (Suntikul & Jachna, 2016, p. 309), and economic and social landscapes have to be “attractive” to the non-Asian tourist. However, what is “ethnic cultural tourism in Singapore is mostly accidental and less for cultural aspects than for cheap shopping and low-price food” (Phua & Berkowitz, 2014, p. 281). How do these priorities affect the intangible value and physical worth of heritage buildings perceived or converted for economic activities that are incongruous to the spirit of the space but for tenuous enlightening purposes for the global and local tourist? This discordant sense of value between visitors and the Malay-Muslim community is thus being ignored while the erasure of selected historical narratives such as the current state of Haji Lane is celebrated. Furthermore, secondary school pupils might wish to consider the following conclusion: “few tourists… these areas in showcasing different ethnic cultures, also represent segregation” (Phua & Berkowitz, 2014, p. 284). Question too the linguistic markers: to “showcase,” “to come alive” and “to present” as embedding perception and narrative of the heritage space and the culture as “performing” rather than living complex and inspiring lives in a multiracial Singapore: As this author noted in 2006, the concerns by not a few Malay-Muslim stakeholders of the community’s living experience being seen merely as “persembahan”: a “performance” (Ismail, 2006, p. 251) have not abated. It is a critical enquiry path to reiterate to pupils and students: what have they learned or understood of the “other” in a heritage space, and compare and contrast that with the community beyond the space, but that is if they indeed have friends and classmates from the Malay-Muslim community. Disturbingly insightful too is the characterization of Kampong Glam as Kampong Glum when proposals to limit the sale of alcohol were proposed (Ong, 2012) as it had been in the past few years. Implicit in the headline was that Muslim stakeholders with concerns on the increasing disrespectful practices near Masjid Sultan and within the core district as somehow unreasonable party-poopers and were illogically resistant to the district being “alive” with the presence of alcohol serving premises. This is converse of language being an emancipatory tool on deconstructing systems of knowledge or embedded power structures. Students can thus be tasked to question the assumptions behind linguistic choices and framework as used to refer to the evolving narratives of Kampong Glam. Questioning the narrative might include a worksheet that does more than just ticking off boxes of “necessary” information the pupils or students needed to know. What of the possibility of a small-scale project that interrogates the overt and covert

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

87

issues of multiracialism as represented through a distinct heritage space? This can be conducted through interviews with various stakeholders, asking questions on gentrification, exploring consequences of economic and personal displacement, the impact of global tourism and most importantly the influence on identity, and heritage of the space and its community. Undoubtedly, a rather challenging set of activities for students within a mandated high-stakes testocratic examination education system: the dominant valuation of individual success and therefore worth. Even so, a tentative and preliminary introduction to these general critical inquiries approach could be the preliminary or tentative directions while directly engaging with a historical and heritage space. This is the seed to the hope that “critical heritage practice can importantly and effectively be embodied as critical pedagogy” (Murray, 2018, p. 249). Students in secondary schools need to be introduced to the reality that there is no singular narrative or a “right” answer. There are essentially no easy answers or single narrative agreeable to all stakeholders. Contestation is also not merely a case of the Malay-Muslim community pitted against the bureaucrats with political and economic interests to craft and execute but also within the Malay-Muslim community itself in terms balancing commercial viability with heritage and identity preservation. As noted by Hidayah Amin, “[A]lthough the maritime trade had brought seafarers from the Middle East, the majority of the traders were from the Malay Archipelago. Such stark imagery would slowly erase the stories, the contributions and memories of the Malays in Kampong Glam” (Amin, 2019, p. 293). What is being displaced is not so much the Muslim identity but the Malay-Muslim historical footprints in the space now marketed as an exotic Arabian oasis in its Arabesque archways and once ubiquitous shisha establishments. Similarly, Tantow asserted (2009): …tourism brokers developed their own interpretations of the Malay-Muslim legacy. They displayed a “cosmopolitan “Middle Eastern representation of Muslim heritage, largely neglecting the local Malay minority community. This glamorous and cosmopolitan representation of heritage inaccurately portrays the local Muslim population as an Arab trading caste…Singapore’s government nation building approach continues to disregard the urban legacy of the local Malay-Muslim community, largely ignoring their prominence as seafarers and explorers. (p. 3)

Heritaging ethnoscapes is an ongoing contestation sometimes fraught with legal and commercial disagreements especially over the differential impact of gentrification. These are perennial and evolving issues but with the ultimate authority to stamp the face and pace of change resting in state authorities even in consultation with endogenous Malay-Muslim cultural and business stakeholders. Contrary to dominant opinion, it not a case of a win-win situation: some are more “winning” than others. Perhaps, teachers and facilitators might wish to deconstruct this heritage divide in what it means to “win” or “lose” in both tangible and intangible terms in the case of conserving a heritage space in their learning journeys and fieldtrips?

88

R. Ismail

4.6 A Heritage Space as a Theme Park? Singapore’s determination to position itself as a global center for education with a more nuanced approach to education and with that critical thinking might be congruent with the suggestions put forth so far. However as noted by Leonel Lim, “the efforts are not without tensions and contradictions…curricular ideal is underpinned by liberal discourses of democracy and autonomy, what form does it assume in a dominant one-party state with a deliberately weak and underdeveloped language of individual rights?” (2014, p. 692). A critical enquiry approach is possible in a Singapore education system but seemingly available for students of “elite” schools: an outcome of meritocratic elitism (Ismail, 2017, pp. 263–265). Indubitably, these existing challenges are still bound by the limits permissible of a highly managed, controlled hegemonic narrative and the elephant in the room imposing OB markers of self-censorship or second-guessed narratives. In deconstructing this line of enquiry, a vigilant facilitator and educator should guard against projecting the critical enquiry as a “curriculum of pity” (Bigelow & Bob, 2002, p. 5) for an ethnic minority. Ideally, it is about understanding and empathy in the realities of numerical racial dynamics in a former colonial state at ease with a benign, and at times hagiographic, historical interpretation of its colonial history. The line of critical enquiry will have to interrogate critically too the arguments for the pragmatic economic approach and with that the prosperity consensus narrative supported by sloganeering soundbites. This needs to be coupled with the issue of (un)intentional erasure of uncomfortable narratives of for example, dispossession as either pragmatic responses or wilful ignorance. Heritage management is about power dynamics of defining space and this ultimately resides with the state and state-defined interests. In appreciating Kampong Glam, as with any heritage spaces, pupils and students therefore should be introduced to the interdisciplinary framework of deconstructing conservation, heritage, and identity within competing power dynamics which can result in disempowerment for selected groups. A suggestion is for an “open-ended learning process” (van Boxtel et al., 2016, p. 12) and not a list of information recorded and presumably “learned.” Ultimately all heritage spaces are commodified but while the heritage space of Little India can be considered both as a space of contestation (Chang, 2000; Shaw, 2015) and space of resistance with its congregants of workers from South Asia, Kampong Glam is indubitably a space of commodification. This presents a contrasting set of challenges such as the controversial claims for cultural justice with concerns for disrespectful manipulation of heritage and identity. For a highly critical observer, Kampong Glam can be seen as an example of “on-going colonialism” (Murray, 2018, p. 249) and a cultural Chernobyl in the making. Not quite Disneyland perhaps, but maybe significant Islamic symbols and heritage entities turned into selfproclaimed educational destinations such as Gedung Kuning’s Amazing Chambers is a start and will do in place of Disney parades and thrilling rides? And with that all roads lead to a cultural Chernobyl?

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

89

This chapter concludes by asserting that the heritage space of Kampong Glam is under siege from intertwining, interconnected political, economic, social, and ideological pressures particular to Singapore’s interpretation and management of heritage, and its place within the globalizing neoliberal economic framework. Kampong Glam should be about the cultural respect and politics of dignity but wilful misrecognitions (Taylor, 1994) seem to be celebrated. Fatefully, much of the heritaging ethnoscapes or native ethnoscapes are forms of distracting “politics of breads and circuses” (Eisenger, 2000): distracting activities that will generate satisfactory returns but with paucity of attention to the critical nine-tenth of the issues beneath the aforementioned iceberg. The Malay-Muslim stakeholders and related identity markers are seemingly props in the larger mise-en-scène of a heritage space commandeered for the national good and perpetuated by a national curriculum of sustaining multiracial harmony through an essentialized identity. There is an urgent necessity in the conduct of learning journeys or fieldtrips to Kampong Glam and other heritage spaces for an aspiration to “getting the story right, telling the story well” (Smith, 2012, p. 226). It is not a simple task but a worthy aspirational challenge that needs reiterating.

References Ahmad, Y. (2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292–300. Alzahrani, D. A. (2013). The adoption of a standard definition of cultural heritage. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 3(1), 9–12. Amazing Chambers Singapura. (2019a). Amazing Chambers Singapura. Retrieved from https:// amazingChambers.sg/. Amazing Chambers Singapura. (2019). School Excursion and Learning Journey. Retrieved from https://amazingChambers.sg/schools-learning-journey/. Amin, H. (2010). Gedung Kuning: Memories of a Malay childhood. Singapore: Singapore Heritage Society and Helang Books. Amin, H. (2019). Leluhur Singapore’s Kampong Gelam. Singapore: Helang Books. Banks, J. A. (2004). Teaching for social justice, diversity, and citizenship in a global age. Educational Forum, 68(4), 289–298. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (2005). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectivs. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Bigelow, B., & Bob, P. (2002). Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an unjust world. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Press. Bock, H. (2019, October 11). Dive deep into lesser-known histories at the Malay Heritage Centre. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/dive-deep-into-lesserknown-histories-at-the-malay-heritage-centre. Bokhorst-Heng, W. (2007). Multiculturalism’s narratives in Singapore and Canada: Exploring a model for comparative multiculturalism and multicultural education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(6), 629–658. Chang, T. C. (2000). Singapore’s Little India: A tourist attraction as a contested landscape. Urban Studies, 37(2), 343–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098002221. Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. S. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.

90

R. Ismail

Chua, B. H. (2005). Taking group rights seriously: Multiracialism in Singapore (Working Paper No. 124). Asia Research Centre, National University of Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.murdoch.edu.au/Research-capabilities/Asia-Research-Centre/_document/wor king-papers/wp124.pdf. Eisenger, P. (2000). The politics of bread and circuses building the city for the visitor class. Urban Affairs Review, 35(3), 316–333. Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H., & Preston, V. (2014). Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference? Progress in Planning, 92, 1–55. Foner, E. (2002). Who owns history? Rethinking the past in a changing world. New York: Hill and Wang. Goh, D. P. (2013). Multicultural carnivals and the politics of the spectacle in global Singapore. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 14(2), 228–251. Gounari, P. (2014). Rethinking heritage language in a critical pedagogy framework. In P. P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Rethinking heritage language in a critical pedagogy framework (pp. 254– 268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, A. (2006). Our journey 30 years of Haj services in Singapore. Singapore: Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS). Green, A., & Daud, M. R. (2019). Kapal Haji: Singapore and the Hajj journey by sea. Singapore: World Scientific. Hamzah, F. (2019, November, 7). Teknologi jadikan pembelajaran sejarah lebih menarik. Berita Harian. Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings. Heritage. (2019). In Cambridge University Press (Ed.), Cambridge online dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/heritage Ismail, R. (2006). Ramadan and Bussorah Street: The spirit of place. GeoJournal, 66(3), 243–256. Ismail, R. (2010). International comparative study of multicultural education: The Singapore story The response from education. Seoul: International Alliance of Leading Education Institutes (IALEI). Ismail, R. (2014). Muslims in Singapore as a case study for understanding inclusion/exclusion phenomenon. In S. Yasmeen & N. Markovic (Eds.), Muslim citizens in the west: Spaces and agents of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 221–238). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate. Ismail, R. (2015). The “new” multiculturalism: National and educational perspectives. HSSE Online, Retrieved from http://www.hsseonline.edu.sg/journal/volume-3-issue-2–2014/%E2% 80%9Cnew%E2%80%9D-multiculturalism-national-and-educational-perspectives. Ismail, R. (2017). Citizenship education and diversity in Singapore: Navigating identity in this ‘Brave New World’. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Global migration, structural inclusion, and citizenship education across nations (pp. 247–268). Washington: American Educational Research Association. Karamehmedovi´c, D. (2018). “Push-Pull” analysis towards creating holistic marketing of the cultural heritage tourism destination: The case of Dubrovnik. Ekono. Misao I Praksa Dbk. GOD XXVII. BR, 1, 29–51. Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. S. (1994). Urban conservation in Singapore: A survey of state policies and popular attitudes. Urban Studies, 31(2), 247–265. Lee, S. L. (1996). Urban conservation policy and the preservation of historical and cultural heritage—The case of Singapore. Cities, 13(6), 399–409. Lim, L. (2014). Critical thinking and the anti-liberal state: The politics of pedagogic recontextualization in Singapore. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(5), 692–704. Ministry of Education. (2019a). Humanities. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/syl labuses/humanities/ Ministry of Education. (2019b). Education system. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/educat ion/education-system Murray, L. J. (2018). Settler and indigenous stories of Kingston/Ka’tarohkwi: A case study in critical heritage pedagogy. Journal of Canadian Studies, 52(1), 249–280.

4 Kampong Glam: Appreciating the History Beyond the “Glam”

91

National Heritage Board. (2019). Our mission and vision. Retrieved from https://www.nhb.gov.sg/ who-we-are/about-us/mission-and-vision. Ng, C. (2019, July 7). Kampong Glam events boost visitor numbers. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/kampong-glam-events-boost-visitor-numbers. Ong, S. F. (2019, July 9). On the trail of art in Singapore: Kampong Glam walls of fame. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/arts/walls-of-fame. Ong, T. (2012, January 12). Will Kampong Glam turn to Kampong Glum. Retrieved from https:// sgmagazine.com/city-living/article/will-kampong-glam-turn-into-kampong-glum. Ooi, G. L., & Shaw, B. J. (2004). Beyond the port city. Singapore: Pearson. Phua, V. C., & Berkowitz, D. (2014). Non-asian tourists’ views on Singapore cultural tourism. Tourismos: An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, 9(2), 281–287. Rashith, R. (2019, November 6). Criticism over heritage building’s new concept. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/criticism-over-heritage-buildi ngs-new-concept?utm_source=STSmartphone&utm_medium=share&utm_term=2019-11-06+ 15%3A31%3A02. Saunders, K. J. (2004). Commentary: Creating and recreating heritage in Singapore. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4–5), 440–449. Shah, N. (2019, February 11). Peristiwa Haji di Kampong Glam. Berita Harian. Retrieved from https://www.beritaharian.sg/bahasa-budaya/peristiwa-haji-di-kampong-glam. Shaw, B. (2015). Little India: Diverging destinies in heritage spaces. HSSE Online, 4(2), 120–127. Shaw, S. (2011). Marketing ethnoscapes as spaces of consumption: Banglatown—London’s curry capital. Journal of Town and City Management, 1(4), 381–395. Shaw, S., Bagwell, S., & Karmowska, J. (2004). Ethnoscapes as spectacle: Reimaging multicultural districts as new destinations for leisure and tourism consumption. Urban Studies, 41(10), 1983– 2000. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sim, B. Y., & Print, M. (2005). Citizenship education and social studies in education: A national agenda. International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1(1), 58–73. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books. Spring, J. H. (2004). How educational ideologies are shaping global society: Intergovernmental organizations, NGO’s, and the decline of the nation state. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Suntikul, W., & Jachna, T. (2016). Profiling the heritage experience in Macao’s historic center. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18, 308–318. Tantow, D. (2009). Globalization, identity and heritage Tourism—A case study of Singapore’s Kampong Glam (Doctoral dissertation). University of Singapore, Singapore. Retrieved from https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/17741. Tatum, B. (2003). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? New York: Basic Books. Taylor, C. (1994). The politics of recognition. In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.), Multiculturalism: A critical reader (pp. 25–73). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2019). Culture and development. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/culture-and-development/. van Boxtel, C., Grever, M., & Klein, S. (2016). Sensitive pasts: Questioning heritage in education. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Walia, S. (2001). Edward Said and the writing of history. Duxton: Icon Books. Wang, G. (1968). The use of history. Athens, OH: Centre for International Studies. Waterton, E., & Smith, L. (2010). The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies: Heritage and Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation?, 16(1–2), 4-15.

92

R. Ismail

Williams, G. (2009, December 3). Singapore lane springs to life. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/travel/06headsup.html. Yee, S.-O. (1996). Ethnic enclaves as teaching and learning sites. The Social Studies, 87(1), 13–17. Yeoh, B. S. (2005). The global cultural city? Spatial imagineering and politics in the (multi)cultural marketplace of South-East Asia. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 945–958. Yeoh, B. S., & Huang, S. (1996). The conservation-redevelopment dilemma in Singapore: The case of Kampong Glam historic district. Cities, 13(6), 411–422.

Rahil Ismail is an Associate Professor at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She earned her History honours degree at the National University of Singapore, a Postgraduate Certificate in Education from the Institute of Education, University of London and both her Masters and PhD in International Studies from the Institute of International Studies, University of Leeds. Her current research interests are in international relations, multicultural and heritage studies. She has published research works on heritage spaces of Kampong Glam and Geylang Serai.

Chapter 5

Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History Suhaimi Afandi and Mark Baildon

Abstract History pervades public culture and everyday life: through family histories, political discourses, popular culture and media, classroom instruction, museum experiences, and commemorative events. Historical sites such as memorials, museums, and heritage places can be interpretive sites to help students actively participate in public debates about the meaning of the past and how the past is represented. Well-designed historical fieldwork offers students authentic learning experiences in historical investigation and gives them opportunities to more fully consider the “variety of voices in which the echo of the past is heard” (Gadamer in Truth and Method. Continuum, New York, NY, p. 285, 2006). This chapter provides a framework based on the systematic questioning of historical sites to support rigorous fieldwork as a central part of history education to develop students’ historical reasoning skills, conceptual understanding, and knowledge about the past. It focuses on the ways history is represented and how it has been used to communicate meanings about identity (individual and collective)—past, present, and future (Nordgren in Theory Res Soc Educ 44:479–504, 2016). The chapter calls for an interpretive approach to fieldwork to help students think about the ways different historical sites represent the past, the ways they “work” to convey particular pasts, and the different kinds of “readings” that can be done to more critically interrogate these representations. Inquiry-based fieldwork can support this kind of work by scaffolding students to more critically question sites as “representations” of the past and providing them with the means to consider how histories get constructed, for what purposes, and for whom.

S. Afandi (B) · M. Baildon National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] M. Baildon e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_5

93

94

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

5.1 Introduction Students in Singapore today live in a period where visible remains of the past may be found to exist unnoticed in-between towering skyscrapers or tucked unobtrusively among modern developments that have shaped the country’s changing landscape. Many would have encountered any number of old and archaic buildings or have found themselves in the vicinity of historic places within distinct cultural localities. Yet, few seemed aware of the significance of these surviving artifacts to Singapore’s past or to aspects of Singapore life at different periods of its history, including the present. Over-familiarity may have blunted any real curiosity, but more so, the lack of historical awareness of the material evidence of the past they see around them may have impeded students’ ability to recognize and appreciate the diverse “documents” and “testimonies” on which are written the life stories of present and past communities. Moreover, the distance between their current lives and the past makes it difficult for students to imagine and appreciate the continuities that may exist with lives lived in the distant past, far removed in time and familiarity. Yet, as Hoskins (1967) remarked, “Everything in our present landscape tells us something about the past if only we can learn how to interpret it” (p. 183) or “if only we can construe the language it is speaking” (p. 32). The opening up of history to a broader audience has led to a great deal of public interest in the past. History pervades public culture and everyday life: through family histories, political discourses, popular culture and media, classroom instruction, museum experiences, and commemorative events. The pervasiveness of public history almost guarantees that students would have been exposed to contested historical accounts, conflicting interpretations, and competing claims about events in history outside of school. They need to be equipped with the means to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the myths they encounter around them (Seixas, 2000) and be kitted with the necessary mental tools to weigh the multiplicity of pasts presented by diverse producers of public histories. Historical sites such as memorials, museums, and heritage places can be interpretive sites to help students actively participate in public debates about the meaning of the past and how the past is represented. Well-designed historical fieldwork offers students authentic learning experiences in historical investigation and gives them opportunities to more fully consider the “variety of voices in which the echo of the past is heard” (Gadamer, 2006, p. 285). Active engagement in historical fieldwork at these sites offers students with “an arena for contemplation and thought” (Jordanova, 2000, p. 171) as they begin to recognize that the past—even if it serves as context for the present—does not typically generate simple lessons and straightforward answers. This chapter calls for an interpretive approach to fieldwork to help students think about the ways different historical sites represent the past, the ways they “work” to convey particular pasts, and the different kinds of “readings” that can be done to more critically interrogate these representations. It provides a framework based on the systematic questioning of historical sites to support rigorous fieldwork as a central part of history education to develop students’ historical reasoning skills, conceptual

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

95

understanding, and knowledge about the past. It also focuses on the ways history is represented and how it has been used to communicate meanings about identity (individual and collective)—past, present, and future (Nordgren, 2016). VanSledright (2010) makes the case that “historical thinking is a very close relative to active, thoughtful, critical participation in text- and image-rich democratic cultures… Good historical thinkers…engage their world with a host of strategies for understanding it” (p. 118). Historical fieldwork, then, can be used to help students become careful and critical readers of artifacts, architecture, sites, monuments, historical markers, and museum displays as texts or sources of information. The kinds of sources of information students encounter on fieldwork need to be critically questioned, analyzed, interpreted, and evaluated like all sources instead of passively received or treated didactically in a transmission manner. Inquiry-based fieldwork can support this kind of work by scaffolding students to more critically question sites as “representations” of the past and providing them with the means to consider how histories get constructed, for what purposes, and for whom. Using inquiry as a way to approach and structure historical fieldwork serves two key interrelated purposes: (1) It can help students develop historical reasoning skills and historical understanding, and (2) These historical reasoning skills are closely related to important critical thinking skills needed in twenty-first-century contexts. This chapter presents an approach for using fieldwork in these ways and demonstrates this through a discussion of two particular historical sites in Singapore.

5.2 The Uses and Benefits of Historical Fieldwork On-site historical fieldwork offers students with worthwhile out-of-classroom opportunities to get “hands on” experiences as they engage in the act of “doing history” (Levstik & Barton, 2015). By providing opportunities for students to meaningfully make use of material evidence and the rich resources within the community to investigate the past, historical fieldwork can help students develop important connections with visible evidence of human activities that had taken place in the past and enable them to build knowledge about particular historical sites or localities. Learning experiences such as these cannot be duplicated within school premises (Stephens, 1977) and when carried out well, allow students to immerse themselves in specific historical surroundings that serve as significant contexts for the topic they are studying. They also provide opportunities for students to interrogate or reflect on why and how these sites convey a particular sense of history. Through engaging and interacting with surviving artifacts from the past, students can be encouraged to cultivate historical skills to interpret and construct knowledge about the past and to also develop dispositions that allow them to relate to the past on its own terms. Fieldwork can also be designed to engage students in the critical analysis of historical sites as representations of the past. Combined with an inquiry approach to fieldwork, students can be encouraged to question historical sites as constructed for particular purposes and effects to shape a society’s relationship to its past as

96

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

well as its present. This would enable them to more critically read and learn from spaces and sites they will encounter in their lives, openly reflect on their preexisting understandings about places and communities that existed in the past, and more actively appraise the relevance of current representations of history (and the past) in understanding present-day issues, concerns, and contexts. Engaging students in more critical fieldwork, however, requires that history teachers activate students’ prior knowledge and expectations of the site. What do they know about the site? Why do they think they are visiting the site? What purposes do they think the site serves? What do they know about the history the site represents? These questions and others can be used to draw out students’ ideas, preconceptions, and possible misconceptions about the site or the history that it represents. Based on what they know or do not know about the site or the particular history it represents, students can be encouraged to generate questions they have. Depending on the learning goals of the fieldwork, it is also important to focus students’ attention on particular aspects of the site. They should be guided in paying careful attention to titles, text, design elements, the placement of objects, and other factors. For example, Lindauer (2006) suggests that students be guided “to notice the writing style, word choice, and theme” of the site, to “read between the lines. Whose knowledge is represented? What is explicitly asserted and what is implied or unspoken? Does the text involve an anonymous expert’s voice? To whom does it speak and for what purpose?” (p. 213). Students can be guided to note “what objects are presented, in what ways, and for what purposes” (Lindauer, 2006, p. 204). Students can also be taught to appreciate the variety and types of evidence available for historical study, understand that sites are “authored” or created for specific purposes and audiences, and gain experience in using and interpreting evidence to construct accounts about the past. Fieldwork can also be used to develop a more critical orientation to the past by having students develop broad fundamental understandings about all historical explanations such as why and how some explanations or accounts are constructed and legitimated (Segall, 2006), why there is bias in history writing or why there are different claims made by historians, and how these claims can be tested against one another. Museum visits, in particular, may provide an opportunity for students to interrogate imperial representations of the past (Willinsky, 1998) or a society’s “selective tradition” (Williams, 1977, p. 115). As Trofanenko (2006) argues, no representation is objective or value-free and humanities and social educators have a responsibility to look critically at what knowledge is privileged and how that knowledge is presented. Museums, then, offer a range of texts that can be read analytically to help students actively participate in an “era when the meaning of memory is openly debated… And it is participation in these ongoing public debates – not inheritance of mythic, foundational narratives – that nurtures the [kind of identities] that can sort through the moral dilemmas of our time” (Seixas & Clark, 2004, p. 168). Inquiry-based fieldwork can support this kind of work by scaffolding students to more critically question sites as representations rather than have them unwittingly and passively accept meaning as authoritatively decided by the site or a tour guide.

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

97

5.3 Designing Inquiry-Based Historical Fieldwork Experiences To support key curricular objectives and help students develop understandings about how historical sites serve as historical explanations that represent particular biases (a key learning outcome in many history syllabuses), a number of questions can be used to guide students. Werner (2002) has proposed a number of possible “readings” of visual texts that can be applied to historical sites, cultural artifacts, buildings, and public spaces as “texts.” According to Werner (2002), potential readings range from more instrumental readings to readings that are more reflexive and critical. For example, instrumental readings would encourage students to simply describe what they see during fieldwork and make inferences about what the site tells them about particular events or people. There are also narrative readings that have students consider what story is conveyed by a particular site (as well as alternative storylines); emphatic readings that ask students to answer how the place represents particular people or events and with whom it makes students empathize; and iconic readings that ask students what purposes or interests are served by particular symbolic or visual representations at a site. A more critical or reflexive reading would have students answer questions such as: • Who created the site and for what purposes? When was it created? How might particular contexts (e.g., historical, economic, political, cultural, etc.) have shaped the construction of this site? What might the creators of the site want viewers (us) to think, believe, or do? • How does the site position me as a viewer/visitor? (e.g., as a tourist, as a judge, as a victim, as a member of a race, nation, political party, etc.) • What techniques are used to influence viewers? (e.g., the placement of objects, the use of text, what is included and not included, the use of emotional or provocative images, symbols, and figures, etc.) • What prior knowledge, personal experiences, or what I’ve already studied help me make sense of the site and the information it provides? • What is my reaction to this site? (e.g., what emotions or memories does it evoke, etc.) • How is the site using the past for present-day purposes? (e.g., is the site being used to justify certain leaders, policies, events, actions, etc.) • What additional questions do I have about the site? What other information do I need to help me understand this site and the history it represents? These questions can be an integral part of inquiry-based learning and fieldwork. They encourage students to consider the knowledge about the past and the meaning or significance that knowledge holds for us today. Fieldwork at selected historical sites can be purposefully designed to develop students’ skills in “asking questions of a site, suggesting hypotheses about its use or the society that created it, and using the details of the site to test those hypotheses” (Dawson & de Pennington, 2000, p. 172). In developing an assessment of potential

98

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

historical sites and the appropriate fieldwork activities that can support classroom teaching and student learning, teachers may wish to consider their responses to the following questions: • Will fieldwork at the site spark my students’ curiosity and generate their interest in the topic under study? • Will the fieldwork help my students make meaningful connections between the present and the past, seeing present continuities as emerging from past events and contexts? • Will the fieldwork allow my students to see beyond their locality to see connections to national themes, regional developments, and global trends? • Will the fieldwork help broaden and deepen my students’ historical understandings and enable them to view the past through disciplinary lenses (such as evidence, change, diversity, and significance)? • Will the fieldwork help clarify my students’ preconceptions, address misconceptions, challenge preexisting assumptions, and develop better understandings about the past? • Will the fieldwork enable my students to engage in serious historical work that will lead to improved historical skills and dispositions? A consideration of these questions against a potential list of relevant historical sites would ensure that thoughtfully planned fieldwork activities work toward extending classroom instruction and help enrich the teaching of the subject as a whole.

5.4 Examples of Historical Fieldwork Opportunities in Singapore Inquiry-based fieldwork activities can help students critically engage with sites as contemporary representations of past events, actions, and experiences. A trip to the area around the Singapore River, for example, may involve a careful study of how Singapore’s early past has been preserved (through iconic sculptures, tidy memorials and historical buildings), and how that past has been (re-)presented to fit contemporary interpretations and present-day readings. Another trip to the area around the Padang (Malay word for field) may include an exploration of colonial life and administration in the late nineteenth century (through numerous colonial era landmarks, edifices, and structures that have been preserved, refurbished, and repurposed) and to examine how and why some aspects of life or functions have changed or remained the same, or how these had withstood the onslaught of Singapore’s rapid urban redevelopment and urban renewal. A short stroll away, the Esplanade Park and War Memorial Park offer students with the opportunity to critically investigate how sites of historical memory (such as monuments and memorials) are constructed to celebrate national leaders and heroes, the founding of the nation and its progress, and particular values and narratives while omitting other aspects of a national history such

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

99

as the contributions of particular groups of people (e.g., workers, women, minority groups, etc.) or alternative narratives. With clear learning objectives and proper scaffolding, inquiry-based fieldwork could lead students into asking critical questions and allow them to make important connections to larger historical questions. Such objectives ensure that students not only draw conclusions from visible evidence and clues but are able to develop conclusions based on consideration of the techniques used to convey particular notions about the past as well as significant people or stories not included in a particular site. The following two examples offer some suggestions for teachers to approach historical fieldwork in interpretive ways and the different kinds of “readings” that can be done to critically examine historical sites (specifically, memorials) and their representations.

5.4.1 Example 1: Memorials as Representations of the Past Memorials or monuments that commemorate past wars are often intended to remind people of hard-fought national glory or triumph and at times, serve as testimony to certain shared experiences that were foundational to the achievement of a common purpose. Oftentimes, these sites—and what they represent—are also used for larger political and social purposes such as to instil a sense of patriotism, create collective memory, foster national identity, and to imbue a sense of “continuity” of the historical legacies to be imparted to succeeding generations. Yet, these sites of historical memory may not be entirely related to historical ways of viewing and thinking about the past. Rather, they typically privilege versions that reflect the present-day concerns of contemporary societies or those of politicians and other civic leaders and determine in large measure, how certain events in the past get remembered, represented, or memorialized. The Civilian War Memorial in Singapore, for instance (Fig. 5.1), offers an example of a significant site of historical memory that also serves as reminders of the country’s turbulent past and the importance of valuing peace. The site commemorates and acknowledges the shared experiences of local communities who survived the Second World War and the many ordinary civilians in Singapore who lost their lives during

Fig. 5.1 The Civilian War Memorial (Images courtesy of Suhaimi Afandi)

100

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

one of the most traumatic events in the nation’s history. It also offers visitors opportunities to empathize with those who were affected by war and to develop greater appreciation for the peace we enjoy today. Others might be angry at the loss of life caused by the war, while some might feel great sadness. Nevertheless, such sentiments may not be universal as people view “war” in very different ways (depending on their perspectives, values, and background), and the memorialization of emotive and psychologically or socially disruptive events in history may be seen in diametrically opposed ways by different groups of people in different contexts. In considering the Civilian War Memorial as a fieldwork site, students can be encouraged to first consider the story that is conveyed by the site as well as alternative storylines about those not depicted by the site such as soldiers, prisoners of war, children, etc. They may then consider the purpose and meaning behind the construction of the site and the symbolism used to convey specific meanings. Students may first be guided to ask broad questions to spark the inquiry. Some of these questions can help them to develop preliminary ideas about how history is constructed and used, why particular sites were created, and how they can shape ideas people have about the past. Part of this exercise involves tapping on students’ prior knowledge about the site, what they know about the historical context, and the possible circumstances surrounding the construction of the memorial. This will help students to not only make temporal connections between the site (the present) and the event (the past) but also for them to establish an empathetic connection to the past and the ways different people were affected by war. Students will then be guided to think more carefully and critically about the memorial as both a source of historical evidence as well as a representation of a period or event in history. They might also be encouraged to take a more reflective view to consider their own responses (feelings, thoughts, sentiments), why they have these responses, and how others might respond to the site and its representation. These moves would involve initiating students into disciplinary ways of thinking about the past and to ask questions that reflect a conceptual historical focus. Although some questions may require research prior to or after visiting the site, broad questions to spark the inquiry include: • What is this site? What is the story it is trying to tell? What aspects of life is it meant to represent? Are there other storylines that can add to what I know about this site? • Why this design? What are some of the details? What initial impressions do I have about the structure? What aspects am I impressed with? • Who made the decision to build this memorial? Why was this site chosen? Who constructed it? What are the materials used to build it? Why are certain features constructed or designed that way? What are they meant to represent? Focused questions to initiate deeper thinking include: • Why was this memorial constructed? What purposes and interests does it serve? This line of questioning focuses on getting students to consider aspects related to historical significance as they critically examine the purpose, provenance, and the perspective of the people who thought it important to erect the memorial.

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

101

• What does the site want visitors to do, think and feel? What is my reaction to the site? How does it make me feel? How might others (locals, tourists, people with different backgrounds than mine) think or feel about this site and the history it represents? This line of questioning focuses on getting students to consider aspects related to historical empathy as they attempt to see and understand the site from the point of view of those who visited the site (including the students themselves). • How does this site represent a particular past? What larger issues (war, remembrance, sacrifice, etc.) does it represent? What interpretations (or “readings”) of this site are possible? How might others interpret, understand, or “read” this site? This line of questioning focuses on getting students to consider the memorial as a symbolic account of the past as well as a historical source that can tell them something about: (1) how the site constitutes a representation of the past and (2) how the event is interpreted by the people who created the memorial. The final part of the inquiry may involve having students challenge their own preconceptions with regard to memorials and monuments and the presumably significant role they play in the memorialization of past events. This may involve getting students to examine how memorials are conceived and received across different national contexts by introducing counter-examples or non-consensus instances. The three sources (A–C) in Fig. 5.2 offer an illustration of how this may be done. A key follow-up move may then be to provide students with opportunities to demonstrate new understandings (e.g., by developing critical understandings on the purpose of memorials and how they are viewed differently by different groups of people), based on disciplinary criteria (e.g., about the nature of interpretation and the ascribed quality of historical significance) and finally developing a response to the question of whether Singapore’s way of remembering or preserving its past is a unique approach from those of other nations. Historical fieldwork at sites such as the Civilian War Memorial, the Cenotaph and the Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery (see Example 2) can potentially develop students’ empathetic disposition as they consider how different people were affected and continue to be affected by war and the ways war is represented in their culture. They also encourage students to consider the people who created these sites of historical memory, their reasons for doing so, and the audience for whom the sites were intended to inspire or affect. The questions and approach proposed can be an integral part of historical fieldwork at these sites. These questions can empower teachers and students to more fully understand how the past, present, and future are constructed through the interpretive practices of history. They also encourage students to think about and question their own and others’ responses to these sites and to war.

102

S. Afandi and M. Baildon Source A: Speech by PM Lee Kuan Yew at the Unveiling of the Civilian War Memorial, 15 February 1967 “We meet not to rekindle old fires of hatred nor to seek settlements for blood debts. We meet to remember the men and women who were the hapless victims of one of the fires of history. This monument will remind those of us who were here 25 years ago, when the Japanese forces swept down Malaya into Singapore, of what can happen to people caught completely unaware and unprepared for what was in store for them… This piece of concrete commemorates an experience, which in spite of its horrors, served as a catalyst in building a nation out of the young and un-established community of diverse immigrants. We suffered together. It told us that we shared a common destiny. And it is through sharing such common experiences that the feeling of living and being one community is established. If today we remember these lessons of the past, we strengthen our resolve and determination to make our future more secure than these men and women for whom we mourn would not have died in vain.” Source A is extracted from a speech made by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the unveiling of the Civilian War Memorial. The content and sen ment clearly support the view that memorials are important reminders of the past and serve as collec ve memory. Source B: Japanese Shrine Courts Controversy, Adapted from a CNN World News Report, 13 August 2001 “Yasukuni Shrine - a 20-building complex in Tokyo built 132 years ago - honors Japan's nearly 2.5 million war dead from both civil and international wars since 1853. Its name translates as "the shrine for establishing peace in the empire." Many Asians, however, regard the shrine as a symbol of prewar nationalism and a monument to Japanese militarism. The shrine has generated controversy because war criminals are among the soldiers venerated there. Yasukuni became the focus of international attention after a secret ceremony in 1978 that enshrined 14 leaders convicted by an Allied war tribunal as Class A war criminals for their roles in World War II. Inside the traditional wooden building, signs refer to figures such as war-time Prime Minister Hideki Tojo as "martyrs" who were "wrongly accused by the Allied Forces, which unilaterally labeled them war criminals under the pretense of a court trial”. Visits to the shrine by Japan’s political leaders have angered her Asian neighbors, especially China and Korea, who were victims of the country's military aggression in the first half of the 20th century.

Source C: Activists on Quest for Civilian War Dead Memorial, Adapted from a CNN News Report, 6 August 1999 Activists seeking to memorialize civilian casualties of war reached their destination on Friday but not their goal. Having pushed a one-ton granite tombstone almost 500 miles for more than a month, the Stonewalkers laid down their heavy burden in front of the Arlington National Cemetery. Project director, Lewis Randa, announced that because the stone has no home, he would allow police to impound it until the US Congress adopts a resolution allowing it into the cemetery. Inspired by the words of peace activists such as the Indian independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, the Stonewalkers began their six-state odyssey on July 4 to seek recognition for civilians killed in wars. “Nine out of ten people who die in war are civilians, and half are children. How is it that our government doesn’t have a memorial to them?” asked Randa, 52. He believed that the reason civilian war dead are not given proper recognition is the modern military term used to describe them: “collateral damage”. He said, “We’ve come to accept that as the label that releases us from any guilt or responsibility.”

Fig. 5.2 Sources A–C for historical fieldwork at the Civil War Memorial

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

103

Sources B and C offer non-consensus instances and demonstrate how memorials and memorializa on can be problema c and an the cal to commemora ve efforts. The Yasukuni Shrine is seen as a memorial symbolizing Japan’s venera on of its militaris c past. It remains a source of controversy ll today (in Source B). Peace ac vists, the Stonewalkers, found their efforts at memorializing civilian casual es of war at the Arlington Na onal Cemetery (a memorial for those who served in the armed forces) blocked by US Congress (in Source C).

Fig. 5.2 (continued)

5.4.2 Example 2: Approaching Memorials Through Disciplinary Lenses Memorials, monuments, and statues dedicated to past wars and military heroes provide excellent opportunities for students to critically reflect on the history they learn in the classroom. They are potentially rich sites that can cultivate ideas, viewpoints, and feelings young people may have about war, patriotism, and peace (Afandi, Baildon, & Rajah, 2014). Yet, fieldwork can be structured in ways that support students’ understanding of key historical concepts such as significance, causation, and evidence can lead to students gaining new insights on the nature of historical study and practice. Much of this work, however, involves familiarity with historical inquiry and having an intimate knowledge of the concepts that underpin the historical discipline. Fieldwork, as a form of inquiry, offers students with the opportunity to critically view historical events through disciplinary lenses and to use specific conceptual tools to examine past events and their representations. By focusing on inquiry to augment field-based experience, for example, students can use primary site evidence to trace the history of a site (or reconstruct parts of it), consider varied perspectives and develop historical empathy for the individuals or groups of people who experienced particular pasts and to establish the historical significance of a site or event within the context of wider developments in local, regional, or global history. Historians constantly make decisions about what is most important or significant to investigate about the past. They use criteria to help them determine which events, people, causes, effects, or issues are worthy of study. History education researchers (Bradshaw, 2006; Cercadillo, 2006; Counsell, 2004; Dawson, 2003; Partington, 1980; Philips, 2002; Seixas & Morton, 2013) also have proposed various useful sets of criteria (and clever mnemonics) that are aimed at helping students establish and evaluate historical significance. As a site of historical memory, the Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery provides us with a useful case study of how a site’s historical significance can be established and evaluated through fieldwork. By providing students with sets of questions that can help support their analysis of the site they are investigating, students can be guided to think about the Kranji War Memorial in terms of the event/past that is (or is not) worthy of being remembered and the kinds of criteria they can use to establish the historical significance of the site as a meaningful representation of that event/past. For the purpose of this example, we adapted Cercadillo’s (2006) typology of historical significance into guiding questions that can frame the entire inquiry:

104

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

• Did the event represent a milestone to the general course of events? (Symbolic) • Was the event important as a cause of subsequent changes? (Causal) • Was the event considered highly significant by people at that time? (Contemporary) • Did the event represent a moment when the pattern of the past was altered? (Pattern) • Can the event tell us something important about the past? (Revelatory) • How relevant is the event to our contemporary concerns now or in the future? (Present) From this typology, prompting questions across five sites/stations, that can steer students toward critically considering the significance of the Kranji War Memorial and the past it represents, are developed. The Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery (Fig. 5.3) is one of the many cemeteries and memorials maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC), which honors the 1.7 million men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died in the First and Second World Wars. Through their commitment in maintaining these sites “in perpetuity,” CWGC ensures that the sacrifices of those who lost their lives during the two world wars will never be forgotten. As the class strolls up the hill toward the Cross of Sacrifice, which is the focal point of the cemetery, students can be directed to take some time to stand still and look around the grounds while being mindful of the following questions: • What do you see and hear? How does standing in the cemetery make you feel? • Every aspect of the memorial, including the landscaping, was planned by the architects. What aspects struck you the most? What ideas do you think the architects intended to convey? What do you feel are the most impressive features of the memorial? • Who do you think looks after the memorial park? How is the park kept immaculate and tidy all year round?

Fig. 5.3 The Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery (Images courtesy of Suhaimi Afandi)

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

105

• What does the size of the Kranji War Memorial and the number of lives that the site commemorates tell you about the scale of the war that ravaged Southeast Asia between 1940 and 1945? • From where you’re standing, consider what you know about the Second World War today: how do you think we should continue to remember it after more than 75 years? A prominent feature of a CWGC are rows upon rows of headstones (Fig. 5.4) which are designed to be the same regardless the war dead they commemorate. Each headstone shares a number of common features that allow visitors to find out about the soldier buried there. There are also headstones of unknown soldiers that are simply marked as “A Soldier of the 1939-1945 War.” As students walk around the cemetery, encourage them to keep a tally of the known and unknown burials they come across and consider the following questions: • Which battalion/regiment did most of the buried soldiers belong to? • What was the average age of those who died during the war and were buried here? • Who decided what messages to put at the bottom of some of the individual headstones? What are some of these messages? Why did they inscribe these messages?

Regiment badge Rank of soldier Name of soldier Age Regiment served Date of death Religious symbol Personal inscrip on (chosen & paid for by family)

Fig. 5.4 Headstone features (Image courtesy of Suhaimi Afandi)

106

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

• Why are there so many unknown burials in this cemetery? What does the presence of these unidentified soldiers next to ones that are identified tell us about the way the CWGC maintain their headstones? • Do you think that this site (and the event it represents) has had some impact or influence over a long period of time? Why do you think so? One will often find a Stone of Remembrance in many CWGC cemeteries. The Stone (as a memorial or monument) represents all faiths and the diversity in the 1.7 million people commemorated by the CWGC. Students should take a closer look at the words that are inscribed on the Stone of Remembrance and the Memorial Wall (Fig. 5.5) and consider the inscribed phrases: “Their Name Liveth For Evermore” and “They Died for All Free Men” by asking the following questions: • What do you think these phrases mean? How do these phrases relate to those who lost their lives during the wars? What message do their creators intend to convey? • What values, ideas, or beliefs are expressed by the use of these inscriptions? • What is your reaction when you read these inscriptions? What feelings does it evoke in you? How do the words, ideas, and imagery influence the way you think about this site? • Do you think people will see the site (and the event it represents) as important to the lives of the people in the past and for those who live today? The Singapore Memorial (Fig. 5.6) bears the names of over 24,000 Allied casualties (land, sea, and air forces) whose remains were not found or identified and who had no known graves or known date of death. As students explore the names inscribed on the memorial walls, they can record the different nationalities they come across and consider the following questions: • Why are there so many nationalities and unknown burials in this cemetery? Why do you think the soldiers named on the Memorial did not have identified graves? • Why is it important that the contributions of some of these regiments (such as the

Fig. 5.5 Stone of Remembrance and Memorial Wall (Images courtesy of Suhaimi Afandi)

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

107

Fig. 5.6 Memorials of casualties (Images courtesy of Suhaimi Afandi)

British Indian Army, the Singapore Malay Regiment, the Australian Infantry, the Royal Canadian Air Force) be remembered today? • How do you feel knowing that the Memorial is built to honor the more than 24,000 servicemen and women who lost their lives fighting a war to defend Singapore? • Do you think that the Memorial is a fitting way to remember these people who died defending Singapore? On February 15, 2017, dignitaries, diplomats, military officials, World War Two veterans, and survivors gathered solemnly at the Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery (Fig. 5.7) to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Singapore’s fall. The Bell of Remembrance was rung five times to mark the years the region was devastated by war. The bell is also rung annually on Remembrance Sunday to commemorate Commonwealth soldiers who lost their lives defending Singapore. The site remains open all year round and receives visitors who turn up to honour those who “gave their todays for our tomorrows.” Students can be guided to reflect on what the Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery means for the people who live today by discussing the following questions:

Fig. 5.7 Other site features (Images courtesy of Suhaimi Afandi)

108

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

• Did the event (as represented by this site) have a large impact or influence on people’s lives? In what ways? • Where do you think most visitors to the Kranji War Memorial come from? How do you know this? Why do you think this is the case? • What does the commemoration work at this site suggest about Singapore’s attitude toward remembrance? • Do you think that Remembrance Day matters the same to all Singaporeans? • What evidence is there to suggest that the Kranji War Memorial is still important to the people of Singapore today? Establishing the historical significance of the Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery. Like the Civilian War Memorial, the Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery offers a solemn reminder of a violent past that had engulfed Singapore and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. However, while the former draws upon the horrific experiences of civilians who lost their lives during the Japanese Occupation, the latter serves a broader commemorative purpose to remember and honor the sacrifices of Commonwealth forces who died defending Singapore and Malaya against the invading Japanese forces during the Second World War. Either way, both sites seek to remind people of an important event in history whose significance has yet to be established—depending on a person’s perspective (which may vary over time), their purpose for visiting the sites (which may differ across individuals/groups), and the present (which affects the decisions made about what is worth remembering about the past). But unlike the Civilian War Memorial—which is dedicated to the memory of the local war dead—the Kranji War Memorial may appear (to many Singaporeans) as a site that commemorates mostly foreign soldiers—when Singapore was a British colony and part of the British empire. Yet, as Muzaini and Yeoh (2007) argued, the “rescaling of remembrance” (of war memories) has led to a growing acceptance that the Kranji War Memorial is no longer a space exclusively for foreign nationals to commemorate events but a place to also commemorate the universality of values which the soldiers stood for, a memoryscape that seems more resonant with Singaporeans, especially younger generations. In helping students establish the significance of the Kranji War Memorial as a historical site and evaluate its relevance in the context of post-independent Singapore, students may wish to reflect on their fieldwork findings in light of the six questions derived from Cercadillo’s typology of historical significance. They may also consider further questions when developing their conclusions: • What have you learnt about Singapore’s experiences during World War Two by visiting this site? • What evidence did you find in this cemetery to suggest that Singapore was (and still is) affected by what happened during World War Two? • Why do you think there might be different attitudes to remembrance and commemoration for Commonwealth soldiers who died in past wars? • Do you think this site (and the event it represents) still have relevance for us today? • Does the site shed light on or help us understand something about ourselves, our past, and our future?

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

109

• What can you do to make sure that the war dead—both known and unknown— continue to be remembered when you return to your school, home, and community? Appreciating present continuities as extensions of our historical past offers a way to strengthen students’ capacity to use visible evidence to explain the experiences and lives of the people who lived before us. Fieldwork investigation that places students within the physical landscape of the topic they are studying offers them access to visible evidence of human activity (both physical and inferred). By encouraging students to participate in interpretive work and getting them engaged in different kinds of “readings” of historical sites, field visits can become valuable opportunities for students to begin to make sense of historical phenomena and their present-day representations. This can also help them make critical sense of current society’s relationship to its past (and its present) in a much more relatable, meaningful, and personally relevant way.

5.5 Conclusion Reading, interpreting, and evaluating complex texts, competing accounts, and public spaces are challenging work. History is implicated in these challenges: history is often used to explain the world, to form identities, and to influence others (Nordgren, 2016). This makes students’ local communities a primary resource to not only learn about the past and develop historical understanding but to understand how history is “used” in various settings and for different purposes. The uses of history and the historical content provided by public culture and everyday life—in architecture, landmarks, monuments, memorials, and heritage sites—that students encounter in their communities can provide opportunities to both connect to their prior experiences or knowledge and meaningfully engage with history to think about what these sites mean to them and others. It requires the exercise and development of critical faculties that are essential to living in the twenty-first century. Critical educator, Paolo Freire (1983), argued that “reading the world always precedes reading the word” (p. 11), and history educators would be well-served by engaging students in critical investigations of local historical sites as preparation for critically reading text-based or print sources in classrooms. In this chapter, we have argued that authentic inquiry-based fieldwork in which students learn to question systematically historical sites can develop key historical reasoning skills and conceptual understandings to enable students to better understand the past and the world around them. It can help them learn to critically “read” historical sites such as memorials and other heritage sites. Learning to ask critical and systematic questions is central to the kinds of critical literacy and thinking skills needed in the twenty-first century. Fieldwork in history education can help students learn to think critically about the past and the present and critically interpret and evaluate a range of information sources such as those found in “the field.” Teachers play an important role in helping students to ask questions about the significance of historical sites and about

110

S. Afandi and M. Baildon

evidence found at sites, to empathize with those who may have inhabited particular sites, and to consider change and continuity overtime at sites. They can teach students to ask critical questions about historical sites to have students think about why sites were created, how they position viewers, the techniques they use, and how the site is used for present-day purposes. These are much-needed critical thinking skills with all “texts,” especially vital in the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, much of school history is mythic, rather than historical (Baildon & Afandi, 2017). It is typically designed to provide a shared foundation myth about national origins, leaders, and developments to forge a common national identity. There is not much that is historical in these renderings, nor does it provide much opportunity for students to actively participate in the study of history as an interpretive enterprise. A central argument of our chapter is that authentic inquiry-based fieldwork is not merely a more engaging form of history education for students but that it can help students become better at asking questions—a trait central to inquiry, lifelong learning and being able to think critically and use history to support informed judgment and public reasoning. Since historical fieldwork is always located in public places, it is central to understanding the study of history as a form of public knowledge that enables people to actively and meaningfully participate in ongoing debates (e.g., about how the past is to be remembered or about the uses of history) and to “use” history themselves to explain the world, claim particular identities, or persuade others about how past and present-day societal problems might be understood and addressed (Baildon & Afandi, 2017).

References Activists on quest for civilian war dead memorial. (1999, August 6). CNN.com/US. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/US/9908/06/stonewalkers/. Afandi, S., Baildon, M., & Rajah, S. N. C. (2014). “Reading” monuments and memorials of war. BeMuse, 7(4), 32–39. Baildon, M., & Afandi, S. (2017). The myth that a singular historical narrative moulds good citizens. In K. S. Loh, P. J. Thum, & J. M. T. Chia (Eds.), Living with myths: Exploring Singapore’s pasts and futures (pp. 29–39). Singapore: Ethos Books. Bradshaw, M. (2006). Creating controversy in the classroom: Making progress with historical significance. Teaching History, 125, 18–25. Cercadillo, L. (2006). Significance in history: Students’ ideas in England and Spain. In A. K. Dickinson, P. J. Gordon, & P. J. Lee (Eds.), International review of history education: Vol. 3. Raising standards in education (pp. 116–145). London, UK: Woburn Press. Counsell, C. (2004). Looking through a Josephine Butler-shaped window: Focusing pupils’ thinking on historical significance. Teaching History, 114, 30–36. Dawson, I. (2003). What is history? Year 7 starter unit for key stage 3. London: Hodder Education. Dawson, I., & de Pennington, J. (2000). Fieldwork in history teaching and learning. In A. Booth & P. Hyland (Eds.), The practice of university history teaching (pp. 166–178). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Freire, P. (1983). The importance of the act of reading. Journal of Education, 165(1), 5–11. Gadamer, H. G. (2006). Truth and method. NY: Continuum. Hoskins, W. G. (1967). Fieldwork in local history. London: Faber & Faber Ltd. Japanese shrine courts controversy. (2001, August 13). CNN.com/World. Retrieved from http://edi tion.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/13/shrine.background/.

5 Historical Fieldwork as Reflection on the Uses of History

111

Jordanova, L. (2000). History in practice. London: Arnold. Lee, K. Y. (1967). Prime Minister’s Speech at the Unveiling Ceremony of Memorial to Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation on 15th February 1967. Retrieved from http://www.nas.gov. sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19670215.pdf. Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (2015). Doing history: Investigating with children in elementary and middle schools (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Lindauer, M. (2006). Looking at museum education through the lens of curriculum theory. Introductory remarks for a special issue. Journal of Museum Education, 31(2), 79–80. Muzaini, H., & Yeoh, B. (2007). Memory-making ‘from below’: Rescaling remembrance at the Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery, Singapore. Environment and Planning A, 39, 1288–1305. Nordgren, K. (2016). How to do things with history: Use of history as a link between historical consciousness and historical culture. Theory and Research in Social Education, 44(4), 479–504. Partington, G. (1980). The idea of a historical education. Slough: NFER. Philips, R. (2002). Historical significance—The forgotten “key element”. Teaching History, 96, 14–19. Segall, A. (2006). What’s the purpose of teaching a discipline, anyway? The case of history. In A. Segall, B. Heilman, & C. Cherryholmes (Eds.), Social studies—The next generation: Re-searching in the postmodern (pp. 125–139). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! der kinder! Or, does postmodernism in history have a place in the schools? In P. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives (pp. 19–37). New York: New York University Press. Seixas, P., & Clark, P. (2004). Murals as monuments: Students’ ideas about depictions of civilization in British Columbia. American Journal of Education, 110(2), 146–171. Seixas, P., & Morton, T. (2013). The big six historical thinking concepts. Toronto: Nelson. Stephens, W. B. (1977). Teaching local history. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Trofanenko, B. (2006). Displayed objects, indigenous identities, and public pedagogy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(4), 309–327. VanSledright, B. (2010). What does it mean to think historically … and how do you teach it? In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research and practice (pp. 113–120). New York, NY: Routledge. Werner, W. (2002). Reading visual texts. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(3), 401–428. Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Willinsky, J. (1998). Learning to divide the world: Education at empire’s end. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Suhaimi Afandi is a Senior Lecturer with the Humanities and Social Studies Education (HSSE) Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (Singapore). He received his doctoral degree (in history education) from the Institute of Education, University College London. His research interests include exploring teachers’ ideas about students’ conceptions of history, and the ways history and the past are understood by students. He has taught history at both secondary and junior college levels. At NIE, he teaches history education at the BA, PGDE and MA levels, focusing on research-informed pedagogical practices that can support the development of students’ historical understandings. Mark Baildon is an Associate Professor in Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Goup and an Associate Dean in the Office of Education Research at the National Institute of Education (Singapore). He has taught social studies in secondary schools in the United States, Israel, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. His scholarly interests focus on ways to support social studies inquiry practices, global citizenship education, and critical literacies in new global contexts. He has published two books: Social Studies as New Literacies in a Global Society: Relational Cosmopolitanism in the Classroom (with James Damico, Routledge, 2011) and Controversial History Education in Asian Contexts (co-editor; Routledge, 2013).

Chapter 6

Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities and Beyond in Primary Social Studies: Student Teachers’ Understandings, Concerns and Suggestions Hwee Hwang Sim and Shiang Swee Grace Liow Abstract Fieldwork using children’s localities and beyond is important for learning primary social studies as it provides many cognitive and affective benefits to young learners. For fieldwork to achieve active student learning and engagement, inquirybased fieldwork can be adopted. In this chapter, the authors will look at such an approach for teaching primary social studies and the stages for fieldwork planning. They will share their findings from their small-scale qualitative study which focused on their student teachers’ understandings of the approach, their concerns for planning and implementing inquiry-based fieldwork in schools, and how they would like to be supported by their schools in addressing their concerns. The authors will discuss the implications especially those on the school support for beginning teachers’ fieldwork application in primary social studies teaching in Singapore.

6.1 Introduction Children are naturally curious about their localities, which refer to the areas that are near their homes and schools (Pike, 2016), and beyond; and primary social studies teachers should tap on their innate curiosity to develop their understanding of their environments and communities and help them link what they study in school to the world they live in. One way is through fieldwork, which is learning beyond the four walls of the classroom, and it is premised on the belief that learners can gain conceptual understanding most effectively by learning in the real world (Chang & Ooi, 2008). There are many ways to conduct fieldwork and one approach is the inquiry-based fieldwork. It is a pedagogical approach using key questions to guide H. H. Sim (B) · S. S. G. Liow National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] S. S. G. Liow e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_6

113

114

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

student investigations on-site (Caton, 2006; Lambert & Balderstone, 2010; Sim, Tan, & Sim, 2005). Students can participate in seeking answers to the questions about a topic or an issue located at the field site. In this chapter, we will focus on what is inquiry-based fieldwork for teaching primary social studies, how to plan it and report the findings from our small-scale qualitative study on student teachers’ understandings and concerns regarding the approach and their suggestions for school support in fieldwork application. We will discuss the implications especially those on the nature of support that schools can provide beginning teachers for effective teaching of primary social studies in the field.

6.2 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Primary Social Studies Learning Children enjoy fieldwork as it is a welcome change from the usual classroom routines and they can learn in various ways in their localities and beyond outside their classrooms. Research has shown that using fieldwork can have cognitive and affective benefits (Ballantyne & Packer, 2002; Biddulph & Adey, 2004; Catling, 1998; Foskett, 1996; Nabors, Edwards, & Murray, 2006; Nundy, 1999; Pike, 2016; Walsh, 2006). It can enhance children’s cognition by helping them acquire important knowledge and conceptual understanding about the world and people outside their classrooms and by developing their information gathering skills such as observation, sketching, counting, estimating, measuring, and recording. Other acquired skills include mapreading skills, thinking skills, questioning skills, data analysis and interpretation skills and teamwork skills. The affective benefits can be an increase in children’s enjoyment of learning and their self-understanding and sense-making of their views on issues, past matters, and factors influencing their decisions. Children can also develop their sense of belonging, identity, empathy and appreciation of the places and people they interact with and participate as citizens in social changes. However, these benefits cannot be expected just because students are brought to the field (Lonergan & Andreson, 1988). Thoughtful conceptualization of the fieldwork activities is necessary for effective learning. One approach to use is inquiry-based fieldwork, a pedagogy that is aligned to the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE)’s adoption of inquiry for primary social studies teaching in schools (MOE, 2012). Unlike the “Cook’s Tours” or “look-see” field visits which are observational and non-participatory for learners with their teachers as their information providers (Kent, Gilbertson, & Hunt, 1997), there is more student participation and autonomy in learning in inquiry-based fieldwork. Students are actively involved and engaged in the fieldwork activities as they seek answers to the teacher or student-generated questions and draw their own conclusions (Sim et al., 2005). Roberts (2003, 2013) outlined four elements in her inquiry learning framework which are applicable in inquirybased fieldwork; and these are: (1) creating the need to know (speculating, hypothesizing, gathering ideas, asking questions, and planning how to research), (2) using

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

115

data (locating evidence, collecting, selecting, sorting, classifying, and sequencing data), (3) making sense (describing, explaining, comparing, contrasting, analyzing, and concluding), and (4) reflecting on learning (evaluating and identifying areas for improvement). In inquiry-based fieldwork, a set of questions that centers on the unique learning opportunities offered by the specific field site is identified to drive the on-site learning. Inquiry questions is an essential feature of such fieldwork as they frame the investigation. Hence, it is crucial to craft them with due consideration to promote student conceptual understandings that are aligned to the curricular goals and lesson objectives. It is a more thinking approach to fieldwork whereby students go beyond knowledge acquisition to knowledge construction through questioning, collecting, organizing, analyzing, and interpreting data. Through the field investigation, students use their senses to make meaning and construct their knowledge when they learn to connect their findings to their existing knowledge and create new knowledge in the process. New knowledge or understanding is also developed through their reflection of their fieldwork experience. Such a fieldwork approach is set within the constructivist learning framework (Vygotsky, 1986) whereby knowledge construction is achieved through student interactions with their peers, their teachers, the environment, and the people in it. Students take active ownership of their knowledge construction and the teacher functions primarily as a facilitator rather than a knowledge dispenser. Many types of inquiry approaches can be adopted for the fieldwork activities. They exist in a continuum and differ in terms of teacher involvement and student autonomy. According to Roberts (1996), inquiry approaches can range from closed styled to negotiated style with the framed style in the middle of the continuum. In the closed style inquiry approach, teacher’s generated questions and prescribed methods are aimed to guide students’ findings toward articulated conceptual understandings aligned to the syllabus. In the framed style inquiry approach, although the teacher sets the limits on the nature and format of the investigation, student questions are utilized in independent and small group investigations. The teacher supports and guides students in their work; and students make decisions on how to synthesize and communicate their findings to the class. In the negotiated style inquiry approach, student-generated questions, student-selected data collection, analysis and interpretation methods, and student conclusions take center stage with the teacher as the supervisor. Based on the above-described features, the closed style inquiry is therefore teacher-led and structured; the framed style inquiry is semi-structured and guided; and the negotiated style inquiry is student-led and open. Teachers need to be cognizant of these distinctions in the approaches when planning their inquiry-based fieldwork for their students, mediated by factors for consideration such as the field site, the curriculum, the learning objectives, the learners’ profiles, the resources, and the available time. Generally, the closed style and the frame-styled inquiry approaches are more appropriate for younger students because of their tender age and inexperience with inquiry-based learning. They need more structures and scaffolding when compared to older students who are more suited to the negotiated style inquiry approach because of their maturity and more exposure to inquiry experiences in their course of study.

116

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

6.3 Stages in Planning and Organizing Inquiry-Based Fieldwork Careful and comprehensive planning is critical to successful fieldwork implementation (Yilmaz & Bilgi, 2011) with attention to teaching and learning and the organizational aspects of fieldwork as necessary considerations (Foskett, 1996; Kent et al., 1997; Nabors et al., 2006). As fieldwork planning is time-consuming, ample time should be set aside for it. Although research has suggested many ways of planning and organizing fieldwork (Foskett, 1996; Kent et al., 1997; Kho & Parker, 2012; Laws, 1989; Nabors et al., 2006; Remmen & Froyland, 2014; Sim et al., 2005), there are generally four stages in fieldwork planning. These are: (1) the pre-fieldwork stage, (2) the fieldwork stage, (3) the post-fieldwork stage and (4) the evaluation stage. These stages are applicable to the planning of inquiry-based fieldwork for children.

6.3.1 Pre-fieldwork Stage Background research and reconnaissance of the identified field site to assess its suitability is one of the first things to be done at the pre-fieldwork stage. The site should offer learning opportunities which cannot be replicated in a classroom setting to make the planning and implementation worthwhile and to maximize student learning. Risk assessment is a necessary consideration as student safety is of paramount priority. In terms of curricular-instructional consideration, the alignment of the learning objectives to the syllabus goals and the scheme of work is crucial. The activities need to achieve the objectives; and in an inquiry-based fieldwork, the activities should assist students in answering the fieldwork inquiry and guiding questions which take advantage of the uniqueness of the field site with its learning opportunities offered. The inquiry questions are critical for framing the entire fieldwork and providing the focus and direction for study. The specific guiding questions derived from the broad inquiry questions sharpen the fieldwork focus and define the scope of inquiry, thus making the fieldwork activities more manageable. When all the questions are thoughtfully crafted, they provide coherence to the fieldwork inquiry and help to achieve the learning objectives. The activities should cater to the student learning profiles and promote student engagement and active participation. Other considerations include the duration and sequencing of the fieldwork activities, the resources used, the assessment for learning, and a wet weather plan for unsheltered field sites. In general, the fieldwork duration for children should be kept to about two to two and a half hours long so that their interest and motivation can be sustained. Their worksheets should not contain too many factual questions as they make the fieldwork too structured and do not allow for children’s exploration and engagement with the unique fieldwork settings (Dewitt & Storksdieck, 2008). Besides pedagogical considerations, logistical arrangements should be made which would include

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

117

liaising with external organizations (if necessary), booking transport, and engaging parent helpers. Pre-fieldwork lessons which prepare students for the fieldwork are essential for better learning (Remmen & Froyland, 2014). Students are oriented to the fieldwork setting, the agenda, and the learning objectives. Students’ prior learning is activated to help them connect to what they will be learning on-site. Other important things to include during the pre-fieldwork lessons are the introduction of the inquiry questions and learning objectives, the revision or teaching of prerequisite fieldwork knowledge and skills, the setting of expectations, and the assignment of students’ cooperative learning roles and responsibilities. Putting children in cooperative learning roles and activities can promote positive interdependence, individual accountability, and social skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) and encourage knowledge construction with their peers during fieldwork. Emphasis of safety and fieldwork rules should also be made.

6.3.2 Fieldwork Stage At the start of fieldwork, the learning objectives and inquiry questions should be reiterated. Students will gather in their groups with their cooperative learning roles assigned by the teacher. They will be given their fieldwork booklets, resources, and equipment and be reminded of the safety and fieldwork rules and expectations. Just because the fieldwork is inquiry-based does not mean that teachers are handsoff and students are left to do their independent work of discovery and exploration during the fieldwork stage. There is still a place for teacher instruction alongside teacher facilitation; the extent of the former will depend on the fieldwork structure and the type of inquiry learning planned. As instructors, teachers can do some field teaching, point out things, provide new information, and pose probing and prompting questions (Laws, 1989) to develop student understanding about the subject for on-site investigation. Site information when judiciously chosen and provided can increase student understanding and appreciation of the investigation subject. As facilitators, teachers can provide guidance to student investigation which can be locating and extracting information, observing with their five senses, taking photographs or videos, recording audio clips, sketching, interviewing, conducting surveys, mapping, calculating, measuring, doing simple experiments, etc. (Kho & Parker, 2012; Sim et al., 2005). As for students, they are primarily involved in the exploration, discovery and application of process skills (DeWitt & Storksdieck, 2008).

6.3.3 Post-fieldwork Stage Debriefing is often a neglected part of student fieldwork experience (Pearson & Smith, 1985) as fieldwork is time-consuming, and oftentimes, there is insufficient time for a thorough review of the on-site learning (Lonergan & Andresen, 1988). Hence,

118

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

it is crucial to conduct a debrief soon after the fieldwork completion (Kent et al., 1997) as the learning experience is still fresh in the students’ minds. Students are encouraged to recall and share their learning experiences and teachers can highlight important things which the students might have missed out. The post-fieldwork stage is also a time for the students to organize, analyze, and interpret their data and draw conclusions for the inquiry questions. This is followed by student presentations of their findings and their post-fieldwork products which can include posters, concept maps, reports, picture montages, video-clips, and podcasts (Kho & Parker, 2012; Sim et al., 2005). A class discussion of the findings and the assessment products is next, and the post-fieldwork lesson ends with teacher consolidation which integrates the classroom learning with the student fieldwork experience and findings (Lonergan & Andresen, 1988).

6.3.4 Evaluation Stage Like debriefing, feedback is often placed in the backburner (Gibbs, Habeshaw, & Habeshaw, 1988), yet it is vital for the promotion of learning and teaching; and it should be carried out by both students and teachers (Kent et al., 1997). Students should reflect and evaluate their own learning quality, the inquiry process, teamwork, and themselves as learners. They can also provide peer feedback as well as feedback to their teacher regarding the fieldwork strengths and areas for improvements. Teachers should evaluate their own fieldwork too in terms of the planning and implementation and student learning outcomes for improvement in future.

6.4 Research Study Our small-scale qualitative study aims to find out the student teachers’ understandings of inquiry-based fieldwork, their concerns about applying inquiry-based fieldwork in schools and their suggestions for school support. The study is significant as it can be of interest to school leaders and social studies coordinators on how they can effectively support their beginning teachers who are trained in the pedagogy so that a transformative change in how children learn social studies in the field can be effected. Additionally, the study is significant as there is no local research study which shares the same research interests. The two available articles on local fieldwork for primary social studies are written from the perspective of teacher educators and do not focus on student teachers’ learning and views. Sim et al.’s (2005) article focuses on inquiry-based learning through the fieldwork course for teacher preparation in primary social studies teaching, discusses the issues arising from student teachers’ learning, and highlights areas for course improvement. Kho and Parker’s (2012) article looks at the distinctions between learning journeys and fieldwork, zooms into a four-stage fieldwork model and one school’s fieldwork, and discusses the challenges

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

119

to fieldwork in Singapore. The study can add to this body of local research on primary social studies teaching and learning in general and fieldwork in particular. The study involved 10 of the student teachers from the Post-Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE/Primary Track) 2017 program in the National Institute of Education (NIE) and the research objectives were to find out: (1) the student teachers’ understandings of what inquiry-based fieldwork is to them, (2) their concerns for planning and implementing inquiry-based fieldwork in schools, and (3) their wish list regarding how they would like to be supported by their schools in addressing their concerns. Hence, the three research questions for the study are: (1) What are the student teachers’ understanding of inquiry-based fieldwork? (2) What are the student teachers’ concerns regarding planning and implementing inquiry-based fieldwork in school? (3) How would the student teachers like to be supported by their schools in addressing their fieldwork concerns? The study was conducted at the end of the course QCL50G: Fieldwork in the Primary Social Studies. This eight-week course of three hours per week comprised a lesson on what is the field, what is inquiry-based fieldwork and how to conduct it, an inquiry-based fieldwork demonstration lesson by the course tutor who was the second author of this chapter, and a lesson on the examination and discussion on the fieldwork resources created by MOE and external organizations. After these lessons, the student teachers in their groups were given two weeks to create their own inquiry-based fieldwork packages for primary students based on the four-stage fieldwork process. They consulted their tutor before they conducted their fieldwork for their classmates who took the role of the target students for the fieldwork packages. Each group of student teacher-led fieldwork concluded with a class feedback and a discussion on areas for improvement. Convenience sampling method was utilized in the study because of accessibility to the student teachers and their willingness to participate. All of them had contract teaching ranging from four months to one year. None of them did geography or history at tertiary level. Five had GCE O-Level geography, two had GCE A-Level geography, and the rest (two of them) studied geography up till secondary 2 level. As for History, three did O-Level history, one did A-Level history, and the rest (five of them) did history up till secondary 2 level. Five of them had fieldwork experiences in geography or history when they were students, but only three of them said that it was inquiry-based. Three did not have any fieldwork experiences at all, and one had no recollection of any fieldwork experience. Seven of them did not have any experience in planning and conducting fieldwork during their contract teaching, and two of them accompanied their students in vendor-led fieldtrips or learning journeys in their contract schools. During the research study, the student teachers were told that their participation was voluntary, and they were given the assurance that their identities would be kept

120

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

confidential. As their course tutors, we were mindful that the student teachers might be inhibited in their responses to our questions, hence, we had to assure them that their sharing would have no bearing on their course assessment results. They were interviewed in the university campus after their course ended. Semi-structured interviews were used with each lasting for about 20 to 30 minutes. The semi-structured interview provided us the flexibility to deviate from the interview protocol to ask additional questions for in-depth probing (Berg, 2007). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and were analyzed for emerging themes to deepen understanding of the subject matter under study.

6.5 Findings 6.5.1 Understanding of Inquiry-Based Fieldwork Question 1 on the student teachers’ understanding of inquiry-based fieldwork has five sub-questions—(1) definition of inquiry-based fieldwork, (2) merits of inquirybased fieldwork, (3) factors for consideration during fieldwork planning, (4) factors for consideration during fieldwork implementation, and (5) influence of the fieldwork course on student teachers’ understanding. Definition of inquiry-based fieldwork. All the student teachers (STs) understood inquiry-based fieldwork to be learning in the field through investigation. According to STE, the field site, which is the environment outside the classroom, is authentic and provides “a real-world context” for learning. Fieldwork through inquiry is immersive and experiential and it engages students’ senses and they learn by “discovering for themselves answers (to the inquiry questions) rather than sitting in the classroom and listening to the teacher,” said STF. Students become empowered and active learners by “constructing their own knowledge and meaning,” added STG. Inquiry questions are crucial as they “provide the focus for the fieldwork activities” (STE) and serve the learning objectives which can be “learning about concepts” (STE), “challenging or supporting a hypothesis” (STD) or “promoting critical and reflective thinking” (STB). Merits of inquiry-based fieldwork. The student teachers were in full agreement that inquiry-based fieldwork has many benefits for student learning which promote a child’s holistic development. Five of them said that inquiry-based fieldwork connects classroom learning to the real-world context, allows for student interaction with the field site (STB, STE, and STJ) and makes their learning authentic (STA and STC), experiential (STI), relevant (STE and STJ), fun (STI) and empowering because of their active involvement (STG, STH, and STI). The student teachers mentioned that inquiry-based fieldwork deepens (STA) and extends student conceptual understanding (STE) in social studies and multidisciplinary fieldwork (STB), and aids in retention of student learning (STC, STG, and STI); it develops their skills in critical thinking (STE and STJ), questioning,

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

121

data analysis, communication (STB), and teamwork (STB, STC and STI). It also promotes values in students such as respect and an appreciation of diverse cultures (STB) as well as their pride as Singaporeans as reflected in STE’s response: “A lot of people treat places such as the Marina Reservoir as a place for recreation. But so much can be learnt about it through inquiry-based fieldwork. For example, it can be used to supply water for flood control – things that we don’t necessary think about on a daily basis and when you visit the reservoir for fieldwork, you can see its relevance of how it helps Singapore to be prepared for the future… there is a sense of appreciation and I take pride as a Singaporean.” They also believed that inquirybased fieldwork can transform students into informed, concerned, and participative citizens (STA, STB, STD, and STE). Factors for consideration during inquiry-based fieldwork planning. The student teachers identified the following main factors for consideration during the planning stage of inquiry-based fieldwork: the field site, the inquiry and guiding questions, the fieldwork activities and objectives, and the learners’ profiles. Field site. Five student teachers mentioned that the field site, whether indoor or outdoor, must be suitable for learning and pointed to the different aspects of the site for consideration. STE and STJ believed that the field site must be able to offer possibilities for learning which are unavailable in the classroom so that teachers can make use of them to bring about student learning. For example, STE would ask whether “the field site can be leveraged for learning” and whether “learning can best be achieved outside the classroom.” He believed that it is pointless to take students out for fieldwork if the activities can be conducted in the classroom. In addition, STE mentioned the need for the field site to be free from noise or distractions so that learning for students can be optimized. Additionally, STB and STC stressed that the field site must be safe for children, and STB, STC, STE, and STG believed that a wet weather plan should be planned for open field sites so that in the event of rain, alternative activities could be carried out in the sheltered areas. Inquiry and guiding questions. Six student teachers mentioned the importance of inquiry questions in their fieldwork planning as exemplified by STJ’s comment: “I think questions are very important in the field as they guide our student learning … Planning good questions can help students understand the concepts better.” STA believed that inquiry questions should be open-ended and they can be answered when the students are out in the field. She and STB mentioned that the choice of the questions influences and is influenced by the fieldwork objectives. STC spoke about the need for crafting good guiding questions for the fieldwork activities that will eventually answer the main inquiry questions. Fieldwork activities and objectives. Five student teachers identified the fieldwork activities as a factor for consideration during their fieldwork planning. STA said that the fieldwork activities should involve student participation instead of passive knowledge acquisition from their teachers on-site. A few of them also mentioned that it is critical to plan good pre- and post-fieldwork activities as exemplified by STJ’s comments. She said, “When students go to the field site without any prior knowledge of what they are going to learn, what they are supposed to do, and how they should work in groups, they will not be going to learn much. Hence, the pre-fieldwork

122

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

lesson is very important. The post-fieldwork lesson is crucial as it consolidates everything they have learnt on-site and helps them to make sense of the entire fieldwork experience in relation to what they have studied in the classroom.” Four student teachers also highlighted the need for the fieldwork objectives to be aligned to the social studies curriculum. This will help students link their fieldwork learning to their classroom lessons. STC said that fieldwork should be “an extension of the curriculum” and both STC and STD believed that the alignment would “valueadd to student learning.” Learners’ profiles. Six student teachers mentioned that the learners’ profiles need to be considered during the fieldwork planning. The learners’ profiles included their learning abilities and styles, their prior knowledge, skills and experiences, and their readiness in terms of the content knowledge, their awareness of the fieldwork objectives, and the prerequisite skills for the fieldwork activities. Knowing the learners will help teachers pitch the inquiry and guiding questions, fieldwork activities, and resources at their student level. “Sufficient scaffolding is necessary to move students through their zone of proximal development,” said STG. STC, STD, and STF went on to say that there is a need to “differentiate the activities in a fieldwork package to engage different types of learners” with STC adding that “it should not be a one size fits all.” Factors for consideration during inquiry-based fieldwork implementation. The student teachers singled out two main factors for consideration during the inquiry-based fieldwork implementation. These were teacher preparedness and learners’ engagement and safety. Teacher preparedness. Seven student teachers identified teacher preparedness on-site as a factor in fieldwork implementation. STI said, “What you plan and what you conduct might not be the same thing, so we need to be very flexible.” STB elaborated further, “We need to think on our feet. We need to know how to manage the situation on the spot.” When asked to explain what these situations might be, she provided the example of tourists joining her class when her group conducted their fieldwork at a museum. She said, “Tourists want to know what is in the museum and when they visit it at a time when there is no tour guide and they see you talking to the kids, they would be interested to find out more. Hence, it is very important to get your facts right. It is a responsibility you have to take very seriously because of your children and because of others who are around as well.” Other unexpected situations such as failure of technology planned for the fieldwork activities (STC), a sudden increase of visitors on-site (STD), or an occurrence of a teachable moment (STI), and teachers need to know how to respond appropriately and adapt their fieldwork so that they would not be caught off-guard (STF). STB and STA also pointed out that teachers need to be comfortable about taking their students out of the classroom and managing their sometimes challenging on-site behaviors. STA said, “If students run wild, and I can’t control them, it (classroom mismanagement) would hit me and shoot me in the foot.” Learners’ engagement and safety. Four student teachers highlighted the need to ensure student engagement during the fieldwork implementation for effective learning. STD said that a typical fieldwork would take about 2½ to 3 hours for

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

123

completion and it could feel draggy at times; hence, it is “about how to gain students’ attention.” STE elaborated that students tend to be more fidgety than usual when they have to contend with the weather and to be on their feet for a prolonged period during fieldwork. Therefore, teachers should try to minimize their talking to convey the main ideas succinctly so as not to lose their students’ attention. STE’s view was shared by STI as well. STA mentioned that she would focus on students’ social skills, behaviors, and content knowledge and monitor to see whether they know their cooperative learning roles and have the content knowledge and discipline to remain engaged during fieldwork. STG brought up the need to ask questions to ensure sustained level of engagement and effective learning of the learners. She said, “Because we don’t want our students to just listen, we do want to know whether they know what they are doing, why they are doing what they are doing and what they have learnt about the concept or concepts for fieldwork.” Four student teachers also stated that teachers should look out for their learners’ safety during fieldwork and this was best summed by STC: “As much as we have done RAMS (Risk Assessment Management System), we have to look out for the safety factor when we are out in the field.” Influence of the fieldwork course on student teachers’ understanding. All the student teachers acknowledged that the fieldwork course had positively influenced their understanding of fieldwork through inquiry and their teacher confidence in fieldwork planning and implementation. The course provided them the theoretical and practical knowledge of fieldwork. STF said, “Without the experience of planning and conducting fieldwork during the course, and if I were asked to carry out fieldwork for my school, I would be absolutely lost and it would be a very steep learning curve.” STE added, “The opportunity of implementing fieldwork adds a different layer to the planning. It’s so easy to put everything down on paper and it might look very good. But when you carry it out, you realize that there is a mismatch between what is planned and the actual; and it makes you reflect that it might be better if we did it with a different approach.” STD elaborated on his experience as a facilitator and a student participant during the fieldwork course. He said, “Teachers can’t see their blind spots and these have to be pointed out by others. Watching others conducting their fieldwork was quite a revelation because there are things which I can immediately identify with.” STF mentioned that she got a chance to be exposed to a plethora of ideas and approaches while watching her classmates conduct the fieldwork. STE added that that the demonstration lesson was useful as it provided the class with ideas of how to “make the fieldwork flow nicely” and the exposure to the different fieldwork experiences extended the learning for them. All the student teachers mentioned that they were now more confident about conducting fieldwork for primary school children after taking the course, but they added a qualifier which was best expressed by STG. She said, “I am definitely more confident now but I hope that I am not the only one doing it (in school) as there will be no one to help me look out for my blind spots.”

124

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

6.5.2 Fieldwork Concerns Question 2 focused on the student teachers’ concerns and queries about planning and conducting inquiry-based fieldwork in schools. Their concerns were time factor, the influence of school mindset toward social studies and inquiry-based fieldwork on school support, availability of trained social studies teachers, and types of students. Through the coursework, the student teachers realized that teachers require substantial time and administrative support in planning and conducting inquiry-based fieldwork, and based on their contract teaching experiences, all of them mentioned that time constraint would be a challenge to planning and conducting fieldwork in schools. STI explained, “Time is needed to fulfil the curriculum expectations for the “core” subjects and school activities, and inquiry-based fieldwork takes a backseat. It’s a later that never happens because they (teachers) don’t have the time and it (inquiry-based fieldwork) is not a priority.” Here, the core subjects refer to English, mathematics, science, and mother tongue offered in the national examination for Singapore primary schools. STI further elaborated that the lack of priority given to fieldwork has to do with some of the schools’ mindset regarding social studies. She said, “Social studies remains a non-core subject which receives very little priority vis-à-vis the other subjects that are examinable. This perception is deeply entrenched in teachers’, students’ as well as their parents’ minds.” STA, STC, STD, STE, and STF echoed similar point as STI. Additionally, some teachers have a misconception regarding inquiry-based fieldwork. STA said, “Some (teachers) don’t believe that their students are able to do field inquiry” because as explained by STE, “it can be too challenging for low progress students.” With the prevailing mindsets regarding the value of social studies and inquiry-based fieldwork, student teachers like STA, STD, and STE were concerned that these could be translated into limited school support for fieldwork in terms of time, budget, manpower, and the freedom to plan inquiry-based fieldwork the way they had learnt from the course. STB, STC, STD, STE, and STF raised the issue that some of the existing social studies teachers in school were not trained to teach the subject when they were in NIE. They would not know how to plan and conduct inquiry-based fieldwork. This could pose a challenge in fieldwork implementation in school. Additionally, STA and STE said that when there is a lack of teacher understanding of inquiry-based fieldwork, teachers might “conflate fieldwork with learning journeys” and this would make it harder to push for inquiry-based fieldwork in school. STB and STA also raised issues related to students. STB spoke of large class size as a challenge to the logistics of fieldwork planning and management, and she was worried about how to sustain students’ interest. She also wondered how to make fieldwork interesting especially for students who had been to the field site before and how to change their negative perception of learning social studies as a discipline. STA’s concern was about the management of student behavior on-site. She felt inadequate as a young and inexperienced teacher as she had yet to learn the tricks of the trade for effective fieldwork management.

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

125

6.5.3 Suggestions for School Support Question 3 focused on the student teachers’ suggestions for school support for fieldwork planning and implementation. Their suggestions included logistical support, teacher training, and mentoring by experienced teachers. STE, STF, and STG believed that social studies needs to be valued in school as much as those subjects for the national examination, and the support for fieldwork should come from school leaders who are in the position to influence and motivate their teachers to adopt the pedagogy. When social studies becomes a priority, “then time, resources and budget will follow and (inquiry-based) fieldwork will be supported,” said STF. STA, STC, STD, and STH were more specific about support in terms of time. They suggested that teachers should be off-loaded and be given protected time to conceptualize and implement fieldwork together. STC even suggested monthly fieldwork planning sessions. STA hoped for supportive colleagues to let her have their periods for fieldwork as it requires time for completion. She and STI suggested that schools could send untrained teachers for fieldwork training and provide further training opportunities for beginning teachers like them so that everyone is better equipped. STA, STF, and STH also mentioned that schools could appoint experienced teachers in fieldwork to mentor beginning teachers. STA elaborated that these mentors could advise them on which part of the curriculum to be extended for fieldwork, provide helpful and interesting ideas and teach them about management of student behaviors. STD suggested that schools could be supportive by being proactive, that is, they could establish working relationships with education officers in places such as the museums to ease the red tape whenever schools organize fieldwork for their students to such places.

6.6 Discussion Our study seeks to find out the student teachers’ understandings and concerns regarding inquiry-based fieldwork and their suggestions for school support. Overall, the findings show that the student teachers understood what inquiry-based fieldwork is and its benefits, and they were able to identify the key factors that influence effective fieldwork planning and implementation. They acknowledged that the theoretical and practical elements in the fieldwork course had contributed to their understanding and increased their confidence in fieldwork conception and conduct. While it is assuring to note that the fieldwork course had benefited the student teachers, we realized the need to strengthen their learning in the course teaching. A number of student teachers had problem with crafting inquiry questions and more assistance in the form of explicit teaching on formulating inquiry questions, mentoring, feedback, and showcasing of inquiry-based fieldwork examples would be helpful to mitigate the problem. With additional fieldwork examples for both indoor and outdoor sites, student teachers can also have a better idea of the range of on-site

126

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

investigation activities to conduct which takes into consideration the unique characteristics of diverse settings. Many student teachers also could not pitch the level of difficulty of their fieldwork packages appropriately for their intended audience. Inappropriate pitching can lead to student disengagement and affect their learning. The problem could be due to insufficient practical teaching experience of these student teachers. What can be done is to provide explicit reminders and feedback to help student teachers adjust their work to suit their learners. Besides the pitching issue, some groups were unable to complete their fieldwork lessons within the stipulated time frame. This can be an issue because in the actual school context, students need to go back to school for lessons after fieldwork or catch the school bus to go home. One suggestion is for student teachers to do a timed dry run of their fieldwork activities which can take the form of an informal micro-teaching with their own peers prior to the conduct of their fieldwork packages as part of their own preparation. As the student teachers keep track of the actual timing for each activity, they should be able to better manage and adjust their activities within the given time allocated. Tutors can also include the informal micro-teaching component as part of the fieldwork preparation into the course outline. This will highlight the importance of designing and implementing a good fieldwork package within the allocated time frame. In our findings, the student teachers’ raised challenges to inquiry-based fieldwork implementation such as time factor, school mindset and support, and trained teachers. Although criticism could be levelled against the validity of their concerns on the basis that none of them had actual school experiences of planning and conducting such fieldwork and only three of them had the experience of accompanying their students for learning journeys during their contract teaching; their concerns should not be dismissed and should be addressed to encourage them in fieldwork adoption in their schools. Demanding teaching workload, large class sizes, co-curricular activities and other school responsibilities often leave teachers exhausted with little time for other things, and planning fieldwork is “no walk in the park” (Kho & Parker, 2012, p. 31). Hence, teachers will find it challenging to plan and conduct fieldwork on their own, even when they believe in its merits, unless they have the school support and are able to collaborate with like-minded colleagues to make fieldwork a reality. As it is, many of the school learning journeys, which are fieldtrips to heritage sites and government organizations as part of the national education programs for students, are not even conducted by teachers themselves. They are often out-sourced to external vendors who may lack the knowledge and skills to connect the learning journeys to what students learnt in school to make learning meaningful and relevant to them. Primary social studies in Singapore schools is conceptualized by MOE as a non-examinable subject to encourage teachers to teach the subject creatively to promote student engagement without the national examination pressures. However, this creates a situation whereby some schools perceive it as a non-core subject in comparison to the high-stakes subjects for the national examination (Kho & Parker, 2012). Replacement of social studies lessons by the core subjects during the national examination preparation reinforces the unintended message to students that social studies is a low priority subject. Competition for finite resources among the various school programs also leads to even more limited resource allocation to the social

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

127

studies program. Furthermore, not all the trained social studies teachers are deployed by their schools to teach the subject, and teachers who are not trained in social studies may end up teaching it instead. It is likely that the latter may not know how to carry out inquiry-based fieldwork as intended and be strong advocates for its implementation. As fieldwork planning and implementation are demanding and cannot be the solo effort of a teacher, the student teachers’ apprehension about the lack of trained teachers is understandable. In our findings, the student teachers’ suggestions of protected time for fieldwork planning, more training, and mentoring by experienced teachers to address their fieldwork concerns certainly deserve attention. Schools which prioritize the primary social studies’ goal of citizenship education as crucial and recognize that the goal forms part of the MOE’s desired learning outcomes for primary school education, should consider these suggestions seriously in support of inquiry-based fieldwork as a worthwhile pedagogy for achieving the goal. The translation of theoretical knowledge into practice is not an instantaneous process, and what the beginning teachers really want are opportunities to apply their learning and hone their teaching skills in collaboration with colleagues who understand the value of inquiry-based fieldwork. They want to be guided by experienced and nurturing senior teachers so that they can develop their competency and confidence in teaching social studies in the field. In addition to the student teachers’ suggestions, schools can also engage NIE to mount training for their teachers so that everyone will have the same understanding and develop the necessary skills for inquiry-based fieldwork. For schools which aim to advance their fieldwork approaches, the training can move beyond the closed style toward the framed and negotiated styles in inquiry-based fieldwork (Roberts, 1996). During training, the misconception that inquiry-based fieldwork is unsuitable for children should be dispelled. Children are naturally inquisitive, and this natural predisposition should be tapped for fieldwork inquiry. All children can gain from fieldwork when they are properly trained in the prerequisite knowledge and skills for the fieldwork activities. The activities must also have appropriate scaffoldings, and they are pitched at the learners’ ability. Examples of successful inquiry-based fieldwork conducted by other schools can be shared during the professional development to convince teachers that it is feasible in primary schools. Instead of ad hoc fieldwork, schools can work toward the development of a whole school social studies fieldwork program which focuses on a progression of concepts, skills, and affective outcomes for the various levels of schooling. They can spread out fieldwork opportunities in a school year instead of bunching them toward the year-end or after school examinations. With the MOE’s removal of the mid-year examinations at Primary 3 and 5 (Davie, 2018), the freed-up time in the curriculum can be used for inquiry-based fieldwork. Schools can get students to observe, investigate, reflect, and create knowledge as part of their learning processes. This will promote deep learning, joy of learning, and the holistic development of students. Social studies and other subjects can also be integrated into the fieldwork design and be carried out as inter or multidisciplinary inquiry-based fieldwork for children.

128

H. H. Sim and S. S. G. Liow

6.7 Conclusion In conclusion, our research is a preliminary study of the student teachers’ understandings and their concerns and suggestions regarding inquiry-based fieldwork in primary social studies in the Singapore context. Moving forward, more research can investigate the type of school support for beginning teachers and the issues they face in actual planning and implementation in schools. Future research can also investigate student learning outcomes from fieldwork and the influence of inquiry-based fieldwork on citizenship education. These suggested research areas will value-add to the local body of knowledge on fieldwork in primary social studies and inform teacher practice and student learning.

References Ballantyne, R., & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-based excursions: School students’ perception of learning in natural environments. International Research in Geography and Environmental Education, 11(3), 218–236. Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc. Biddulph, M. A., & Adey, K. (2004). Pupil perception in effective teaching and subject relevance in history and geography key stage 3. Research in Education, 71(1), 1–8. Catling, S. (1998). Values in primary geography series. In M. Mash (Ed.), Values in geography education. London: University of London. Caton, D. (2006). Theory into practice: New approaches to fieldwork. London: Geographical Association. Chang, C. H., & Ooi, G. L. (2008). Role of fieldwork in humanities and social studies education. In O. S. Tan, D. M. Mclnerney, A. D. Liem, & A-G. Tan (Eds.), What the west can learn from the east: Asian perspectives on the psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 295–311). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Davie, S. (2018, September 29). Fewer exams for students, less emphasis on grades. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com.sg. Dewitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school fieldtrips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197. Foskett, N. (1996). Teaching and learning through fieldwork. In D. Tibury & M. Williams (Eds.), Teaching and learning geography (pp. 189–201). London: Routledge. Gibbs, G., Habeshaw, S., & Habeshaw, T. (1988). Interesting ways to assess the students. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73. Kent, M., Gilbertson, D., & Hunt, C. O. (1997). Fieldwork in geography teaching: A critical review of the literature and approaches. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 313–332. Kho, E. M., & Parker, W. (2012). Learning beyond the school walls: Fieldwork in Singapore, grade 1–6. Social studies and the Young Learners, 22(4), 29–31. Lambert, D., & Balderstone, D. (2010). Learning to teach geography in secondary school. London: Routledge. Laws, K. (1989). Learning geography through fieldwork. In J. Fien, R. Gerber, & P. Wilson (Eds.), The geography teachers’ guide to the classroom (pp. 104–117). Melbourne: Macmillan. Lonergan, N., & Andreson, L. W. (1988). Field-based education: Some theoretical considerations. Higher Education Research and Development, 7, 63–77.

6 Inquiry-Based Fieldwork for Children’s Localities …

129

Ministry of Education (MOE). (2012). 2012 syllabus: Social studies primary. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education. Nabors, M. L., Edwards, L. C., & Murray, R. K. (2006). Making the case for fieldtrips: What research tells us and what site coordinators have to say. Education, 9(4), 661–667. Nundy, S. (1999). The fieldwork effect: The role and impact of fieldwork on upper primary school. International Research in Geography and Environmental Education, 8(2), 190–198. Pearson, M., & Smith, D. (1985). Debriefing in experience-based learning. In D. J. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflections: Turning experience into learning (pp. 69–84). London: Kogan Page. Pike, S. (2016). Learning primary geography: Ideas and inspirations from classrooms. London: Taylor and Francis Group. Remmen, K. B., & Froyland, M. (2014). Implementation of guidelines for effective fieldwork designs: Exploring learning activities, learning processes and student engagement in the classroom and the field. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23(2), 103–125. Roberts, M. (1996). Teaching styles and strategies. In A. Kent, D. Lambert, M. Naish, & F. A. Slater (Eds.), Geography in education: Viewpoints on teaching and learning (pp. 231–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, M. (2003). Learning through enquiry: Making sense of geography in the key stage 3 classroom. Sheffield: The Geographical Association. Roberts, M. (2013). Learning through enquiry: Approaches to teaching and learning in the secondary school. Sheffield: The Geographical Association. Sim, J. B. Y., Tan, I., & Sim, H. H. (2005). Exploring the use of inquiry-based learning through fieldwork. In C. Lee & C. H. Chang (Eds.), Primary social studies: Exploring pedagogy and content (pp. 34–43). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Walsh, L. (2006). The ability of early years children to engage with graphicacy processes in geography (Unpublished master’s thesis). St. Patrick’s College, Dublin. Yilmaz, C., & Bilgi, M. G. (2011). Prospective teachers’ view on geography fieldworks. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(2), 978–983.

Hwee Hwang Sim is a lecturer in the Humanities and Social Studies Education (HSSE) Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU). Presently, she teaches Primary Social Studies Education to the degree and post-graduate student teachers. She also teaches Action Research for Social Studies Teachers at master level. She received her BA from the National University of Singapore and her MA (in Instructional Design and Technology) and her PhD (in Education) from NIE, NTU. Prior to her NIE appointment, she was a secondary school teacher in Geography and English, a specialist writer in the Secondary Geography Project Team with the Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore, the Ministry of Education, and later a curriculum specialist in the Secondary Geography Unit in the Curriculum Planning and Development Division in the same ministry. She became the Head of Department (Humanities) in a secondary school after her stint in the ministry. Her research areas are in mentoring, teacher learning, and education in primary social studies and geography. Shiang Swee Grace Liow is a teaching fellow in the Humanities and Social Studies Education (HSSE) Academic Group at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU). She is currently teaching Primary Social Studies Education to the degree and post-graduate student teachers. She received her BA (Diploma in Education) from NIE, NTU. She is a seconded teacher to NIE with secondary school teaching experience, and she specializes in geography education. She was a Head of Department before and was in charge of different subjects and areas, namely, Geography, English Language and Literature, National Education and Student Leadership.

Chapter 7

US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History Through Fieldtrips Jeremy Stoddard, Alexandra Hartley, Leah Shy, and Khanh Vo

Abstract This chapter reports the results of a survey of US (n = 65) and Singapore (n = 33) teachers on how they engaged in field-based historical inquiry with their students. In particular, the authors focus on what types of sites teachers selected, their frequency of utilizing field-based teaching, their confidence in engaging students in particular field-based inquiry teaching strategies, and what they viewed as factors that promote or serve as barriers to utilizing field-based inquiry. All the participants had received advanced training in teaching with historical sites either as part of a course (Singapore) or teacher professional development institute (USA). They found that the participants were generally limited to one field-based experience per academic year, with some augmenting these experiences with additional in class or virtual fieldtrips. Sites most often identified include cultural or heritage sites and museums (Singapore) to memorials and historic sites (USA). Overall, the participants were confident in being able to utilize field-based historical inquiry strategies. However, they identified a number of barriers, with the most frequently identified being time (Singapore) and cost (USA). Important implications for teacher educators, administrators, and curriculum developers are explored around the types of sites identified, beliefs about field-based inquiry, and what can be done to promote field-based historical inquiry and reduce barriers to this practice.

J. Stoddard (B) University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. Hartley Ithaca City Public Schools, New York, NY, USA L. Shy Elementary American School, Tokyo, Japan K. Vo College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_7

131

132

J. Stoddard et al.

7.1 Introduction Museums and historic sites are key spaces where people around the world learn about history (Rosenzweig, 2000). They represent some of the original forms of public education for the masses in many countries and are still valued as the destinations for school fieldtrips—where and when funding and time allows. The histories presented in these spaces often emphasize nationalistic stories and metanarratives or are limited to the stories of particular group perspectives or events (Hooper-Greenhill, 2004). Museums can therefore be very influential on how visitors understand the past. In particular, they can shape how visitors may understand the stories of states, nations, or heritage groups. This is especially true when museums are viewed as objective representations of the past (Marcus, Stoddard, & Woodward, 2017). When teachers and students instead view museums as subjective and ideological spaces, these metanarratives can be challenged or interpreted within the context of the museum. For history teachers, a disciplinary lens that engages students in understanding how history is constructed and represented at museums and historic sites can be particularly powerful. The disciplinary tools for a more complex understanding of a museum include: understanding the nature of evidence and how it is interpreted and curated, recognizing the intended audience of the museum, and identifying how the perspectives of those who curated the museum shape the narrative or story any museum or historic site tells. However, engaging young people in particular in thoughtful ways at historic sites is quite challenging (Stoddard, 2018). This is particularly true when teachers utilize historic sites as sites for inquiring into the past and how it is represented. Here we examine the views of teachers who have participated in professional learning focused on teaching at historic sites. We seek to better understand how professional development focused specifically on museum and historic site pedagogy may shape their perceptions and reported experiences implementing what they have learned in their teaching. This chapter reports the results of a survey of US (n = 65) and Singapore (n = 33) teachers on how they engage in field-based historical inquiry with their students. In particular, we focus on what types of sites they select, their frequency of utilizing field-based teaching, their confidence in engaging students in particular field-based inquiry teaching strategies, and what they view as factors that serve as barriers to utilizing field-based inquiry. All of the participants had received advanced training in teaching with historical sites either as part of a course (Singapore) or a teacher professional development institute (USA). We cannot make direct connections between their experiences in the professional development activities and how they teach with and at historic sites—rather, we are viewing the participants as a sample of teachers who have had specific professional learning activities explicitly focused on using inquiry pedagogies at historic sites. These findings have implications for teacher educators, administrators, and curriculum developers around how sites for inquiry are identified, teacher beliefs about field-based inquiry, what can be done to promote field-based historical inquiry, and how to reduce barriers to this pedagogical practice.

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

133

7.2 Relevant Literature Museum and historic site visits have always been viewed as potent sites for history education, going back to Victorian Britain’s use of museums as public education (Hooper-Greenhill, 2004). Museums were also viewed—along with the census and the map—as one of the three tools of colonialism by instilling, establishing, and reinforcing systems and representations of power on visitors (Anderson, 1991). Furthermore, teachers and museum educators often lack specific training in how to engage students of various ages in disciplinary inquiry at museums and historic sites. This results in teachers often viewing the fieldtrip as a day of fun or a day to pass students off to a museum docent versus a day of engaged intellectual work. Teachers also often lack a sophisticated epistemic understanding of museums and how they construct and represent the past. Instead, these fieldtrips often reinforce dominant and nationalistic social and political norms (Marcus et al., 2017; Segall & Trofanenko, 2014; Stoddard, 2018, Trofanenko, 2010). Research into the role and perspectives of both museum educators and teachers related to visits to historic sites note consistently a lack of intellectual engagement and disciplinary focus. Studies report that interactions between teachers and museum educators largely focus on logistics versus pedagogical goals and strategies (e.g., Brugar, 2012; Dewitt & Storksdieck, 2008; Marcus, Levine, & Grenier, 2012). Because of this lack of understanding of the pedagogical needs of school groups and the need for greater communication, other studies recommend greater communication and specific ways for teachers to engage with museum educators prior to a visit. In addition, pre-visit and post-visit experiences are recommended to better foster disciplinary inquiry at historic sites and museums (e.g., Wright-Maley, Grenier, & Marcus, 2013). Two models for better collaboration are recommended by Coughlin (2010) and Foreman-Peck and Travers (2013). These models emphasize codesigned pre- and post-experiences, shared objectives for the visit, and discussions of ways to take advantage of the unique affordances of museums as sites for inquiry learning and with different forms of artifacts than the regular classroom (e.g., material culture). Attempts to shift teacher practice at museums is done primarily through professional development institutes held by specific museums. Some of these are very specific to that museum’s collection or time period and topic. Others attempt to provide pedagogies and practices that could be used at any historic site or museum. The research on professional development activities reveals uneven success and even a real lack of fully understanding what works (van Hover & Hicks, 2018). It is generally accepted that high quality, subject-specific professional development is “sustained, content-focused, active, collaborative in nature, ongoing, attentive to context in terms of school and curricula standards, focused on student thinking and learning, and that includes some element of instructional coaching” (van Hover & Hicks, 2018, p. 399). However, in her meta-analysis of studies of professional development, Kennedy (2016) found that these best practice characteristics of professional development were unreliable predictors of the success of a program. Therefore, while we will briefly examine the nature of the three professional development programs

134

J. Stoddard et al.

our participants were part of and recognize that they likely have impacted or influenced the teachers’ practice, we are mainly concerned with how the participants incorporated their learning within their classrooms. The teachers’ subject areas and specific school locations—as well as their own views on the value of teaching at historic sites—impacted how they implemented their learning in the classroom.

7.3 Conceptual Framework Our conceptual framework focuses on two particular aspects of what influence highquality and inquiry-based pedagogy at historic sites. The first is that of a teacher’s epistemological understanding of how historic sites and museums represent the past, and the second includes the many factors within a teaching context that influence if and how field-based teaching may occur. In particular, we are attempting to look at the ways in which teacher epistemology of how history is constructed at historic sites/museums impacts their pedagogy and how their context of teaching either supports or presents barriers to teaching field-based inquiry. In their conceptualization of epistemic cognition in history education, VanSledright and Maggioni (2016) identify the characteristics of three levels or categories of epistemic cognition in history education. Epistemic cognition refers to an understanding of the ways in which history is constructed and warranted (e.g., how to resolve conflicting accounts or evidence). Their first category of epistemic cognition is one described as “naïve” in the sense that historical accounts are viewed “as stories that basically all said the same thing, and thought that a story about the past corresponded directly to something that happened in the past” (p. 135). Accounts are essentially viewed as objective information without consideration of the evidence used to warrant the account. The learner does not view historical accounts as constructed or the need to contextualize the account in the time period and views of the author but instead views it as a static history that is objective and does not change. A teacher representing a second and more sophisticated category of how history knowledge is viewed, a subjectivist epistemic view, would recognize that historic accounts are constructed and based on evidence through the perspective of the author. They may be, for example, skeptical of how a national museum of history, funded by a government, likely includes all representative perspectives from that nation in the museum. However, they would not use disciplinary tools—for example, interpreting evidence and recognizing the perspectives of historic change—to evaluate the quality of evidence used or the expertise of the author and therefore the quality of the historical account. These tools are all vital to being able to engage in a criterialist epistemic approach to historical understanding, which would be on the opposite end of the objective or naïve epistemic view. Someone with a criterialist epistemic understanding would also view history as constructed and situated within the time period and perspective of the author. They would also, however, use the tools of the discipline to evaluate

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

135

the nature and level to which the account is based on historical evidence and the level of historical analysis done by the author. Essentially, they would evaluate “evidence preponderance,” or how the author “provides a warrant for justifying knowledge claims” (VanSledright & Maggioni, 2016, p. 135). For example, they would not only evaluate evidence for its veracity but also seek out corroborating evidence as needed and/or place the evidence within historical context. For the case of museums and historical fieldtrips, we also recognize that the form of public history often represented in museums and historic sites requires epistemic cognition to also include the kinds of evidence in these spaces. The evidence includes more visual, place-based, and forms intended for a broader public audience than consumers of written or academic history. This includes the types of historical artifacts that may be presented and the layers of interpretation of the site or museum that constructs an overall narrative about the past. As much or even more than written history, public history and the epistemic understanding of public history also include an understanding of the politics of historic sites and their construction, curation, or presentation. Unlike a written account, the decisions in and for museums and sites are often influenced by many people, organizations, or even political bodies (e.g., Smithsonian). This understanding of the construction and presentation of historic sites and artifacts in museums is part of the toolkit within the criterialist category of epistemic cognition in history (Stoddard, 2018). In addition to examining the teachers’ epistemic views and understandings of history in museums and historic sites, we are also very interested in the influences of the participant teachers’ self-efficacy for engaging students in historical inquiry at these sites, and in how their own teaching contexts contain barriers for teaching in the field. There is a potential positive correlation between teachers’ confidence in employing particular pedagogical strategies (i.e., self-efficacy) and their effectiveness and frequency in doing so. However, in educational systems guided by accountability measures such as highstakes standardized tests and teacher evaluation systems, the pressure is placed on teachers to adhere to the content and nature of the intellectual work being measured. These pressures can include curriculum guides that outline content timelines, benchmark testing that influences scheduling and length spent on topics, grade level planning where all teachers adhere to the same basic plans and schedules, etc. Teachers are also pressured by the impact of their students’ test scores on their own employment or pay through the ways in which they are incorporated into their own evaluations (Au, 2007). We recognize though that many teachers still maintain a sizable amount of control over how, if not what, is taught in their classrooms (Thornton, 1991). Thornton describes this as a teacher’s role as a curricular-instructional gatekeeper.

136

J. Stoddard et al.

7.4 Research Study 7.4.1 Methods and Participants This survey project focused on a sample of teachers who participated in explicit training related to teaching at historic sites, museums, other place-based settings (e.g., cultural neighborhoods). The authors include a faculty researcher (first author) and graduate students in education and American Studies from the USA with interests in museums and fieldtrips in education and how these institutions represent the past. We sought to both understand the impact of participating in professional learning on the teachers’ practice at these sites with strategies included in the training, as well as their perceptions of the affordances and constraints to teaching in the field. Here we describe the development of the survey instrument, the sample for the study, and a description of the programs the teachers participated in. While members of the research team have visited Singapore and have some familiarity with the context of education there, we acknowledge far less expertise in education in Singapore than in the USA. We sought out the Singapore context because of the program at NIE, where preservice teachers take a course in fieldtrips, and because fieldtrips are built into parts of the history curriculum.

7.4.2 Survey Design and Analysis The survey instruments, which were developed using Qualtrix survey software, were designed using measures adapted from other surveys related to teaching in museums and historic sites. The specific surveys included open-ended items asking teachers to provide a description of favorite sites with an explanation of why and a description of what they viewed as a successful field-based trip that provides evidence for their epistemological views of historic sites, measures of their self-efficacy for engaging students in field-based inquiry, their frequency and description of field-based practice related practices, their criteria for selecting field-based sites of learning, and their perceived barriers to engaging in field-based teaching. Parallel surveys were developed for the US and Singapore samples using knowledge of the professional learning experiences of each group and of commonly used sites in each location. These surveys contained similar measures and items but were adapted for their specific context. Data from this survey was analyzed using descriptive statistics and through coding open-ended responses using line by line nvivo coding. The sample size of the survey limits the level of statistical analysis and generalization that can occur. Therefore, we focus on the descriptive statistics of our respondents and an analysis of the qualitative data provided. Memos were generated using the qualitative data for each sample group to identify in-group themes and compare between group themes. These themes and those identified in the descriptive statistics are presented in the findings section below.

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

137

7.4.3 Sample and Recruitment Participants for this study were selected because they had participated in specific professional learning for teaching in the field. These included two US-based professional development programs in Virginia and a teacher education program in Singapore that includes a class for preparing teachers to teach at museums, historic sites, and cultural neighborhoods. Participants of the Colonial Williamsburg’s Summer Teacher Institutes for Middle and High School Teachers (from 2011 to 2014) and from the Virginia Humanities Teach Historically, Act Locally program for teachers (2014) were invited to participate in the survey. In Singapore, we invited recent graduates of National Institute of Education (NIE)’s History Inquiry Fieldtrip Course and Teacher Preparation Program (2011–2014). Both groups were surveyed in 2015, at least one school year after they completed their respective programs. A total of 65 participants from the Virginia programs responded to our survey and 33 recent graduates from the Singapore teacher education program responded to our survey.

7.4.4 Professional Learning Programs We acknowledge that participants have been influenced in their practice with experiences and professional learning opportunities outside of the programs we used to select the participants. However, we hoped that by participating in a professional learning program focused specifically on field-based pedagogy that we would have a group of teachers in the best possible position to learn from how they utilized field-based pedagogical experiences for their students. Colonial Williamsburg’s Summer Institute for Teachers. These week-long institutes are designed for middle and high school teachers and are held in Colonial Williamsburg, a living history museum set in 173 acres of original and reconstructed buildings, pastures, and gardens in the colonial era capital of Virginia. The institute includes tours and activities at various regional historical sites, modeled pedagogical activities featuring first person historical interpretation and the use of primary sources, and experiential activities focused on living history or simulations. The programs observed for this study focused on Early American history through the US Civil War (Middle School Program) and through modern day (High School Program). Teach Historically, Act Locally Program. This three-day experience focused on historic sites across Virginia that presented African American history across the state. Teachers who participated rode a bus across Virginia to visit these sites, during which they took tours, participated in simulations or other modeled activities, and learned about the resources available from these sites. Sites included the Robert Russa Moton Museum in Farmville, VA, which was the site of a student strike and massive resistance during the era of school desegregation, the birthplace of Booker T. Washington, and sites related to the Nat Turner rebellion.

138

J. Stoddard et al.

NIE Course on Historical Inquiry Fieldtrips. As part of their teacher education program for history teachers, a course on historical inquiry fieldtrips is offered. In this course there is an emphasis on teacher-designed fieldtrips that engage students in historical inquiry using evidence observed or collected in the field. The course aligns with the lower and upper school teaching and learning guides for Singapore teachers and emphasizes four uses of historical fieldtrips: fieldtrips as detective work, using fieldtrips to engage in role-play, using fieldtrips as a means to ask historically grounded questions, and using fieldtrips as a means to solve a historical problem. Although the specific topics and depth of experiences differ across these three programs, they all share the commonality of emphasizing historical inquiry and the role historic sites and museums (as well as their material culture artifacts) can play in engaging students in inquiry. The Teach Historically, Act Locally was the shortest program and had the least depth but did expose teachers to a variety of sources, sites, and pedagogical models. The Colonial Williamsburg Institute and History Inquiry Fieldtrip Course at NIE both went into greater depth and more immersive models of pedagogy at historic sites and museums. Given the small number of respondents from the Teach Historically, Act Locally program (n = 4), we have not broken out the Virginia group responses but present them below as one group. The context of these two research sites also needs to be described and noted here. The Colonial Williamsburg participants (n = 61) included teachers from across the USA, which means they also teach and work in communities that vary widely in terms of curriculum, funding, and levels to which teachers are working in accountability models that emphasize testing or more standardized curriculum. Teachers also have widely varied access to major historical sites or museums depending on where they teach. The Singapore participants teach in a more egalitarian and standardized education system than Virginia, but schools are still differentiated by their academic offerings—from a more technical focus to a more elite college preparatory focus. This differentiation is also apparent within the humanities subjects, with schools being viewed as more or less elite based on specific course offerings, school specialties, and cocurricular opportunities (including fieldtrips abroad). Because of the smaller size of the country, they overall have more access to important national museums and historic sites. Therefore, it is difficult to make any kind of generalizations from this data. However, as our findings below illustrate, there are several common themes that emerge from the US and Singapore teachers regardless of their particular context.

7.5 Findings As might be expected when comparing the contexts of teaching in a country the size of the USA, with each state essentially having a different education system and curriculum, and a country the size of Singapore, with a common education system and single teacher education program, there was greater variety in the US participants’ responses. However, several major themes emerged across the quantitative and qualitative data that provide insights into how professional learning activities may better

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

139

help prepare teachers to teach in the field and ways in which their teaching contexts could be made more supportive toward these efforts. These themes are explored below, illustrated by the results of the survey. We also provide some implications for teachers and those working in museum and teacher education.

7.5.1 Teachers’ Views of Historic Sites In both groups of participants, there was a wide range of sophistication when it came to how they view history as presented at historic sites and museums. We asked teachers to describe their favorite museum or historic site and explain why. In these descriptions, there was evidence for whether they viewed these spaces as objective historical accounts, as complex constructions within context and evidence available, or as more political institutions espousing a particular ideological message. About a third of the teachers in Singapore and roughly half of the US participants espoused a view of museums and historic sites as places that tell history “as it was” or allow us to “learn about what happened.” This included living history sites like Colonial Williamsburg in the USA and the National Museum in Singapore. The majority of participants, however, illustrated a more complex view of how history is represented at sites and museums; this view was more evident in descriptions of what sites can offer as places of inquiry rather than as a sophisticated reading of the larger narratives museums tell through their curation and design. For example, one participant from Singapore described the Labrador Park site in Singapore that contained British fortifications built to defend Singapore from the Japanese in World War II. They noted that it was helpful to both see the “massive display of war preparations” to protect the island by an attack from the sea as well as to challenge their alleged prowess as the site also helps visitors “look at why the British failed to protect Singapore.” Memorials were also named as being significant in each setting. For the USA, most of these were monuments and memorials in Washington, DC such as the Lincoln Memorial. One teacher noted its sheer size and placement as symbolic of the perceived importance of Lincoln in his time. For Singapore, the Kranji War Memorial was noted because it forced students to look closely at the Commonwealth soldiers who died in the First and Second World Wars. In addition to these sites of national significance, local neighborhoods and cultural communities were among the more sophisticated site descriptions provided by our respondents. These places were described as sources of historical evidence to show how neighborhoods and communities changed over time both physically as well as culturally and politically. One teacher from Los Angeles in the USA described using local neighborhoods as sites to examine segregation and discrimination at the turn of the nineteenth century as waves of migration changed the city landscape. Similarly, several Singapore participants described the Singapore River district, which includes buildings from the colonial era, and the ability to ask students to consider the massive physical, cultural, and political changes evident as you follow the river.

140

J. Stoddard et al.

One other theme that emerged directly relates to the conception of history and what counts as a historic site or museum. Teachers who included smaller local sites or more minor historical sites tended to express sophisticated epistemic understandings. For example, one identified a plaque at their local train station in Oregon commemorating the internment of Japanese-Americans by the US government in World War II— which included a photograph of the families being forced onto a train at that station. They described how the events depicted in this plaque relate today as the relatives of these families still live in the area—and how some of them had lost their land during the time of internment. This teacher’s description reveals the level of historical understanding that goes beyond the small commemorative plaque to both placing the events in context and examining the continuity and change into the present. It was also telling, however, that several of the US participants commented that they were not close to any museums or historic sites—illustrating that they may have viewed only official or more nationally prominent sites as being of historical significance. This was in contrast to the example from the US teacher of the plaque described above and the view of the local community as a source for historical inquiry. Whereas the Singapore participants had relatively accessible sites to describe given the close proximity and size of the country, the US participants split between noting large nationally known sites such as the Smithsonian, DC memorials, or living history museums such as Colonial Williamsburg, and identifying smaller local institutions. The Singapore curriculum also emphasized the exploration of cultural neighborhoods—constructing them of historical significance along with prominent national sites and nationally or regionally focused museums such as the Asian Civilizations Museum. This difference in perspectives of what counts as a historic site or site worthy of historical exploration presents an opportunity for teacher educators and museum educators to better promote not only national or significant sites but to also work with teachers to recognize the many historical sites of significance all around them and how they may be engaged with as part of field-based inquiry.

7.5.2 Factors in Site Selection While teachers’ conceptions of what type of sites constitute history shaped what choices they might consider, there were also distinct factors for site selection that participants identified. US-based participants identified five major factors used most often to decide where to take their students on historically based fieldtrips (Table 7.1). As described more fully in later sections on barriers to this type of pedagogical activity, the location of the site was by far the most prominent factor. Similar to the themes identified in their previous description of historic sites—perceived significance of the history at a site is the next most significant factor. The final two factors selected by almost half of respondents was the alignment to the curriculum and type of site (e.g., museum, memorial). The idea of the quality of engagement found and quality of site, memorial, or museum displays and activities were prominent throughout the responses.

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History … Table 7.1 Frequently identified factors in selecting fieldtrip sites (USA)

Table 7.2 Frequently identified factors in selecting fieldtrip sites (SG)

Factors

141 # of responses

Location (nearby site(s))

N = 49

Significance of history represented

N = 37

Alignment to local, state, national curriculum

N = 31

Type of site

N = 30

Proximity to historical sites/museums

N = 17

Factors

# of responses

Links to history syllabus/National Education

N = 32

Significance of the history represented

N = 31

Type of site (i.e., memorial, museum, historic landmark)

N = 24

Location (nearby site(s))

N = 12

Directions from school administration or department chair

N = 10

The Singapore teachers identified some of the same primary factors used to select fieldtrip sites, but with different emphasis on the relative importance of the factors (Table 7.2). For example, the location was a consideration much less frequently identified than in the US sample. In addition, a site’s connection to the national history syllabus and its perceived historical significance were most frequently mentioned as factors in selection. While teachers did not directly cite the authentic effect of a site, they did note the importance of the prompting of historical empathy that can be fostered by a field-based learning experience.

7.5.3 Frequency and Location of Fieldtrips Although the importance of different factors in site selection varied across the two samples, we found that both the US and Singapore respondents were generally limited to one field-based experience per academic year, or at most once or twice a school term. The only category of trip that happened with more frequency was the use of some form of virtual fieldtrips, where 40% of the US participants reported using a virtual fieldtrip once a month or more. These virtual experiences included the use of Google 360 to explore famous world heritage sites to streaming in experts or visiting popular national sites such as the National Archives in the USA. Teachers in both groups provided specific examples of locations they used for fieldtrips, and these locations were also classified by type of site, with some sites

142 Table 7.3 Most popular fieldtrip site by category (SG)

Table 7.4 Most popular fieldtrip site by category (US)

J. Stoddard et al. Category of site

# of responses

Cultural heritage site

N = 10

Museum (national focus)

N = 10

Museum (local/neighborhood focus)

N=7

Military fort

N=4

Memorial (war, individual, local/national event)

N=2

Living history museum

N=1

Category of site

# of responses

Local historic or civic site/marker/home

N=8

Cultural/heritage site/marker/museum

N=8

Memorial (war, individual, local/national event)

N=5

Presidential library/home/museum/memorial

N=5

Museum (national)

N=4

Museum (local)

N=4

Living history museum

N=3

being classified in more than one category. The Singapore teachers most often identified cultural or heritage sites and museums (see Table 7.3) and US teachers most frequently mentioned local historic or cultural sites and memorials (Table 7.4). Specific examples of sites used for field-based learning are shown in Table 7.5 (Singapore) and Table 7.6 (USA). For the Singapore teachers, the focus on cultural sites and nationally focused museums is representative of the close alignment their teaching has to the national history curriculum set by the Ministry of Education (MOE). In this curriculum, there Table 7.5 Most popular fieldtrip sites (SG)

Name of site

# of responses

National Museum of Singapore

N = 10

Fort Canning

N=3

Singapore River Trail/Site

N=3

Reflections at Bukit Chandu

N=2

Kranji War Memorial

N=2

Auschwitz Concentration Campa

N=2

a In

addition to Singapore-based fieldtrips, many schools in Singapore have opportunities to participate in international fieldtrips or short study abroad experiences

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

143

Table 7.6 Most popular fieldtrip sites (USA) Name of site

# of responses

The Nation’s Capital (Washington, DC)

N=7

Colonial Williamsburg

N=2

Local medieval festivals

N=2

Federal Reserve Bank (branch museums; Chicago and New Orleans)

N=2

are foci on specific national historical events such as the experience of Singaporeans during the Japanese occupation in World War II, which can be explored at the National Museum and the Ford Factory. There is also a focus on the three main heritage areas, namely, Chinatown, Little India, and Kampong Glam. For US teachers, the only consistently named site was a visit to Washington, DC, a destination for many school groups during the year. However, as we note later, this trip to the nation’s capital is generally only accessible to those in schools in the DC area or in schools from the more affluent areas. For the US teachers, then, it makes sense that they identified different local historical sites, markers, and memorials as their top destinations as they would be more relevant to their state academic standards and more accessible. Of course, the site selected is only one component of a successful fieldtrip. In an item asking the teachers to identify the keys to a successful fieldtrip, the US teachers identified the need for students to be actively engaged in museum objects or historical evidence at the site (n = 39) followed by sites being readily accessible (n = 37) and having administrative support (n = 32). These two latter keys to success align closely with identified barriers (see section on Barriers to Field-based Historical Inquiry). For the Singapore teachers, they similarly saw active engagement with evidence as the top key to a successful fieldtrip (n = 31), with clear objectives and ties to the national curriculum being a priority (n = 30) as well as an emphasis on field-based historical inquiry (n = 29). The value of having students engage with evidence reflects the desire of the teachers to engage students in some kind of inquiry or site-based engagement. For the US teachers, having the ability to access sites was key whereas for the Singapore teachers the ties to the curriculum were paramount. We explore these themes in more detail below in the descriptions the teachers provided of their pedagogy during these fieldtrips—which provides more insights into what they mean by engaging with historical objects and evidence or what inquiry-based pedagogy may look like.

7.5.4 Pedagogical Approaches to Field-Based Inquiry While many teachers reported only being able to take one fieldtrip per term, participants were confident overall in their ability to utilize field-based historical inquiry strategies in their teaching. As a way of illuminating teachers’ pedagogical

144

J. Stoddard et al.

approaches, we not only asked participants about their favorite historical sites and why, we also asked them to describe a successful fieldtrip. The themes previously identified as selection factors were reflected in the Singapore teachers’ answers: they tended to identify as favorite sites important national landmarks with close ties to their curriculum such as Labrador Park, Fort Canning, the Singapore River district, and the Changi Chapel Museum. There were also many consistencies across these participants in the description of the activities at these sites, most of which focused on curriculum-aligned historical investigations. These historical investigations focused on posing large questions such as asking about the experiences of the people of Singapore under Japanese Occupation. The primary task includes having students attempt to identify and gather evidence to answer the question while at the museum or historic site. Most of the Singapore examples included some form of these investigations and the emphasis on second-order concepts of historical understanding such as continuity and change (as illustrated in the example of studying the Singapore River district) or making inferences from the sources at the museum to ask and answer inquiry questions. Furthermore, most of the Singapore examples aligned closely with the national curriculum and focused on inquiry as a model for gathering information and making inferences to answer the questions posed. So, what might a criterialist approach to engaging students at a historic site look like? For the example of the teacher who brought his students to the Labrador Park, this could include both an examination of the visual and spatial evidence available in the park (e.g., placement of guns, location) as well as contextual materials such as the defense plan for Singapore that the British had employed. Students could then also be engaged in analyzing not only the site and what it might tell them about that period of history and failure of the British strategy as well as the interpretation of the site and the perspective on these events they present. By asking students to examine both the site and the evidence that the interpretations are based on, students will develop an understanding of public history sites as interpreted and constructed using historical evidence. These activities could also be framed around questions of the intended visitor for the site, the perspective of the site historical staff and management, and how their goals for visitors may influence the interpretation. Or, they could be engaged in looking at evidence providing opposing perspectives on an event and discuss how a curator of the site would decide how to present it—whose account might be most valid—or should it be presented as unsettled? It would also be important to examine how the surrounding areas have changed since the time before World War II and what the site might have looked like in the past. In this way, the students’ field-based historical inquiry could be structured in a number of ways that both engage students in the history aligned with the curriculum at the site and about the site itself and how we can understand its development as public history. This focus on inquiry contrasted with the responses from most US teachers. Many of the examples of activities in the US context were fieldtrips with less structure academically. They were aligned to the curriculum content, but often included a tour guide or activity focused on exploring a site or museum versus an academic task that engaged deeper thinking skills. Given the two contexts, this contrast is

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

145

understandable. Singapore has a uniform curriculum throughout the country and a common teacher preparation program, so its teachers both have specific preparation for using field-based inquiry as a pedagogical tool (at least the recent graduates we surveyed) and most history classes include at least one field-based learning trip. The US teachers came from a wide range of preparation programs, state curriculums, and district policies, so there was not the same common emphasis (or requirement) on using field-based inquiry as a pedagogical approach—despite their participation in one of the professional development institutes. Focusing on doing more independent inquiry into local topics was another difference between the two research sites. While a small number of US teachers described using a museum, local historical society, or archives as sites for student-generated questioning, writing, analysis, or original research, only one Singapore teacher did. This participant described independent research related to a visit to the Kranji Memorial, but the majority of Singapore participants focused on trips on questions that aligned with the shared curriculum. In the USA, these independent research projects tended to be reported in classes that were elective courses (e.g., historical archiving class) or in states where there is not as much pressure from high-stakes testing. These opportunities were usually focused on a local site, topic, or person such as the project one participant described in which students interviewed military veterans at a local retirement home for an oral history project. In the USA, National History Day, which is a sort of science fair for history, is an example of a program that places great emphasis on engaging with archival materials through independent research for students on topics students identify within the theme for the year. For teachers engaging students in criterialist approaches, these archival studies at historical societies or museums are more likely examples than the types of field-based inquiry in Singapore. Although there were differences in the actual use of field-based inquiry pedagogies, overall the participants reported being quite confident in their ability to teach using strategies related to field-based historical inquiry, as indicated in Table 7.7. Table 7.7 Confidence teaching with field-based historical inquiry strategies (Scale of 1 = not at all confident to 7 = very confident) US mean

SG mean

Engaging students in the analysis of historical significance of historic monuments and memorials

5.82

4.90

Designing effective inquiry task for students to participate in during a fieldtrip

6.06

5.10

Assigning problems or tasks with no right or wrong answers

6.02

5.19

Managing the logistical planning necessary for a successful fieldtrip

5.31

5.45

Engaging students in evaluating historical decisions

6.08

5.23

Having students identify and discuss historical perspectives and values 6.14

5.42

Engaging students in the analysis of historical narratives presenting in museums

4.97

5.47

146

J. Stoddard et al.

However, given the descriptions provided by the US-based teachers in their pedagogy at museums and historic sites, there seems to be a lack of evidence that their high confidence levels in using field-based inquiry pedagogies reflect what they report as their actual practice. This is particularly interesting as we do not see as high levels of confidence among the Singapore respondents as the US teachers but more evidence from their description of practice that aligns with their confidence level. This means that the US teachers may be utilizing this practice in class-based activities or in different examples, or their confidence does not translate to high levels of inquirybased practice, or they have high confidence but are not provided the opportunity to bring students on fieldtrips because of some of the barriers described in the next section.

7.5.5 Barriers to Field-Based Historical Inquiry Participants in both the US and Singapore expressed confidence in their ability as teachers to utilize field-based historical inquiry pedagogies, but they also identified a number of barriers to planning and implementing field-based learning activities. Some common barriers existed across the two contexts, but there were a couple of clear differences in the types of barriers that relate to both the structure of schooling in the two countries and by the size of the countries. By a wide margin, the primary barrier in the USA was limited financial support for these experiences (Table 7.8). This has been the growing case in the USA with an emphasis on accountability, maths and literacy, and budget cuts over anything viewed as non-essential for less wealthy states and schools in particular. Fieldtrips, the arts, physical education, and even social studies education in many states are viewed as non-essential. The second most frequently noted barrier by the US teachers was a perceived lack of access or proximity to museums or sites. However, as previously described, other teachers utilized local historical societies or community sites to still engage their students in field-based historical inquiry. In order to move past the common barriers to field-based learning, US teachers reported an interest in professional development that would help them to better build, justify, and fund field-based learning experiences as well as help them successfully incorporate virtual fieldtrips into their class instruction. Table 7.8 Barriers to field-based historical inquiry (USA)

Barrier

# of responses

Cost/financial resources

N = 28

Availability of fieldtrip sites that fit the curriculum

N=5

Transportation

N=4

Time

N=3

Lack of administrative support

N=3

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

147

Throughout the survey, the US teachers noted the lack of financial resources for doing anything field-based wherever there was an “other” box as an option to add in a text response. This reflects the challenge for rural school districts and schools in less affluent or more remote states (e.g., Alaska) to easily access museums or major historical sites. Funding simply does not exist for this kind of pedagogical experience. Urban schools similarly lack resources but also have much greater access to some sites because of proximity and programs in some urban museums to promote local school visitation. In contrast, surveyed Singapore teachers identified three major barriers to teaching field-based historical inquiry (Table 7.9), with the top barrier being the time within the curriculum to engage in methods and topics in depth that are not in the exams or prominent enough in the syllabus to warrant the time needed for a quality field-based inquiry experience. While elements of field-based inquiry and visits to historic sites are included in the national curriculum, they are a small percentage of the many requirements of tested topics in these courses. Another barrier reported was that of class size; in some Singapore schools, that can be up to 40 students per class, which makes the logistics of a fieldtrip more cumbersome. Overall, time and some logistical aspects were viewed as the greatest barrier, in contrast to the US teachers. Given the structural differences of the two countries’ school systems and size, these differences in barriers both make sense and would require massive policy changes to be eliminated or changed. Teachers in Singapore noted a number of desires for improving their use of fieldbased historical inquiry, including better training on working with vendors who design field-based learning activities and training for teachers to utilize successful models to design their own trip experiences. They also indicated that they would benefit from more administrative support when selecting sites and building fieldbased learning experiences. Furthermore, better curriculum outlines for field-based learning activities along with site suggestions might help in their implementation of field-based learning experiences. Table 7.9 Barriers to field-based historical inquiry (SG)

Barrier

# of responses

Time

N = 30

Availability of fieldtrip sites that fit curriculum

N = 27

Class size/difficulties of taking students off site

N = 27

Cost/financial resources

N = 12

Students are not prepared to participate in fieldtrips

N=9

Changing exhibits/museum programming

N=9

148

J. Stoddard et al.

7.6 Discussion and Implications In the study reported here we set out to understand how teachers in Singapore and the USA viewed museums and historic sites as spaces for field-based historical inquiry. We selected these teachers as they had participated in specific professional learning experiences focused on inquiry pedagogy and museums and place-based learning. While these sites have always been viewed as valuable spaces for experiential learning in history education—recent trends toward accountability in education and the reduction in budgets for fieldtrips and other programs deemed non-essential have posed a barrier to these experiences for students. Here we explore potential implications of our findings for museum staff, teacher educators, and professional development professionals, and administrators. We found in our sample of teachers that the Singapore participants had more consistent links between what they learnt in their course focused on field-based historical inquiry and how the pedagogy they described at museums and historic sites than the US teachers. This included the posing of inquiry questions, having students make inferences from information collected during the museums/site visits, and a focus on second-order historical thinking concepts such as change and continuity. The majority of US teachers focused more on the significance of the site and what students would learn from visiting it—and especially engaging actively at the site through looking at objects or interacting with museum staff. For the majority of the US teachers, their descriptions of a fieldtrip activity were less academically structured than the Singapore teachers. However, this does not mean that the US teachers did not have sophisticated views of how museums and sites construct history or how field-based inquiry could be structured. In fact, though the majority of US teachers did not describe activities that would engage students in the criterialist epistemic cognition described by VanSledright and Maggioni (2016), the majority of examples that would meet the highest levels of a criterialist view were also US teachers. These activities emphasized using local historical archives to research a local historical site or a more critical analysis of the meanings of a particular museum or memorial. These activities fit the criteria in particular for the kinds of public history work described in our conceptual framework. While small in number, those with the most sophisticated field-based pedagogy appear to be the teachers with a complex epistemology of history at museums and historic sites, resources and support to engage in pedagogy in the field, and a curriculum or accountability system that allows them to have room for these experiences. There was evidence among the Singapore teachers that they were also very capable of this kind of sophisticated public history work with their students, but they seemed constrained in their description of practice by the need to align with the national curriculum, a reliance of vendors or designed activities at historic sites, and the logistics of having large groups of students. Their practice did engage students in the collection of information from museums and sites to answer inquiry questions, but

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

149

there was little evidence that these teachers were having students interrogate, interpret, and analyze the evidence and narratives used in museums that a public history criterialist approach would include. This does not mean that there was evidence of high-quality pedagogy or that it was not field-based inquiry, but that few of the Singapore examples described the more sophisticated work that would illustrate the ability to understand and evaluate the nature and weight of evidence used to construct history at these sites. As evidence of the effects of the professional learning programs the different groups attended, the in-depth and structured model provided to the Singapore teachers was evident in the consistent inquiry-based model described in their practice. It is notable, and rare in the USA, that the professional learning offered preservice teachers matches so well with the curriculum and pedagogy required by schools. The US teachers described a much wider variety of practices, but what was reflected was the emphasis on using primary sources inquiry pedagogy and engagement with living history strategies that is at the heart of the Colonial Williamsburg Program. These have also been pedagogies in vogue in US history education over the past three decades, although there is little evidence of how consistently they are actually practiced in US classrooms. The descriptions of fieldtrip practice are less focused on place-based inquiry than with the Singapore teachers (e.g., looking at cultural neighborhoods or urban development) and this difference is evident both in the consistency of the Singapore respondents’ pedagogy as well as the smaller group of US teachers who were not just using sources in their teaching but were engaging their students in independent inquiry using local archives. The effects of the US professional learning programs and their emphasis on significant historical sites appeared to have drawbacks as numerous teachers in the US sample viewed only significant historic sites and museums as being sites for this kind of pedagogy. Some teachers provided in-depth examples of how they found and engaged their students in local historical sites but many others simply noted that they could not engage in these practices because they were not close to any museums or sites. As noted above, some US schools are very remote—and often those in rural areas also lack funding and have the added expense of distance to contend with. However, other teachers had found ways to work with local historical societies or archives or find small memorials or historic sites with which to engage their students in field-based inquiry. One takeaway is that while teachers were engaged at the institutes in many examples of inquiry pedagogy and the types of historical evidence available to them—that neither of these programs (Colonial Williamsburg, Think Historically) had explicit sessions on developing the teachers’ epistemic knowledge of history and how museums and historic sites construct historical accounts through their design and use of evidence. This type of training and more emphasis on local and less nationally significant historical sites and markers would also benefit the US teachers in particular. From a policy standpoint, the evidence provided from our respondents was quite clear. All of the teachers saw major barriers to engaging students in field-based historical inquiry. For Singapore, the primary perceived barrier was limited time in the curriculum because of the need to address other material in the national curriculum

150

J. Stoddard et al.

and the high-stakes testing used to evaluate their students. For the US teachers, the primary barrier was the lack of finances to engage their students in this work. Administrators interested in fostering more inquiry-based and place-based education in history, geography, or interdisciplinary areas should take note of these two barriers—and understand how these experiences may help their students to engage in the more common types of inquiry in history outside of school. Professional learning opportunities should include an emphasis on pedagogy with sources as well as with different types of public pedagogy (e.g., memorials, cemeteries, local archives). Museums are still viewed as a prime place for families to engage with the past (Rosenzweig, 2000), and more thoughtful engagement at these sites allows students to practice the kinds of inquiry and critical thinking skills that are stated as the goals of the school systems in both of these countries—and are goals that are very difficult to measure on a high-stakes test. Acknowledgements This research was funded by an international fellowship from the Wendy and Emory Reves Center for International Studies at William & Mary. The authors wish to thank Dr. Mark Baildon and Mr. Chelva Rajah from the National Institute for Education (Nanyang Technological University) for their assistance with this project.

References Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (2nd ed.). London: Verso. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. Brugar, K. A. (2012). Thinking beyond fieldtrips: An analysis of museums and social studies learners. Social Studies Research and Practice, 7(2), 32–49. Coughlin, P. K. (2010). Making fieldtrips count: Collaborating for meaningful experiences. The Social Studies, 101, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990903498431. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school fieldtrips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11(2), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/106 45570802355562. Foreman-Peck, L., & Travers, K. (2013). What is distinctive about museum pedagogy and how can museums best support learning in schools? An action research inquiry into the practice of three regional museums. Educational Action Research, 21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/096 50792.2013.761924. Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2004). Museums and the interpretation of visual culture. London: Routledge. Kennedy, M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800. Marcus, A. S., Levine, T. H., & Grenier, R. S. (2012). How secondary history teachers use and think about museums: Current practices and untapped promise for promoting historical understanding. Theory and Research in Social Education, 40(1), 66–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2012. 649466. Marcus, A., Stoddard, J., & Woodward, W. (2017). Teaching history with museums: Strategies for K-12 social studies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

7 US and Singapore Teachers’ Views on Teaching History …

151

Rosenzweig, R. (2000). How Americans use and think about the past: Implications from a national survey for the teaching of history. In P. C. Seixas, P. N. Stearns, & S. S. Wineburg (Eds.), Knowing, teaching & learning history (pp. 262–283). New York: New York University Press. Segall, A., & Trofanenko, B. (2014). Encountering pedagogy at the National Museum of the American Indian. In B. Trofanenko & A. Segall (Eds.), Beyond pedagogy: Reconsidering the public purpose of museums (pp. 57–68). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Stoddard, J. (2018). Learning history beyond school. Museums, public sites and informal education. In S. Metzger & L. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 631–656). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. Thornton, S. J. (1991). Teacher as curricular-instructional gatekeeper in social studies. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 237–248). New York, NY: Macmillan. Trofanenko, B. M. (2010). The educational promise of public history museum exhibits. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(2), 270–288. Van Hover, S., & Hicks, D. (2018). History teacher preparation and professional development. In S. Metzger & L. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of history teaching and learning (pp. 391–418). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. VanSledright, B., & Maggioni, L. (2016). Epistemic cognition in history. In J. A. Green, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 128–146). New York, NY: Routledge. Wright-Maley, C., Grenier, R., & Marcus, A. S. (2013). We need to talk: Improving the dialogue between social studies teachers and museum educators. The Social Studies, 104, 207–216. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2012.720308.

Jeremy Stoddard is a professor in the School of Education at the University of WisconsinMadison. Prior, he held a position at William & Mary (Virginia, USA). Jeremy’s research focuses on the role of media in teaching and learning history and citizenship, and more generally on authentic pedagogy and assessment in classrooms and curriculum. His research has been published in journals such as Curriculum Inquiry, Teachers College Record, Theory and Research in Social Education. His most recent books are Teaching Difficult History through Film (Routledge, 2017) and Teaching History with Museums (Routledge, 2017). Alexandra Hartley is a teacher in the Ithaca City Public Schools (New York, USA). Leah Shy is an Associate Principal of Elementary at the American School in Japan (Tokyo). She holds her Ph.D. in Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership with an emphasis in Curriculum Leadership from the William & Mary School of Education (Virginia, USA). While at William & Mary, she served as an adjunct instructor in the Curriculum & Instruction Department and also as the Director and Lead Instructor of the Global Business English Program for international students. She has previously taught elementary school in the USA, Japan, and Hong Kong. Khanh Vo is a Ph.D. candidate in American Studies at William & Mary. She is the recipient of the Michael R. Halleran Dissertation Completion Fellowship in the Humanities and a research fellow with the W&M Equality Lab. Her research includes 19th and 20th c. American history, material culture, public history, social history of science and technology in concert with questions of race, labor, and design.

Part II

Role of Archaeology and Anthropology

Chapter 8

Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities in Humanities/Social Science Education in Singapore John N. Miksic and Geok Yian Goh

Abstract Archaeology began in Singapore in 1984. In 1988 the first project was conducted which incorporated students from junior colleges and tertiary institutions in Singapore into archaeological research. Since that year, hundreds of students have been involved in archaeological fieldwork and fieldtrips in Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries. Singapore students have been given opportunities to participate in laboratory and fieldwork in Singapore, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Myanmar. In some cases they collaborated with students from other countries. The primary objectives of collaboration between Singaporean archaeologists and students are: (1) to inculcate an interest in premodern Singapore and Southeast Asia in local students; (2) to cater to an interest on the part of local teachers at the secondary level in archaeological research, including Singaporean and regional material culture as well as general methodology and theory; (3) to contribute to ongoing research on methods of cultivating object-based learning and exposing students at the pre-university and university levels to research culture. This chapter will describe the theoretical concepts regarding proper use of concrete case studies to foster abstract thinking and analysis, projects in which students have been involved, the types of activities they have undertaken, and the results achieved to this point.

8.1 Introduction One of the principal pleasures of teaching archaeology is that it can be taught at any level, from primary through secondary and tertiary levels. It can also be taught as part of life-long learning programs. The basic principles of archaeology are simple and can be comprehended by anyone by the age of six. Even younger children can J. N. Miksic National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] G. Y. Goh (B) Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_8

155

156

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

understand some of the basic principles of archaeology, which at its most fundamental is the search for items buried in the ground, using gentle techniques which will not harm the objects, and to record information about them. More maturity is needed to understand the reasons why archaeology is done, and how to interpret the results, but the only real requirements for engaging in archaeology are curiosity, minimal physical strength, and ability to use simple tools. The first archaeological excavation was held in Singapore in 1984. The project was supported by the National Museum and Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum. Prof. John Miksic directed the excavation, with assistance from the staff of the National Museum. Excavators included National Servicemen who were seconded to the project, and hired laborers. In 1987 a second excavation was carried out by archaeologists from ASEAN member countries. In 1988, students from the National University of Singapore and junior colleges were involved in Singapore archaeology for the first time. During the 1990s, tertiary and pre-tertiary students played an increasingly important role in excavations at Fort Canning and other sites in downtown Singapore. At Empress Place in 1998, parents and their children were included. In 2000, pupils from Chinese High School participated in an excavation at Istana Kampong Glam. Prof. Miksic gave a lecture at the school and supervised their work at the site. In 2003– 2004, an excavation at St. Andrew’s Cathedral was planned far enough in advance and lasted long enough that it was possible to involve organized groups from several secondary schools. In the 2000s, the focus of attention in Singapore archaeology shifted from excavation to laboratory analysis. Due to lack of physical facilities and the necessity for longer training, only a small number of secondary school students and their parents have been allowed to assist in laboratory work. Since 2001, when a section of the archaeological site on Fort Canning was developed into a permanent outdoor exhibit; some schools began to take their classes on fieldtrips to the site. In June 2019 an expanded display was opened at the site as part of the Singapore Bicentennial observances. One of the major additions was a space where an average-size secondary school class of 40 pupils can be accommodated to conduct various activities. New information technology and exhibits were installed. In 2015, the archaeology of precolonial Singapore was added to the social studies curriculum of pupils at the Secondary One level. A textbook which included over 70 pages of material on the pre-1800 period was published (Curriculum Planning & Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore, 2014). This marked the first time that precolonial Singapore was taught in Singapore schools. Archaeological materials occupy a significant proportion of the precolonial section of the textbook, with other information from historical sources and material intended to put fourteenth-century Singapore in world context. Several workshops have been held at which teachers, staff from the Ministry of Education, the National Heritage Board, and professional archaeologists have discussed ways in which they can assist secondary school teachers to upgrade their knowledge of Singapore archaeology. The Fort Canning dig site is now more

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

157

frequently visited by school groups who are developing ways to use the excavation site in conjunction with visits to the nearby National Museum in their pedagogy.

8.2 The Fort Canning Park Archaeological Site Some of the main problems faced by educators internationally are caused by lack of access to genuine artifacts, and difficulty in finding archaeological sites where visits are permitted. In Singapore, the National Parks Board in 2001 opened a wellpreserved actual archaeological site at Fort Canning Park to the public. This site utilized standard display techniques of that time, including a preserved soil profile, cases with artifacts of different types found at the site, and texts explaining the history of the site, its geology, the archaeological techniques used to explore it, and some of the ways in which information obtained from the excavation changed the way that historians viewed Singapore’s ancient past. In 2019, coincident with the bicentennial of the arrival of Sir T. S. Raffles and the British, the Singapore government provided funding for a major renovation of the site. New technology including a video continuously playing on a screen and interactive exhibits was utilized to provide information for visitors. A large area where group discussions could be held was built, and space has been provided where a replica excavation can be conducted. It is planned to develop an indoor exhibition in a colonial period building nearby where more exhibits devoted to Singapore archaeology can be installed. Singapore thus has an asset which few places in the world can offer: a wellconstructed archaeological site with elaborate educational features conveniently located where schools can bring their pupils to learn about archaeology. In the near future, schools that bring their pupils on fieldtrips to the site will be able to arrange to participate in a simulated excavation. A new indoor exhibition space is now being planned which will include an area where pupils will be able to take part in post-excavation research such as the study of artifacts, documentation, and preservation.

8.3 Problems of Teaching Archaeology in Singapore The Fort Canning Park facility provides both opportunities and challenges for primary and secondary school teachers, few of whom have been previously exposed to archaeology or data about Singapore’s history which has recently become available. It is important that professional archaeologists and teachers find ways to work together to exploit this unusual resource, including the development of kits which could be used in classrooms to prepare pupils for their visits to the site, and to explore the implications of their experience at the site after they return to their schools from the fieldtrip. Nearby museums such as the National Museum and the Asian Civilisations

158

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

Museum also have important educational resources which could be utilized in their present state, or developed further to contribute to the insights obtained from the fieldtrip to the Fort Canning archaeological site and to coordinate with the school curriculum. In 2015, information on Singapore archaeology was incorporated into the Secondary One curriculum. In the future, this topic will be included in other levels of the educational system. It would be beneficial to investigate alliances between institutions of primary and secondary education in other countries in order to obtain ideas for how this relationship can be exploited in Singapore, a nation with a unique historical role as a major port and multicultural society.

8.4 Pedagogy of Archaeology: Case Studies from North America In the USA and Canada, primary school teachers have considerable freedom to adapt curricular materials to their localities. One enterprising teacher in a village in the state of Texas found that children enjoyed learning about people in ancient times who like them were not able to write, but who communicated with pictures which showed humans and animals. The class followed the same path as ancient societies as they learned basic mathematics and began to create an alphabet. The children enjoyed comparing themselves to ancient humans as they quickly evolved the abilities to read, write, and count. Fieldtrips to nearby sites to see stone tools were a key component of the class. Studies of plants and animals which ancient people ate, techniques of hunting, gathering, and food preparation, were also popular topics. Ultimately the first-graders were even able to formulate questions about the past which archaeologists are not yet able to answer due to the limitations of preservation and incomplete research. Kopec (1988) provides a teacher’s guide for US grades 5–8 (equivalent to primary 5–6 and secondary 1–2 in the Singapore system). This guide includes discussions of educational goals and behavioral objectives, a unit plan, worksheets and slides, and an extensive guide to further sources. The guide is structured as an interdisciplinary approach to learning and is designed to be implemented over a period of one to six weeks or even longer, depending on the interest of the individual teacher. A slide program and an artifact kit were prepared by a Maine museum which teachers could acquire. A plan for a fieldtrip was incorporated into the early phase of the course. The pupils were assigned to take notes during the fieldtrip which were later used by pupils to write site reports. The unit emphasizes the identification of misconceptions about people of the past, including those from other cultures who are sometimes depicted as “primitive,” and shows why they are false. Hawkins (1987) provides suggestions for teaching archaeology at all levels, from primary one to upper secondary school. One section in the book deals with “Archaeological State Commemorative Areas” in Louisiana, and prescribes means of preparing

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

159

for the visit, and using the experiences gained from the fieldtrip later in the classroom (Hawkins, 1987, pp. 59–60). Smardz and Smith (2000) created a 446-page-long book which deals with problems faced by primary and secondary teachers who want to pursue archaeology as a significant topic in their classes. One of the main difficulties is the effort and expense required to organize fieldtrips; the authors of the book chapters try to provide suggestions for alternative activities for teachers who cannot arrange fieldtrips for their pupils. Despite these initiatives, an article published in 1991 was critical of professional archaeologists in the USA who were seen as not very supportive of the efforts of teachers to find opportunities for their pupils to visit sites or obtain more first-hand experience of archaeology (Smith, 1991). In an issue of Archaeology, a magazine published by the American Institute of Archaeology, entitled “Archaeology in the Classroom,” several educators noted various ways in which the gap between the professionals and the general public was being bridged. Brilliant (1991) described how a half-day lecture/fieldtrip expanded into a Junior Archaeology Program which involved 450 students from schools who wished to join a program of visits to museums, small group tours, and a meeting with a professional archaeologist. Talalay (1991) reported on a set of 50 × 100 cm kits of replicas, models, publications, videos, and lesson plans for five 45-min activities, each with a different theme and designed for a different age group. The kits were prepared by museum docents at a museum in Michigan. In Toronto, Canada, the city Board of Education established an Archaeological Resource Centre, the mission of which is to create “a generation of Torontonians for whom archaeology is a normal, and exciting, part of their city-scape” (Smardz 1991). The Centre at the time of publication had a staff of seven archaeologists who conducted an integrated project including an excavation open to volunteers, fieldtrips for school groups, and independent study programs. One of the Centre’s goals was to investigate the lives of immigrants from various origins. The Centre also formed a library. In the Centre’s first ten years of existence, 55,000 people participated in the program. In the states of Alaska and Washington, a course lasting 70 h for students from grades six through eight (primary 6, secondary 1 and 2) was devised which used archaeological examples to teach science, mathematics, language arts, and social studies (McNutt 1991). The course included a visit to a real archaeological site. Three hundred teachers enrolled in a Teacher Workshop, for which they received credit toward a B.A. degree. Perhaps the most intensive effort to engage primary school pupils with archaeological fieldwork was conducted at Tucson, Arizona, where the Tucson Unified School District devised a program called “Archaeology Is More Than a Dig” for students 10–12 years old (Ellick, 1991; Sanders, 1986). Pupils were given several weeks of preliminary instruction including excavating a simulated site, cleaning and cataloguing artifacts from undocumented collections, and a discussion of the damage done by looting and lack of protection of sites. They were then allowed to participate in an actual rescue excavation which took place at an environmental studies camp

160

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

owned by the school district. They were supervised by trained volunteers. In addition to excavation, pupils analyzed the artifacts, including weighing and measuring them, and drawing them to scale. Unfortunately the program was dependent on private donations and volunteers, rather than being fully funded by the department of education. The Archaeological Institute of America is a private non-profit organization funded by the sale of a popular magazine. Recognizing the importance of early education, in 2000 the AIA began publication of a magazine called dig (all letters in lower case) aimed at children from 8 to 13. This enterprise had two goals: to inculcate a love for archaeology in children, and to encourage them to learn to read. As the above examples show, educators in various parts of the USA have perceived that archaeology can motivate pupils at the primary and early secondary levels to learn about the past and their local heritage; equally important, archaeology can also help pupils to become interested in other subjects including science and mathematics. The use of archaeological examples to teach science and maths can make it easier for children to understand the principles involved than can be achieved by teaching these subjects as purely theoretical concepts.

8.5 Fieldtrips as a Subfield of Experiential Learning (EL) It has long been understood that learning by invoking as many of the five senses as possible is much more effective than merely using sight (pictures) and sound (words). One of the authors of this chapter (Miksic) spent two years as a teacher of mathematics and science at the primary one and two levels at Sekolah Kebangsaan Dato Keramat, a Malay-medium school in Penang, Malaysia. During this period he obtained many insights about teaching methods which are not limited to early primary mathematics and science. Upon returning to the USA, he was invited to give talks to primary school pupils in the village where he grew up about his experiences in Malaysia. Since it was not possible to take the pupils on a fieldtrip, Miksic assembled a teaching kit which combined listening and seeing with feeling, smelling, and tasting. This experience helped him during his subsequent career which involved teaching archaeology and history at the tertiary level for 38 years in Indonesia and Singapore. “This kind of teaching is one that seeks the total visceral immersion of student learners in the full complexity and diversity of human experience such that learning becomes a practical, physically engaged process which occurs through ‘the experience of action itself’” (Bautista, 2014, 2018; Dewey, 1938, quoted in Bautista, 2018, p. 246; Kolb, 1984). “Field Course Experiential Learning Models” (McLaughlin & Johnson, 2006), or more simply fieldtrips, are perhaps the optimum type of activity in terms of making learning more effective and ensuring that lessons learned will be retained for a long time, possibly even a lifetime. Fieldtrips can be designed to be guided by teachers, or students themselves can design and guide their classes on trips. The fieldtrips can

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

161

focus on inanimate objects such as buildings or artifacts; they can involve observations of people without interacting with them (Jakubowski, 2003); but in most instances interactions with people who make the sites or artifacts or who live in or near them has been found to make the greatest impact on pupils. Texts and other reference materials are important means of preparing pupils for fieldtrips, and for analyzing the experiences gained through them, and worksheets can be provided to guide participants, but McMorran (2015) has noted that it is possible for fieldtrips to be overly predetermined in terms of the learning outcomes and answers which pupils believe the teachers expect to receive, and the questions can suggest a preference for simple predetermined answers rather than originality and variation. The primary data for study in the ideal fieldtrip model are those which are selected and obtained by the pupils themselves, with teacher guidance during the planning stage before the fieldtrip. In designing fieldtrips, it is desirable to avoid predetermined learning by making learning a spontaneous effort by the pupils, based in part on necessity to make a connection with another subject, partly on the motivation innate in most humans to share some kind of unspoken, non-transactional experience, if only very briefly. The ideal fieldtrip will endeavor to make it possible for students to find themselves in situations where such experiences are most likely to occur. Providing some kind of task to achieve provides a form of reward if the task involves describing to the teacher or the other class members what precisely was learned and in what context the situation arose where such learning was possible or even inevitable. Previous studies have shown that fieldtrips are able to stimulate students to learn independently rather than in predictable ways (Kern & Carpenter, 1984; Ridley & Lingle, 1996). One of the ideal outcomes which open-ended fieldtrips can be designed to achieve is a greater understanding of people from different cultural backgrounds (Hirsch & Lloyd, 2005; Marchioro, 2009). Bautista (2014, 2018) discussed modules which he designed and taught in the Southeast Asia in Context program in 2012–2014 at the National University of Singapore. He created “‘snapshots of practice’ drawn from my own experience in running the South-East Asia in Context Summer Program (SEAiC): an EL based field course based in Singapore which sought to address the cross-cultural and inter-religious understanding of religion across the Asia-Pacific” (Bautista, 2018, p. 248). One of the authors of this chapter (Miksic) initiated SEAiC in 2006 and taught in it every year through 2017. The lessons learned through this program will be discussed below. First, however, the authors will describe the experience of involving students in fieldtrips in their own country, Singapore, through the medium of archaeological research in actual sites and in the laboratory.

162

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

8.6 Teaching Archaeology to Pre-tertiary and Tertiary Students: Objectives Unlike the USA, Australia, and Europe, and other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, Myanmar, and Thailand, archaeology is not an academic teaching subject in Singapore. This influences how archaeology has been and can be incorporated into the tertiary curriculum in this country. Archaeological themes include a general introduction to the discipline, and how archaeological methods and sources can provide important insight into historical periods of Singapore’s past for which conventional text-based sources are not available. In the case of the authors, archaeology has been incorporated in their respective teaching areas: Southeast Asian Studies and history. The following points represent the main objectives. As Cooney (2017, p. 50) notes in his editorial, “the central mission of education is engagement in activities and experiences that enlighten and enrich our lives”; archaeology is well adapted for this enterprise. Archaeology allows us to “incorporate in our lives the activities and artefacts of past people and to reflect on how they can enlighten our understanding of life today” (Cooney, 2017, p. 50). One of Cooney’s key points is the importance of public archaeology or engagement of the public in archaeological activities. Public archaeology transforms “scholarly archaeological work (in many creative ways) to be consumed by those outside the academy” (Watrall, 2016, p. 353). Cooney describes hands-on archaeological education, especially in the form of community archaeology projects. In Dublin, Ireland, the Heritage Council leads the development of community archaeology programs such as in Fingal County and Adopt a Monument Scheme (Cooney, 2017, p. 51). Watrall (2016, p. 353) defines community archaeology and distinguishes it from public archaeology, in that “it seeks to equitably and equally engage local communities in the planning and implementation of research projects that are of direct interest to them.” “Public lectures, pamphlets, non-scholarly books, fixed or traveling museum exhibits, public workshops, bus tours, and school visits” are examples of community archaeology activities. Examples include Michigan Archaeology Day, Florida Archaeology Month, and events such as the Festival of British Archaeology (Watrall, 2016, p. 353). The Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland also runs a Continuing Professional Development program. These programs for public archaeology, community archaeology, and continuing education initiatives may be considered in the Singapore context, particularly in light of two recent developments: (1) the National Heritage Board’s long-term heritage plan and support for archaeological work through grants, and (2) the Singapore Government’s push toward SkillsFuture and continuing education. This point will be further discussed in a later section on challenges. The inclusion of premodern Singapore in the secondary textbook mentioned earlier represents an important turning point. A majority of Singaporean students at the postsecondary level are not well acquainted with the 700-year period of Singapore history since this topic was not included in the curriculum when they were in secondary school. Another area which requires mitigation is the need to establish a

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

163

better understanding among students and the general public of Singapore’s integral role in early Southeast Asia as a node in the network of exchange and movement of goods, peoples, and ideas.

8.7 Case Studies: Singapore and the Region In academic year 1998/1999, Miksic introduced a new module in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, NUS, the object of which was to acquaint students with the notion of cultural resources as analogous to natural resources: something which needs to be actively preserved and managed to avoid degradation. The management of cultural heritage was linked to the economic benefits of heritage tourism. In the late 1990s national tourism bodies focused mainly on mass tourism, shopping, eating, and hedonistic activities such as beach-going rather than heritage tourism. Students were assigned to identify aspects of Singapore’s heritage which were not well managed but which the students felt were worthy of preservation. For tutorials, students were assigned to lead their tutorial group and the tutor on fieldtrips to sites which they had identified for their projects. They had to justify their argument in favor of allocating resources to the preservation and management of the sites. This approach was popular among students, because it empowered them to determine the focus of their research, including their presentations in class and their term papers. Presentations in class could use various media, including videos, and as facilities such as PowerPoint and websites developed and proliferated, they were incorporated into the classroom activities. The Southeast Asian Studies Program at NUS was inaugurated in 1991. The newly formed student society of SEASP decided that one of its major projects would be a fieldtrip to Indonesia. Prof. Miksic, founder instructor in the Program, was the society’s adviser. He worked together with the society’s committee members to plan and conduct a 21-day trip to Java and Bali in 1993. In 1994 the Society and Prof. Miksic visited Myanmar when that country was still under military rule. These early experiments in student-designed fieldtrips provided useful experience when the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences decided to facilitate and encourage fieldtrips with university support. In early 2005, the President of NUS, Dr. Tan Chohr Chuan, became president of the International Association of Research Universities (IARU), a grouping of 10 universities. Prof. Miksic responded to an invitation from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences to design a module for a summer session which would be open to students from Yale University, which had no partner for summer studies in Southeast Asia. The program, entitled Southeast Asia in Context (SEAiC), lasted five weeks and required students to take two modules. Local fieldtrips within Singapore and a trip to Melaka in Malaysia and Ayutthaya in Thailand were integrated into the modules. The SEAiC program was well-received by Yale and Singaporean students. The fieldtrips were particularly popular according to student evaluations. SEAiC

164

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

expanded over the next 12 years. More universities took part, including some which were not part of IARU. The Department of Southeast Asian Studies experimented with fieldtrips in various countries, including Indonesia (Java and Bali), Cambodia, Thailand, and Myanmar. Initially the fieldtrips were two weeks long. The fieldtrips required considerable preliminary planning and coordination due to the number of universities involved, and the increasing integration of SEAiC into a Faculty of Arts special summer session which included several other departments. This resulted in standardization of the fieldtrip format, which required SEAiC’s fieldtrip to be shortened to 10 days. A significant amount of time and effort was required to organize three five-week modules. SEAiC was originally conceived as a means of attracting beginning undergraduates to become acquainted with Southeast Asia, rather than going to more established and popular areas such as Europe. It was also aimed at attracting a wide spectrum of students from around the world, as well as achieving a balance between foreign and Singapore students. Fortunately these objectives were achieved. For a few years a second set of modules was implemented at a more advanced level, which added further complexity to the program. Eventually it was decided to retain the introductory level nature of the summer school. The classroom portion of the summer school included one general module for all students, and two specialized modules, one on mainland Southeast Asia, the other on Indonesia. These classes sought to prepare the students for their fieldtrips, to work in groups, and to finalize a research topic to be pursued while on the trips. After returning to Singapore, the students would present the results of their group work to the entire class. In the original, longer version, the fieldtrips covered several areas: on mainland Southeast Asia, Thailand, and Cambodia were included, while in Indonesia the trips incorporated Central Java, East Java, and Bali. When the fieldtrip period was shortened to 10 days, the fieldtrips had to be restricted to a smaller geographical area. This entailed a shift from a comparative perspective obtained from several different areas to a more specialized research project. Despite covering a smaller area, the shorter research projects tended to be more superficial, since the students became more expert in gathering data when they spent more time in the field. The fieldtrips were designed to cover two themes. One theme was heritage management and tourism. Students were taken to World Heritage sites such as Angkor Wat and Borobudur, as well as to important Islamic sites in Indonesia and Buddhist sites in Thailand. They also participated in classes on subjects such as Indonesian gamelan playing, batik making, martial arts, and rice planting. The second theme focused on modern social issues including educational institutions at the primary and secondary levels, the rural–urban divide, the relations between Islam and traditional cultures, and the complex results of colonization, globalization, and nationalism. Students were encouraged to interact with local residents through such activities as homestays, participation in temple restoration projects, and football games. The fieldtrips were particularly demanding for the instructors, who had to be responsible for the planning, maintaining the physical and mental well-being of 25– 30 students as well as ensuring that they treated the fieldtrips as opportunities for

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

165

learning rather than leisure. Perhaps surprisingly, this was not difficult. Although some individual students might have expected that the fieldtrips would be more relaxed, the peer pressure from group members usually ensured that all students focused on their assignments. The students were usually quite tired by the end of the fieldtrips, but if anything this added to the esprit de corps which molded the groups into tightly knit teams by the end of the experience. The burden on the instructors was quite high as well. The overall evaluation of the fieldtrips by the students was quite positive. Many remained in contact with each other after they returned to their respective home countries, in some cases forming Facebook groups. The effort expended by instructors and participants was commensurate with the benefits. Many students felt that the lessons learned through the fieldtrips would never be forgotten. In summary, the results of the summer school fieldtrips were in line with expectations based on previous literature on the subject.

8.7.1 Integrating Singapore Archaeology into the Tertiary History Curriculum Goh incorporated archaeological fieldtrips in courses she taught at the History program at Nanyang Technological University. One of these courses consisted of a general education core elective for second-year NTU students while another was a prescribed elective for second- and third-year History major students. HH0201 Singapore and the Modern World is a second-year general education required course for non-History major students. The course is a survey of Singapore history from premodern (fourteenth century) through post-1965 periods. Archaeology and history of premodern Singapore comprised four out of 12 lecture sessions. Following the general introduction to the course, Goh proceeded to discuss the context for Singapore’s emergence and development in the Southeast Asian context, focusing particularly on Java and Sumatra (Indonesia) and Southern Thailand. The next three sessions covered the following topics: Ancient Singapore: What do the Textual Sources Tell Us? Ancient Singapore: What does Archaeology Tell us? After Temasek and before Raffles Sessions (i) and (ii) have the explicit purpose of demonstrating how Singapore’s premodern history can be examined from two broad approaches: texts (historical) and artifacts (archaeological). A majority of students who are of tertiary age (as well as pre-tertiary students from primary schools through junior colleges) have limited exposure to Singapore history prior to Raffles’ arrival (1819). The narrative of early Singapore’s status as a sleeping fishing village continued unabated until recently (2014) when the curriculum was modified with the insertion of a longer study of Temasek into the secondary school curriculum. Much of this new attention

166

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

to the archaeology and history of the precolonial period resulted from Miksic’s prizewinning (2013) opus and the results of more than three decades of archaeological research. “What do the Textual Sources Tell Us?” explores the available sources for fourteenth-fifteenth-century Singapore. The key sources discussed are: Wang Dayuan’s Dao Yi Zhi Lue (DYZL), Sejarah Melayu (SM), and the Desawarnana. Students are asked to use these texts in available translations to describe what fourteenth-century Singapore (Temasek) was like. For the class exercise, students were divided into groups, each of which was given excerpts of two passages from the DYZL and SM. A couple of groups were given Gajah Mada’s (Majapahit’s vizier) declaration in the Pararaton which mentions “Tumasik.” The in-class assignment requires the students to describe what kind of port Temasek might have been, and what activities were conducted in the settlement. They also attempted to draw a map of the area around the Singapore River where they thought activities could have been conducted in the fourteenth century. The following week’s class comprises two different activities. The first is an assessment of six archaeological sites in Singapore and items found at these sites. Each student group is given a map of Singapore River and its vicinity including Fort Canning Hill. Students in each group determine the locations of all six sites based on the provided prompt. The follow-up activity is a 45-min sherd handling session during which students are introduced to the types of ceramics excavated in Singapore. Through this exercise, students learn how to differentiate each type of ware, their possible functions, and their significance in terms of providing information on activities carried out at various sites in Singapore. For example, mercury jars are associated with gold-working as mercury was used for extracting gold and as a flux in gold-smelting. The students would also be informed that some Chinese scholars consider the jars to be wine vessels, but the class will discuss the likelihood that such crudely made vessels with a small mouth, wide shoulder, and narrow base may not be a suitable container for a beverage. The second course to be described is HH2025 The World of Southeast Asia to 1600. This course is structured according to the main themes of Miksic and Goh’s Ancient Southeast Asia (2017). Singapore comprises one example of a polity of the late classic period. The class includes a field excursion to the Fort Canning dig site, now known as the Artisan’s Garden. The fieldtrip is a three-hour walk around the hill with stops at various key locations. The walk starts at the Gothic Gate and proceeds via the Spice Garden (which was part of the palace garden of the fourteenth century) and up the hill to the archaeological dig site where Goh introduces the students to the site and its significance in the fourteenth century, with a brief history of Singapore archaeology. The group then proceeds to the Keramat Iskandar Shah, stopping at signboards which provide descriptions of Banzu, Longyamen, the Five Kings of Singapura, etc. From the keramat, the group proceeds to Raffles Terrace via Farquhar Terrace stopping by several trail markers which describe the Pancur Larangan bathing place, the account of Badang the Strongman, and other stories associated with fourteenth-century Singapore. The last stop of the excursion is the series of modern stone carving reliefs depicting Singapore in the fourteenth and the

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

167

nineteenth centuries. If time permits, the group ventures to Raffles Terrace to view the time ball, flagstaff, and lighthouse, which are features representing nineteenthcentury Singapore. These are discussed in the context of Raffles’ house and his choice of Singapore even though Farquhar wished to establish the British settlement at Karimun. For this class activity, students are asked to complete a worksheet. The above case studies demonstrate how archaeological fieldtrips have been incorporated into tertiary-level history courses. Archaeology provides a possibility for students to consider how material remains can be utilized to gain a more complete understanding of the past, especially for ancient Singapore, for which few texts are available. When courses happen to coincide with archaeological excavations, such as Semester 2 in Academic Year 2018–2019, students are given the opportunity to participate in the actual excavation.

8.8 Research Projects The authors recognize the importance of involving undergraduate students in their research projects. When Miksic joined NUS, he continued research at Fort Canning and extended his excavations to Parliament House Complex (PHC), Empress Place (EMP), Istana Kampung Gelam (IKG), Singapore Cricket Club (SCC), and St. Andrew’s Cathedral (STA). Undergraduate and secondary school students took part in these excavations as volunteers during which they learn different aspects of archaeological excavations, such as how to excavate, how to record their finds, sifting for small artifacts, and how to draw stratigraphic profiles. Post-excavation processing is supported largely by grants obtained by Miksic and Goh. The grants have provided funds for processual analysis of the artifacts excavated from 11 sites in Singapore. Compared to excavation, post-excavation analysis takes a much longer time. Students assist the authors in analysis which comprises sorting the artifacts into different types of material, different types of wares, attribute types, and recording of data in digital form. The granting agencies include the Lee Foundation, Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum, Orchard Marine, American Express Corporation, NUS, the Singapore Ministry of Education, and the National Heritage Board. Goh and Miksic have received two MOE Tier 1 grants (“Consumer Culture In Premodern Southeast Asia: Singapore and Myanmar” and “When Pots Whisper: Accounts of the Places, the Purchasers, and the Producers of Ceramics in Medieval Myanmar and Singapore”) and two HRG grants (“HRG004 Digital Database for Archaeological Remains from the Singapore Cricket Club” and “HRG027 Research and Database on Fort Canning Spice Gardens (FTCSG) and St Andrew’s Cathedral (STA) Sites”). While the HRG projects focus on the Singapore sites, the MOE Tier 1 projects involve research in Myanmar where analysis of artifacts excavated from the Bagan palace site is compared with that found in Singapore. In 1991–1993, Miksic was a coprincipal investigator in a project funded by the Indonesian National Research Centre for Archaeology and the Ford Foundation. This project, entitled the Indonesian Field School of Archaeology, was carried out in

168

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

East Java; university students from Singapore collaborated with students from four Indonesian universities and junior research staff from the Indonesian government.

8.9 A Singapore-Based Archaeological Field School Field schools are a common method of education in archaeology. Usually they are conducted as part of a long-term research project at a particular site under the auspices of a university. Often participants in the schools are given relatively menial tasks to perform, while the more sensitive areas of the excavation are reserved for experienced personnel. The Archaeology Unit (AU), established as part of the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore, fell under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. One of the authors (Miksic) was the founding head of the AU. One of his tasks was to carry out a field school with support from the Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The first AU/NSC field school was carried out at Angkor, Cambodia, in 2012. This activity was meant to constitute Singapore’s contribution to the East Asia Summit on Intra-Asian Relations. In 2013, a second field school was conducted at Cheung Ek, Cambodia. Participants in the field school had to possess a Bachelor’s degree in archaeology or a related field, and had to be a citizen of one of the countries who were party to the East Asia Summit. Funding was provided for ten students, whose expenses were paid by the MFA grant to ISEAS. The best applicants were chosen to represent ten countries, each of which was allocated one place, with five additional places allocated to Cambodia, as the host country. The field schools opened in Singapore with orientation and preliminary briefings on the objective of that particular year’s research. In Cambodia, the field school collaborated with the APSARA Authority, the Royal Academy of Cambodia, the Royal University of Fine Arts, and the Center for Khmer Studies in Angkor. The critical outcome of the field school was a series of individual presentations on the knowledge gained from the fieldwork at a concluding workshop in Singapore. The level of presentations was surprisingly high for the short period (10 days) during which the fieldwork was conducted. This is partly due to the excellent preparatory work which was performed by the Cambodian hosts, who chose the site for excavation, formulated the research design, and organized the logistics for the fieldwork. As was the case with the NUS summer school, one of the main accomplishments of the East Asia Summit field schools was to create groups of students who through shared experience in a foreign cultural setting and uncomfortable physical conditions forged long-term relationships with each other. They learned how to overcome obstacles and work in groups consisting of members from a range of countries. These lessons were at least as important as the didactic content of the field schools.

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

169

8.10 International Collaboration in Research: The Myanmar-Singapore Archaeology Training Project “Engagement with the physical remains of the past” such as handling artifacts “makes archaeology a unique discipline” (Cooney, 2017, p. 52). Since 2014, Goh and Miksic have been conducting workshops in Bagan, Myanmar as part of their research project analyzing the materials excavated from Aungmyegone, Anawrahta, and Kyanzittha Palace Sites which are located within the ancient walled area of the medieval polity. Each research visit involves the training of 10–12 participants consisting of two undergraduate students from the Department of Archaeology, University of Yangon, four researchers from the Department of Historical Research and National Library, and four researchers from the Department of Archaeology and National Museum, Ministry of Culture, Myanmar. In 2016, the participants included two undergraduate students from Nanyang Technological University. In 2019, four students were included in the program. As part of the training, the participants are instructed on a ceramic classification system based on which they sort ceramic wares from excavations carried out over the past 30 years, archaeological drawing, recording of information, and data analysis. Singapore students benefit from exposure to different types of artifacts as the Bagan site dates to the tenth–eleventh century and overlap with Singapore for about 200– 300 years between the fourteenth century and 1600, as well as interacting with their peers from Myanmar.

8.11 Challenges for the Future Archaeology is not a teaching/academic studies subject in Singapore. As a non-teaching subject, archaeology is expected to be incorporated into the existing curriculum as a discipline which can offer important insight into the premodern period of Singapore history. Archaeological work conducted ad hoc subject to construction schedules (this is expected to change with NHB initiatives). With the introduction of the SG Heritage Plan in 2018 which will be carried out over a period of five years, it is expected procedures will be set in place which may include regulations regarding the best approach to protecting Singapore’s archaeological heritage. A quick view of the poll results NHB collected show that 93% of 273 people voted “yes” on the question: “Do you think that it is important that we continue to conduct archaeological digs in Singapore?” (National Heritage Board, 2017, August 29). For “Poll #011, If you were in charge of the budget for our SG Heritage Plan, what would you fund?”, archaeology is listed as one of the choices. A total of 33% of 112 persons who voted agree that archaeology should be funded (NHB, 2017, August 29). Lack of a long-term lab facility for storage of artifacts for research and teaching. A physical laboratory is important as it acts as a space for the conduct of

170

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

research analysis, archaeological training, and storage facility for the large quantities of artifacts excavated. Continuing education (SkillsFuture). SkillsFuture is a “national movement to change how people view skills, jobs and learning” which began in 2014. In October 2016, an agency, SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) was established (Tong, 2018, July 2). As public outreach is an important approach via which archaeology in Singapore can gain traction, and as students can use public archaeological activities to interact and ready themselves for the work world, SkillsFuture may provide a good platform for engaging the public in learning about Singapore archaeology and how archaeological research is conducted. Archaeological heritage management is another potential point of interest. Digital age. Watrall comments that archaeologists are usually not involved in activities such as conferences and programs involving digital humanities; he goes to the extent of stating that “many scholars in the archaeological community are not even aware (my emphasis) that the digital humanities exist” (2016, p. 345). He finds this strange considering that much of what archaeology does utilizes digital technologies and practices. He also cites the example of “computational archaeology,” which started in the late 1950s, and has evolved into digital archaeology. Watrall suggests that the disconnect between archaeology and digital humanities might have resulted from the “divide” between archaeology as a social science and digital humanities comprising humanist approaches and studies, such as in literature, and history (2016, p. 350). Watrall in his chapter advocates that archaeology should become more involved in digital humanities. Watrall provides examples of how public archaeology can utilize digital media to broaden public engagement: Thames Discovery Program, the Michigan State University Campus Archaeology Program, and the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The former two schemes “effectively leverage blogs, social discussion platforms, and social media sharing platforms to engage and educate the public” on their activities (Watrall, 2016, p. 354). Brock and Goldstein have also written about new digital tools, such as blogs, which “offer new opportunities to share information and communicate with stakeholders” and engage “new communities with archaeological practice” (2015; McDavid and Brock, 2015). “The Portable Antiquities Scheme is a platform that facilitates and supports the submission and recording of archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales”; this represents an example of “crowdsourcing the archaeological record” (Watrall 2016, p. 354). Micropasts is a crowdfunding project started between the University College London Institute of Archaeology and the British Museum and involving a web platform which facilitates research between researchers, societies, and members of the public.

8.12 Potential New Directions Catherine Clarke (2004) identified challenges that archaeological pedagogies have to overcome in the digital and internet age. Similar concerns persist today. The pervasive

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

171

use of electronic media, such as the Internet, in tandem with the increasing interest in narrative, especially how archaeological reconstructions of the past are constructed, reveal concerns about “the use of narrative, or a variety of narratives, in archaeological interpretation [emphasis added] and an empirical focus on archaeological method” (Clarke, 2004, p. 275). Clarke’s article proposes to “help teachers of archaeology” to “ensure they inform and improve archaeological practice through their graduates” by ensuring that they are “better equipped to engage with the demands and requirements of designing and developing appropriate and effective teaching strategies and resources” for their curricula (2004, p. 277). Strategies hence include the use of electronic techniques including images and references in popular culture which characterize archaeology. The examples Clarke discusses include Dr Who and the Tomb Raider films which were produced for entertainment as opposed to Meet the Ancestors and Walking with Cavemen which “are presented as non-fiction and as having an education intention” (Clarke, 2004, p. 277). In any case, Clarke’s discussion is relevant now in 2019 as popular media continue to insert archaeologists as fictional characters in movies and television series such as The Mummy and Indiana Jones series, Relic Hunter, etc. While the general public, including students, may be skeptical of such depictions, they may be less critical of social media posts and Youtube videos, including those which are uploaded by amateur archaeologists. More problematic is information which carries narratives with specific intended messages. As Clarke rightly cautioned, instructors and students should be critical in their assessment of the interpretative narratives they encounter in academic writings as well as in popular media. In terms of future directions of archaeology in Singapore, it is important to determine which appropriate educational frameworks to use, since archaeology is not a standalone discipline; it has been incorporated in history and area studies pedagogy. In the digital age, instructors “need to work out what they (we) want to say and how best to say it, then select or devise the best media for the purpose” (Clarke, 2004, p. 283). Teachers too have to provide their students with the necessary skillsets to critically assess the approaches, the strategies, and the information they have been provided. The greatest challenge would be to ensure that the best practices are continued. Singapore has an advantage over other places in which there are ample opportunities to carry out archaeological lab analysis research and be trained in archaeological excavation techniques, the latter made possible by the recent construction of a work area for public archaeology at the Fort Canning site. The best way to ensure that students develop the critical faculties necessary to differentiate objective studies of the past using archaeology from those with biases is to engage them with actual fieldwork and laboratory analysis to the maximum extent permitted by teachers’ time and physical facilities available. Singapore has the potential to provide some of the best experiences for students from primary through secondary and tertiary levels due to the Fort Canning dig display and the ongoing laboratory analysis of multiple excavations. With further collaboration between educators and government bodies such as the National Parks Board and the National Heritage Board, Singapore can become an exemplar for the rest of the world in terms of utilization of extramural education regarding archaeology.

172

J. N. Miksic and G. Y. Goh

References Bautista, J. (2014). Islam encountered: Challenging stereotypes and fostering knowledge. Education About Asia, 19(1), 39–42. Bautista, J. (2018). Uncomfortable pedagogy: Experiential learning as an anthropological encounter in the Asia-Pacific. Pedagogies, 3(3), 246–259. Brilliant, J. F. (1991, January–February). Critical thinking. Archaeology, p. 40. Brock, T. P., & Goldstein, L. (2015). Blogging the field school: Teaching digital public archaeology. Internet Archaeology, 39. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.8 Clarke, C. (2004). The politics of storytelling: Electronic media in archaeological education. World Archaeology, 36(2), 275–286. Cooney, G. (2017). Archaeology and education: A long view. Archaeology Ireland, 31(3), 50–52. Curriculum Planning & Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2014). Singapore: The making of a nation-state, 1300–1975. Singapore: Star Publishing Pte Ltd. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan Company. Ellick, C. (1991, January–February). More than a dig. Archaeology, pp. 40–41. Hawkins, N. W. (1987). Classroom archaeology. Baton Rouge: Division of Archaeology. Hirsch, P., & Lloyd, K. (2005). Real and virtual experiential learning on the Mekong: Field schools, E-Sims and cultural challenge. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 321–337. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03098260500290892. Jakubowski, L. M. (2003). Beyond book learning: Cultivating the pedagogy of experience through field trips. Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590 302600105. Kern, E. L., & Carpenter, J. R. (1984). Enhancement of student values, interests and attitudes in earth science through a field-oriented approach. Journal of Geological Education, 32(5), 299–305. https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-32.5.299. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Kopec, D. R. (1988). Discovering Maine’s prehistory through archaeology: An interdisciplinary curriculum unit for grades 5–8. Maine Collection, 44. http://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/ me_collection/44. Luehrnen, M. L. (1994, January–February). Learning from early man: An imaginative west Texas teachers makes first grade an unforgettable experience. Archaeology, pp. 26–27. Marchioro, G. (2009). Student engagement using field work and cross cultural immersion. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning, Malaysia INTI University College. McDavid, C., & Brock, T. (2015). The differing forms of public archaeology: Where we are now, and thoughts for the future. In C. Gnecco & D. Lippert (Eds.), Ethics and archaeological praxis (pp. 159–183). New York: Springer. McLaughlin, J. S., & Johnson, D. K. (2006). Assessing the field course experiential learning model: Transforming collegiate short-term study abroad experiences into rich learning environments. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 13, 65–85. McMorran, C. (2015). Between fan pilgrimage and dark tourism: Competing agendas in overseas field learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(4), 568–583. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03098265.2015.1084495. McNutt, N. (1991, January–February). Saving tradition. Archaeology, p. 42. Miksic, J. N. (2013). Singapore and the silk road of the sea. Singapore: NUS Press. Miksic, J. N., & Goh, G. Y. (2017). Ancient Southeast Asia. London and New York: Routledge. National Heritage Board. (2017, August 29). Poll results. Retrieved from https://www.oursgheri tage.sg/poll-results-so-far/. Ridley, C. R., & Lingle, D. W. (1996). Cultural empathy in multicultural counseling: A multidimensional process model. In P. B. Pedersen, J. G. Draguns, W. J. Lonner, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), Counseling across cultures (pp. 21–46). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

8 Archaeological Approaches and Possibilities …

173

Sanders, K. K. (1986). Archaeology is more than a dig. Tucson: Tucson Unified School District. Smardz, K. E. (1991, January–February). Year-round outreach. Archaeology, p. 41. Smardz, K. E., & Smith, S. J. (Eds.). (2000). The archaeology education handbook: Sharing the past with kids. Walnut Valley: Altamira Press. Smith, K. C. (1991, January–February). At last, a meeting of minds. A sampling of creative initiatives. Archaeology, pp. 34–39. Talalay, L. E. (1991, January–February). Travelling suitcases. Archaeology, pp. 40–41. Tong, A. (2018, July 2). SkillsFuture, four years on. Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.str aitstimes.com/singapore/education/skillsfuture-four-years-on. Watrall, E. (2016). Archaeology, the digital humanities, and the “big tent”. In M. K. Gold & L. F. Klein (Eds.), Debates in the digital humanities 2016 (pp. 345–358). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

John N. Miksic is Emeritus Professor in the Southeast Asian Studies Department, National University of Singapore (NUS). Professor Miksic came to Singapore in 1987 and taught in the Department of History at NUS. In 1991 he joined the newly formed Southeast Asian Studies Programme (as it was then called). Professor Miksic has served on the National Heritage Board and the acquisitions committees of the National University Museum and the Asian Civilisations Museum (Singapore) and has received awards from Singapore and Indonesia for his contributions to the study of Southeast Asian culture. He served on the board of the Center for Khmer Studies from 2000 until 2016. Professor Miksic has published widely on many aspects of archaeology and history of Southeast Asia and his current research projects include the archaeology of ancient ports on the shores of the Straits of Melaka, early cities in Indonesia, Cambodia, and Myanmar, and ceramic analysis. He also manages the Archaeology Laboratory for the Department of Southeast Asian Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, NUS. Geok Yian Goh is currently the Associate Chair (Research) and Associate Professor of History at the School of Humanities, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). She joined NTU in 2008 as an Assistant Professor in the History minor programme. Her current research focuses on early urbanization and urban centers in Asia, analysis of ceramic artifacts from the Bagan palace sites and Singapore archaeological sites, and Buddhism and pilgrimage sites in Southeast Asia. Goh’s recent publications include Ancient Southeast Asia (2016) (with John Miksic) and The Wheel-turner and His House: Kingship in a Buddhist Ecumene (2015).

Chapter 9

How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute to the Learning of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Singapore History in Schools Michael Flecker and Teddy Y. H. Sim Abstract Maritime archaeology may be broadly defined as the study of human interaction with the sea through the in situ documentation of shipwrecks and their cargoes. Underwater excavation presents many challenges not encountered on land, such as limited time, environmental hazards, and severe corrosion and decay of artifacts, including the ship’s hull. An added regional challenge is the extensive looting of shipwreck sites throughout the seas of Southeast Asia. Despite all this, our knowledge of ship construction, life at sea, navigation, trade routes, general trade, and the ceramics trade in particular, has been vastly enhanced by the discovery of over a hundred shipwrecks in Southeast Asia and China. Several are of particular relevance to our understanding of premodern Singapore and the environs. This chapter will briefly examine the challenges unique to maritime archaeology, before delving into important discoveries that shed light on Singapore during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, including the Binh Thuan, Wanli, Vung Tau, and Ca Mau shipwrecks. There will be discussion on how to interpret and benefit from exhibits at maritime museums, with specific examples. The chapter shall conclude with reflection on the potential of maritime archaeology in Singapore in the context of local and international developments.

9.1 Introduction Singapore has an impressive range of world-class museums. The National Museum showcases Singapore’s legacy and development, touching on the fourteenth-century Temasek period but shining more light on colonial and post-independence events. The Asian Civilisations Museum explores the rich artistic heritage of Asia by reflecting M. Flecker (B) ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] T. Y. H. Sim National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_9

175

176

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

on the diverse ancestral cultures of Singaporeans. The ninth-century Tang Shipwreck, an Arab dhow discovered in Indonesian waters with a spectacular cargo of Chinese ceramics, takes pride of place. The National University of Singapore Museum focuses on regional Asian art and culture, with the Archaeological Library and Resource Gallery providing an unpolished perspective more akin to teaching and research. Singapore is in essence a port-city. Ancient Temasek, and much later the Singapore reestablished by Raffles, owe much of their success to the nodal location in the monsoon weather system and the proximity to one of the busiest maritime thoroughfares in the world. And yet there is no maritime museum here. Of course, a national maritime museum need not feature a locally excavated wreck. But until an historically significant shipwreck does come to light in Singapore waters, we must rely on wrecks that have been discovered in the waters of neighboring countries for insights into the spread of culture and ideas to these shores. In archipelagic Southeast Asia, the vast majority of goods and people have been transported by sea. Huge cargoes of ceramics and iron tell us of maritime trade shaped largely by utilitarian demand, while unique artifacts tell of scholarship, religion, combat, diet, and life at sea. Singapore cannot be viewed in isolation during the premodern and early modern periods. This island was not a nation-state, but at various times a small part of the Srivijayan thalassocracy, the Majapahit Empire, and the Johor-Riau Sultanate. From a Southeast Asian perspective, Singapore could have been viewed as peripheral. However, when viewed from the far wider perspective of the Indian Ocean, Singapore was central. Throughout the Current Era, maritime trade between East Africa, the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia, and China has thrived. Both the northern Indian Ocean and the South China Sea are subject to monsoon wind patterns, with northeast winds blowing for three to four months during the northern hemisphere winter, and southwest winds for the same duration during the summer. Shifting winds and calm spells occur during the transitions. Consistent following winds were a huge advantage to the square and lug-sail rigs of ancient ships. Despite the exhilarating downwind sailing, the ships were not fast enough to cover the entire route from the western Indian Ocean to China in one season. They had to wait for favorable winds at the halfway point. Ships voyaging from China to Southeast Asia also had to wait at a nodal point for the change in monsoon to provide a downwind return. The halfway and nodal points coincide in the region of the Riau Archipelago and the Melaka Strait. Singapore’s early maritime history is encompassed in the history of the environs. Singapore has not been a bit player. Temasek was a key entrepot throughout the fourteenth century, declining but persevering thereafter. The Old and New Straits, providing access between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, skirted Sentosa to the north and south, respectively, with the Main Strait (or Governor’s Strait) lying a little further south. The Sultan of Johor maintained a harbourmaster, or Shabandar, on the south coast of Singapore from the sixteenth-century, signifying a substantial harbor in that locality (Kwa, 2017, p. 51). The Tang ship, now immortalized in the Asian Civilisations Museum, sailed past Singapore around 826 CE en route to China, perhaps enlisting the help of a local pilot (Flecker, 2019, p. 38). She struck a rock and sunk on the return voyage to the Middle

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

177

East, just off the Indonesian island of Belitung, where the South China Sea meets the Java Sea. She is the oldest of a series of shipwrecks that have been archaeologically excavated throughout Southeast Asia since the 1980s. Thailand initiated maritime archaeology in Southeast Asia, in conjunction with the Western Australian Maritime Museum (WAMM). The Thai Underwater Archaeology Division (TUAD) has excavated and published many wrecks with the vast majority being Thai ships of the so-called South China Sea Tradition, a hybrid Chinese/Southeast Asian design. They were all lost between the late fourteenth and late sixteenth centuries when the demand for Thai ceramics surged in response to China’s export embargo. All of the wrecks were found by fishermen and all had been looted to some extent. The Koh Si Chang, Pataya, Koh Kradat, Rayong, Rangkwian, and Samui Wrecks along with various others are published in Thai by TUAD (Charoenwongsa, 1990), and in English in various WAMM monographs (Green & Harper, 1987; Green et al., 1986, 1987). The most intact wreck, Klang Aow (early 16th C), is discussed in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA) (Flecker, 2007). The Philippines was not far behind Thailand. The National Museum teamed up with a foundation, World Wide First (later the Hilti Foundation), led by Franck Goddio, to excavate a wide variety of shipwrecks. Through archival research, Goddio was able to locate the English ships, Griffin (1761) (Goddio et al., 1999) and Royal Captain (1773) (Goddio et al., 2000); and the Spanish ship, San Diego (1600) (Desroches et al., 1997). From fisherman discoveries he documented the Southeast Asian Santa Cruz Wreck (late 15th C) (Orillaneda, 2012) and the Chinese junk, Lena Shoal (c.1490) (Goddio et al., 2002). Another fifteenth-century Southeast Asian wreck, Pandanan (Diem, 1997), was found beneath a pearl farm. It was excavated by the museum with funding from the owner of the farm. Most of these wrecks have been published as high-quality books. More wrecks lie in Indonesia than any other Southeast Asian country, and many have been found. Unfortunately, only a few have been archaeologically excavated. Apart from the ninth-century Tang Wreck, private companies working under license have excavated three Southeast Asian lashed-lug ships, Intan (mid-10th C) (Flecker, 2002), Cirebon (late 10th C) (Liebner, 2014), and Java Sea (mid-13th C) (Mathers & Flecker, 1997); and a flat-bottomed Chinese junk, Bakau (early 15th C) (Flecker, 2001). Other wrecks, such as the VOC ship, Geldermalsen (1752) (Hatcher et al., 1987), the Hatcher junk (mid-17th C) (Sheaf, 1988), and the Tek Sing (1822) (Pickford & Hatcher, 2000) have been widely published, however, they were not archaeologically excavated. The first licensed recovery, the Bakau Wreck (early 12th C) (Ridho, Adhyatman, & McKinnon, 1998), and the most recent, the Lingga Wreck (early 12th C) (Flecker, 2019), have been published, but again, there was little or no maritime archaeology involved. Vietnam’s Ministry of Culture has worked with private companies to archaeologically excavate and publish a handful of wrecks over the years. These include the Southeast Asian Phu Quoc (15th C) (Blake & Flecker, 1994) and Hoi An Wrecks (16th C) (Pope, 2007); and three Chinese junks, Binh Chau (14th C), Binh Thuan (c.1608) (Flecker, 2004), and Vung Tau (c.1690) (Flecker, 1992; Jorg and Flecker,

178

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

2001). The Binh Chau Wreck was actually excavated dry after a sheet-pile cofferdam was erected around the hull remains. While the cargo was archaeologically recovered, the hull was not fully documented. Likewise, the Ca Mau Wreck (early 18th C) (Chien, 2002) features in a nice book about the cargo but there is no mention of the ship’s origin. Malaysia issued their first shipwreck survey and excavation permit in 1991. The country ship, Diana (1817) (Ball, 1995) was found and recovered some years later by Malaysian Historical Salvors. A book was published, although archaeological work was much hindered by atrocious sea conditions. Sten Sjostrund’s company, Nanhai Maritime Archaeology, worked with Muzium Negara for many years off the east coast of Peninsula Malaysia, relocating and excavating shipwrecks that first came to light when ceramics were brought up in trawl nets. These include the Asian wrecks Turiang (late 14th C), Nanyang (late 14th C), Longquan (c.1400), Royal Nanhai (c.1460), Xuande (c.1540), Singtai (mid-16th C), and Desaru (c.1830) (Sjostrand, Taha, & Sahar, 2006). The Wanli (c.1625) (Sjostrand et al., 2007) was probably a small Portuguese ship. All have been jointly published with the museum, although only the Wanli Wreck is covered in great detail. Three late sixteenth-century European wrecks have been discovered off Melaka (Flecker, 2013). The survey findings have been published, however the wrecks have yet to be archaeologically excavated. The Dutch ship, Nassau (1606) (Bound et al., 1997), was archaeologically excavated off Tanjong Tuan at government expense, but unfortunately, little has been published. Another Dutch ship, Risdam (1727) (Green and Gangadharam, 1985) was found by treasure hunters, and later surveyed by Green, Muzium Negara, and the Malaysian navy. However, it was never officially excavated. Only one wreck has been excavated off Brunei. The Brunei Wreck (c.1500) (Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens, 2011) was discovered by Elf Petroleum. The oil company funded the recovery with all artifacts being retained by the Maritime Museum. Various books and reports have been published. Cambodia also has only one officially excavated wreck, Koh Sdeck (15th to 16th C) (Sokha et al., 2014), but it was not archaeologically excavated. So far there have not been any discoveries reported in Myanmar. Several of the most relevant shipwrecks listed above will be discussed in considerable detail to gain insights into Singapore’s history during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the focus of this chapter. But first a look at some of the challenges faced by maritime archaeologists in bringing these findings to light.

9.2 The Challenges of Maritime Archaeology The challenges faced by maritime archaeologists are manifold. Most come from battling with nature. They can be dealt with through careful planning and experience of the underwater world. But some come from battling with man, and they are not so easy to deal with.

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

179

Looting is a serious problem throughout Southeast Asia. Colonial ships can sometimes be found through research in European archives, followed by a remote sensing survey. Asian vessels, which make up the vast majority of shipwrecks in this region, were not subject to the same rigorous documentation as they tended to be private rather than company ships. In all but a couple of recent exceptions, there is no paper trail at all. The Asian wrecks are invariably found by fishermen, through bottom trawling, diving for sea cucumbers and lobsters, or even observing stationary flocks of birds in the open sea. For a long time such discoveries were fortuitous, but more recently some fishermen have turned to full-time wreck hunting. When a wreck is found with a surviving cargo of commercial value, it is looted. If we are lucky, the fishermen may sell the wreck position to a responsible licensed salvor before it is completely destroyed, or they may be caught by the navy or marine police and forced to hand over the location. All of the wrecks listed above were found by fishermen then looted to a greater or lesser degree before archaeological intervention. While much has been learned, perhaps more has been lost. Due to mistrust, xenophobia and greed, the situation is worse now than it has ever been. Indonesia for example, where arguably the majority of wrecks lie, announced a moratorium on the issuing of excavation licenses in 2010. If a needy fisherman accidently finds a wreck, he no longer has a legal means of financially benefiting from his discovery. Therefore, through economic necessity, he is virtually forced to loot the site, before someone else does. It must be noted here that Thailand is the only littoral country in Southeast Asia that funds its own maritime archaeological program. All others have relied on private companies to take on the risks and high costs of underwater excavation. In return the companies get to keep a portion of the recovered artifacts, or the monetary equivalent. While the sale and dispersal of artifacts run counter to UNESCO policy, the monetization of multi-duplicate artifacts may be the best alternative means of financing museums, publications, research, and future excavations. Ceramics cargoes tend to have thousands of identical pieces. As long as these are documented, and all unique artifacts plus fully representative sets of artifacts are retained for research and display, our understanding of a site need not be compromised. Cambodia, by the way, is the on Southeast Asian signatory to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage. Another human challenge is bottom trawling. Trawling has been going on for decades, but in most countries the vessels were relatively low-powered and the nets were small. Trawl nets hung up on wrecks but didn’t rip them apart. Now Thailand comes to our attention again, but not in a positive light this time. Huge Thai trawlers have been acquiring licenses in Malaysia and Indonesia. One sweep of their nets is enough to decimate a wreck site, particularly one with a cargo of fragile ceramics. Natural challenges begin with the limitations of diving. Most excavation work is done with simple scuba equipment, where the bottom time is largely determined by how long it takes to breath all the air in a tank. A surface-supplied diving system, where the diver is fed air via a hose from a compressor on the surface, provides unlimited air, but then decompression requirements come into play. Due to the build

180

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

up of nitrogen in the blood, a diver must either keep his bottom time within nodecompression limits, or decompress at various depths before surfacing. For example, a diver could only dive for 10 min at 40 meters without having to decompress. If he dived for 20 min, he would have to decompress for an additional 20 min before surfacing. For deeper wrecks there is also the debilitating effect of nitrogen narcosis, where nitrogen under pressure can cause a decrease in the ability to function normally, akin to intoxication. The negative effects can be reduced over time through acclimatization. Environmental factors that impact underwater excavation include strong currents that can drag a diver and excavation equipment away from the site, wave energy that can make it difficult to stay in one place in shallow water, and turbidity which makes it hard to see what you are doing. In the Melaka Strait for example, or in the vicinity of river deltas, the maritime archaeologist may have to deal with all of these environmental challenges simultaneously. Despite the challenges, a wreck site must be gridded and recorded in a similar manner to a terrestrial site. In a high energy environment there may be minimal stratification. In a deeper, low energy environment there may be plenty of remnant stratigraphy above three-dimensional hull remains. Fortunately advances in post-processing allow for the relatively simple creation of photo-mosaics, which reduces the need for sketching and measurement. Immersion in seawater over hundreds of years can create challenges in artifact conservation. Seemingly impervious items such as stone, glass, and ceramics actually absorb salt. If they are allowed to dry out without treatment, salt crystals may form with sufficient force to crack an artifact or to lift off the glaze of ceramics. Desalination in fresh water is a simple but time-consuming solution. Metals may disappear altogether due to corrosion, or require complex and expensive treatment to reverse and then halt degradation. On the other hand, noble metals in contact with less noble metals may be preserved in pristine condition due to the sacrificial anode effect of the latter, i.e., bronze artifacts in an iron concretion. Wood in a tropical environment is invariably consumed by teredo worms unless covered by fine sediments early in the wrecking process. Fortunately circumstances do often lead to early burial, so large sections of hull can remain under the sand or mud after hundreds of years. Freshly exposed timbers may appear to be sound, however the cellulose is usually completely destroyed and the lignin damaged. Substitution of water in waterlogged timber with a supporting microcrystalline wax may take as long as a decade. Even then, interaction with the corrosion products of metal fastenings can cause ongoing deterioration. Shipwreck artifact conservation is therefore a very specialized field.

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

181

9.3 Seventeenth to Eighteeenth-Century Singapore: State of Knowledge In historical research on Singapore, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are underrepresented relative to the medieval and more modern periods. Historical works on pre-1819 Singapore produced during much of the twentieth century, after the independence of Singapore, advocate that the history of Singapore became significant only after 1819 with the arrival of Sir Stamford Raffles. This is affirmed by the oftcited K.G. Tregonning’s assertion that “modern Singapore began in 1819 … nothing that occurred prior to this […] contributes to an understanding of the contemporary scene” (Tregonning, 1969). Prior to the 1990s, the popular reference for teachers in schools (and even for undergraduates in local tertiary institutions) was Mary Turnbull’s History of Modern Singapore (Blackburn, 2012, pp. 77, 81–82). One of the strongest impulses for a precolonial history came from John Miksic’s excavation at Fort Canning and his publication of Archaeological Research on the “Forbidden Hill” of Singapore (Miksic, 1984). To be sure, early write-ups and notes from the 1950s, such as that by C. Gibson-Hill and I. Macgregor, tried to argue for the importance of the sailing passage around Singapore and in the vicinity (Johor) (Macgregor, 1955; Gibson-Hill, 1956). It should not be forgotten that John Crawfurd was the first to make an observation about the existence of a settlement in old Singapore before 1819 (Miksic, 2013, p. 210). Education about and awareness of pre-1819 Singapore history improved somewhat after the turn of the millennium. First, there was the publication of Early Singapore 1300 s–1819: Evidence in Maps, Text and Artefacts (Miksic & Low, 2005) and Iberians in the Singapore-Melaka Area and Adjacent Regions: 16th to 18th Century (Borschberg, 2004). Early Singapore 1300s–1819 collects together a series of essays tracing aspects of the fourteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries and over the longe durée, with two essays specifically examining pottery and ceramics. Iberians in the Singapore-Melaka Area is one of the few early works looking at the involvement of Iberians in specific maritime regions of Southeast Asia. One probable downside to the collection is that other than P. Borschberg’s article on the mapping of early Singapore, based on Iberian and Dutch cartographic sources, the other essays relate more to the regions surrounding Singapore than to the island itself (Borschberg, 2004). The publication of Singapore: A 700-Year History (Kwa, Heng, & Tan, 2009), Sino-Malay Trade and Diplomacy From the Tenth Through the Fourteenth Century (Heng, 2009), and The Singapore and Melaka Straits: Violence, Security and Diplomacy in the 17 th Century (Borschberg, 2010) provided the general public and specialists alike a chance to comprehensively explore the subject by delving into China–Malay Archipelago relations in the postclassical period as well as relations between European empires and native powers in the western Malay Archipelago in the early modern period. One of the major aims of the 2009 edition of 700-Year History was to veer away from monolithic history, or the history of the great man (in this case Raffles), and to probe the history of Singapore from a longe durée perspective as well as utilize evidence beyond textual sources. About one-third of the book is devoted to Singapore

182

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

history before 1819, compared to Turnbull’s History of Modern Singapore, which relegates only one chapter to the earlier period (Turnbull, 2009). Written for a mixed popular and scholarly audience, the narrative is not “exhaustively cited” (Kwa et al., 2009). This was remedied in the 2019 edition, which was rewritten in parts. Sino– Malay Trade and Diplomacy has been reviewed to have advanced the understanding of the nature of trade and its participants in the classical period of Southeast Asia from O. Wolters’s works of 1967 and 1970 (Wolters, 1967, 1970). Trade was “not monolithic and undertaken by a series of smaller port-polities and private traders (especially with the weakening of Srivijaya) transacting in differentiated products” (Miksic, 2013, p. 323). The island of Singapore was portrayed as a place in which “goods were likely to have passed through.” Miksic noted Heng’s contribution in the discussion of the analysis of stonewares from Empress Place (Singapore) in his 2013 book (Heng, 2009; Miksic, 2013, p. 323). In The Singapore and Melaka Straits, the security, blockades, and skirmishes between the Iberians and Dutch involving Singapore and the nearby Straits passages are analyzed in six or seven chapters illuminating the development of the island and the surrounding regions in the seventeenth century (Borschberg, 2010). Between the end of the twentieth century and the first edition of 700-Year History was the publication of Maritime Heritage of Singapore (Lau and Lau, 2005), which adds to the list that general readers can delve into. For the period before 1819, Tan Tai Yong’s essay (Chapter 1) takes into account the work done by J. Miksic and Derek Heng; and between Temasek and Raffles’ arrival, whatever was occurring was “not [on the island] itself” (Lau & Lau, 2005). Ng Chin Keong’s essay (Chapter 5) in Maritime Heritage of Singapore traces trade and the trade network with China from the earliest period (Han Dynasty) and pinpoints its maturation to the Tang and Song Dynasties. Maritime Heritage of Singapore belongs to a category of works that seek to “highlight the relevance of Singapore in its pre-modern period,” although one should be cognizant of the possible limitations of this line of inquiry. Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea 1300–1800 (Miksic, 2013) summarizes years of painstaking archaeological work done by Miksic in Singapore. Beginning with his ground-breaking work in 1985, the medieval or premodern period of Singapore received a boost in affirmation. This was bolstered, as accounted in Miksic’s 2013 work, by further digs at Empress Place and St. Andrew’s Cathedral (Singapore). However, whether a more detailed image of early Singapore could be constructed, as asserted in Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea or in the World of Temasek project undertaken by Miksic, was put in doubt by scholars such as Roderich Ptak (Ptak, 2014). The appearance of Borschberg’s Memoirs and Memorials of Jacques de Coutre (2013) and Journal, Memorials and Letters of Cornelis Matelieff de Jonge (2015) as well as their abridged versions in quick succession immeasurably enriched the narrative of the European empire-Malay native power interaction across a spectrum of audiences. The translated journals, memorials, and letters contribute to the understanding of Singapore’s pre-1819 history as well as the regional politics and economy of the early modern period; they also serve as primary sources in themselves. Although some reviewers have highlighted editorial and translation

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

183

errors, these need not “mire the academic standard and significance [of this round of endeavor]” (Disney, 2014; Sim, 2015; de Pinto Sousa, 2017). In Singapore schools, the textbook on Singapore history for Secondary 1, produced by the Curriculum Planning and Development Unit of the Ministry of Education in 2014, incorporated more pre-1819 developments on the island than previous versions of the text. In 2017, Kwa Chong Guan also wrote authoritatively and summatively in a belated entry in the Singapore Chronicles series to explain precolonial Singapore to a variety of audiences. The book devotes—not surprisingly—a chapter to Temasek Singapore as well as a chapter to each of the centuries following that until 1819 (fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries). Singapore is depicted as having been on its way to becoming a neglected island before Raffles’ arrival. The book was intended to cater to laymen and public audiences and hence not required to be exhaustively cited (Kwa, 2017). In the same year, an article by Borschberg, extending from the efforts of Heng, Miskic, and Kwa, advocated for an alternative paradigm in viewing the long-term evolution of the port of Singapore. Maritime archaeology is not taken into account enough in telling the story of seventeenth–eighteenth-century Singapore even though archaeological excavation related to Singapore has been taking place for over 30 years. So far, this essay hopes to re-highlight some of the case studies in undersea wreck sites and reiterate their input in constructing the picture of seventeenth–eighteenth-century Singapore. Part of the problem lies in the excessive preoccupation with wanting to highlight the role of Singapore in regional trade, whereas objectively speaking, regional trade and activities may be viewed in the context of a plethora of regional ports. This island was not always an important place.

9.4 Shipwrecks Relevant to Seventeenth to Eighteenth-Century Singapore 9.4.1 The Binh Thuan Wreck, c.1608 There are several documented shipwrecks that are contemporaneous with seventeenth to eighteenth-century Singapore. The most relevant is perhaps the Binh Thuan Wreck which was lost off the province of that name in southern Vietnam (Flecker, 2004). She is a beautiful example of a Chinese junk, fully laden with cast-iron woks and Chinese ceramics. The ceramics were produced at the Zhangzhou kilns of Fujian Province, and were once commonly referred to as Swatow ware. Approximately half were decorated in underglaze blue-and-white while the other half used overglaze enamels. Unfortunately, hundreds of years of immersion destroyed most of the unprotected enamels, creating inky black from once vibrant greens, reds, and blues. Some of the blue-and-white, on the other hand, was as unblemished as the day it left the kiln. Stylistic analysis of the ceramics and comparison with very similar pieces found on

184

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

a VOC wreck lost in 1613, the Witte Leeuw, strongly suggested that the Binh Thuan Wreck sunk at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Dutch first arrived in the East Indies in 1596 in a quest for spices. The Dutch East India Company, or VOC, was established in 1602. The astute Dutch quickly set up trading bases in Banten, Johor, and Patani, where they soon realized that much profit was to be made from the inter-Asiatic trade as well as from direct trade to Holland. Working with the equally astute Chinese merchants, a system of credit was instigated whereby the Dutch would provide goods and payment in advance on a future cargo. For this reason, we can find the occasional archival reference to Chinese shipping very early in the seventeenth century. On the 21st of July 1608, the VOC representative in Johor, Abraham van den Broecke, wrote a report to Banten stating “we have received the news that I Sin Ho, the Chinese merchant, while returning with his junk [to this place] was lost at sea somewhere about Cambodia. For that reason the VOC loses 10 piculs of raw silk and other Chinese goods.”1 At that time, Dutch charts refer to southern Vietnam and Cambodia simply as “Cambodia.” If the Binh Thuan Wreck is indeed the junk of I Sin Ho, then the intended destination was Johor, which encompassed the southern Malay Peninsula, Singapore, the Riau Islands, and even as far as the Anambas and Natuna Islands. The seat of power in Johor, the residence of the Sultan, changed location frequently during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, often after attack. Johor Lama, on the lower reaches of the Johor River, was the capital from 1536 to 1564 when it was sacked by the Achinese. The Sultan moved to Bukit Seluyut, further up the river, but returned to Johor Lama in the early 1570s. The town was again attacked in 1587, this time by the Portuguese. The Sultan moved back up the Johor River to Batu Sawar, where the large Portuguese ships could not engage his forces with broadsides. From here it was more difficult to conduct trade with other ocean-going shipping that had a draft of more than 3 meters, but this only excluded the largest European and Chinese ships. As Batu Sawar remained the capital until 1618, it was the likely destination of I Sin Ho, with his relatively small junk. After 1618, the capital shifted yet again, to Lingga, the southernmost island of Riau. While Batu Sawar was the capital, the contemporaneous port on the southern coast of Singapore, where the Shahbandar was appointed by the Sultan of Johor, may also have been the intended destination of the Binh Thuan ship and others like it. It is interesting to see how quickly Dutch and Chinese merchants in Southeast Asian ports established deals that were, by and large, based on trust. The agreements were referred to as cedula, and three of these from 1608 have been found in the VOC archives in The Hague by researcher, Peter Potters. They provide fascinating insights into how transactions took place. For example, Victor Sprinckel, who was trading at Patani, advanced 148 mirrors, 250 glass panels, and 50 pieces of eight in cash to the Chinese merchant, Teko (probably Tek Ho). In exchange, Teko was to deliver a cargo of fine porcelain on the return voyage the next year, with Mr Sprinckel bearing the risk of the outward and return voyages. Surety was by way of Teko’s “friends.” 1 Documents

found in the VOC archives in The Hague by researcher, Peter Potters.

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

185

The same Victor Sprinckel, one Hendrik Janssens, and associates made an agreement with the merchant, Em Po, whereby 410 elephant tusks were advanced on a return cargo of fine silk. Again, the Dutch merchants covered the risk of the outward and return voyages. In case of default, the “respectable orang kaya [literally wealthy man] Sirenarre Wanxsa” and Em Po were guarantors. The tusks and the silks were to be weighed on the same set of scales. The cedula is signed in Arabic by the orang kaya, and in Chinese characters by Em Po and the captain of the junk. In the third cedula Mr Spinckel, Hendrick Jannsens, and a Maarten Houtman advance 43 large elephant tusks worth 70 taels in gold to Em Po, in return for fine silks. The silks were to be of the same quality as samples left with the Dutch merchants. In this case the Dutch and Chinese merchants share the risk 50/50 for the voyage to China, but Em Po takes full responsibility thereafter, putting the cargo in the hands of his “one eyed captain named Xangnan.” In the event that the silks are not delivered, Em Po is to pay the 70 tael in “Patani currency.” The Dutch and Portuguese merchants did not only buy Chinese products for the European market, such as Jingdezhen export porcelain, silk, and later tea, but also products that could be used in the local barter trade for spices. They only had a few of their own commodities that were of any value for trade, such as the mirrors, glass panels, and silver that are mentioned in one of the cedula. One of the items most sought after by the spice producers of Indonesia was Zhangzhou porcelain.

9.4.2 The Wanli Wreck, c.1625 The Wanli Wreck (Sjostrand et al., 2007) brings to light a higher quality Chinese export ware. The cargo was mostly Jingdezhen blue-and-white kraak porcelain. The wreck was named after early finds suggested the Wanli period (1573–1619), however subsequent in-depth analysis put the date closer to 1625. A study of the hull remains and the condition of the cargo suggests that she was a relatively small Portuguese flagged ship, perhaps built in India, and that she exploded. This may have been during a battle with the Dutch when returning to Melaka from Macao. Her cargo comprised an estimated 37,000 pieces although the explosion caused extensive breakage. Magnificent dishes, bowls, ewers, covered boxes, and bottles were probably intended to be transhipped for the onward voyage to Europe. It is interesting to note that this extensively researched ship could not be identified in the Portuguese archives. This may be partly explained by the loss of much archival material in the Lisbon earthquake and subsequent fire of 1755. But it is quite possible that there were few records kept of locally built ships in the intra-Asia trade. We may be unaware of a significant trade network.

186

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

9.4.3 The Vung Tau Wreck, c.1690 The Vung Tau Wreck was excavated in the south of Vietnam in 1991 (Jorg and Flecker, 2001). She turned out to be a lorcha, a ship combining the best of Chinese and Portuguese shipbuilding traditions, and so far the only one ever documented. She carried a diverse cargo ranging from floor tiles to iron cauldrons to paint pigment. But the main surviving cargo type was porcelain. Stylistic analysis of the porcelain dates the wreck to the Kangxi period (1662–1722). A cyclic date inscribed on an ink stick narrows it down further to 1690 or shortly thereafter. Blue-and-white porcelain from the Jingdezhen kilns included vases, jars, dishes, teacups and saucers, teapots, covered boxes, wine cups, flutes, challises, mugs, kendis, and candle holders. Beautiful examples of whiteware from Dehua included cups, saucers, spoons, covered boxes, jarlets, and figurines such as dogs, crabs, and the goddess, Guanyin. Provincial ware made up a large proportion of the ceramics cargo, mostly in the form of blue-and-white and overglaze enamel bowls. It was packed low in the hold and between barrels of finer quality ware. The European shapes of much of the Jingdezhen blue-and-white, and depictions of Dutch canal houses on some large vases, strongly suggest that this cargo was bound for transshipment onto a European vessel. Much of the whiteware would have followed. But without exception, all the other trade goods loaded on the Vung Tau ship were Chinese in origin and Chinese in use, and all point to the resupply of a Chinese enclave. Batavia is the obvious candidate. At the time of the loss blue-and-white porcelain was increasingly in demand as an item of fashion. Interior designs incorporated vases, jarlets, and garnitures combining the two on wall brackets and mantlepieces as well as in or on top of porcelain cabinets. The Netherlands led the charge. But utilitarian ware was still in high demand. The lack of bowls and dishes on the Vung Tau Wreck suggested that cargoes were segregated by syndicates of merchants who sent several junks to Batavia each year. Consignments would have been reconstituted on the one or two large Dutch ships heading home.

9.4.4 The Ca Mau Wreck, c.1730 The Ca Mau Wreck was found and partly looted by fishermen before the Vietnamese government stepped into conduct an excavation. While maritime archaeology is lacking due to the absence of specialized personnel, the ceramics cargo has been well documented (Chien, 2002). Reign marks on the porcelain point to a date range of 1723 to 1735. There are far more bowls and dishes than on the Vung Tau Wreck, but there are also similar vases, jars, cups, and ewers. A wide range of enameled decorative items such as “dragon houseboats” and zoomorphic figurines attest to an increasing interest in curios. There are some fine celadon pieces and some underglaze

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

187

reds and blues added to the mix. This is another cargo of Chinese ceramics for the European market, destined for transshipment at Batavia. Most shipments from China to Batavia at this time were made in Chinese junks. But from the very limited archaeological evidence this may not be the case with the Ca Mau ship. In fact, initial speculation was that the wreck was Dutch, but rough sketches showing bulkheads, a large cargo of cast-iron pans, and a complete lack of cannons, made that highly unlikely. A timber from the wreck has been identified as Dipterocarpus genus, which only occurs in South-eastern Asia. Furthermore, one of the authors of this chapter was invited to inspect the cargo in a warehouse in Ca Mau, and among a pile of non-ceramic artifacts lay a plank with two wooden dowels protruding from an edge joint. The Chinese did not use wooden dowels. It is extremely unfortunate that the hull was not fully recorded in situ for this may have been the first archaeological evidence of a Southeast Asian jong, the successor of the lashed-lug design. Or perhaps it was evidence that the South China Sea Tradition carried on well beyond the cessation of Thai Si Satchanalai and Sukhothai ceramic production in the late sixteenth century. To provide a preliminary summing-up at this point, trade linked major ports in China with European bases and settlements in the context of a host of secondary ports and possibly “significant but unknown” networks. Behind these networks were a multiplicity of participants, European, and indigenous. The variety of goods carried in both directions in these networks included commodities such as porcelain and other ceramic types, silks, ivory, mirrors, and glass panels. The vessel types included the junk, jong, lorcha, and a small Portuguese ship. The picture constructed provides a scenario of vibrant commerce between different actors in Southeast Asia and China. The locations of the wrecks show that they were near Singapore and indeed could have stopped by the shabandaria (in Singapore) in the early seventeenth century. Whether the ships stopped by Singapore in the eighteenth century, one cannot be sure. Beyond this general picture, one can also take a snapshot view of history from the shipwrecks that were salvaged, as will be discussed in the next section of the essay.

9.5 Interpreting Exhibits at Maritime Museums A fundamental difference between a terrestrial habitation site and a shipwreck site is the timeframe. Artifacts excavated from a habitation site were typically deposited over many generations, whereas those recovered from a wreck site were lost at one moment in time. Snapshot is the word frequently used to describe a shipwreck assemblage. So while museums exhibiting terrestrial habitation sites deal with evolving society, those exhibiting shipwreck sites examine specific moments of various societies. Such societies may include the potters producing the ceramics, the port of lading, the intended destination, and the microcosm of life on board the ship. Singapore is fortunate to have one of the most important shipwreck assemblages in the world, the complete cargo and artifact collection from the early ninth-century

188

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

Tang Wreck. The collection is skilfully displayed at the Asian Civilisations Museum. The artistic wave-like rendering of hundreds of Changsha bowls coveys both the incredible diversity of decorative motifs and a sense of the aquatic environment in which they have rested for the past twelve hundred years. One bowl had an etched inscription equivalent to the year 826 CE, so all of the items on display were made and/or used within a few years of this date. Unique artifacts are more conventionally displayed. Some objects were used by the crew, such as turquoise-glazed storage jars, fish-net weights, needles, tweezers, benzoin, candle-nuts, canarium seeds, ivory gaming pieces, and a die. Others were possessions of the merchants, such as weighing scales, a glass bottle, and an inkstone. Sharpening stones and a sword handle may have belonged to soldiers. It is easy to envisage the crew sitting cross-legged on deck, gambling away their wages on a throw of the dice, with a soldier standing bemusedly to the side, gazing ahead for signs of threatening ships. Apart from the mass-produced Changsha bowls and ewers, there were many spectacular ceramics highlighting the skills of the ancient Chinese potters. They were still for trade, but to a sophisticated elite. They include green-splashed ware from the Gongxian kilns, Ding and Xing whiteware, and Yue ware. These are cleverly displayed with ceramics and metalware from the Middle East to demonstrate the occasional source of artistic influence. The beautifully handcrafted model of the Tang dhow stands in place of the fullseized replica, the Jewel of Muscat, that could not fit in the ACM gallery. We have to go to Sentosa to see that, in the Resorts World Maritime Experiential Museum. She was designed around the archaeologically documented hull remains, with ethnographic, iconographic, and historical evidence used to determine the rig and to confirm the hull shape. The replica was made in Oman by Omani and Indian shipbuilders who retained the ancient knowledge of stitched-plank construction. Timbers were sourced from eastern and central Africa in an all-out effort to ensure accuracy and authenticity. The ship was then sailed without engine or escort from Oman to Singapore, where it was gifted to the Singapore people by those of Oman. For an example of a seventeenth-century shipwreck exhibition we may turn to the Vung Tau Museum in Vietnam, which houses a large collection recovered from the c.1690 Vung Tau Wreck. The predominant cargo was fine Chinese blue-and-white porcelain. Research into the use of this product in seventeenth-century Europe came up with an interesting result. The multitude of jars and vases were not for utilitarian use but purely for decoration. A gentleman by the same of Daniel Marot designed garnitures of ceramics for display on mantlepieces, cornices, and wall brackets. The pieces in the museum have consequently been arranged and displayed in the same manner, replicating a room in an opulent European home. Unique trade items such as skeins of silk,2 Chinese locks, tiny brass chests, tweezers, grooming sets, lice combs, and delicate fans are also displayed. Ship’s equipment includes pieces of rope, swivel guns and breach blocks, a kettle, and a ladle. For the intelligentsia we have ink sticks, ink stones, and stone seals. For the 2 These were preserved in a carboniferous form having been burnt in the fire that consumed the ship.

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

189

merchant, a scales set. Foodstuffs for the crew or for trade include dried persimmon and cockles. So, we get a snapshot of the late seventeenth century, but while it is time-specific, it is also multi-spatial. We see life on the ship. We see the life of the Chinese diaspora in ancient Batavia. And we see the life of nobles in Europe. All this from one shipwreck that caught fire and sunk off the coast of Vietnam. Shipwrecks provide fascinating glimpses of the past throughout the world, but in Southeast Asia they have special significance. The archipelagic nature of Indonesia and the Philippines, and the trade imperatives of China and Southeast Asia, where spices, jungle products, sea cucumbers, bird nests, and pearls were exchanged for silk, ceramics, and iron, made shipping of paramount importance. It was the only option for the mass movement of goods, people, cultures, and ideas from one region to another.

9.5.1 Implications for Teaching in Singapore’s Schools There is some value to studying seventeenth–eighteenth-century Singapore. While it might be difficult to identify Singapore in maps in the immediate post-Temasek period, the “shabandaria” was certainly obvious in Eredia’s seventeenth-century map. While there was occasional mention of Singapore in the eighteenth-century (Barnard, 2004), the island was usually touted to be in decline or insignificant (see, for instance, Kwa, 2017, p. 70). Possible uses of historical accounts of this period for school students are: (1) tracing the evolution of politics (and associated political economy) of the eighteenth century (especially from the second half of the century) provides good background for analyzing and understanding Singapore around the time of Sir Stamford Raffles’ arrival as well as the signing of the 1824 treaty; (2) tracing a more continuous maritime history of Singapore; (3) deriving lessons from studying a period of decline. The politics and economy of the western Malay Archipelago in the second half of the eighteenth century have been typified as “multipolar,” although over the long haul from the classical period, scholars such as V. Lieberman have conjectured that there were a coalescence and consolidation of powers in archipelagic Southeast Asia with the coming of the Europeans (Barnard, 2003; Lieberman, 2009). At the same time, other scholars such as Jeyamalar Kathirithamby-Wells have pointed out that indigenous traders continued to be resilient, and the increased security on vessels indicated a stepped-up degree of militarization and violence on the seas (Kathirithamby-Wells, 1998). An appreciation of the Johor sultanate in the context of regional dynamics is contingent on an understanding of its participation in the 1819 and especially 1824 treaties, as shown in Borschberg’s (2017) conference paper “Singapore’s 1824 Treaty,” an important topic in the initial chapters of the history textbook. Regarding the maritime history of Singapore, there has been a tendency in writings and other works to show that the location and port of Singapore were strategically considered by power players throughout the different time periods from the medieval, through the early modern, to contemporary times. This is obvious from

190

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

the brief sweep of literature on the subject in the earlier section of this paper, seen in works such as Kwa’s chapter (“From Temasek to Singapore”) in Early Singapore 1300–1819; Maritime Heritage of Singapore (Miksic & Low, 2005); as well as Miksic’s 2013 magnum opus, Singapore and the Silk Road of the Sea—although not without debate, as shown in a critical review by Ptak (2014). Understanding the history of seventeenth–eighteenth-century Singapore helps to comprehend a lesser known part of the maritime and general history of Singapore. Students and teachers can participate in critical discussions on the maritime heritage of Singapore and understand the progress made in maritime archaeology before and especially in the twenty-first century. Finally, there are lessons to be learned from studying Singapore’s period of “decline.” Heng and Borschberg have postulated viewing the maritime history of Singapore over an extended time period. If studying the port of Singapore during its glorious periods helps to decipher the factors for success, studying periods of supposed decline can also help explore underlying reasons for why the port was not able to perform in certain times; and if one is not able to avert difficult periods, at least one can learn how to survive them. Hence, there are benefits to studying seventeenth–eighteenth-century Singapore in relation to its maritime history. Furthermore, getting school students interested in maritime history has the benefit of cultivating their interest in Singapore’s maritime industries. Maritime archaeology and its untapped potential can play an important role in understanding the maritime and lesser known history of the island.

9.6 Potential of Maritime Archaeology in Singapore Without doubt, there are many historical shipwrecks in Singapore waters. Some lie under reclaimed land. Some lie in busy anchorages where ground tackle may have caused damage. Some lie at the bottom of the Singapore Strait, one of the busiest fairways in the world. They may still be in pristine condition, but they are accessible only by mini-submarine with an exceptionally brave pilot. And some surely lie scattered around the great navigational hazard at the eastern entrance to the Singapore Strait, Pedra Branca. It is only a matter of time before a shipwreck of historical significance comes to light (Flecker, 2017, p. 28). At the time of writing, Singapore has no legislation dealing with underwater cultural heritage. There is only an outdated Merchant Shipping Act, most recently amended in 1996, which addresses ships that were wrecked in the modern period rather than those lost hundreds of years ago. Many pitfalls emerge when countries are not willing to fund their own maritime archaeological programs. Singapore can afford institutional investigation and excavation. It is time to legally formalize this process by cherry-picking the most effective legislation from like-minded governments and molding it to fit Singapore’s unique circumstances. Singapore can go from non-starter to leader through a single act of parliament.

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

191

The field of Singapore’s premodern history has seen definite progress, more on the seventeenth than on the eighteenth century. Maritime archaeology, particularly the case studies of salvaged wrecks, as highlighted in this chapter, imparts a general and snapshot view of history that can assist with the understanding of this field. Equally important, this chapter also helps understand the intricacies and challenges of fieldwork in maritime archaeology. The study of particular periods of premodern history aided by maritime archaeology can yield benefits for students in schools. It can provide context for the study of Raffles’ arrival, give rise to a more continuous view of maritime history, as well as help derive lessons from unfavorable periods in the history of the port of Singapore. At the very least, the next time students visit the Tang Wreck at the Asian Civilisations Museum, the Maritime Experiential Museum at Sentosa, or a maritime museum overseas, they may have an enhanced appreciation for them (Map 9.1).

Map 9.1 Shipwrecks in Southeast Asia (Image courtesy of Michael Flecker)

192

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

References Ball, D. (1995). The Diana adventure. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Historical Salvors. Barnard, T. (2004). Confrontation on a river: Singapore as a battleground in 18th-century Malay historiography. In C. G. Kwa & C.-A. Low (Eds.), Early Singapore (pp. 118–123). Singapore: National archives of Singapore. Barnard, T. (2003). Multiple centres of authority: Society and environment in Siak and eastern Sumatra, 1674–1827. Leiden: KITLV. Blackburn, K. (2012). Mary Turnbull’s history textbook for the Singapore nation. In N. Tarling (Ed.), Studying Singapore’s past: C.M. Turnbull and the history of modern singapore (pp. 65–86). Singapore: NUS Press. Blake, W., & Flecker, M. (1994). A preliminary survey of a South-East Asian wreck, Phu Quoc Island, Vietnam. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 23(2), 73–91. Borschberg, P. (2004). Iberians in the Singapore-Melaka area and adjacent regions: 16th to 18th century. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Borschberg, P. (2010). The Singapore and Melaka straits: Violence, security and diplomacy in the 17th century. Singapore: NUS Press. Borschberg, P. (2017). Singapore in the cycles of the longue durée. Journal of the Malaysian branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 90(1), 29–60. Bound, M., Ong, S. H., & Pickford, N. (1997). The excavation of the Nasau, excavating ships of war. International Maritime Archaeology Series, 2, 63–87. Charoenwongsa, P., & Prishanchit, S. (Eds.). (1990). Underwater archaeology in Thailand: Ceramics from the Gulf of Thialand. Bangkok: Department of Fine Arts. Chien, N. D. (2002). The Ca Mau Shipwreck 1723–1735. Hanoi: The National Museum of Vietnamese History. CPDD. (2014). Singapore: The making of a nation-state, 1300–1975. Singapore: Curriculum Planning & Development Division (CPDD). de Pinto Sousa, P. J. (2017). Book review: Journal, memorials and letters of Cornelis Matelieff de Jonge: Security, diplomacy and commerce in 17th-century Southeast Asia. Journal of Portuguese history, 15(1), 176–180. Desroches, J.-P., Casal, G., & Goddio, F. (Eds.). (1997). Treasures of the San Diego. Manila: National Museum of the Philippines. Diem, A. (1997). Exhibition review: The Pandanan Wreck 1414: Centuries of regional interchange. Oriental Art, 43(2), 45–48. Disney, A. (2014). Review of ‘Memoirs and memorials of Jacques de Coutre’. Journal of Asian history, 48(2), 309–311. Flecker, M. (1992). Excavation of an oriental vessel of c. 1690 off Con Dao, Vietnam. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 21 (3): 221–244. Flecker, M. (2001). The Bakau Wreck: An early example of Chinese shipping in southeast Asia. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 30(2), 221–230. Flecker, M. (2002). The archaeological excavation of the 10th century Intan shipwreck. Oxford: Archaeopress. Flecker, M. (2004). The Binh Thuan Wreck, Christie’s Australia, containing the full archaeological report. Melbourne: Christie’s Australia. Flecker, M. (2007). The South-China-Sea tradition: Hybrid Hulls of southeast Asia. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 36(1), 75–90. Flecker, M. (2013). The maritime archaeological potential of Melaka in ancient harbours in southeast Asia. In J. Miksic & Y. G. Geok (Eds.), Seameo Spafa regional centre for archaeology and fine arts (pp. 83–98). Bangkok: SEAMEO SPAFA. Flecker, M. (2017). The origin of the Tang Shipwreck: A look at its archaeology and history. In Asian Civilisations Museum (Singapore) & M. Flecker (Contributor.) (Eds.), The Tang shipwreck: Art and Exchange in the 9th century (pp. 22–39). Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum.

9 How Maritime Archaeology Can Contribute …

193

Flecker, M. (2019). The Lingga wreck: An early 12th century southeast Asian ship with a Chinese cargo. Singapore: NUS Press. Retrieved from http://epress.nus.edu.sg/sitereports/lingga. Gibson-Hill, C. (1956). Singapore old straits and new harbour 1300–1870. Memoirs of the Raffles museum, no. 3. Singapore: Government Printing Office. Goddio, F., Jay, E., & Michel, G. (1999). Griffin—On the route of an Indiaman. London: Periplus Publishing. Goddio, F., Gerick, C., & Mollkraft, M. (2000). Royal captain: A ship lost in the Abyss. London: Periplus Publishing. Goddio, F., Crick, M., Lam, P., Pierson, S., & Scott, R. (2002). Lost at sea: The strange route of the Lena Shoal junk. London: Periplus Publishing. Green, J., & Gangadharam, E. (1985). The survey of the V.O.C. Fluit Risdam 1727 Malaysia. Fremantle: Western Australian Maritime Museum. Green, J., & Harper, R. (1983). The excavation of the Pattaya wreck site and survey of three other sites, Thailand 1982 (p. 1). Fremantle: AIMA Archaeology Special Publication. Green, J., & Harper, R. (1987). The maritime archaeology of shipwrecks and ceramics in southeast Asia (no. 4).Fremantle: AIMA Archaeology Special Publication. Green, J., Harper, R., & Intakosi, V. (1986). The Koh Si Chang one shipwreck excavation 1983–1985, A Progress Report. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 15(2), 105–122. Green, J., Harper, R., & Intakosi, V. (1987). The Ko Si Chang three shipwreck excavation 1986 (p. 4). Fremantle: AIMA Archaeology Special Publication. Hatcher, M., Thorncroft, A., & De Rham, M. (1987). The Nanking Cargo. London: Hamish Hamilton. Heng, D. (2009). Sino-Malay trade and diplomacy from the tenth through the fourteenth century. Athens: Ohio University Press. Jörg, C., & Flecker, M. (2001). Porcelain from the Vung Tau Wreck: The Hallstrom excavation. UK: Sun Tree Publishing Ltd. Kathirithamby-wells, J. (1998). The long eighteenth century and the new age of commerce in the Melaka straits. In L. Blusse & F. Gaastra (Eds.), On the eighteenth century as a category of Asian history (pp. 57–82). Aldershot: Ashgate. Kwa, C. G. (2017). Pre-colonial Singapore. Singapore Chronicles. Singapore: Straits Times Press. Kwa, C. G., Heng, Derek, & Tan, T. Y. (2009). Singapore: A 700-year history. Singapore: National archives of Singapore. Kwa, C. G. (2004). Locating a global city-state in the cycles of Melaka straits history. In C. G. Kwa & C.-A. Low (Eds.), Early Singapore, Singapore, national archives of Singapore (pp. 124–146). Singapore: Singapore History Museum. Kwa, C. G. (2012). Locating Singapore on the maritime Silk Road: Evidence from maritime archaeology, ninth to early nineteenth century. Singapore: ISEAS. Lau, A., & Lau, L. (2005). Maritime heritage of Singapore. Singapore: Suntree Media. Lieberman, V. (2009). Strange parallels, mainland mirrors: Europe, Japan, China, south Asia, and the islands. In Southeast Asia in global context, 800–1830. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liebner, H. (2014). The Siren of Cirebon: A tenth-century trading vessel lost in the Java sea. Leeds: The University of Leeds. Macgregor, I. (1955). Notes on the Portuguese in Malaya. Journal of Malayan branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 28(2), 5–47. Mathers, W., & Flecker, M. (1997). Archaeological recovery of the Java Sea wreck. Annapolis, MD: Pacific Sea Resources. Miksic, J. (1984). Archaeological research on the ‘forbidden hill’ of Singapore: Excavation at fort Canning. Singapore: Singapore National Museum. Miksic, J., & Low, C.-A. (2005). Early Singapore 1300–1819: evidence in maps, text and artefacts. Singapore: Singapore History Museum. Miksic, J. (2013). Singapore and the silk road of the sea. Singapore: NUS Press.

194

M. Flecker and T. Y. H. Sim

Orillaneda, B. (2012). The Santa Cruz shipwreck excavation: A reflection on the practice of shipwreck excavation in the Philippines. In A. Chong & H. Tan (Eds.), Marine archaeology in Southeast Asia: Innovation and adaption (pp. 87–102). Singapore: Asian Civilisations Museum. Pickford, N., & Hatcher, M. (2000). The legacy of the Tek Sing: China’s Titanic—Its tragedy and its treasure. Cambridge: Granta Editions. Pirazzoli-t’Serstevens, M. (2011). The Brunei shipwreck: A witness to the international trade in the China sea around 1500. The Silk Road, 9, 5–17. Pope, F. (2007). Dragon Sea: A true tale of treasure, archaeology, and greed off the coast of Vietnam. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Ptak, R. (2014). Review of ‘Singapore and silk road of the sea 1300–1800. Archipel, 44, 213–216. Ridho, A., Adhyatman, S., & McKinnon, E. E. (1998). The Pulau Buaya wreck: Finds from the song period. Jakarta: Ceramic Society of Indonesia. Sheaf, C. (1988). The Hatcher Porcelain Cargoes: The complete record. USA: Phaidon Press. Sim Teddy, Y. H. (2015). Review essay of ‘Jacques de Coutre and Matelieff’s Singapore and Johor’. History and social studies education, 4(2), 7–15. Sjostrand, S., Taha, A., & Sahar, S. (2006). Mysteries of Malaysian shipwrecks. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Museums, Malaysia. Sjostrand, S., & Sharipah, L. L. S. I. (2007). The Wanli shipwreck and its ceramic cargo. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Culture, Arts and Heritage Malaysia. Sokha, T. et al. (2014). Preliminary report on conservation analysis, storage and inventory of ceramics (CASIC), from the Koh Sdech shipwreck, Koh Kong, Cambodia. Cambodia: Ceramics Conservation Lab (RUFA). Tregonning, K. G. (1969). The historical background. In J.-B. Ooi & H. D. Chiang (Eds.), Modern Singapore. Singapore: University of Singapore. Turnbull, C. M. (2009). A history of modern Singapore, 1819–2005. Singapore: NUS Press. Wolters, O. W. (1967). Early Indonesian commerce: A study of the origins of Srivijaya. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Wolters, O. W. (1970). Fall of Srivijaya in Malay history. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Michael Flecker has excavated over a dozen shipwrecks throughout Southeast Asia over the past 30 years, and surveyed many more. They date from the 9th to the 19th century and originate from China, Southeast Asia, the Middle-East, and Europe. He specializes in ancient Asian ship construction and trade routes, and is a Visiting Fellow at the ISEAS - Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. His most significant excavations include the 9th century Belitung Wreck, the 10th century Intan Wreck, the 12th century Flying Fish Wreck, the 13th century Java Sea Wreck, the 15th century Bakau Wreck, the c.1608 Binh Thuan Wreck, and the c.1690 Vung Tau Wreck. Teddy Y.H. Sim (FRHistS) is currently lecturing at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He has published on specific involvements of the Portuguese in the East. He is the author of Portuguese Enterprise in the East: Survival in the Years 1707-57 and editor of Piracy and Surreptitious Activities in the Malay Archipelago and Adjacent Seas 1600-1840 and Maritime Defence of China: Ming General Qi Jiguang and Beyond. Teddy is passionate about fieldtrips in his history courses on South and Southeast Asia. His courses usually feature a local or overseas trip that facilitates as part of the overall study and exploration.

Chapter 10

Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools D. Kyle Latinis

Abstract The Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre (NSC) Archaeological Field School was first launched by Professor John Miksic in 2011. The field school is part of an East Asia Summit (EAS) initiative funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), Singapore. The central focus of the field school is predominantly, but not exclusively, archaeological and anthropological. Broad themes address ancient polities and transAsian connections through history. The field school has been progressively upgraded. The intent is to contribute to research in applied and academic interests involving the Asia-Pacific region, particularly Southeast Asia. For participants and junior staff, the purpose is to, (a) facilitate multilevel and multi-skill training, (b) increase their multidisciplinary breadth, (c) emphasize the quality engagement in tasks performed at each stage of the research; in particular, research design, methodology, project implementation and management, data collection, analysis, assessment, and reporting. The following discussion focuses on case studies of the upgraded program conducted in Cambodia and Singapore from 2015 to 2017. Close attention is given to the issues above with critical assessment of outcomes and limitations.

10.1 Introduction and Background The first iteration of this paper focused on multidisciplinary archaeological field school design, implementation, assessment, gap analysis, and recommended enhancements. The depth and breadth of initial discussion (30,000 words with over 40 images, tables, and charts; Latinis et al., 2019) is a response to the relatively thin discourse on field schools, fieldtrips, and study trips in general—especially systematic in-depth impact evaluations. The paucity of impact assessment and field school discourse is more surprising in the field of archaeology where the field school experience is essentially a “mandatory right of passage” and a “signature of legitimacy” for most archaeologists (see Mytum 2012a for a compilation discussing the values and D. K. Latinis (B) ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_10

195

196

D. K. Latinis

challenges of archaeological field schools). The following discussion is a synthesis of key points. The primary case study centers on the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre (NSC) Field School. The NSC Field School is largely funded by Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Funds are channeled through NSC’s parent organization, the ISEAS– Yusof Ishak Institute. The NSC Field School was initiated by Professor John Miksic and his team in 2011—a truly pioneering, innovative, and successful endeavor. Following intensive gap analyses and new opportunities, the NSC Field School was upgraded in 2015 with continued international success. Unfortunately, the NSC Field School is currently in a paused state, although the newly formed Temasek History Research Centre (THRC) at the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute appears to have remodeled a version the field school that will “focus on the historical and archaeological investigation of Singapore and the region from the 14th to the 19th century… open to undergraduate students who might not have knowledge of archaeology or premodern history” (ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, July 2019 advertisement). The prominent multidisciplinary (also, interdisciplinary) aspects of the NSC Field School now include archaeology, anthropology, history, art/architecture history, historical ecology, and cultural resource management (CRM) within the greater theme of evolving inter-Asian regional and extra-regional developments and interactions throughout the past two to three millennia. This is by no means a comprehensive list, but includes the key fields,. Principal goals include the following: (1) Familiarize and train East Asia Summit (EAS) young professionals, senior undergraduate students, and postgraduate students in archaeology and related fields. Educational fields are included because most of the participants are, or will be, some form of educator. (2) Create enduring and productive interregional networks of young professionals that transcend modern political and cultural borders. (3) Enhance cross-cultural competencies (CCCs). (4) Enhance critical thinking skills inclusive of research design and implementation. (5) Contribute to both academic and applied professional research goals. For present purposes, it is unnecessary to discuss all nuances (see Latinis et al., 2019 for detailed critiques and solutions). Therefore, the following discussion summarizes key concerns and takeaways while explores potentials that are more specific to designing Singaporean and Southeast Asian regional education and training in archaeology and related fields. This includes critical thinking skills, research design, and implementation as mentioned, as well as inquiry-based, experiential, non-classroom (e.g., fieldwork, laboratories, museums, workshops, and public presentations), and learner-centric approaches as these apply to Ministry of Education (MOE), government, public/civil society, and entrepreneurial goals. The key conclusion is that Singapore is in a strong position to further develop a multidisciplinary archaeological field school and training program that will domestically and regionally benefit Singaporean, regional, and extra-regional stakeholders. For example, the NSC Field School model could be modified to include select National Institute of Education (NIE) staff and students, as well as relevant professionals and students from other Singaporean institutions. The regional inclusion of ASEAN, EAS, or Asia-Pacific stakeholders should continue for a variety of

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

197

practical reasons (e.g., address and include regionally shared archeology, history, and expertise; enhance CCCs and multicultural group-based critical thinking skills; enhance multinational research and training capabilities; mitigate potential alienation and negative nationalistic perceptions of Singaporean efforts and cohorts vis-à-vis regional integration and cooperation goals). Interestingly, one of MOE’s secondary teachers is a NSC Field School alumnus. She rated her experiences extremely high, particularly in regards to enhanced CCCs, critical thinking skills, research design, awareness of regional archaeology, archaeological methods and theory, and relevance to her job as a history teacher—strongly recommending the NSC Field School to other MOE history teachers and NIE students and staff. The in-depth international aspects were among the most lauded as one of the integral components of her learning experience. Additionally, several archaeological mitigation projects in Singapore, that are largely volunteer, have included teachers, students (primary to postgraduate), and others—including a significant international composition—with equally beneficial results. The NSC Field School was intentionally designed to be highly malleable; to evolve as needed in order to continually adjust to an ever changing and wide diversity of objectives and stakeholders. The template can be readily modified to create a more specific and focused field school for specific target groups and objectives, or, it can be increased in breadth to accommodate more diverse interest groups albeit with tradeoffs either way. Innumerable designs are possible. Nevertheless, key elements that are often missing or poorly covered in most field schools should be adequately accommodated; such as, robust assessment and evaluation approaches (A & E), broad-spectrum skills familiarization (defined here as demonstrative training coupled with basic hands-on experience), emphasis on research design and implementation, CCCs, critical thinking skills, appropriate participant and staff selection measures, cultivation of improved lateral education among participants and staff, expectations management, etc. (discussed further below). Regarding the malleability of the NSC Field School template and Singaporean educational interests, the field school research and site locations could easily shift to sites and topics more specific to Singaporean historic interests while still maintaining regional relevance and applicability. These could be sites in neighboring countries (e.g., the NSC Field Schools have been conducted in Cambodia and Indonesia including a Singapore component thus far), or, they could be local Singaporean sites. For example, several fourteenth-century ancient Temasik urban locations remain untested and unadulterated. The Temasik wet sandy soil, clear stratigraphy, and vast assemblages (artifacts, ecofacts, natural and anthropogenic deposits) are ideal for basic archaeological training. They often consist of well defined and often easily excavated layers and assemblages beginning with: (a) sterile pre-fourteenth-century sandy deposits that are consecutively overlain by (b) fourteenth-century anthropogenic deposits densely packed with artifacts, (c) transitional deposits from the terminal fourteenth century to the early historic period, (d) historic deposits, and (e) modern deposits. Furthermore, previous excavations have yielded hundreds of

198

D. K. Latinis

thousands of artifacts that have yet to be analyzed. There is no shortage of potential laboratory analysis and training as well. Hundreds of historic sites also pepper the Singaporean islands. Maritime archaeology also has a high potential whether through the excavation of inundated nearshore, strand and riparian archaeological deposits, or actual offshore shipwrecks. The 1998 Empress Place excavation revealed a vast amount of well-preserved artifacts and ecofacts dating from all periods buried in the mud and sand of the old Singapore River banks. Of course, there is also a strong potential for prehistoric archaeology as Pulau Ubin, for example, yields archaeological remains dating to at least the Neolithic and possibly Paleolithic periods (David Clinnick—personal communication and ongoing research; see also Clinnick, 2017; Clinnick & Lim, 2017). Many archaeologists justifiably note that any site should be identified and ideally left untouched in situ unless facing imminent threats. This ideology occurs because archaeological excavation is a destructive process. Once removed, the artifacts, assemblages, features, deposits, etc., can never truly be reassembled into original contexts. There is always loss. Some mitigation measures do include the removal of entire features, site components, and sites (even shipwrecks) with their deposits intact and appropriately stored to accommodate both preservation and more sensitive approaches. Nevertheless, future advances in technology, method and theory will always occur. Many will be better and less destructive. Alternatively, there are many reasons in addition to research why testing and training might outweigh preservation through non-disturbance. Minimally, testing will provide future developers in government and private sectors specific awareness of high value areas. This influences improved development and mitigation planning. In turn, this often prevents negative public reactions and long-term development costs where expensive time-sensitive development operations are constantly interrupted during implementation because they compromise unknown but important sites. In fact, this approach is legal protocol in most countries. Several Singaporean government, non-government, and private sector organizations already exist. They have excellent heritage, conservation, curatorial and museology capabilities, equipment, collections, and professional staff that could easily contribute to the field school. The Asian Civilisations Museum (ACM), National Museum of Singapore, and National University of Singapore (NUS) Museum, for example, have already contributed to the NSC Field School. The National Heritage Board (NHB), Heritage Conservation Centre (HCC), National Parks, Southeast Asian Ceramics Society, most Singaporean universities and polytechnics, and NSC’s Archaeological Unit among others (e.g., Journeys PTE LTD) also have strong potential with several flexible capabilities to contribute—ultimately forming a well balanced, multidisciplinary, international, archaeological field school program. These do not necessarily have to be heritage-centric. For example, NUS materials science laboratories have previously assisted with characterization and technology studies (Dega & Latinis, 2014; Latinis & Dega, 2011; Miksic & Yap, 1992; Yap, 1992); likewise with computer tomography and genetic analysis of ancient burials at the National University Hospital (NUH) (Chhem et al., 2004).

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

199

Lastly, the initiative can be crafted as entrepreneurial and sustainable through a business model strategy—a concept that has been continually discussed with Prof. Miksic, the author and others since the 1990s. It is quite simple and a relatively standard practice for many field schools—participants or their institutions pay for inclusion in the field school. The payments are synonymous with fees that students and others already pay to attend normative field schools. Fees also cover expenses for the program, analyses, and other regional participants facing financial constraints. Participants are also free to leverage other granting agencies to augment funding. For example, the Center for Khmer Studies (CKS, a Cambodia– US-based NGO) financially assisted several of the NSC Field School participants and staff with travel costs and per diems. Principal Investigators or Directors can also apply for major research and training grants. Finally, aspects of ongoing fieldwork, analysis and results can benefit other heritage education, conservation, and tourism sectors—sectors that could also provide funding. For instance, the field school, results, continual training, sites, and assemblages could easily benefit Singapore Tourism Board (STB), museums, and the private sector as does the archaeological site museum, historic fort, Battle Box, and other heritage sites and trails at Fort Canning, Singapore. Overall, the NSC Field School is highly cost-effective and several “pay for” field school scenarios in the Southeast Asian region are estimated as more cost-effective per participant with higher returns and more experiences than average field school costs elsewhere.

10.2 Typologies of Non-classroom Learning Experiences and the Value of Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools There are scores of “non-classroom” or “out of classroom” experiences ranging in scope from unstructured to highly structured; short-term to long-term; individual to large group focus. Some target particular sectors and offer specific and intensive “skills-knowledge” training while others target general audiences, are more loosely structured, and offer a wide range of introductory experiences with less intensity and depth. Some are highly focused on discrete fields and methods while others are broad spectrum—monodisciplinary to multidisciplinary. Some necessarily encourage individual exploration (even within larger cohorts), while others enhance group dynamics in tandem with coordinated group activities and projects. Some are more observational and instructional while others are more “hands-on/experiential” (i.e., “learning by doing”). All have varying degrees of guidance or mentorship. In many cases, the nature of mentorship is contingent upon senior staff demeanor. Thus, successful mentorship is both expertise-based and personality-driven (i.e., excellent interpersonal skills are equally important). Some programs are hierarchically structured where professional instructors teach and train novice participants through a rather unidirectional approach. Other programs are more flatly structured where lateral

200

D. K. Latinis

interaction and learning are crucial among participants, staff, and other stakeholders alike. That is, all stakeholders have something to bring to the table and share (e.g., experiences, techniques, skills, expertise, ideas, etc.), as well as something to gain from the others. Learner-centric, inquiry-based, experiential and multidirectional engagement approaches with varying types of mentorship and guidance are increasing. These are vastly more effective than traditional top-down hierarchical and unidirectional classroom approaches but not always easy or socially comfortable to design and implement in practice—especially because they tend to break significantly with traditional classroom approaches inherent in typical higher learning institutions. Other factors also need consideration; from intrinsic and extrinsic incentives for participants, staff, supporting institutions and public stakeholders to increased liability concerns vis-à-vis non-classroom activities. Overall, each approach has benefits, deficiencies, and tradeoffs. Some are more appropriate for certain goals such as low-depth familiarization and awareness visà-vis various phenomena, capabilities, projects, skills, and techniques. Others are more appropriate for in-depth specialization and training. Crafting a true typology of potential non-classroom learning and instruction experiences would be difficult given the possible diversity. Nevertheless, there are general categories most people are familiar with, inclusive of basic understandings of the pros and cons of each. For example, consider the differences between: (a) an assignment given to students or small groups to explore a heritage site, historic archives, or a museum on their own free time and subsequently write a brief paper on what they learned and the relevance to a particular course or topic; (b) a more structured classroom fieldtrip to similar sites, museums, or heritage trails with a teacher and professional guide (several capabilities provide excellent services along these lines); (c) a trip to a professional career forum; (d) participation in seminars or workshops on a particular topic; (e) a study trip to a foreign country with visits to several sites, museums, institutions, etc., in which preparatory readings and lectures are given, teachers and professionals engage with participants on-site, mini workshops are held, participants keep journals and write papers, they help with a community service or professional projects, and are awarded credits or certificates; (f) study abroad programs for languages, culture, and other courses (usually individual or small groups); (g) apprenticeships or internships for in-depth long-term professional training (usually individual); (h) specialized field schools, and so forth (Figs. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3). Few research studies, however, systematically assess the true nuanced impacts, tradeoffs, or positive and negative aspects of each. Discerning impacts is difficult because the appropriate and sufficient qualitative and quantitative data is seldom systematically collected, appropriately analyzed, and shared. Although many programs make basic observations, conduct informal interviews with stakeholder respondents, and collect simplified evaluation metrics from feedback forms, most results are kept for internal use. Only positive aspects are usually reported. Impact assessment and evaluation (A & E) is discussed further below, but one representative controlled experimental study deserves cursory attention and is particularly relevant to understanding the value of “out of classroom” learning.

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

201

Fig. 10.1 Singapore Secondary Students—fieldtrip at the Singapore River (The particular location is the Singapore River walkway in front of the Asian Civilisations Museum. This is a non-classroom writing exercise with inspiration from heritage sites and commemorative statues. The students are sitting on top of a section of ancient Temasik that was partially excavated in the late 1998 during the first Empress Place archaeological project.) (Image courtesy of D. K. Latinis and NSC)

According to research by Green, Kisidia, and Brown (2014), 10,912 students and 489 teachers from 123 schools (inclusive of a control group) were tested to determine if a half-day museum trip positively affected (a) critical thinking skills, (b) historical empathy, (c) tolerance, and (d) interest in museums. Indeed, the halfday trip had a significant positive impact across the board with the highest impact on critical thinking skills. Students from rural and high-poverty schools benefited the most—up to one-third standard deviation in some cases (again, in the critical thinking category). Considering a field school is a much longer duration with more exposure and interaction (e.g., 3–6 weeks minimum), one would reasonably expect the gains to be far greater. While a curve of diminishing returns would be expected over time, diminishing returns may not actually occur for months or may have varying periods of steep increase punctuated by plateau periods. Positive return curves are often contingent upon individual expectations, attitude, focus, and perseverance among other factors. Qualitative feedback obtained over the last few decades from study abroad students, field researchers, field school participants, staff, and entry-level workers (a separate but relevant proxy study), generally suggest that two months or more of solid field experience does increase all relevant parameters, notwithstanding culture shock, personal problems, and other adjustment factors. Additionally, if a scalar analogy is used and rural and high-poverty developing countries are considered units of analysis (inclusive of the individual participants from these categories), then the students/young professionals from developing countries, their institutions, and their countries in general should experience an even higher increased positive effect. This is clearly evident in the NSC Field School results. Field schools are among the most comprehensive and intensive along the typological spectrum of “out of classroom experiences” in terms of input needed (e.g.,

202

D. K. Latinis

Fig. 10.2 Ethnoarchaeology module—highlighting diversity of NSC Field School (Traditional pottery production village in Cambodia: module designed by Foo Shu Tieng and Tep Sokha; includes: [a] pre-trip lectures; [b] worksheets and reading packets; [c] ethics and informed consent; [d] respondent interviews; working with interpreters; [e] participant observation; [f] mapping exercise;[g] demonstrations [pottery manufacture, firing, site furniture, tools, etc.]; [h] excursion to clay mines; [i] post-activity participant briefings; [j] inclusion of local communities; [k] feedback [with A & E]; [l] data for mini-projects; etc., Top: local potter giving demonstration; middle: respondent interviews and participants experimenting with hands-on pottery production; bottom: pottery firing demo and exercise—participants helped fire the pots) (Image courtesy of D. K. Latinis, Ea Darith, Foo Shu Tieng and NSC)

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

203

Fig. 10.3 NSC Field School training at the Koh Ker sites, Cambodia (Top and middle left—feature drawing, stratigraphy profiles, soil sampling and analysis, sample collection for radiocarbon testing; middle right—student and teacher visits from local schools; bottom—ethnographic ethics, informed consent, and interviews with local respondents—also experts in traditional rituals and local histories; some are mediums and performed the opening ceremonies seeking permission and protection from local ancestor spirits—neak ta) (Image courtesy of Ea Darith and D. K. Latinis)

204

D. K. Latinis

time, money, organization, planning, management, coordination, implementation, troubleshooting, etc.). Many of these inputs constitute the proverbial “cons” (negative, costly, time consuming, difficult) from certain perspectives. On the other hand, most of these cons can easily be reformulated as investment and experiential “pros” especially for junior or mid-level staff that need design, management, and implementation experience. Regardless, field schools are among the most effective in terms of output delivered and positive longitudinal impacts achieved. The high-impact value of a field school cannot be overemphasized (Baxter, 2009; Boyle et al., 2007; Green, Kisidia, & Brown, 2014; Mytum, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d; Walker & Saitta, 2002; Zachary, 2015) where experiential hands-on interactive learning among peers and staff in a “real-life research context” is paramount (Fuller et al., 2010; Healey, 2005; Healey & Jenkins, 2000; Kolb, 1984; Mytum, 2012a, pp. 10–11, 2012b; see also Hamilakis, 2004; Spronken-Smith & Hilton 2009). This is corroborated through qualitative and quantitative investigation by the author (e.g., informal qualitative feedback, social media tracking, number of publications, etc.). However, this particular “in-progress” research endeavor has not reached desired data collection levels due to the longitudinal nature of the undertaking. Furthermore, the data has not yet been systematically coded, analyzed, and summarized through more quantitative, metrical, and statistical methods. Nevertheless, as a basic litmus test, ask any archeologist about a past field school they attended and it is more than likely to be one of the most memorable and useful aspects of their educational and professional careers, even field schools that were conducted in the most undesirable and adverse conditions; likewise with any person who has attended a field school or intensive study trip program. Again, this is indicated in ongoing qualitative data collection and analysis. It is not yet clear, but field schools and intensive technical training courses are competing with the number one spot for highest value learning opportunities and outcomes among respondents thus far. A significant added advantage is the fact that archaeological field schools, in particular, can be one of the most multidisciplinary training and research endeavors possible. However, they are not often implemented as such. There are several reasons why both are true. It is important to begin with the multidisciplinary nature first.

10.3 Multidisciplinary/Interdisciplinary Nature of Archaeology By necessity, archaeology, and anthropology are highly multidisciplinary (Latinis, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). It is also important to emphasize that archaeology is often viewed or structured as a subdiscipline of anthropology (Fig. 10.4). Essentially, anthropology is the study of people and culture while archaeology includes a significantly more robust past temporal dimension with a much heavier focus on material remains and anthropogenic impacts rather than behavioral observations, participant observations, and interviews—although these latter methods are heavily

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

205

Fig. 10.4 Disciplinary Stovepipes Versus Anthropology and Archaeology

applied in ethnographic, ethno-archaeological, ecological, economic, technological, interpretive, current site use, CRM, tourism, heritage, and many other aspects of archaeology. Virtually all traditional philosophical, hard/natural sciences, soft/social sciences, humanities, educational and vocational stovepipes are fair game for inclusion. Another way of viewing this is that anthropology and archaeology weave through and include all traditional fields of study, research, discourse, etc. For example, archaeology may include materials sciences, geology, and economics to determine source production, movement, and consumption of ceramics where distinct products and production centers have detectable chemical signatures or recipes for creating their products. Civil engineers and urban planners are included to assess ancient structures, infrastructure, urban centers, and networks. Political scientists, geographers, and theologians may study the nature of power dynamics, belief systems, and repercussions of cultural or state policies and practices. Biologists and ecologists may research the evolution of species-genera ratio manipulation (or unintentional consequences) due to human activity in a specific environmental catchment area over time. Business, tourism, and hospitality experts are involved, especially with the ever-increasing rise in cultural, heritage, and ecological tourism. Educators and education programs are necessarily interested for obvious reasons. Even text and film industries are involved from documentary production to science fiction and fantasy inspiration (think: “the Mummy,” “the Exorcist,” “Indiana Jones,” “Tomb Raider,” and so on)— actually, one of the fun parts of archaeology and related oral histories and ethno-histories. The list is endless.

206

D. K. Latinis

This does not deny overlap and multidisciplinarianism in other fields. No field in today’s world is truly mutually exclusive in practice compared to how they are portrayed in any paradigmatic classification scheme or university structure. Unfortunately, there are those who believe otherwise, primarily out of competitive or naïve reasons too lengthy to discuss at present. The point here is to highlight the prominent multidisciplinary nature of archaeology. This renders archaeology particularly useful for any field and vice versa. Consider imaging, for example. Almost all camera, video, and imaging forums dealing with hardware, software, image creation/enhancement applications, macroscopic remote sensing to microscopic imaging, etc., (e.g., satellite, SONAR, LIDAR [light detection and ranging; laser imaging, ranging, and detection], GPR [ground penetrating radar], DStretch [decorrelation stretch], computer tomography, X-Ray, SEM [scanning electron microscopy], and so forth) include examples of archaeological sites and phenomena. The reason: it is very useful and very popular for all stakeholders including general public consumers (Fig. 10.5). Thus, viewing archaeology as a complementary component of other fields, R & D initiatives, and industries should entice Singapore’s interests because of existing high capacities and goals in relevant sectors. It is simply a matter of integration.

10.4 Archaeology and History Because the nature of this book targets Singapore’s history, it is important to understand the relationship between history and archaeology. Traditionally, historians primarily focus on textual sources as raw data. Archaeologists focus on artifacts, ecofacts, features, assemblages and sites (i.e., material remains and anthropogenic impacts). In reality, a good archaeologist covers the historic data and understands historic discourse, methodology, and goals (e.g., Miksic, 2004; Miksic & Low, 2004). Likewise, a good historian will do the same with archaeology. True, both study the past. They both include temporal dimensions. However, they are quite distinct. For most people, however, archaeology is viewed as a means to discover (or create), prove, or disprove “history.” The alternative is equally applied: historic research can prove or disprove archaeological interpretation. Although either can mutually support or refute each other’s interpretations in some instances, this simplified understanding of the “history and archaeology” relationship is erroneous for many reasons. They have different questions, methods, and narratives, for example. The bottom line is that they are complementary, but not designed to prove or disprove each other. Interpretations and narratives can nicely parallel one another, however. In the more specialized subfield of historical archaeology, history, and archaeology overlap significantly but still remain complementary. That being acknowledged, Singapore has comparatively abundant support for historic and related types of heritage research and other initiatives—particularly related to historic structures, monuments, and park assets—while archaeology lags significantly. Four significant reasons are at the core of the disparity.

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

207

Fig. 10.5 Digital Imaging, Satellite, LIDAR, and Dstretch Examples (Upper left—satellite imaging of the tenth-century Angkorian Capital site at Koh Ker where NSC Field Schools have been conducted in Cambodia [note most of the site features are covered in forest]; upper right—digital image of Prasat Thom [Koh Ker’s iconic tenth-century Saivite pyramid site] and the NSC Field School participants; middle left—LIDAR imaging reveals complex landscape, infrastructure, and urban features including planned neighborhoods [test site locations highlighted]; middle right— close up of LIDAR imaging and test locations at Koh Ker; lower left—normative image of ancient cave/rock art paintings at the Kanam site, Cambodia; lower middle and lower right—Dstretch image enhancement reveals hidden paintings [Latinis et al., 2016; note: the color versions yields much better quality]) (Image from Latinis et al., 2016)

208

D. K. Latinis

Firstly, Singapore’s history was publically thought to be negligible prior to the Colonial Period until the discoveries of ancient Temasik as a fourteenth-century urban trade hub through archaeological projects initiated by Prof. John Miksic and Kwa Chong Guan beginning in the 1980s (Miksic, 1984, 2004, 2013; Miksic & Goh, 2016; Miksic & Low, 2004). Although evidence of fourteenth-century finds was reported much earlier at Fort Canning (as well as evidence of Neolithic or earlier finds on Pulau Ubin), these were largely seen as somewhat intriguing phenomena by few and mostly forgotten. Secondly, there is no legal framework for the protection and mitigation of archaeological sites in Singapore, unlike most other countries (Lee, 2013), although the NHB website notes: “As part of the plan [2018–2020], we will also be refining the NHB Act in the next two years to better support the preservation of both our tangible and intangible heritage, and to safeguard our archaeological heritage more effectively” (NHB 2019). Thus, sites are often destroyed during rapid development. There are few opportunities for action until major policy changes are implemented. Some things have been changing, however. There is increased public, private and government awareness, interest, and support. Archaeology is becoming more popular and the public is becoming more aware, but not to the degree where archaeology is becoming robustly institutionalized in policy, education, and research. Thirdly, there is no institution that supports dedicated archeological training, research, and mitigation program in Singapore with perhaps the sole exception of the Archaeology Unit at NSC. It is noteworthy that the HCC, NSC Archaeology Unit, and the NUS Archaeology Laboratory at Kent Ridge do have limited storage areas for archaeological remains and a few personnel working on archaeology projects. Also some museums have small archaeological displays and NHB provides some funding for visiting researchers addressing archaeological assemblages. In fact, the NUS Museum has perhaps the largest collection of Singapore artifacts on display and the largest archaeological exhibit in Singapore. Nevertheless, there are only a handful of well-trained researchers at various institutions that conduct archaeological projects and analysis in Singapore, but not often as their primary role or job duties. There are also only a few special interest groups and individuals that privately take interest in, support, and publish archaeological and related research. Lastly, there are few jobs available for archaeologists in Singapore. Thus, there are very few incentives for either individuals or institutions to pursue archaeology in Singapore. Culturally, it is considered interesting but not practical for career pursuit. Solutions have been intimated earlier and by all means discussed over the past years and decades. First, it is quite possible that Singapore can become a regional archaeology hub for training and research. Second, this can be done in tandem with an increased realization of the complementary multidisciplinary nature of archaeology. That is, other disciplines have much to gain through supporting archaeological research and involvement and vice versa—often metaphorically “savvy and sexy” cutting edge, high tech, and entrepreneurial endeavors. Additionally, increased integration with education and tourism sectors will be mutually beneficial. Policies and budgetary line items could be further developed to create opportunities, capabilities,

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

209

and permanent positions. Job opportunities are a powerful incentive, but this does come with overall budgetary tradeoffs. Does Singapore need to be the preeminent hub in the region and sink massive investment into its formation? No. Singapore can be one of the several existing and excellent hubs of archaeology in the region and work toward increased regional integration and cooperation through organizations and platforms such as UNESCO, EAS, ASEAN, SEAMEO SPAFA, and IPPA (Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association), as well as regional universities, and state apparatuses that specialize in archaeology, multinational corporations, non-government organizations, and others. This already occurs to some degree with the NSC Field School, NHB endeavors, Singapore’s recent interests in UNESCO listings, increased Singaporean representation at SEAMEO SPAFA and IPPA conferences, increased publications and public outreach platforms, etc. Nevertheless, the ability to strengthen, form a regional hub, and apply this simultaneously to Singaporean and regional goals is contingent upon current and future generations’ efforts. The potential remains high with a considerable amount of beneficial returns for strong investments that do not have to be excessive. Why is a regional approach to Singapore archaeology and history necessary rather than a geographically bounded current national border approach? Firstly, modern geographic nation-state borders hardly correlate with past complex polity boundaries. However, there is a more interesting reason. Taking a look at fourteenth-century Temasik or nineteenth-century Singapore, for example, primary resource assets need to be considered. Also, what kind of settlement was Singapore in the past? Was it based on territorial and geographic “hard and fixed” resources/assets (e.g., land, agricultural fields, forests, fisheries, mines, industries, etc.)? Or, was it based on socioeconomic networks and the required management skills to maintain a trade and redistribution node among a myriad of nested and overlapping networks? The former is frequently comprised of a more self-contained internal system in many regards, although there is always an expected degree of export production, trade, and import. These systems have different management, economic, defense, urban, industry, manifestations, etc. The nature of urbanization and settlement in the former is more geographically fixed—often with much more investment into hard or fixed structures, infrastructure, and defense. The latter is a completely different phenomenon. It is more of a “social geography” composed of relationships and networks rather than comprised of physical geography, hard assets, and turf so to speak. The “system” is a socioeconomic network. Hubs may be more fluid, more readily and frequently shifted, and seemingly less permanent with a more transient and mixed cultural/demographic profile. There may be less investment in long-term infrastructure. Shipping, transshipping, and negotiation are dominant. Ports play an integral role, but do not necessarily need to be permanent cities, especially if numerous suitable port locations are available and maritime trade is prioritized. In fact, less investment in hard structure development for port trade and defense has strategic and economic value. It renders the port more mobile (i.e., viable for easier relocation). The transient and often seasonal social nature also makes investment into permanent settlement structures less likely. For example, consider a tent and hut type of bazaar to that of a fixed shopping mall and

210

D. K. Latinis

adjacent neighborhoods; or compare the more agrarian and industry-based states of Pyu, Chenla, and Angkor with Srivijaya, Temasik, and Melaka. Nevertheless, there is not necessarily a clear divide between maritime island and agrarian mainland Southeast Asia, as indicated in the cases of Funan, Ayutthaya, Champa, Viet/Red River Delta polities, Kedah Tua, Sailendras, and Majapahit polities, and sites.. A mutually exclusive binary typology is perhaps impossible to create and rather irrelevant when addressing actual variability. Without recourse to a lengthy discussion on these issues, the primary point is that a multidisciplinary Singapore-based archaeology program and field school would be better crafted as one within a regional set of hubs addressing both Singaporean and regional issues to further address the reality of regional and extra-regional networks rather than over-focus on specific sites contained within Singapore. Both can be achieved. Balance is required. This was inherent in the initial vision of NSC and the NSC Field School; thus, the relevance for placement at the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. Importantly, the socioeconomic networks have histories with implications for both the current and future state of affairs at the regional level. Archaeology and history allow trajectories to be more clearly and holistically discerned. This renders a better understanding of where future social, political, economic, and security trends might head. It also provides a wealth of “lessons learned” to prevent negative and sometimes disastrous repeats of history.

10.5 NSC Field School Basics, Gap Analysis, and Upgrades In order to fully understand gap analysis in this case, it is appropriate to digress to the earlier statement, “…archaeological field schools can be one of the most multidisciplinary endeavors possible… however, they are not often implemented as such.” One reason archaeological field schools are not explicitly implemented as multidisciplinary is because most archaeology training institutions have full-spectrum programs. Multidisciplinary aspects are addressed through their normative coursework, labwork, and research initiatives. Another problem is that field schools often incorporate students and partner institution representatives as glorified facilitators and laborers rather than multidisciplinary trainees in actual practice (i.e., they do not train full-spectrum basics during field schools). With experience in field schools and field-based initiatives for over 25 years in Southeast Asia (especially troubleshooting), it was evident a thorough gap analysis was needed in 2015. This included problem identification and solution innovation. Three scales of analysis were conducted to assess: (a) field schools in general; (b) archaeological training specific to the region, and (c) the NSC Field School in particular. The most prominent gap noted is that comparatively few field schools and opportunities are available to regional stakeholders. Broad and diverse skills familiarization and training are not often included in those that do exist. The simple solution is to create more field schools and workshops with diverse skills familiarization

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

211

and training components—a primary purpose behind the initial NSC Field School program from its inception. To be fair, the number of small and effective workshops are increasing—often initiated by primary research institutions and frequently embedded as additions to fieldwork. Nevertheless, other prominent gaps needed to be addressed at more nuanced levels. Once identified and understood, adjustments were made to the NSC Field School. Provided below is a shortlist of gaps, deficiencies, solutions, and effectiveness (see Latinis et al., 2019 for more comprehensive details). Typical field schools and their deficiencies. Normally, a university researcher (Director or Principal Investigator—PI), group of researchers, and/or organizational committee designs a personal-interest or institutional-interest project that requires fieldwork and data collection. Despite caveats for positive partnership and equal stakeholder inclusion in the public plan, the realistic intentions and frequent hidden agendas are largely designed to meet “above satisfactory” personal and institutional key performance indicators (KPIs) to advance careers (especially through PI publications), as well as increase notoriety, perceived relevance, and public image for projects, key personnel, primary institutions, and donor agencies. PIs are certainly passionate about their research and the relevance, but they also have a career to propel. Institutions invest in research and training, but the investment includes enhancing public image and public relations. Additionally, both tend to prioritize their own people from their own institutions (students, trainees, participants, staff), often at the cost of less inclusion and diminished prioritization of partner/host institutions and their personnel. This includes host countries, local communities, and other stakeholders. No offense is intended. These are realistic and important considerations for PIs, primary institutions, and donors. Rhetoric is often sincere. Nevertheless, the failures of actual practice may weaken intended training goals and create undesirable divisions among stakeholder groups. Subsequently, research questions, methodologies, budgets, and goals are set. Funding is sought. A fair amount of politically correct and affirmative action “overpromise” lip service is incorporated. It sells. The field school then plays a pivotal role in fieldwork, data collection, training, and altruistic posturing. However, participants, junior staff, and locals are often marginalized to varying degrees. Most are treated as laborers. Many stakeholders are further alienated after field schools conclude, with the exceptions of: (a) graduate students who use data for their own theses which often feed the PI’s larger research and KPI agenda; (b) key partners who may be listed as secondary authors on publications, although they often have limited actual input; and (c) partner institutions (often from host countries) who are merely acknowledged in publications and presentations. In theory, all stakeholders are identified, included, and benefit equally. In practice, a handful of stakeholders (generally project and institutional leaders) benefit more than others. Many field schools have also become rather formulaic over the decades which further solidifies the imbalanced reality. To be fair, most of this is not intentional. Nevertheless, stronger balancing mechanisms need to be emplaced. Essentially, the entire process is often stated to be learner-centric and stakeholder inclusive, even to the extent of empowering traditionally marginalized or

212

D. K. Latinis

neglected stakeholders. In practice, feedback and observations indicate otherwise. In fact, there are numerous unpublished complaints of marginalization and unfair treatment. Although many are personal opinions from disgruntled individuals, there are a significant number and intensity of valid complaints that highlight consistent patterns and warrant realistic concerns. Nevertheless, most students, participants, staff, institutions, and local stakeholders at least gain something and appreciate the projects. Even the worst field schools are quite effective. Accounting for positive selective bias on what is uploaded, a quick social media analysis of any ongoing field school often indicates a lot of fun, interesting activities, new discoveries, useful learning experiences, and overcoming many hardships. This does not mean that field schools cannot be improved, however. Unfortunately, qualitative and quantitative methods that better measure enduring effectiveness to include the impact on students, trainees, and other stakeholders— especially local supporting institutions, local workers, local communities, and their ensuing contributions—are not often collected. At best, they are weakly designed and collected; thinly, expedietnly, and selectively analyzed; and not made publically available. Thus, increased, enhanced, and relevant assessment measures and methods need to be designed from the onset. This allows directors and PIs to design better learner-centric and stakeholder-inclusive approaches along with thorough evaluation protocols. There are indicators that improved inclusiveness and assessment trends are gaining more traction and implementation. As for assessments, this is especially true with increased ease of tracking and measuring due to technological advances in communication, information exchange, social media, and related analyzing platforms for big data and deep/thick data (qualitative and quantitative). As for impacts, social media has now become a major player and actually delivers impacts. These trends further enable strengthening learner-centric and marginalized stakeholder-centric approaches, inclusiveness, and assessment of longitudinal impacts. Despite the critiques above, there are productive research results from most field schools as well as beneficial outcomes. These range from personal development of individuals to institutional capacity building and meeting a wide variety of goals. Additionally, most research teams now provide public lectures, mini workshops, and strive for more inclusiveness of local communities and other less central stakeholder groups. However, could there be significantly more benefits to a greater number of stakeholders in most cases? Certainly. Also, can better methods be designed for capturing relevant impacts and measures of effectiveness—useful for all stakeholders and continual program enhancement? Definitely. Capacity, capacity building, goals, and objectives. Field schools almost always emphasize capacity building. However, what exactly is capacity building? The expression has become cliché and often overused with ambiguity and undefined assumptions. This causes problems. People and institutions are not usually on the same page. Expectations can be painfully different. The process of defining capacity/capacities, capacity deficiencies, and capacity building is not difficult, although it is often neglected unintentionally or outright ignored. Capacity building translates to goals, objectives, and the means to achieve these. All terms need to be

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

213

explicitly defined with adequate examples and plans of action. Field school developers need only conduct a few brainstorming sessions with stakeholders and create a relevant list and matrix (Latinis, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). Research design. Research design is the cornerstone of the NSC program at all levels—academic and applied. Knowing the “hows” and “whys” of research design is vitally important for research, methodology, analysis, implementation, management, budgeting, logistics, troubleshooting, assessments, publications, etc. Importantly, research design is what effectively enables enhancement of critical thinking skills. Research design is also perhaps the most neglected training element in most field schools. There is a considerable gap in understanding and doing research design throughout the region. That is, with the exception of PIs/Directors and a few senior staff, research design is the most notably absent or underdeveloped skill in the region, especially among junior staff and participants. Research design is applicable to almost all fields—certainly not exclusive to archaeology. This gap primarily results from overemphasis on specific technical skills building—partly a result of overall program designs and partly a result of normative participant expectations. Furthermore, most academic programs expect research design to be taught in the normative curricula— particularly in theory and methods courses. In reality, most EAS participants and junior staff have never been exposed to proper research design training, inclusive of Singapore. At best, most were taught how to replicate research rather than innovate and design research. The NSC Field School simplifies the process as follows: A. Research Questions: Ask relevant, answerable, and delimited (doable) research questions. Check for relevancy, etc. The best way to accomplish this is to review or brainstorm with mentors and peers. B. Hypothesis Building (arguably optional): In its simplest form, convert the questions into statements and testable hypotheses inclusive of null hypotheses or competing hypotheses if desired. The simplest way to do this is by answering the research question with the knowledge at hand. Then rephrase it into a statement. The NSC mini-project approach emphasizes simplicity and doability under given constraints. “Keep it simple” (research, writing, presentation, and publication) is one of our primary messages—useful for many entry-level people who more often than not have great initial ideas that are too broad in scope for a manageable project, thesis, or mitigation initiative. C. Methodology: Decide how to best answer/address the question or hypothesis given realistic constraints: Most participants and many junior staff are familiar with doing a variety of methods, but not selecting or creating appropriate methods to address a research question. Participants and staff receive guidance on these matters. They are explained that methods are like tools in a toolkit. Methodology is essentially synonymous with selecting the right tools to match the task (i.e., answer the research questions; address the hypothesis). For example, if the task is to hang a wooden sign on a wooden wall, choosing a nail and a hammer is preferable to a toothpick and a cotton swab. Methodology also addresses realistic constraints: time, money, access to data, availability of data, ability to analyze data, equipment and lab access, ethics, legal constraints, etc. The

214

D. K. Latinis

staff also trains participants on how to recognize potential biases, deficiencies, etc., and how these might be more effectively mitigated. Along with research questions, participants are encouraged to think about methodology on their own and also in focus groups in order to exercise their critical thinking and creativity skills. Regarding methods, numerous methods are trained during the field school. Packages are provided as guidelines, reference material, and data collection templates. All are adjustable to accommodate varying goals and conditions. D. Analysis and Interpretation: This is normally outlined in the methodology, but often included in separate sections to provide nuanced details, data, and results. E. Reporting and presentation: self-explanatory, but a critical aspect of research design. Most participants and junior staff have few experiences. The miniprojects allow participants and staff to gain experience. The NSC Field School encourages them to continue using the data and publish their work if possible. Data is open to all participants, staff, and other stakeholders. NSC also encourages them to write smaller articles and blurbs for websites, blogs, school newsletters, local papers, and magazines. NSC also offers to publish in the NSC Highlights Newsletter. Several participants already have. Multilayered junior staff and participant training. Most field schools prioritize the PI’s research agenda and basic field excavation skills. Introduction and familiarization of a broad spectrum of skills conducted “in the field” as an experiential learning component is lacking throughout the region. Also, junior staff are seldom given the chance to design, budget, and manage projects—skills essential for further capacity building. Therefore, the NSC Field School identifies junior level staff (site operations managers; mostly from host countries/institutions) who are given several months to design their own research questions and methodologies for a particular site in relation to the mission and overall research and training goals. Also, all staff and visiting professionals design their own lectures, training sessions, handouts, and demonstrations as they apply to the overall objectives. Senior staff are available for guidance and mentorship. Overall, this empowers junior staff and contributors. It gives them opportunities to gain practical experience. They conduct their own training and research. NSC and partner institutions are able to orchestrate multiple complex operations. For example, the Koh Ker field schools simultaneously addressed: structural archaeology with the royal palace site; water control and geoarchaeology with canal/ditch and reservoir features; and stratigraphic habitation excavations (urban households) with two residential sites. Prior site visits and workshops included hands-on training sessions in orienteering, mapping, GIS, art/architecture history, conservation, industries, ethno-archaeology, respondent interviews, CRM, tourism, etc. For participants, they are channeled through familiarization and training sessions from the start. They are also allowed to repeat various training sessions for enhanced skills acquisition andexperience. Lastly, they form paired teams and conduct miniresearch projects.

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

215

Overall, the NSC Field School trains junior or mid-level staff in tandem with participants through a hands-on, broad spectrum, interactive and experiential process. The most frequent complaint (i.e., recommendation) is a desire for more field and laboratory days for training and analysis as it applies to all other goals. Multiple skills and multidisciplinary enhancement. Many field schools focus on the excavation pit and stratigraphic excavation techniques. Other field schools may focus on surveys and site visits. However, this is where many field schools begin and end—often with expectations that a majority of relevant skills will be obtained elsewhere. The NSC Field School has been redesigned to offer a wide spectrum of basic skills familiarization and training inclusive of research design, implementation, and presentation. The tradeoff is in-depth expertise on any particular skill or subject is not emphasized—just the basics. However, the NSC Field School allows for additional training at participant discretion and encourages all to pursue higher level training and research when possible. This is easily accommodated in the field environment with experts. Opportunities are constantly made available. More prominent is the fact that every individual on the field school (participant and staff), has expertise on several topics or methods to share with others. The lateral education aspect “in the field context” has proven highly successful, even among individuals who speak different languages—the experiential, visual and hands-on aspects transcend language, and cultural barriers. Thus, the selection process is paramount. Selection process. Proper selection of participants and staff is critically important, but not often well defined and implemented. The NSC Field School does not attempt to select the most qualified and experienced people. In fact, that would defeat the purpose. A field school hardly requires an overabundance of senior and well-seasoned researchers. The point is to train and conduct research. It is far more productive to identify participants, students, and junior staff who need experience for their own personal development as well as their institution’s development, and, also have something to contribute. The NSC Field School application process is taken seriously. NSC provides applicant guidelines. Personal statements and recommendations are weighed heavily. They are intended to identify what participants stand to gain and what they have to offer. Thus, a balanced and complementary cohort can be selected. This is critically important for the lateral education goals. The purpose is to create a holistic complementary team rather than individual experts. Assessments and Evaluations (A & E). A considerable amount of qualitative assessments are made during field schools. Most are observational—focused on students/participants rather than the full spectra of participants, staff and overall field school structure, implementation, and impacts. Normative assessment measures are often augmented with overly simplified exit questionnaires. Unfortunately, the data remains marginally analyzed and unpublished—often kept internally. Again, the priority is generally focused on student/participant performance, especially if course credit, grades, and professional certificates are at stake. Better measures of both participant, staff and overall field school evaluation need to be constructed—qualitative and quantitative. As emphasized above, these should be designed in tandem with field school design and objectives from the onset.

216

D. K. Latinis

The NSC Field School included ongoing assessments, stakeholder interviews, and a final exit surveys for staff and participants comprised of over 100 Likert scale rankings and text-based feedback sections covering activities, modules, instruction, impacts, and other factors (Latinis, 2016a, 2016b). Critics have suggested the exit survey is cumbersome. However, it takes less than two hours, is set as a necessary completion task, and is actually enjoyed by most respondents. It allows them to comparatively reflect on all activities and experiences as well as comfortably offer critiques and solutions. Final projects and presentations require feedback and recommendations as well. The Likert scale measures are effective for quantifying overall results and identifying strengths and weaknesses. Quantifiable results are useful for administrators and non-archaeologists in order to evaluate relative success of the program. The NSC Field School set 7.0 as success (scale of 1–10; 10 = outstanding), hoped for an overall 8.0, and achieved above a 9.0 on all field schools. This is success. The qualitative feedback and observations allow for significant improvements—by far the most difficult to code and analyze yet the most salient. Qualitative feedback also proved far better than NSC initial expectations. Expectations Management. It is important to set reasonable expectations for staff, stakeholders, and participants at the onset. For most field schools, this is ambiguous and can create frictions from the start. The NSC Field School provides this from inception. It is part of the application process as well. NSC staff reiterate expectations continuously. Communication is essential. Communication needs to be explicit, comprehensive, and detailed with clear definitions, examples, and visual aids. The preceding list of gaps, deficiencies, and solutions are merely a short list. These can be easily subdivided, each category deserving a separate paper. However, most of the subdivisions overlap considerably—readily discernable through the discussion above. Breakdowns and specifics are discussed at length elsewhere. It is hoped that the references provide additional guidelines for regional field school development in the future.

10.6 Conclusion Field schools are vitally important for the region—especially to address gaps in young professional training and education as well as unifying regional efforts. Relatively few field schools exist. Only a handful are organically created within the region. Most continue to be dominated by foreign or global institutions. Many field schools need to be upgraded to create balance among stakeholders and meet additional deficiencies such as training in research design and implementation, critical thinking skills, a wider spectrum of basic technical skills, project management, interdisciplinary approaches, trans-border and international cooperation, publications, grant/proposal writing, and local inclusion. The NSC field school has been consistently redesigned to accommodate needs, gaps, and deficiencies while also achieving a variety of multilevel goals. Two

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

217

successful field schools were completed in Cambodia and Singapore by 2014. In 2015 the Field School was upgraded following a thorough assessment and gap analysis. The analysis also included evaluation of traditional (i.e., normative) field school projects conducted throughout the region by other institutions since the 1990s. The resulting NSC Field School upgrades included: (1) developing original and cost-effective research projects by NSC and Host Country partners to contribute to applied and academic interests as well as facilitate multilevel training; (2) implementing more thorough and complementary application and selection processes to enhance lateral sharing of diverse skills and knowledge among EAS participants and staff; (3) increasing multidisciplinary breadth; (4) intensifying experiential learning and critical thinking; (5) emphasizing research design, methodology, project implementation, management, data collection, analysis, and reporting (i.e., much more than a limited set of basic field skills training); (6) creating more robust and holistic qualitative and quantitative feedback and assessment mechanisms to assist continual improvement; and, (7) increasing local and non-local stakeholder inclusion as well as public education. The upgraded Field School initiative witnessed far more successful than anticipated. It is hoped the NSC Field School becomes a malleable blueprint for others to apply—particularly for regionally based institutions, governments, grass-roots, and non-government organizations. Additionally, the field school is applicable to several diverse disciplines. That is, the overall concept and approach need not be restricted to archeology, anthropology, art history, and related fields. Notwithstanding, various challenges do occur. Persistent troubleshooting is necessary. Constant adjustments and flexibility are paramount. Administrative requirements and workloads are truly exhausting. However, continual improvement is the goal. A need for flexibility and creative solutions are necessary components of the package. A cooperative team of interdisciplinary, cross-culturally competent, professional leaders, and advisors are vital for success. Designing, running, and even participating in the Field School is no easy task. However, results are outstanding. The positive impacts to participants, staff, host countries, research communities, and numerous other stakeholders are well worth the efforts.

References Baxter, J. E. (2009). Archaeological field schools: A guide for teaching in the field. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milsom, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S. … Conchie, S. (2007). Fieldwork is good: The student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31(2), 299–317. Chhem, R., Venkatesh, S. K., Chang, S. C., Wong, K. M., Ruhil, F. J., Siew, E. P., et al. (2004). Multislice computed tomography of two 2000-year-old skeletons in a soil matrix from Angkor, Cambodia. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 55(4), 235–241. Clinnick, D. (2017). What’s Singapore got to do with the Paleolithic. Presentation for Natial Library, Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/NationalLibrarySG/videos/149 8607156829532/.

218

D. K. Latinis

Clinnick, David, & Lim, S. (2017). In search of prehistoric Singapore. MUSE SG National Heritage Board (Singapore), 10(2), 39–42. Dega, M., & Latinis, D. K. (2014). The social and ecological trajectory of prehistoric Cambodian earthworks. Asian Perspectives, 52(2), 327–346. Fuller, I., Book, M., & Holt, K. (2010). Linking teaching and research in undergraduate physical geography papers: the role of fieldwork. New Zealand Geographer, 66, 196–202. Green, J. P., Kisidia, B., & Brown, D. H. (2014). The educational value of field trips. Education Next (Winter), 78–86. Hamilakis, Y. (2004). Archaeology and the politics of pedagogy. World Archaeology, 36(2), 287– 309. Healey, M. (2005). Linking teaching and research to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29, 183–201. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2000). Kolb’s experiential learning theory and its application in geography in higher education. Journal of Geography, 99, 185–195. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. (2019, July). Advertisement. Retrieved from https://www.iseas.edu. sg/about-us/opportunities/career#fieldschooldirector. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Latinis, D. K. (2018a). Multidisciplinary field schools: Social sciences, archaeology, anthropology and Art history: Purpose, design, impacts, assessments. Paper presented at the NSC Field School 2018 Workshop and Lectures, Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/public ation/327069518_Multidisciplinary_Field_Schools_Social_Sciences_Archaeology_Anthropol ogy_and_Art_History_Purpose_Design_Impacts_Assessments. Latinis, D. K. (2018b, May). Capacity building—Social sciences, archaeology, anthropology, museology, curation, angkor. Paper presented at the Exploring Angkor Symposium10–19 MAY 2018. Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore. Retrieved from shttps://www.researchgate.net/ publication/325344065_Capacity_Building_-_Social_Sciences_Archaeology_Anthropology_ Museology_Curation_Angkor_Asian_Civillisations_Museum_Symposium_on_Angkor_1019_MAY_2018. Latinis, D. K. (2018c, October). Advanced multidisciplinary studies: History, PROBLEMS, solutions. Keynote address, Social sciences. International conference on advanced multidisciplinary studies: Enhancing sustainable development through advanced multidisciplinary research. Paper presented in Makassar, Indonesia 06–07 October 2018; Universitas Negeri Makassar [UNM]. Makassar, Indonesia Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329970507_Adv anced_Multidisciplinary_Studies_History_Problems_Solutions_-_D_Kyle_Latinis_Keynote_ Address_-_Social_Sciences. Latinis, D. K. (2016a, March). Koh Ker: Cambodia research report: ISEAS-YII NSC AU & APSARA-authority projects Koh Ker Post-excavation analysis. Retrieved from https://www.res earchgate.net/publication/299159926_Koh_Ker_-_Cambodia_Research_Report_-_ISEAS-YII_ NSC_AU_and_APSARA-Authority_Projects. Latinis, D. K. (2016b, February). Nalanda-Sriwijaya centre international field school-2015 Singapore-Cambodia assessment report. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/pub lication/308397014_Nalanda-Sriwijaya_Centre_International_Field_School-2015_SingaporeCambodia_Assessment_Report. Latinis, D. K., & Dega, M. (2011). A brief study of Cambodian circular earthwork ceramics as explained through EDXRF analysis. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 31, 64– 75. Latinis, D. K., Ea, D., & Foo, S. T. (2019). New Approaches to multidisciplinary field schools: Case studies from Cambodia and Singapore. NSC AU Archaeological Report Series #11. Singapore: Nalanda–Sriwijaya Centre. Latinis, D. K., Griffin, P. B., & Tep, S. (2016). Kanam rock painting site: Current assessment—Pursat province, Cardamom mountains, Cambodia. NSC Archaeological Report Series #2. Singapore: Nalanda–Sriwijaya Centre.

10 Multidisciplinary Archaeological Field Schools

219

Lee, J. Tsen-Ta. (2013, August). A presence of the past: The legal protection of Singapore’s archaeological heritage. School of Law Singapore Management University, International Journal of cultural Property, 20(3), 257–288. Miksic, J. N. (1984). Archaeological research on the “Forbidden Hill” of singapore: Excavations at Fort Canning. Singapore: National Museum. Miksic, J. N. (2004). 14th-century Singapore: A port of trade. In J. N. Miksic & C-A. Low (Eds.), Early Singapore 1300s–1819: Evidence in maps, text and artefacts (pp. 41–54). Singapore, Singapore History Museum. Miksic, J. N. (2013). Singapore and the silk road of the sea. Singapore: NUS Press. Miksic, J. N., & Goh, G. Y. (2016). Ancient southeast Asia. Routledge World Archaeology: London & New York. Miksic, J. N., & Low, C.-A. (Eds.). (2004). Early Singapore 1300s–1819: Evidence in maps, text and artefacts: 41–54). Singapore: Singapore History Museum. Miksic, J. N., & Yap, C. T. (1992). Compositional analysis of pottery from Kota Cina, North Sumatra: Implications for regional trade during the twelfth to fourteenth centuries A.D. Asian Perspectives, 31(1), 57–76. Mytum, H. (2012a). Global perspectives on archaeological field schools: Constructions of knowledge and experience. New York NY: Springer. Mytum, H. (2012b). The Pedagogic value of fieldschools: Some frameworks. In H. Mytum (Ed.), Global perspectives on archaeological field schools: Constructions of knowledge and experience (pp. 9–23). New York, NY: Springer. Mytum, H. (2012c). Introduction: Constructing education and knowledge in the field. In H. Mytum (Ed.), Global perspectives on archaeological field schools: Constructions of knowledge and experience (pp. 3–8). New York, NY: Springer. Mytum, H. (2012d). Field schools: People, places, and things in the present. In H. Mytum (Ed.), Global perspectives on archaeological field schools: Constructions of knowledge and experience (pp. 243–249). New York, NY: Springer. NHB (National Heritage Board). (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nhb.gov.sg/who-we-are/ media-centre/committee-of-supply-announcements/2019/2018/. Spronken-Smith, R., & Hilton, M. (2009). Recapturing quality field experiences and strengthening teaching-research links. New Zealand Geographer, 65, 139–146. Walker, M., & Saitta, D. J. (2002). Teaching the craft of archaeology: Theory, practice, and the field school. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 6(3), 199–207. Yap, C. T. (1992). Multi-variate analysis of trace elements from XRF studies for classification according to origin. Applied Spectroscopy, 46(5), 843–847. Zachary, Liam. (2015, May). It’s time for universities to rethink what counts as field school. PLoS Blogs: Diverse perspectives on science and medicine. Retrieved from http://blogs.plos.org/thestu dentblog/2015/05/29/its-time-for-universities-to-rethink-what-counts-as-field-school/.

D. K. Latinis currently researches the historical ecology of Southeast Asia—an approach combining ethnographic, historic, environmental and archaeological data. His research also addresses internal and external socio-economic factors and resource exploitation. He oversees projects and training in both Mainland and Island Southeast Asia, having over 25 years of experience. He recently revised and oversaw the NSC Field School from 2015–2018—a position forged from his long-term mentor and supervisor, Prof. John N. Miksic. He earned a PhD at the National University of Singapore (2008) and a PhD in Ecological Anthropology at the University of Hawaii (1999). He has applied his research and fieldwork approaches in academic, educational, government, military, and private sectors. Steeped in field school design, management and troubleshooting throughout the region, he has assisted with capacity building and research capabilities among numerous stakeholders throughout the region.

Chapter 11

A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based Fieldtrips in the Teaching of Ancient Singapore History: Teacher Reflections and Student Learning Lloyd Yeo, Sazryna Lee Samsudin, Cherie Heng, Ezal bin Sani, and Teddy Y. H. Sim Abstract Although there is no large-scale and coherent survey available on teacherguided history fieldtrips in Singapore, recent exploratory case studies have emerged on the use of museums in the teaching of premodern Singapore history. This chapter seeks to locate the efforts of a group of history teachers in the context of collaboration with academic and professional bodies as well as a Networked Learning Community who systematically sought to incorporate museum-based learning and embed such teaching resources in the teaching of ancient Singapore history. Using Activity Theory (AT) as a learning theory to explore these networks of collaboration, the learning networks that were established showed that such approaches could lead to a more effective co-creation of knowledge outcome for practitioner inquiry and have some positive outcomes for student learning. Data was collected from teacher reflections and surveys as a basic unit of analysis and from students to gauge how they benefited from such learning approaches. The analysis of teacher responses showed that there was increased teacher confidence in the teaching of ancient Singapore history, and students derived direct and indirect benefits from a networked system

L. Yeo (B) The Academy of Singapore Teachers, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] S. L. Samsudin Seng Kang Secondary School, Singapore, Singapore C. Heng CHIJ Secondary School, Singapore, Singapore E. Sani Fairfield Methodist School, Singapore, Singapore T. Y. H. Sim National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_11

221

222

L. Yeo et al.

of learning. From the perspective of AT, although the collaborative linkages established between the different institutions (museums, academic institutions, schools, and Ministry of Education) were not bound by any fixed rules, the committed efforts of the Master Teacher and teachers played an important role in setting up norms of collaboration among the different institutions to impact student learning about ancient Singapore.

11.1 Introduction There is an abundance of research in the Western context on the value of conducting fieldtrips to engage learners. However, such research mainly advocates how fieldtrips can be conducted for general pedagogical use, such as their ability to enrich and expand the curriculum or their importance in immersing students in sensory activities (Nabors et al., 2009). In the Singapore context, a comprehensive or uniform survey on the use of fieldtrips in schools is not available for the full range of humanities subjects (Chew, 2008). E. Chew argued that in geography education in Singapore, the intensity level of school fieldtrips varied based on the teacher’s training background and the curriculum’s emphasis on fieldwork. J.D. Stoddard (2018) observed outdoor history education in Singapore carried out by teacher trainees and noted that a fieldtrip through a World War II heritage site (Labrador Park) facilitated a “more balanced perspective of the historical event (of the fall of Singapore).” However, he also questioned the degree to which trainees were able to comprehend the full historical significance of the event just by taking selfies of themselves with statues of the main protagonists (for example, the commander of the Japanese invasion force in Southeast Asia, General Yamashita) and advocated for deeper research in this area (Stoddard, 2018). Since 2010, more studies have emerged on the use of fieldtrips to teach about the ancient period of Singapore using archaeology and sherd resources. Y.J. Oh (2018) developed an archaeological “guide” in consultation with Associate Professor Goh Geok Yian, and he drew upon the drawing and writing skills of the students to demonstrate their understanding and interpretation of the historical material evidence. However, museum-based lessons are disadvantaged by the need for teachers to be able to gather sufficient sample sherd sets for students to work on. The National Museum of Singapore has developed museum education packages such as the “Investigating History: Singapura Before 1819” resource to teach the topic; but while useful, these resources are limited to students working with a limited and artificial set of simulated artifacts. Sim’s chapter advocates for the adoption of a more diverse set of teaching resources for studying the premodern history of Singapore (Sim, 2015). Increasingly, museums are being seen as an important resource for teaching and learning in Singapore schools. As such, it is necessary to further explore how schools and museums can collaborate to extend learning for students and the kind of professional development programs that can be put in place to impact student learning. According to M.F. Chee (2003), such professional development programs can help

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

223

determine the role that teachers play in the museum experience, which shapes the quality of the experience for students. This study seeks to locate the efforts of a group of history teachers in the context of collaboration with academic and professional bodies as well as a Networked Learning Community (NLC) who systematically sought to incorporate museum-based learning and embed such teaching resources in the teaching of ancient Singapore history. Analysis of the museum-based lessons was performed through the paradigm of Activity Theory (AT), looking at students’ performance as an indicator of the effectiveness of the program and collaboration. Using AT as a learning theory to explore these networks of collaboration, this case study uses AT terms to focus on teachers and students as “subjects” within the main activity of teaching about ancient Singapore (AT is discussed further in the “Methodology” section). It briefly explains the linkages between schools, academic institutions, and museums and discusses the effect (or “outcome” in AT) on teachers and students through an analysis of teacher reflections, in situ museum-based lesson observations, and analyses of student worksheet-based answers and surveys. Data was collected to explore four questions: A. How can museum education be incorporated into a larger inquiry-based pedagogical approach to design learning experiences for the teaching of ancient Singapore history? B. What problems do teachers face in teaching about ancient Singapore, and what role can museum-based professional development play in teaching this topic? C. What have students learned from their museum experience? D. What implications can be drawn from this case study for incorporating museumbased fieldtrips in teaching about ancient Singapore? This essay is divided into four parts: A. The use of AT to describe the development of museum-based lessons and teachers’ professional development training in the context of an NLC; B. What teachers have learned from their fieldtrips; C. Student learning about ancient Singapore; D. Implications of incorporating museum fieldtrips and applying the AT paradigm in the teaching of ancient Singapore history.

11.2 Application of Methodology and AT: From Master Class to NLC on Museum-Based Inquiry Lessons Collaborations across institutions are complex and require time to develop, and as such, they are difficult to investigate. However, theories of contextual development in situated practice, particularly AT, can be deployed to study this phenomenon (Engestrom, 1987; 2001; Vygotsky, 1987; Engestrom et al., 2003). AT originated from the works of Russian psychologists such as L. Vygotsky, A. Leont’ev, and S. Rubinstein,

224

L. Yeo et al.

who pioneered their approaches by relating them to cultural-historical psychology developed between the 1930s and 1950s. However, by the 1980s a separate strand of AT had developed that was more concerned with neuropsychology. This evolved into the western Scandinavian approach, which has become closely associated with Y. Engestrom; he went on to refine and systematize the works of the earlier Russian theorists. AT of the 1980s sought to “understand human activities from the point of view of systemic studies and studies of social phenomena and go beyond the paradigm of classical conditioning and behaviourism” (Engestrom et al., 1999). AT is “more of a descriptive meta- rather than predictive theory.” One of its strengths is that it “bridges the gap between the individual subject(s) and the social ecosystem examining the mediating activities.” In Fig. 11.1, the unit of analysis in AT depicts the “concept of object-oriented, collective and culturally-mediated human activity or ‘activity system’” (Engestrom, 1999). This system includes “the object (or objective), subject, mediating artifacts (signs and tools), rules, community and division of labour” (Engestrom, 2001). Since

Fig. 11.1 Activity Theory for museum-based learning for teachers and students (*indicates shared common boundary between MTT, researcher, teachers in NLC, curators, and academic as research area). J. Park, A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Social Systems surrounding Korean National Museums in the Digital Age. In Museums and the Web Asia 2014, N. Proctor & R. Cherry (Eds.). Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web. Published September 29, 2014. Consulted May 22, 2020. https://mwa2014.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/a-conceptual-framework-for-ana lysing-social-systems-surrounding-korean-national-museums-in-the-digital-age/

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

225

AT is not solely focused on the individual unit, the key element in its application lies in exploring how the mediated linkages can be harnessed (synergistically) or the challenges ameliorated to enhance the performance of the individual units (in this case, teachers), leading eventually to a more effective learning outcome for the subjects (students) (Bertelsen and Bødker, 2003). In this project, three secondary school history educators—Chris, Sally, and Eddie (for their profiles, refer to Table 11.2)—worked with a Master Teacher (MT) from the Academy of Singapore Teachers to develop an NLC to work together with museum staff as well as academics and researchers from the National University of Singapore and National Institute of Education (NIE). The NLC sought to investigate how archaeology could be embedded in museum-based experiences to engage students in learning about the ancient history of Singapore as an inquiry-based approach between 2017 and 2018. Professional development activities involving collaboration and a networked community carried out in the NLC provided background on how teachers enhanced their abilities and confidence in conducting museum-based learning. To this end, the museum-based inquiry lessons were developed across four different professional development phases of the NLC to impact student learning, shown in Fig. 11.2 below. During phase 1, a two-day master class was conducted for teachers (n=24) with Professor John Miksic and Dr. Michael Flecker providing new information, artifact analysis, hands-on experience with sherds, and discussions on new historical inquiry

Fig. 11.2 Professional development for teacher participants from 2016 to 2019

226

L. Yeo et al.

questions on Singapore’s ancient history. The main purpose of the master class was to provide teachers with a deeper understanding of how academics use different data sets (primary sources, archaeology, accounts, cultural studies, and scientific analysis) to develop new historical interpretations of ancient Singapore. In phases 2 and 3, an NLC was formed between August 2017 and October 2018 to use the new knowledge acquired from the master class to design museum-based inquiry lessons for Secondary 1 students. In the NLC, teachers worked and learned collaboratively to examine and reflect on their practices (Jackson and Temperley, 2007; MOE, 2017). In this context, the NLC was an important professional development platform that allowed the Master Teacher, teachers, museum staff, academics, and researchers to come together to develop resources that teachers could adapt and use in the history classroom. The activities from phases 2 and 3 included the following: • Discussion and development of a common purpose for shared student activities; • Use of academic and pedagogical literature in designing museum-based inquiry lessons; • Visits to the NUS Museum by teachers to develop a coherent narrative experience and design museum-based inquiry activities (refer to Table 11.3 as well as Lesson Sheets); • Modification of museum-based learning to meet school-based history curriculum needs and cater to different student profiles; • Observation of other teachers’ fieldtrips for cycles of improvement and adaptation. By the start of 2018, the NLC had developed three museum-based learning experiences for students with clear lesson objectives and concepts that were interrelated and linked to each other in a coherent manner. Later the same year, NLC participants took their students to the museum and conducted museum-based lessons. Teacher learning experiences were discussed through cycles of discussion and reflection at NLC meetings to improve lesson designs and meet local school needs. (A summary of the museum-based learning and activities involving collaboration within and outside the NLC is provided in Table 11.1 to illustrate the variety of inputs that came from various quarters to make the lesson successful.) In phase 4, after reflecting on their museum-based inquiry lessons, members of the NLC decided to use their learning experiences and resources to conduct their own workshop for other history educators (n= 22) at the NUS Museum. Their goal was to work with other teachers who sought to embed museum-based lessons into their own historical inquiry classroom projects (see Table 11.3 on museum-based learning and activities designed by the NLC in the appendices). During phases 2 and 3, data collection took the form of semi-structured interviews conducted with teachers and an analysis of teacher-written reflections as a primary data source. Purposeful criterion sampling was used to identify teacher participants for the research study. First, participants had to have had three or more years of teaching so that a relatively rich teaching experience could be tapped into for discussions on teaching the topic. Second, they had to be part of an NLC in order for

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

227

Table 11.1 “Units of analysis,” linkages and their input into objective and activity system Units of analysis / subject(s) 1A. Academy of Singapore Teachers

How students benefited

Challenges in collaborative efforts

Other than coordinative aspects, MT also provided resource and lesson design support which facilitated students’ learning in a direct way. Students benefited from expanded and deepened knowledge of teachers in subject matter

Since MT acted as a key coordinative point for all collaborative parties, autobiographical evidence and reflection (on challenges) is collected from this perspective on this round. Demonstrate to the teachers the advantages of joining the project: i) a comprehensive, innovative and pragmatic curricular lesson package involving session at the museum was available for teachers to subscribe to; ii) the NLC was a user-friendly as well as valuable network that could assist teachers in sharing and updating content and experiences amongst themselves.

Offered use of sherds (key learning resource) to be used as sample material evidence for students’ training.

Other than providing the use of sherds, museum officer also provided tips and guidance during lesson in the sherds handling sessions.

Museum collaborators were able to facilitate the approval for use of sherd samples in students’ learning. Relatively smooth process not to be taken for granted.

Offered specialized training on artifacts and aspects of archaeology to teachers.

Expanded and deepened information on artifacts and aspects of archaeology presented in a digestible way for teachers (in turn facilitated transfer to students).

Consulted in aspects of collection of data for documentation of program process leading up to writing of academic education paper (for analysis of outcome of students’ learning). Academic paper could be fed back into the ‘system loop (or control)’ along on-going NLC discussions to refine, standardize and expand the program.

MT, mutual-teacher and NIE researcher’s observations of lessons assisted with in-process adjustment of teachers’ teaching approaches on NLC platform.

i) ‘Master class’ on early modern Singapore, archaeology and sherd handling facilitated smoothly at NUS because of the rapport built (Professor from Dept of SEA studies and researcher from ISEAS). ii) Advice to assist in accurate assembly of photo evidence and sherd samples. Mutual understanding and discussion had to take place as there could be different focus in the presentation of findings.

How teachers benefited Direct transference of benefit to students Academy formed to facilitate professional development of teachers. Master Teacher (MT) from here initiated and coordinated with various parties.

Master Teacher

1D. NLC network (MOE) Schools

1B. Teachers

Attended training on artifacts and archaeology by (3A) and sharing on NLC platform.

1C. Students 2. Museum collaborators (officer, curator)

Academics

3A. NUS and ISEAS archaeology and content

1D. NLC network (possible access and link of external bodies to this)

3B. NIE education research

Table 11.2 Description of participants Participant

Age

Gender

Education experience in teaching ancient Singapore

No. of years in teaching

Sally

XX

female

Eg. XX years teaching Lower Sec history. Lower Sec Coordinator.

20 years

Chris

XX

female

Eg. XX years teaching Lower Sec History. LJ Coordinator

10 years

Eddie

XX

male

Eg. XX years teaching Lower Sec History.

4 years

228

L. Yeo et al.

Table 11.3 Museum-based learning and activities designed by NLC Museum Activity

Objective

1

Gallery tour of ceramics collection of the Lee Kong Chian collection

Understand why people collect Material Culture material artifacts like in history Understand how material, design, and technology has changed across time

Topic of study

2

Gallery tour of Archaeology Library

Observe the kinds of Archaeology—place and archaeological artifacts patterns collected from different parts of Singapore Understand the significance of three objects found at the museum Porcelain pillow Chinese porcelain compass Glass beads and globules

3

Map Activity

Seed and attempt to answer historical inquiry questions about who lived in different parts of Temasek in the fourteenth century and the kinds of activity they engaged in.

Map activity—historical evidence and interpretation

4

Sherd handling experience

Experience one aspect of the archaeological process—sorting and classification

Archaeology—classification

interviews, discussions, and museum-based lesson observations to be carried out. Third, access to student worksheets for analysis was an important source of information on student learning. Three field observations were also carried out as a secondary approach to triangulate data yielded from teacher interviews and reflections. In the area of student learning, 116 student surveys and post-fieldtrip work (see Lesson Sheets 1 and 2 in the appendices) were collected and analyzed to ascertain students’ learning in terms of their prior knowledge on the topic and what they had learned on their museum trip. As part of the survey, after the museum experience students were also required to fill out a worksheet designed to test their knowledge of sherds from the fourteenth century. Finally, reflections from the MT were also used as a form of reflective data collection to analyze how the various institutions in the activity system were linked up for collaborative work and how the challenges to collaboration had been overcome. These reflections were then discussed with an education consultant researcher from NIE to provide a glimpse of how the different institutions in the AT came together to support museum-based lessons in schools. Cross-referencing Table 11.1 (appendices), this will be elaborated and discussed under the subsection “Collaboration Among Institutions” in the next section on “Teacher Learning.”

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

229

11.3 Discussion 11.3.1 Teacher Learning The teacher community represented the unit of analysis that was closest to the object (student learning) of the activity system and played an important role in understanding how archaeological knowledge and museum experience were put together to enhance effective learning outcomes for students in a museum-based learning experience. Hence, teachers’ motivation, their confidence, and actualization of their teaching experiences in the museum had a direct consequence on learning as well as their interaction with students. During interviews, teachers shared their perspectives on teaching ancient Singapore history; they viewed the content as “generally boring,” “dry,” “antiquated,” and as such difficult to teach. Some of them expressed their lack of in-depth knowledge about the history of the period and contextual knowledge of artifacts, accounts, and other resources as impediments to effectively teaching the topic. In the surveys, some teachers shared that they also lacked awareness of how material science, artifact analysis, narrative structures, and geographical mapping of artifacts could be used to engage students in meaningful historical inquiry. There was also a concern that the topic of ancient Singapore history lacked age-appropriate resources for 13-year-olds to explore as a historical inquiry project. In order to change perceptions, the Academy of Singapore Teachers held a master class and sessions conducted by NUS academics and NUS Museum staff in addition to setting up an NLC to help teachers uncover both the substantive content and syntactic structures for the topic. This enabled teachers to design meaningful historical inquiry projects for their students at the museum, as will be discussed below. Teacher Motivation, Museum Experience, and School-Based Needs. From teacher interviews and reflections, it was evident that teachers in the NLC developed a strong motivation and interest in incorporating museum-based education in the teaching of ancient Singapore history through the professional development program. However, sessions by NUS academics and museum staff need to be incorporated in local schools in order to be viewed as practical for teacher use. In her reflections, Chris was keen on using the museum experience to complement existing school experiences. Her students had simulated archaeological digs as part of their history lessons, and she sought to promote archaeological evidence as a way to tell the story of ancient Singapore “through a process of logical inquiry and argumentation.” Like Chris, Sally wanted her students to better understand the discipline of archaeology and sought to embed museum experiences within her school’s history curriculum, which brought students to the Asian Civilisations Museum. She was keen to use the NUS Museum fieldtrip to enrich her students’ learning by giving them hands-on experience handling artifacts, as well as utilizing evidence from material

230

L. Yeo et al.

culture as a way to engage learners to “support their construction of knowledge about Singapore’s early past.” Eddie wanted to use “a different lens” to tell the story of ancient Singapore beyond the use of textbook resources as an enrichment activity. He was interested in providing students with “sufficient and balanced” information in order for them to develop their own historical interpretation of ancient Singapore. The motivations of the teachers in the NLC may be summarized as follows: • A strong desire to embed museum-based experiences to complement the schoolbased history curriculum, • A belief that “experiential learning beyond the classroom” can be meaningful if it incorporates hands-on, tactile experiences at museums to engage learners, and • Developing a common vision to conduct museum-based learning as a systematic, well-designed “regular” experience for all students, with the aim of engaged learning. In sum, teachers’ beliefs on how they valued the importance of museum-based lesson designs as a way to deeply engage students on the topic of ancient Singapore formed the common purpose for designing NLC museum-based lesson experiences. Connected to the AT paradigm, it is worth noting that while external parties might not have the same priorities in lesson design as teachers, there were a variety of reasons to bring all the different parties together as units of analysis for collaboration. These reasons included the following: • A desire to promote among students a wider awareness of ancient Singapore as shared by Miksic; • A desire to promote collaboration with schools and use of museum resources through museum-based outreach sessions by the NUS Museum; • A desire for the NIE consultant to probe into the dynamics of how students learned about ancient Singapore. Learning through Master Classes and NLCs: Teacher Confidence. Teacher interviews and reflections revealed that new learning through the master class and NLC provided rich and sustained professional experience for teachers. For example, Chris and Eddie reported that they were able to pick up “specialist and interesting information about archaeology and artifacts” from the sessions, which led them to seek further knowledge on the topic by “reading up and developing their content knowledge” before carrying out museum-based fieldtrips and other history lessons. Eddie noted that the NLC helped him develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between technology and the different types of pottery sherds found in the fourteenth century, which in turn fostered a deeper appreciation for “the role that spatial distribution of artifacts played in understanding the nature of Temasek society.” Sally did not attend the master class but felt that the NLC-based discussions provided rich opportunities for her own learning, which convinced her that there was “value in planning and conducting experiential learning journeys at museums” to engage students in historical inquiry.

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

231

During field observations of the teachers conducting museum-based lessons, the teachers were observed to be well acquainted with detailed information on various artifacts and displays featured at the NUS Museum. They skillfully incorporated this information into museum-based lessons as part of a coherent historical inquiry experience. Sally, Chris, and Eddie presented students with a chronological narrative of human civilizations by describing the functional and aesthetic aspects of pottery across time in a detailed and convincing manner. Their increased levels of historical understanding and confidence were evident also when they conducted their own workshop in 2019, which received positive reviews from other history teachers attending the session. Teacher Challenges in Museum-Based Learning. The NLC teachers faced both logistical and local-based issues that were often beyond their control. One challenge involved space constraints within the museum, which limited teachers to bringing just one class at a time for the field-based museum experience. Time constraints and Internet connectivity issues were among the other challenges. Sally’s and Chris’s classes were able to spend only about two hours at the museum instead of the longer duration laid out in their lesson plans. Chris noted that attempts to use ICT-based (information and communications technology) lessons to conduct the map activity were hampered by poor Internet connectivity. Sally shared that at her school, common tests and other school activities prevented her from designing consolidative lessons that would have enabled her students to discuss, share, and present their rich learning with students who had not had the museum-based experience. Another field observation was variance in teacher preparedness and ability to conduct museum-based learning, particularly in situations where students were split into two groups (roughly 12 to 15 in each group) led by different teachers. In one observation, while one teacher was able to confidently take students through the activities and artifact explanations in the museum, another less experienced teacher demonstrated lower confidence in dealing with students’ questions on various artifacts from ancient Singapore. Collaboration among Institutions. From the perspective of AT, weaving collaboration among the different schools in the NLC and among different institutions to create a complex web of learning was an important aspect of facilitating direct and indirect transference of learning experiences from academics to teachers and students. This was evident in the MT reflection, when the Master Teacher shared that within the NLC he and the teachers had to work hard together to (i) promote the NLC as a platform to encourage teacher innovation in the classroom; (ii) demonstrate how museum-based learning lesson packages could be customized to meet teacher needs in developing a comprehensive, innovative, and pragmatic approach to teach ancient Singapore history; and (iii) develop the NLC as a professional and valuable network for sharing content and pedagogical knowledge in designing museum-based inquiry learning experiences for students. The MT shared that he had to work closely with other institutions to assemble the learning materials for teacher use in the NLC and to consciously document the

232

L. Yeo et al.

implementation of museum-based lessons. For example, during phases 2 and 3 of the NLC, back-end work between the MT and Miksic played a critical role in providing accurate photograph evidence of artifacts for classroom use. In assembling the sample of sherds for student use, museum staff, with Miksic’s advice, also worked closely with the MT to conceptualize how the sherd handling experience could proceed. This close collaboration and support revealed how mutual understanding, professional trust, and clarity on how resources could be used were critical in designing museumbased learning experiences for NLCs. As part of the NLC, the process of researching the pedagogical approaches used in designing museum-based learning experiences was equally important. The education researcher from NIE had to work collaboratively with the MT and teachers to develop mutual understanding, approaches, and discussions on how to scope, analyze, and review the ways in which research could be conducted and presented.

11.4 Student Learning The previous section examined the museum experience and learning of teachers, as well as the benefits of collaboration with different stakeholders in the context of an NLC. From the perspective of AT and referring to Table 11.1, the biggest beneficiaries of the collaboration among stakeholders were the students. This will be analyzed in terms of what students learned from the museum-based lessons vis-à-vis how much they knew about ancient Singapore before the lessons. Prior Knowledge on Ancient History of Singapore. Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works, and an important learning science principle is to design a learning environment that builds on their existing knowledge. K. Sawyer (2014) has argued that if teaching fails to engage students’ prior knowledge, then the students learn just well enough to pass tests and that they revert to their misconceptions outside the classroom. Because of the central importance of prior knowledge, a survey of students (n=116) was carried out to investigate their prior knowledge. The survey revealed that 73 percent of students had prior knowledge of ancient history that was largely limited to content knowledge, ranging from stories of Temasek (stories of Sang Nila Utama and the founding of Singapore) to the British founding of Singapore in 1819 and the latter’s subsequent development as a major port in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Their sources of knowledge were the primary school social studies curriculum as well as informal sources of learning such as museum visits, stories told by parents and grandparents, and watching performances at the National Day parades. It is noteworthy that students’ preconceptions about ancient Singapore were based mostly on historical content (first-order concepts) rather than the analytical concepts (second-order concepts) that are critical for historical inquiry. Such secondorder concepts are related to historical agency, causation, chronology, historical empathy, evidence, perspective, and significance (von Heyking, 2004; Seixas and Moreton, 2012). Several students also adopted schematic but anachronistic ways of

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

233

understanding ancient Singapore history by using political, economic, and cultural paradigms as fixed approaches. What Students Learned. In the post-museum “test” (see the Survey Form in the appendices), which examined students’ understanding of their sherd handling experience, students were able to make a more subtle distinction among the different types of artifacts compared to their prior knowledge on ceramics presented through textbook photographs, perhaps because of their sherd handling experience. They were able to distinguish between blue-and-white sherds and, to some degree, earthenware and celadon with relatively accurate levels of differentiation. With reference to Tables 11.4 and 11.5, even though 94 percent of students were able to clearly identify blue-and-white ceramics, they had less success in identifying green celadon wares and earthenware. One interesting finding worth deeper investigation is that in school B, 66.7 percent (n=16/24) of students were able to accurately identify celadon but were unable to identify glazing as an important characteristic of celadon (n=16/24), which could perhaps relate to the resource table that students used for their categorization task. Table 11.4 Students’ recognition of ceramics School A (n=22)

School B (n = 24)

School C (n=70)

%

Glazed/unglazed

20

24

66

94.8%

Typology

21

24

69

98.3%

Use

21

24

69

93.3%

Blue-and-White sherd

97.1%

Table 11.5 Students’ recognition of ceramics II School A (n=22)

School B (n = 24)

School C (n=70)

%

Glazed/unglazed

18

24

62

89.7%

Typology

22

24

60

91.4%

Use

20

22

64

91.4%

Glazed/unglazed

20

16

41

66.4%

Typology

15

16

4

63.8%

Use

15

15

42

62.1%

Blue-and-white jar

90.8%

Celadon

64.1%

Earthenware

81%

Glazed/unglazed

17

22

63

88%

Typology

17

21

62

86.2%

Use

17

17

46

69%

234

L. Yeo et al.

Across the schools, students also had some difficulty differentiating between stoneware and porcelain, as evidenced from field observations and students’ answers in the post-test. They also had difficulty determining the functional categorization of the different wares (i.e., whether something was a pot or a jar), with only 65.6 percent able to do so. However, with regard to students’ inability to distinguish between jars and pots, the issue did not appear to affect the broad and specific understandings the students need to acquire about the society and strata of the Temasek settlement. Survey findings showed that in the area of conceptual understanding, students were generally able to establish connections between how trade, lifestyle, culture, and societal structures on the one hand and artifacts displayed in the museum were interrelated as abstract-concrete approaches to understanding the period. At the anecdotal level, one student shared, “Observing the artifacts gave me insights on early Singapore. The designs showed the culture and taste of what people in the past had and what they were like.” Another student felt that her visit to the NUS Museum helped her “understand why artifacts are made for people in the past” and “understand Temasek better through their cultures.” Some students were able to make specific inferences about the societal structure of ancient Singapore from the map work activity by viewing high-grade ceramics as being linked to the high social status of people (e.g., royalty) living on the hill (Fort Canning). Others were able to link the slag and glass blobs found on Fort Canning to the possible handicraft trades, such as glassmaking, that existed on the hill. Some of the students were able to use the fishing hooks, slag, and other ceramics found near Singapore River as evidence of the past to infer that fishing activities, trade, and blacksmithing were conducted near the Singapore River area. In terms of the syntactic nature of understanding ancient Singapore as a topic, some students demonstrated a deeper appreciation for the work that archaeologists do in uncovering evidence for the historical interpretation of this period of Singapore’s history. One student shared, “The artifacts are very important, and archaeologists spend a lot of time examining artifacts.” Another felt that she had “learned to differentiate the materials and texture of the sherds from a different time/century … and how to tell what type of material was used during the early centuries.” Some students who may have been overwhelmed by the information shared on ceramics were also beginning to see Singapore’s history as intertwined with larger regional trade links. One such student shared candidly, “I still do not really understand Temasek better, but I now understand China’s development better in terms of its pottery culture and the connections between Temasek and other countries.” Yet other students, notably from School B, sought to connect the artifacts of the Belitung shipwreck, which they had seen at the Asian Civilisations Museum, with items displayed at the NUS Museum. They raised interesting questions for further discussion, such as why Singapore traded mostly with China and what trade processes were like in the Temasek period. From the experiential angle, all students in the study relished the multisensory experience of observing, touching, feeling, and even smelling sherds as a means of

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

235

understanding historical artifacts and their link to ancient Singapore. Such objectbased approaches have been shown to increase empathy, interest, and engagement among students in relation to classroom topics studied in different subjects (Smith, 2007). In retrospect, the archaeological and hands-on experiences embedded in museum-based inquiry lessons enlivened and helped create a vivid and memorable experience for students. The experience focused on the use of historical evidence and interpretation, material culture, and archaeology serving as foundational concepts to teach ancient Singapore history. The museum-based activities came together to inform students on the culture, consumption habits, and societal makeup of ancient Singapore. Beyond the scope of this article, teachers also likely followed up on the museum learning with some form of discursive or consolidative activity in a direct (face-to-face) classroom activity or indirect online discussion to consolidate the museum-based learning experience. This shows that the apprehensions, barriers, and obstacles to conducting museum lessons in schools were—to some degree— overcome through the collaborative approaches among the different institutions via the master class and NLC-based activities designed for teacher learning.

11.5 Implications for Teaching and Learning There is a rich body of research on museum-based learning, and it is difficult to adopt any one single framework to discuss its implications on teaching and learning, because museum sites and approaches used to engage students are highly contextual and varied. Nonetheless, general guideposts may be formed on how the specific topic of ancient Singapore can be taught to engage students in a museum-based learning experience. First, this exploratory case study highlights the importance of teacher motivation and interest in designing interesting learning experiences for museum-based learning. This case study demonstrates that there are enthusiastic teachers who are interested in teaching ancient Singapore history in an experiential and engaging manner by incorporating diverse sets of historical evidence for student engagement. Master classes, sessions conducted by university academics and museums, NLCs, and teacher-designed experiences need to be intertwined as an ecosystem to design meaningful experiences for students. These experiences may be modified over recursive cycles of teacher learning to provide authentic and meaningful ways for teachers to collaborate with academics, researchers, curators, and other teachers for engaged student learning. One approach is to encourage such forms of learning among lower secondary history educators in order to help them design classroom lessons. Such lessons, based on specialized knowledge about museum-based learning, could be part of the embedded NLC-based professional development setup. Second, when it comes to designing such experiences, museum-based learning needs to be based on the design construct of situated learning, so that learning experiences at museums can be “naturally tied to authentic activity, context and culture” (Brown et al., 1989). The unique museum-based learning experiences in this case

236

L. Yeo et al.

study were not limited to students interacting with objects but were shaped through constructivist approaches of students interacting with historical materials. This process engaged students through multidisciplinary learning experiences. Equally important in the design of such experiences is the role of the school-based curriculum in supplementing, complementing, and augmenting school-based experiences with museum-based learning. This could involve teachers planning and implementing other museum visits, explicit classroom instruction and videos, and tapping into students’ prior knowledge and experiences as myriad ways to engage students in pre-museum activities. Third, in the area of professional development in teaching ancient Singapore history, learning experiences in the museum could involve replicating the “authentic” work that historians and archaeologists engage in—namely, sherd handling as an authentic laboratory archaeological experience and map activity that replicates the kind of historical inquiry questions, evidence, and interpretation that historians engage in. Such sessions could involve artifact and archaeology training sessions by academics such as Miksic, which were conducted as part of the master class and aimed at deepening subject matter knowledge for teachers, yet were presented in a coherent and useful way for teachers to design classroom experiences. The pre- and post-master class readings and discussions at the NLC allowed teachers to follow up on their learning in a concrete manner focused on designing lessons for students in the museum. The expanded and deep knowledge that teachers acquired from such a master class allowed teachers to skillfully link and extend the school history curriculum at the Secondary 1 level to specialized content knowledge linked with the works of historians and curated museum collections. Fourth, at the research level, more work needs to be done on teachers’ and students’ understanding of specific topics such as ancient Singapore, pedagogical approaches on museum-based learning, and the design and effectiveness of professional development as an ecosystem for designing museum-based historical inquiry for students. The application of AT in this chapter sought to locate the efforts of a group of school teachers in an NLC to systematically incorporate and embed artifact resources in teaching about the ancient period of Singapore’s history, supported by academic and museum institutions. The linkages between stakeholders and within the teaching community (via NLC) led to enhanced teacher competencies and confidence in designing positive learning experiences on the lesson topic, leading to favorable student outcomes discussed so far. Rather than classroom teaching, museum-based learning, and academic research by historians being treated as distinct activity systems, closer levels of collaboration need to be developed to impact museum-based and classroom-based learning experiences for history students. Depending on the institutions involved, exploration can also be carried out to develop age-appropriate resources for students through such online tools as the National Heritage Board’s resources at roots.sg or NUS Press’s Southeast Asian Archaeological Site Reports collections, which feature photographs of other archaeological artifacts. Given the positive response and outcomes among students, this case study demonstrates that students’ learning about ancient Singapore or any other topic

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

237

in Singapore’s history can be collected, analyzed, discussed, and shared purposefully at NLC meetings, workshops, and symposiums and as research write-ups for museum-based learning and classroom design. Lastly, with regard to the minutiae of teaching students the sherd-differentiating process, the surveys reveal that even though students may find it challenging to distinguish between dull-colored sherds/wares (i.e., celadon versus earthenware) or glossy sherds/wares (earthenware versus stoneware), hands-on experience provides a tactile, interactive, and engaging means of “doing history” on the topic of ancient Singapore. To this end, if the NLC initiative, in particular the collaboration with the museum to use the sherds, could be deployed with a clearer flowchart of criteria in identifying sherds, existing and/or to be developed, the learning outcome would be an even more authentic and satisfying one for the students.

Appendices Inquiry and Guiding Questions, Museum Learning Program, Learning Intentions, Activities and Sample Survey.

Inquiry Question 1. What can archaeological evidence tell us about the people living in Temasek and the kind of activities they were engaged in, in the 14th century?

Guiding Questions 1. 2. 3. 4.

How does archaeology work? What is the archaeological process like? How has human material culture developed over time? What were the kinds of artifacts discovered in Singapore? What do these artifacts tell you about the people living in Temasek in the 14th century? 5. What can you infer about the kind of activities that the people in Temasek were doing in the 14th century?

Museum Learning Program 1. To enable students to have a better understanding of the archaeological process and the work of archaeologists in supporting historians to construct knowledge about Singapore’s early past.

238

L. Yeo et al.

2. To provide students with a broad understanding of the development of human material culture. 3. To provide students with an opportunity for a hands-on experience in handling and studying artifacts.

Learning Intentions Students will be able to: 1. Classify and sort the sherds/ceramics according to their different types, 2. Identify on the Singapore map where selected artifacts were discovered, and 3. Make inferences about the people living in Singapore and the kind of activities that took place in Singapore in the 14th century, based on the artifacts discovered and the additional contextual information provided. Activity 1: The Lost Bag of Sherds! Sort the Sherds! Archaeology involves more than just excavation of sites to search for artifacts. It also involves laboratory work to clean, catalogue, and analyze artifacts. 1. Study the bag of sherds on the table. 2. Sort the sherds into different categories. 3. Use the table that describes the characteristics of the different types of pottery to guide you. 4. Examine the following before sorting them according to the: • Texture • Color • Design 5. Explain why you categorize the sherds in those ways. Activity 2: Plot It on a Map 1. The map shows you three major excavations sites in Singapore: • Fort Canning Hill • St Andrews’ Cathedral • River Area: Empress Place / Parliament House Complex / Old Parliament House / Padang 2. Archaeologists discovered various artifacts in these three areas and more is written about them in the cards. 3. Study the pictures of artifacts and the additional information given to you. 4. Sort the artifacts according to where they were discovered in Singapore. 5. Plot these artifacts on the map.

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

239

Courtesy of J. Miksic and the National Museum of Singapore, National Heritage Board.

Courtesy of Singapore Land Authority (SLA) (One Map). 6. Look for two or three other artifacts that were discovered in Singapore from the Archaeology Library (not mentioned in the pictures) and then plot them on the map. 7. Map your activity and then answer the following questions: • What was life like for people who lived in the different areas in Ancient Singapore? • What evidence supports your argument?

240

L. Yeo et al.

Sample Survey: Survey on the learning of Ancient Singapore and sherd handling 1. Write down five key words about what you learned in chapters 1 and 2 on Temasek Singapore.

2. Did you know about Temasek Singapore (Temasek) before you study it in school? Yes/No

3. What did you know about Temasek Singapore?

4. How did you know about Temasek Singapore then?

5. What did you like about the trips to the museums?

6. Write down three to five key words about what you have learned at the Asian Civilisations Museum (ACM)?

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

241

7. How did going to the NUS Museum help you better understand Temasek Singapore?

8. Can you make a suggestion to improve learning at the museums?

References Bertelsen, O. W., & Bødker, S. (2003). Activity theory. In J. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories, and framewors: Toward an interdisciplinary science. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Chew, E. (2008). Views, values and perceptions in geographical fieldwork in Singapore schools. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 17(4), 307–329. Chee, M. F. (2006). Training teachers for the Effective Use of Museum. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 6(1), 10–16. Crowley, K., Pierroux, P., & Knutson, K. (2014). Informal Learning in Museums. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 461–478). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156. Engestrom, Y., Puonti, A., & Seppanen, L. (2003). Spatial and temporal expansion of the object as a challenge for reorganizing work In D. Nicolini, S. Gherardi & D. Yanow (Eds.), Knowing in organizations: A practice-based approach (pp. 151-186). New York: Routledge. MOE (2017). Guide to Effective Professional Development, Volume 3: Networked Learning Community. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/Effective-PD-NLC. Hollen, D., & Throop, J. (2008). Whatever happened to empathy? Ethos, 36(4), 385–401. J. Park. (2014). A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Social Systems surrounding Korean National Museums in the Digital Age. In Museums and the Web Asia 2014, N. Proctor & R. Cherry (Eds.), Silver Spring, MD: Museums and the Web. Published September 29, 2014. Consulted May 22, 2020. https://mwa2014.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/a-conceptual-framew ork-for-analysing-social-systems-surrounding-korean-national-museums-in-the-digital-age/. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 45–62). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

242

L. Yeo et al.

Oh, Y. J. (2018). Historical Evidence: Archaeological Practice as a Pedagogical Tool for Historical Education in Singapore. HSSE Online, 6(2). Retrieved from https://www.hsseonline.edu.sg/jou rnal/volume-7-issue-2-2018/historical-evidence-archaeological-practice-pedagogical-tool on 11 June 2019. Seixas, D. P., & Morton, T. (2013). The Big Six Historical Thinking Concepts. Toronto: Nelson Education. Sim, Teddy. (2015). Exploring sources on pre-modern history of Singapore: Review essay of “Jacques de Coutre’s and Mantelieff’s Singapore and Johor”. HSSE Online, 4(2), 17–35. Stoddard, J. D. (2018). Learning history beyond school. In S. Metzger & L. Harris (Eds.), The Wiley International Handbook of History Teaching and Learning (pp. 631–51). Hoboken: Wiley. Nabors, M. L., Edwards, L. C., & Murray, R. K. (2009). Making the case for field trips: what research tells us and what site coordinators have to say. Education, 129(4), 661–667. National Museum (2017). National Museum resources, Retrieved from https://www.nationalm useum.sg/-/media/nms2017/documents/school-programmes/teachers-hi-resource-unit-1-precol onial.pdf Seixas, P., & Moreton, T. (2012). The Big Six: Historical thinking concepts. Toronto: Nelson College. Smith, M. M. (200). Sensing the Past: Seeing, Hearing, Smell, Tasting and Touching in History. California: University of California Press. Heyking, A. V. (2004). Historical Thinking in the Elementary Years: A Review of Current Research. Canadian Social Studies, 39(1). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1073974.pdf. Rieber, R. W., & Carton, A. S. (Eds). (1987). The collected works of L.S.Vygotsky, Vol 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum.

Lloyd Yeo is a Master Teacher at the Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST) in History. He graduated from the National University of Singapore (BA Hons) specializing in the American Civil War in 1996 and obtained his Master of Education: Curriculum and Teaching in 2013. He has taught in Singapore’s Gabrielite Schools for almost 20 years has authored and co-authored more than 12 publications and articles. His research interests include history education, pedagogy, literacies and curriculum design, teacher identity and narrative inquiry. Sazryna Lee Samsudin is a Senior Teacher (History) based in Singapore, teaching both History and Social Studies at Seng Kang Secondary School. She graduated from the National University of Singapore with a BA in History and Sociology, and had also attained a Post-Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) at the National Institute of Education, Singapore. She has taught secondary school students for about 20 years and is always looking for ways to better engage the students in the learning of History, such as through Inquiry-based Learning, Experiential Learning and Differentiated Instruction. This has led her to collaborate with other like-minded Senior and Lead Teachers from other schools to form Networked Learning Communities (NLC), led by the Master Teachers from the AST, to design learning experiences and activities in these areas so as to develop students’ interest in and deepen their understanding of History. In 2017, she had copresented with her NLC team on ‘Differentiated Instruction in the Humanities Classroom’ at the MOE Excelfest, while in 2019, she had co-conducted a Teacher-led Workshop with her NLC team on ‘Using Historical Evidence in Teaching Pre-Modern Singapore.’ Cherie Heng is an educator who teaches History and Social Studies at Secondary level. She graduated from the National University of Singapore (BA Hons) specializing in Southeast Asian Studies and obtained her Master of Education (Education Psychology) from NIE/NTU. Her research interests include History pedagogy and curriculum design, Concept-based Learning as well as Educational Psychology. She is currently Senior Teacher at CHIJ Secondary School.

11 A Case Study on the Incorporation of Museum and Artifact-Based …

243

Ezal bin Sani is a Lead Teacher (History) based in Singapore, who teaches both History and Social studies at Fairfield Methodist School (Secondary). He is passionate about promoting active learners in the History classroom and is also a strong advocate of maximising ICT affordances in and out of the classroom. An MOE Teaching award recipient, he attained a BA in History and English Language at the National University of Singapore in and a Post Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) in Education at the National Institute of Education. Teddy Y. H. Sim (FRHistS) is currently lecturing at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He has published on specific involvements of the Portuguese in the East. He is the author of Portuguese Enterprise in the East: Survival in the Years 1707-57 and editor of Piracy and Surreptitious Activities in the Malay Archipelago and Adjacent Seas 1600-1840 and Maritime Defence of China: Ming General Qi Jiguang and Beyond. Teddy is passionate about fieldtrips in his history courses on South and Southeast Asia. His courses usually feature a local or overseas trip that facilitates as part of the overall study and exploration.

Part III

Case Studies in the Field: Mono and Multidisciplinary Dimensions

Chapter 12

Visiting Sites of War Commemoration in Singapore—How Visiting War Memorials Can Contribute to the Learning of the Past for Trainers and Trainees John Kwok Abstract In Singapore, the date 15 February marks the anniversary when Singapore was surrendered to the Japanese during World War 2. The event is commemorated annually in a commemorative service held at the Memorial to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation. The commemoration service that took place in 2017 was an important one because it marked the 75th anniversary of the Fall of Singapore in 1942. In her speech as the guest-of-honor at the service, Singapore’s Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, Grace Fu, said that Singaporeans should “resolve to dedicate themselves to protecting the country, and to learn about the resilience and resourcefulness our forefathers have shown… Never again will we subject ourselves to be occupied, never again will we allow our land to be run by another country,” (The Straits Times, 15 February 2017). When reporting the service, the national newspaper, The Straits Times, ran with the headline “50th War Memorial Service Commemorates Those Who Died During Japanese Occupation” (The Straits Times, 15 February 2017), giving more emphasis to the 50th anniversary the memorial services that started in 1967 when the memorial was unveiled and dedicated. The minister’s speech and the headline show that war and memory occupy unfamiliar territory in Singapore.

12.1 Introduction The 2017 commemoration service was attended by 1200 people including representatives from schools (The Straits Times, 15 February 2017). When the author attended the commemoration service in 2008, the press at the time quoted a figure of 1400 students from 58 education institutions who took part in the service (Lianhe Zaobao, 16 February 2008). The students who attended the services were what Ee J. Kwok (B) Independent Researcher, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_12

247

248

J. Kwok

Moi Kho and Walter Parker would describe as “passive receivers of knowledge”—an audience on a fieldtrip. This kind school excursion is less emphasized in Singapore where the “fieldwork” type of school excursions has gained more recognition because it encourages “active participation of students in the field” (Kho & Parker, 2010), and supports the social studies curriculum taught in school. The fieldwork consists of four components, the pre-fieldwork, fieldwork, post-fieldwork, and evaluation, all to assist the students to maximize their learning experience outside of the classroom. However, there are challenges, and Ee and Parker identified three; teachers in Singapore have a heavier workload and larger class sizes compared to their counterparts elsewhere that makes fieldwork difficult to arrange and manage; at the elementary school level there were few teachers trained specifically to teach social studies; and there were many teachers not trained or experienced enough to design fieldwork. Yet the Ministry of Education required all schools to take students “at least once a year in each grade” (Kho & Parker, 2010) on a fieldwork excursion, a Learning Journey to use its official term. This chapter will examine Singapore’s war heritage and the use of fieldwork conducted during school excursions to sites of war heritage like war memorials where students experience learning outside of the classroom. It will examine the framework of Singapore’s Learning Journey when conducting fieldwork school excursions to war cemeteries and war memorials. When students and teachers conduct fieldwork excursions to sacred sites and sites of memory like war cemeteries and memorials to learn and connect with the past, whose past would they be connecting with? An examination of the aims of the Learning Journey framework will show that this approach may limit the students’ learning experiences at these sacred sites. It will illuminate a much larger challenge than the ones identified by Ee and Parker. This chapter will cover three areas. The first part will examine war heritage in Singapore, and the Learning Journey policy introduced into Singapore in 1998 as a framework that governs the way school excursions should be conducted, and the aims they want to meet. The second part uses case studies beginning with a group of Singaporean students and their Learning Journey to the Kranji war cemetery and memorial, followed by examples in England and Australia to look at the reactions of students when they visit war cemeteries and memorials that are important to their communities. These examples would show that there is tension between war memories and remembrance at a war memorial, and the issues faced by students as they tried to navigate around the tension. The final part of the chapter will offer a suggestion to incorporate a military learning tool, the Staff Ride, into Learning Journeys to help students and teachers learn about the past, and the contested use of it, when they conduct fieldwork visits to war memorials. When students are taken on fieldwork excursions to historical places, or sites of historical significance, it is to help them connect with the past. Some historical places, like war cemeteries and memorials are sacred sites where the war dead are remembered and may present a larger challenge for students and teachers because of the multiple meanings that can be drawn from these sites, or attached to them. With each passing generation, war memories and what is remembered become intertwined with what the visitor, and the nation, wants to remember. The war dead, and what war

12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration …

249

cemeteries and memorials commemorate, may come to be a symbol of something else. And quite often they do.

12.2 Singapore’s War Heritage In his study of war commemoration in Singapore, Asad-ul Iqbal Latif, argued that political parties in Singapore did not use the memory of the war to influence elections, nor did social groups “coalesce around their experience of the war”, or feature in negotiations between the state and civil society,—the Second World War “has gone missing in action from the politics of contemporary Singapore” (Latif, 2007, pp. 93– 94). The annual commemoration service described at the start of this chapter show that for decades Singaporeans coalesce around their experience of the war at a war memorial, and in the politics of contemporary Singapore, the minister’s speech show that the memory of the war was used to encourage public support Singapore’s defense. Perhaps Latif based his argument solely on the impact and legacy of British colonial rule on the governance of the People’s Action Party (PAP) in post-war Singapore. The legacy of the Second World War in Singapore was anything but “missing in action.” One reason why war commemoration in Singapore may appear to be “missing in action” may have to do with the Singaporean attitudes toward war remembrance. In Hamzah Muzaimi’s survey of 216 randomly chosen Singaporeans in 2006 to draw out the general views of Singaporean attitudes and perceptions of war commemoration in Singapore, Singaporeans ranked the reason “lack of time” (36.9%) as the top reason why they did not actively take part in commemorative activities. The second reason was that the commemorative activities were “too catered to foreigners” (28.1%). Yet the Singaporeans surveyed acknowledge that the war is part of Singapore’s history with about 52% of them positioning the war as Singapore’s heritage (Muzaini, 2006). However, Singapore’s war heritage was a recent development that started in the late 1980s when the Singapore government responded to the increasing number of tourists visiting sites of war commemoration in Singapore, and developed local sites of commemoration to meet their expectations (Blackburn, 2001). Prior to the 1980s, the memory of the war in Singapore was largely communal based, and the Singapore Chinese had been the most active and vocal to ensure that its community’s wartime memories were not forgotten. They had been the primary driver in the development of Singapore’s first World War Two memorial at the Singapore Cenotaph in the 1950s, and later the Memorial to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation in 1967 (Kwok, 2015). Between the 1960s and 1980s, Singapore’s modernization took priority and war commemoration was pushed into the background (Muzaini, 2006). In the 1990s, the publication of local wartime narratives like The Price of Peace led to a re-discovery of Singaporean memories of the war. In 1997, the book inspired the creation of a top-rating Chinese drama series shown on Singapore television in 1997 titled He Ping de Dai Jia (Price of Peace). The Price of Peace is a nativist narrative of the defense of Singapore, and despite numerous errors in the narrative, it continued

250

J. Kwok

to be immensely popular (Kwok, 2009). About a decade later, the attitudes have changed. When it comes to visiting sites of commemoration, Singaporeans surveyed by Muzaimi in 2006 felt that it was something compulsory, a kind of “duty” to perform (Muzaini, 2006). The war in Singapore has been traditionally treated either as a study of traditional military history or as social history. The treatment of the Fall of Singapore as military history is best presented in Brian Farrell’s seminal work, The Defence and Fall of Singapore 1940–1942 that was published in 2005, which was a cumulation of his extensive research and interest in the subject. In the years after the book’s publication, Farrell continued to develop his research on the subject making him an authority when it comes to studies on the military history of the Fall of Singapore. The Fall of Singapore as studies of social history, i.e., the social effects of the war and the Japanese Occupation in Singapore are represented by works like Paul Kratoska’s comprehensive and seminal study on the Japanese Occupation of Malaya and Singapore in The Japanese Occupation of Malaya, 1941–1945 that came out in 1998. In 2005 Lee Geok Boi’s The Syonan Years, Singapore Under Japanese Rule 1942–1945 would build on the themes found in Kratoska’s seminal work—the economy, social life, and public institutions in Japanese occupied Singapore. In the last two decades, Kevin Blackburn’s research and numerous publications on war and memory in Singapore explored themes that characterize the popular memory and commemoration of war in Singapore. Hamzah Muzaimi examined the popular sentiment and approaches to war commemoration in Singapore. Muzaimi argued that despite the government’s efforts to cultivate a Singaporean memory of the war in Singapore, a combination of factors like conflicts between cultures, experiences and religion, and the lack of interest and time, explain why there has been a “lack of a culture of commemoration in Singapore” (Muzaini, 2006). When looking at the literature on war in Singapore, it appears that there is an invisible line that divided the scholars with traditional military history on one side, and social history on the other side. And the lack of a culture of commemoration in Singapore is likely the result of the Singapore government trying to bridge the two. The war in Singapore as traditional military history are narratives that cover Singapore’s history when it was British, and a colony. During the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore, the local people of Singapore played little in the actual fighting. For them, 15 February 1942 marked a change in regime from British colonial rule to Japanese Occupation. This is where the traditional military histories stop. The events that took place after 15 February shaped the local memory of the war in Singapore, and this is where the social histories begin. During the Japanese Occupation, Singapore was renamed Syonan-to, the Light of the South, marking its change from British to Japanese. The Japanese occupiers reorganized local social and economic institutions to emphasize Japanese culture and commerce. Above all it would be the memory of the massacres of the Chinese population by the Japanese during the Japanese Occupation that would characterize the popular and social memories of the war in Singapore. Hence, for the people of Singapore, 15 February has little to do with battle. The Singapore government attempted to fuse the two sides together but with more emphasis to social history to create a history of the war in Singapore

12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration …

251

that is local and indigenous, and presented as part of its national narrative, National Education which will be discussed later. The varied approaches to the subject “Fall of Singapore” in Singapore, is an indication of the legacy of the war in Singapore that is part colonial and part local history, and a part of a nation’s history. It reflects Paul Cohen’s (1997) concept of History in Three Keys where the writing of history can come in three forms; history as an event—a particular reading of the past; as experience—a reconstruction of the past based on the collective experiences of individuals who made up the history; and as myth—a selective reading of the past vis-à-vis present concerns. A historical event, according to Cohen, is a coalescence of individual experiences in the past, which are used by historians to create or acknowledge a historical event. “History as experience” as the term suggests, involves the examination of experiences of individuals from a particular time period or event. “History as myth” starts with an assumed understanding or notion of the past that is not unlike a romanticized version of a historical event, an individual or groups of individuals. These agencies sincerely believe in a “correct” conclusion and work their way back to create or recreate a sequence of events that look like history but may not be necessarily such. In other words, “history as myth” is a reconstruction of the past, seldom based on the actual experiences of those who experienced it, but on an assumed idea of the past to satisfy a reading of the present (Cohen, 1997). Its framework is not too dissimilar to Whig history and postcolonial national histories that emphasizes the contrast between a nation’s colonial past with political, social, and economic achievements after independence. In the case of Singapore, history as myth enabled the presentation of the war in Singapore and the Japanese Occupation as a historical event, and position the wartime experiences and memories of the local people as Singaporean in a time when Singapore was British. This was why in the minister’s speech mentioned earlier at the 75th anniversary of the Fall of Singapore, the minister spoke about the “resilience and resourcefulness our forefathers” during the Japanese Occupation, and “never again will we allow our land to be run by another country,” (The Straits Times, 15 February 2017). When Singapore was a colony, who were “we”?

12.3 Learning Journeys To help Singaporean students understand who “we” are, the government introduced National Education (NE) in 1997, a long-term program in Singapore’s education “as the means to nurture in our students national cohesion, instincts for survival as a nation and confidence in our nation’s future” (Ministry of Education, Preparing Students for a Global Future, 2007, March 5, Press Release). It was to introduce the teaching of Singaporean values into the primary school curriculum. A year later in February 1998, the government introduced fieldtrips in the form of school excursions to Singapore schools to help teach students about Singaporean values. It was framed as Learning Journeys, and according to the then Minister of Education Teo Chee

252

J. Kwok

Hean (1998) who launched the concept, Learning Journeys builds on the existing practice of school excursions so that students would “gain an understanding and a passion for our nation that will ensure Singapore’s survival and success” (Teo, Launch of Learning Journeys at St Andrews Junior College, 1998). In his speech, Teo (1998) emphasized that The main objective of these Learning Journeys is for our children to understand what makes Singapore tick, to understand why we are where we are today. They illustrate our vision and planning, and reflect our society’s character. Our children must learn about them understand their significance, and think about the part that they themselves can play to ensure that in our journey into the future Singapore continues to stay strong as a nation and to make progress (Teo, Launch of Learning Journeys at St Andrews Junior College, 1998)

Learning Journeys was also made compulsory and “not an optional extra” in schools across Singapore. To kick off the program, the Ministry of Education partnered with twenty organizations that would offer their venues or heritage sites, along with representatives or “appointed officers to conceptualize and conduct the visits” where Learning Journeys would be conducted. One of them was the Learning Journeys sponsored by the Port of Singapore Authority, and Maritime Port Authority to visit the port container terminal and harbor (Teo, Launch of Learning Journeys at St Andrews Junior College, 1998). A year later in August 1999, the Senior Minister of State for Education Peter Chen (1999) gave a report card on the Learning Journeys Program. Nearly 300, 000 students from primary schools to junior colleges have taken part in a Learning Journey to one of the partner organizations. The list of participating organizations reached 35, and 14 more organizations would join the program in 1999 (Chen, Tea Reception for Participating Institutions in The Learning Journeys Program, 1999). In 2007 it was added to NE as part of the ministry’s efforts for NE to take on “greater emphasis on cultivating heartware and rootedness to Singapore” (Ministry of Education, Preparing Students for a Global Future, 2007, March 5, Press Release). By 2016, in a government review of NE, Learning Journeys was defined in the NE framework as “interactive experiences that allow students to deepen their knowledge and understanding of Singapore’s history, geography and culture” (Ministry of Education, Our Home, Our Say, National Education Review, 2018, p. 3). Learning Journeys is a useful approach that can help students learn about Singapore’s institutions and agencies when they visit them on school excursions. As one of the first agencies to be part of Learning Journeys, the Port of Singapore Authority, and Maritime Port Authority have clearly defined functions, and their links to Singapore’s past as an important international port since the pre-colonial and colonial time periods can be clearly traced. Sites of commemoration, like war cemeteries and memorials, are different. Students and teachers visiting war memorials as part of a Learning Journey program may find themselves navigating between voices of the past and a national narrative. The two are not the same thing.

12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration …

253

12.4 Visiting War Memorials—The Kranji War Cemetery and Memorial (Fig. 12.1) War memorials occupy a special space in a community. They are spaces to commemorate the war dead and for rituals of mourning to be conducted or observed especially for the dead who do not have a grave. At war memorials, communities are reunited, the war dead symbolically remembered, and memories of war are ritualized and become an accepted part of the language of commemoration. However, as the historian Jay Winter (1995) argues, the commemoration of war is often a political act where survivors of the war express the selflessness and dedication of the war dead, and carry the message that communities, and the nation, can continue because of those who had sacrificed. The commemoration of war functions as a form of public recognition demonstrating efforts to remember, creating a place “where people could mourn…and [are] seen to mourn” (Winter, 1995, pp. 82–94); war memorials and the commemoration of war are seldom neutral. In his study of German experiences and memories of World War One, George Mosse (1990) observed that war cemeteries, war memorials, and commemoration services are a product of a community and nation’s need to make sense out of the sacrifices made during war; the “myth of the war experience.” The “myth of the war experience,” according to Mosse, is a way of viewing war as a sacred and significant event with meaning and the myth is most visible largely, but not exclusively, in defeated nations where it was urgently needed to make sense of the defeat and comfort the war survivors. It legitimizes the loss and

Fig. 12.1 Kranji War Memorial and Cemetery (Image courtesy of John Kwok)

254

J. Kwok

gives meaning to it by displacing the reality of war and “putting at its disposal everpresent saints and martyrs, places of worship, and a heritage to emulate” (Mosse, 1990, p. 7). Mosse argued that the cult of the fallen soldier as the defender of the nation has become, and still remains, a central part of the commemoration of war in post-World War One Europe (Mosse, 1990). However, the cult of the fallen soldier should not be seen simply in the context of Europe and World War One. Even in Singapore, where the World War One had little impact in terms of local memory and sacrifice, rituals associated with the cult of the fallen soldier is observed in Singapore’s language of commemoration. In Singapore, World War Two is remembered at war memorials like the Memorial to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation, and the Kranji War Cemetery and Memorial (Kranji). The former is a war memorial dedicated, and exclusive to, the civilian victims of the Japanese Occupation. The latter is a war memorial in the traditional sense dedicated to the military war dead. On 28 May 2009, Singapore’s National Heritage Board (NHB) organized War on Wheels as part of the NHB’s efforts to promote Singapore’s museums to Singaporeans. As part of a NE program, it ran for four sessions; the first was the pilot program with the Nanyang Girls High School and the remaining three were organized in the month of November 2009 for the public. The pilot program took a group of fifteen-year-old students from the Nanyang Girls High School to visit former battle sites and sites of war commemoration in Singapore, and documented their experiences. One of the sites featured in the program was Kranji. Kranji was originally an ammunition depot before the outbreak of World War 2. During the Japanese Occupation of Singapore in World War 2, the depot was converted into a prisoner-of-war (POW) camp and hospital. A small cemetery was started nearby by the POWs which later became permanent and enlarged after the end of the war as POW graves from other POW camps in Singapore were relocated there. The war cemetery would later have a war memorial to commemorate the military war dead with no known grave. The memorial’s design represented the three services of the Armed Forces; the horizontal wings of the memorial represents the Air Force, the central vertical column resembles the conning tower of a ship, which represents the Navy and the columns inside the monument representing the Army; soldiers marching in columns. There are 24,346 names inscribed on the walls of the memorial. During the War on Wheels program, the students were taken on guided tour of war memorial and the cemetery grounds. The organizers then provided paper for the students to make two poppy wreaths. The wreaths were laid at the war memorial and the students observed a minute of silence. When a student was interviewed to share her experience when making the paper poppy wreaths, the student responded that making the wreaths made her “feel that they were doing something for them” because “they died because of us” and therefore “we do our best to respect that by honoring them and remembering them so that they live on in us,” (“Heritage TV—War On Wheels”, 2009). Her expression would be remarkably close to what was echoed years later in 2017; who were “we” in 1942 Singapore? However, when the student was asked to explain the meaning of the poppy wreath, the student said, “a poppy wreath is symbolic of [short pause], people do it a lot over there,” (“Heritage TV—War On Wheels”, 2009). It appeared that

12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration …

255

the students at the Kranji were following protocols established for a Commonwealth War Graves site but they were not informed of the meanings behind those protocols. This may have been an oversight by the organizers but it may suggest that imperial traditions may have a greater universality for any formal commemoration of war. The rituals associated with the language of commemoration performed at a World War Two war cemetery demonstrates Mosse’s “myth of the war experience” where the fallen soldier is the defender of the nation, even when the Singapore nation was absent during World War Two.

12.5 National Narratives and Fieldwork The student’s response to the significance of a poppy wreath at the Kranji bears similarity to something experienced by a group of students in England during a school excursion conducted under the First World War Centenary Battlefields Tour Program. This was a program funded by the British government to sponsor at least two students and one teacher from state-funded secondary schools in England to visit former battlefields on the Western Front. Students from the Henry Cort Community College raised a concern to their teacher, Claire McKay, “Remembrance is hard, you never know if you are going to do the right thing,” (McKay, 2017). McKay observed that there was a “formal side of remembrance” which appears to have had a greater influence on her students than remembrance on a personal level that “should be something that students enter into because they want to and because they see a value in it,” (McKay, 2017). To help the students get more involved in the understanding of remembrance at the personal and community level, McKay encouraged the learning of World War One through fieldwork during battlefield tours by engaging in discussion with tour guides, teachers, and peers, and over a wide range of topics that came up during a battlefield tour. Through this approach, McKay noticed that her students began to examine the impact of war on societies, and the complex nature of war, and more importantly, the students started to “form their own concept remembrance, one which was connected to their own lives,” (McKay, 2017). In McKay’s reflection, conducting fieldwork sessions at sites of remembrance has helped her institution teach British values to the students. In Australia, the University of Wollongong (UOW) has been conducting fieldwork study tours to Gallipoli and the Western Front since 2008. The aim of the study tours is to bring students to sites of commemoration like war memorials to learn about Australian experiences and memories of war. The study tours were designed by the Australian historian John McQuilton and conducted together with historians Jen Roberts and Linda Wade. The study tours were designed from the start to make the students active learners during the study tours (J. McQuilton, email interview, June 8, 2019). According to McQuilton, the study tour would not be a passive learning experience for the students where a lecturer lectures to a group of students on some sort of an overseas travel holiday; “this was to be run as history subject, not a holiday,” (J. McQuilton, email interview, June 8, 2019). The study tours are being held once

256

J. Kwok

a year, and they alternate between Gallipoli, and sites at the Western Front of World War One. The duration of each study tour was typically twelve days with a twoday preparation in Wollongong before the students leave Australia. The preparation classes were for the students to study and learn about the country and sites that they would be visiting. The students would each be allocated a site or battle that they need to research and present to the rest of the class during the trip. This was designed to help the group to set the context and build up an understanding of the military history of Gallipoli or the Western Front. The students are also required to use primary sources to research the history of an individual soldier or nurse buried in one of the war cemeteries they would visit during the trip. When the students arrived at a site that has a connection to the individual they had researched on, they presented and share their findings with the group. (McQuilton, unpublished journal). Furthermore, at the start of the study tour, each student was required to begin a journal to set out what they expect to discover, and make daily entries evaluating what they saw, did, and experienced. The journals were to be hand-written to reflect the form of communication used during the time of the war to communicate with those left at home (McQuilton, unpublished journal). By the time the students visited the war cemeteries, McQuilton observed that the students had developed an emotional connection with the soldier or nurse they had researched. Some students even brought things from home for their individual; one student brought from sand from his seaside town to sprinkle on the grave of an Australian soldier and said to the grave, “There you are, mate, ‘something from home’” (McQuilton, unpublished journal). The students learned to understand that war is about the men and women who fought and died, the nation that sent them off, and the families left behind (McQuilton, unpublished journal). At the end of each day of the study tour, a debriefing session was held in situ to help the students cope with the emotional impact of the day’s presentations and discussions. By the end of the study tour, the students describe it as “a lifechanging experience” (McQuilton, unpublished journal). As McQuilton observed, the students found themselves “faced with issues of different cultural approaches to the remembrance of war and its place in notions of national identity” (McQuilton, unpublished journal). The UOW study tours were developed largely in response to the changing character of Anzac in Australia. In his research into the history and perspectives of Australian Anzac Day pilgrimages to Gallipoli, and war memorials on the Western Front, the Australian historian Bruce Scates (2006) observed that instead of a “solemn day of mourning,” commemoration had become “a much vaguer celebration of nationhood,” (Scates, 2006, p. 214). Australian visitors to Gallipoli on Anzac Day were seen “clutching cameras and water bottles young backpackers scrambled along trench lines and ridges imagining themselves ‘a part of the story’,” (Scates, 2006, p. 199). However, Scates also pointed out that not all Australians attending that commemoration service at Gallpoli were searching of a searching for a unique experience in a place of national historical significance. Those who undertook the journey with a personal mission or conviction were soon influenced by the majority and were gradually overcome by them and national pride: “The personal,” Scates observed, “is subsumed by the public, the familiar displaced by the national and a sense of pride

12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration …

257

and patriotism all but overwhelms that restless sense of loss and mourning” (Scates, 2006, p. 175). The Australian visitors started to embrace what they believed the campaign of 1915 was like; Gallipoli was “Australia’s war” (Sydney Morning Herald, 25 April 2006). Few would note that Gallipoli was contested a commemorative space (McQuilton, 2004).

12.6 The Staff Ride for Civilians One approach that could help to draw out the multiple stories, memories, and meanings associated with a war memorial, is a pedagogical tool widely used by defense academies called the Staff Ride. The staff ride was introduced into the US Army at Fort Leavenworth in 1906. Elsewhere in Europe, it had been part of professional military education since the mid-nineteenth century (Robertson, 1987). The general concept of the staff ride, as described by the military historian William Robertson (1987), is “a systematic preliminary study of a selected campaign, an extensive visit to the actual sites associated with that campaign, and an opportunity to integrate the lessons derived from each,” (Robertson, 1987, p. 5). Robertson was commissioned by the US Army to write a guide to conduct staff rides and is still in use today. His guide emphasized that a staff ride must consist of three distinct phases: the preliminary study phase, field study phase, and the integration phase. During the preliminary study phase, the trainees must clearly understand the purpose of the staff ride, are expected to acquire the basic knowledge to understand the selected campaign, and are encouraged to be actively involved in the exercise and not “lapse into passive spectators” (Robertson, 1987, p. 12) during the field study phase. In the next phase, the field study phase, the trainers would bring their trainees to selected historical sites that are associated with the campaign studied during the preliminary study phase. If some of the historical sites are not accessible, the trainer must assist to summarize what took place there so that there would not be gaps in the trainees’ learning. The historical site visits should be done in chronological order to prevent confusion. Trainers should make planned stops along the route especially at sites of historical significance, or areas with visual impact, so that the trainees can connect and share their findings from the preliminary study phase, and provide opportunities for discussion. The integration phase concludes and completes the staff ride by providing the trainees and trainers to reflect on their experience. To be effective, Robertson recommend that the reflection should be done at a historical site visited during the staff ride, and immediately after the field study phase. The trainer should ensure that there is sufficient time for all trainees to share their reflections or comments, and ensure that all discussions are completed before the staff ride ends. As much as possible, the entire route of the staff ride must be traversed on foot because the terrain and its features would “become prominent when viewed from the foot soldier’s perspective” and the trainees need to “experience the effects of terrain firsthand,” (Robertson, 1987, p. 15). This is a core element in any staff ride; understanding a military operation

258

J. Kwok

or campaign at the ground level, where it took place, and understand it through the eyes of those who made it historical. In Singapore, the Singapore Armed Forces Goh Keng Swee Command and Staff College (GKSCSC) uses the staff ride as a learning tool for military officers to gain a better understanding of the Malaya Campaign fought in World War Two. The author is part of the teaching team that conducts the staff rides. The staff ride conducted at the GKSCSC is a modification of a traditional staff ride in two aspects. Firstly, there is a strong emphasis on the preliminary study phase. All of the trainees were assigned the role of a historical character that they have to role-play and study materials and notes associated with the historical character are shared with the trainees so that they could study them. During the field study phase, the trainees are taken to historical sites that has an association with the war. Singapore’s modernization has changed the landscape and most former battle sites are no longer accessible or its geographical elements have been permanently changed. Therefore, it is not possible for the trainees to walk the ground to understand the terrain like a traditional staff ride. What the GKSCSC staff ride does is to take trainees and the learning process outside of a traditional class room environment, and put them in an outdoor environment where they have to role-play a historical character without using conventional presentation tools like slides or videos. It also helps to remind them that it is people in leadership positions in the military that drive decisions at the strategic level. Secondly, and more importantly, the GKSCSC staff ride emphasizes the role-play element to reexamine the decision-making process of historical individuals during the Malaya Campaign. In other words, it encourages the trainees to look at the battlefield and strategic considerations at the time through the eyes of the main decision makers. The trainees study the Malayan Campaign through the eyes of historically important characters at the grand strategy level. However, not all of the historical characters used in this staff ride took part in any of the actual battles fought in Singapore. Yet the staff ride preserves the chronological order of the battles, and the trainees were instructed to present the views and attitudes of the individuals that they had researched at different stages of the Malaya Campaign; the British defeat on 15 February 1942 was not a forgone conclusion. For example, during the 12th GKSCSC Evolution of Strategic Thought (EST) Executive Course, one of the historical characters used was Colonel Masanobu Tsuji, the chief planner for the Japanese invasion of Malaya and Singapore. The trainee who role-played this character dressed in a reproduction Japanese officer uniform from the time period, and during the staff ride he referenced slogans from the Japan’s Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere to portray attitudes of the Imperial Japanese Army as they prepared for war in Asia. What the GKSCSC staff ride aims to achieve is to help the trainees understand the importance of the event, one that was shaped by the perspectives and motivations of a collection of historical characters. It gives the trainees two of Cohen’s three keys to understand the past; history as an event, and history as experience.

12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration …

259

12.7 Conclusion The traditional military staff ride may share similarities with fieldwork conducted by education institutions. Both emphasize a learning process where the learner is encouraged to explore and connect with the past at a personal level. However, fieldwork like Learning Journeys conducted at war memorials illuminates its limits. Its starting point are national values and a national narrative, and uses learning sessions outside of the classroom to reinforce those elements. It gives the students history as myth. This chapter has explored the complexities, and the tensions that stemmed from visiting war memorials and cemeteries as part of fieldwork excursions. And these tensions were clearly experienced by students and teachers conducting the fieldwork excursions. Sites of commemoration like war memorials hold multiple meanings, and different interpretations can be drawn from them to help the present understand a past war. In the case of Singapore, war memorials can also be spaces that remind the present of a past war that can be difficult to position in a nation’s narrative or history. The GKSCSC staff ride demonstrates that a traditional staff ride can be modified to help make the study of the past a more involved and personal one for trainees as historical events are explored through the experiences of those who lived and shaped them. It uses history as experience as its starting point. The staff ride approach to learning at sites of war commemoration may help to open up the possibility for students to explore the multiple meanings and different interpretations that echo in the space. Staff rides to war memorials can help trainees and trainers explore the way the past can be presented in Cohen’s History in Three Keys; as an event, as a collection of experiences, and as part of a national narrative. As a civilian tool, it has the potential to help students and teachers to explore the wartime memories preserved at war memorials, the language of commemoration, and themes associated with state commemoration and nationalism. War memorials are contested spaces where history as experience, and as myth intersect, and together they help to tell a more complex history of war, war memories, and national identity.

References Blackburn, K. (2001). The historic war site of the Changi Murals: A Place for pilgrimages and tourism. Journal of the Australian War Memorial, 34. Retrieved from https://www.awm.gov.au/ articles/journal/j34/blackburn. Chen, P. (1999, August 20). The tea reception for participating institutions in the learning journeys program at Carlton hotel, media division, ministry of information and the arts. Singapore Government. Retrieved from https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/1999082003/ pc19990820f.pdf. Cohen, P. (1997). History in three keys, the boxer as event, experience, and myth. New York: Columbia University Press. Farrell, B. (2005). The defense and fall of Singapore, 1940–1942. Stroud: Tempus.

260

J. Kwok

Kho, E. M., & Parker, W. (2010). Learning beyond the school walls: Fieldwork in Singapore, grades 1–6. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 22(4), 29–31. Kratoska, P. H. (1998). The Japanese occupation of Malaya, 1941–1945. London: Allen & Unwin. Kwok, J. (2009). The legendary overseas Chinese anti-Japanese army in the defense of Singapore during the Japanese invasion of February 1942. In M. Crotty (Ed.), When the soldiers return: November 2007 conference proceedings (pp. 63–72). Brisbane: University of Queensland, School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics. Kwok, J. (2015). Memories of the Japanese occupation: Singapore’s first official Second World war memorial and the politics of commemoration. In C. Matos & M. Caprio (Eds.), Japan as the occupier and the occupied (pp. 226–248). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Latif, A. (2007). Singapore’s missing war. In D. Koh (Ed.), Legacies of world war II in south and east Asia, (pp. 92–103). Singapore: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. Lee, G. B. (2005). The Syonan years, Singapore under Japanese rule 1942–1945. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore and Epigram Pte Ltd. McKay, C. (2017). Active remembrance: The value and importance of making remembrance relevant and personal. Teaching History, 166, 20–27. McQuilton, J. (2004). Gallipoli as contested commemorative space. In J. Macleod (Ed.), Gallipoli: Making history (pp. 150–158). London, New York: Routledge. McQuilton, J. (2015). Doing history where it happened: A personal reflection. Unpublished Journal. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2018). Our home, our say, national education review, 2016– 2017. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Mosse, G. (1990). Fallen soldiers, reshaping the memory of the world war. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Muzaini, H. (2006). Producing/consuming memoryscapes: The genesis/politics of Second World War commemoration in Singapore. GeoJournal, Heritage, Politics and Identity in Southeast Asia, 66(3), 211–222. Robertson, W. G. (1987). The staff ride. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Center of Military History. Roots Sg. (2009, June 4). Heritage TV—War on wheels. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=W-UOaVO5t9g&t=73s. Scates, B. (2006). Return to Gallipoli: Walking the battlefields of the Great War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Singapore Government, Media Division, Ministry of Information and the Arts. (2000, July 14), MOE to take the public on learning journeys into schools [press release]. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore. Singapore Government, Ministry of Education. (2006, August 24). Committee on national education. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Singapore Government, Ministry of Education. (2007, March 5). Preparing students for a global future [press release]. Singapore: National Archives of Singapore. Teo, Chee Hean (1998, February 23). The launch of ‘learning journeys’. At St Andrew’s junior college, Media Division, Ministry of Information and the Arts, Singapore Government, National Archives of Singapore. Winter, J. (1995). Sites of memory, sites of mourning: The Great War in European cultural history. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.

John Kwok is currently an independent researcher and co-founder of the history research consultancy Total Heritage LLP. He was a Research Fellow in the Military Studies Program (MSP) at the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), where he taught military history at various military education institutions in Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) like the Goh Keng Swee Command and Staff College, SAF Advanced Schools, and the SAF Warrant Officer School. From 2015 to 2018, he oversaw the Singapore’s archaeology policy when he was an Assistant Director at the Singapore National Heritage Board (NHB). During that time, he also curated public exhibitions on the Singapore War Crimes Tribunal, and

12 Visiting Sites of War Commemoration …

261

the Singapore Police Force former Combined Operations Room at Pearl’s Hill. He earned his PhD in history at the University of Wollongong, Australia, and has completed his Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Asia Pacific Research Unit (APRU) at the Universiti Sains Malaysia in 2011.

Chapter 13

Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban Settlement in Southeast Asian History: A Walk About the Town on a Nineteenth Century Map Teddy Y. H. Sim Abstract The teaching of the history of Southeast Asia at the undergraduate level in an institute in Nanyang Technological University included a sub-theme on urban colonial history. The study of this history has integrated a walk about the town on an 1860 map for some years now. Entailing students to take measurements of objects and structures on the trip as well as match the contemporary situation to old images gave rise to room for students to analyze themes on the development of the town as a corollary of the rise of the British in Southeast Asia as well as critically discuss aspects of technological and urban development in colonial ports or towns. In the process, students are also encouraged to explore adjacent discourses such as heritage studies in order to better understand past developments in context of their change and continuity to contemporary society.

13.1 Introduction Learning in the twenty-first century focuses on learning and life skills that are markedly different from those of the twentieth century. This shift has had an impact on the education sector and various other industries in Southeast Asia as elsewhere in the world. There is a stress on deep learning as well as critical thinking and problem-solving abilities; there is also a stress on collaborative, intercultural, and communicative competencies as well as literacy skills that allow one to navigate across a variety of media such as digital, financial, etc. (Bob, 2009; Cuban, 2015; P21, 2008–2009; U.S.A., 1999). Although the subject of history may be incorporated as one of the “new basic subjects”, there is a stress on basic skills that crisscross and underlie the different subjects (NCEE, 1983). Increasingly, in key universities in Singapore and across the world, there is latitude and encouragement for the teaching

T. Y. H. Sim (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_13

263

264

T. Y. H. Sim

and supervision of research undertaken by undergraduate and especially postgraduate students to incorporate investigative methodologies from different subject disciplines. Although fieldtrips and fieldwork (aside from archival stints) hare never not been a strong component in the subject and incorporating such activities is sometimes viewed with an ambiguous eye (Puri & Castillo, 2016), the incorporation of basic field methodologies from different disciplines in the study of history can permit the subject to be more diverse and relevant in the new age, to go beyond the traditional disciplinary emphases. This chapter forms the first part of the twin-essay to explore aspects of imperialism and colonialism in Southeast Asia and its teaching (in the form of using fieldtrips). In contrast with the latter chapter (Chapter 14), it will focus on fieldtrips that were undertaken in Singapore. In terms of the structure of the chapter, this study hopes to discuss a specific subtheme in Southeast Asian history linking the evolution of an archetypal town to British colonial history in the region. It also intends to discuss how students could be inducted to explore the niche history of a trail based on nineteenth-century maps in close interaction with a guide–instructor as well as on their own. The discussion of the survey of literature and related readings will be embedded in the main discussion. This essay is divided into two parts: The first part traces certain aspects of the settlement of colonial Singapore from the angles of historical geography, urban history, and heritage. The second part examines the cross-disciplinary methods that could be implemented for students on fieldtrips so they can explore history from more diverse angles, combining observations from the field as well as visual and textual sources. Participants in the trip were expected to respond to short questions in a forum and/or undertake to write an essay on the question “How technology and/or capitalism interacted with urban development in colonial Singapore, the Straits Settlements, or towns in Malaya to chart an expansive British presence in Southeast Asia?”

13.2 Evolution of Town and Colonial History There is much potential for exploring geographic urban spaces and colonial history. Brenda Yeoh’s work has analyzed how the colonial authorities and the ruled interacted through the former’s attempt to impose a sanitation and utility system in Singapore, and the naming of places, thereby “extending control” of the public and sacred spaces in the town (Yeoh & Kong, 2003). Although C. B. Goh (2013) has, in the manner of M. Adas (1989), attempted to highlight the role of technology in building Singapore as the headquarters for the British in Southeast Asia (East Indies), the discussion does not analyze the everyday assertion of functionalism and symbolism of urban architecture as well as civic amenities beyond machine guns, the railways, and the telegraph. The rise of Singapore may be seen as a corollary of the British rise in Southeast Asia. The process of deliberation and choice of Singapore (over Penang and Melaka)

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

265

as the capital of the Straits Settlements has been discussed in major works on Stamford Raffles and Singapore’s founding. Farther north, the British captured Rangoon and Lower Burma after the Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) and designated it as the capital of the colony in the 1880s. The development of different colonial settlements followed an orderly grid plan amidst the enclaves of ethnic plurality. It was not surprising to find grid or multicultural settlements in the precolonial period; the difference between precolonial settlements and cities in the colonial and modern era lay in the use of technology, materials, as well as style and architecture. Specialists in colonial studies have sometimes highlighted the uniqueness of the colonial system as having arisen from its organizations and institutions. This was a system run by a newly emerging Western form of government in Europe in the early modern period, which was reliable (for instance, in building and maintaining reliable infrastructures). It also took care of the marginalized in society or isolated them, consciously or unconsciously, in regulated or unregulated parts of the settlement. As a subcategory of colonial settlements in the non-European world, major British colonial settlements such as Melbourne, Calcutta, and Rangoon manifested features of Victorian architecture, technological advancement, and colonial institutions-in-functioning in the nineteenth century. The dynamics of these settlements differed from one another and varied according to the functional emphases of these places. Although any typification of such settlements defies generalization, the adoption of increased Britishness or Victorian features occurred in settlements that became more important or mature in phases or over time (Briggs, 1963). During the fieldtrip, specific developments in the colonial town could be analyzed to probe the advancement of control and progress of modernity, such as the following: (i) the upgrading of the market (ii) the building of bridges (iii) the building of the post office Other contemporary developments or infrastructures of the time that could shed light on the development of colonial society were: (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

places of worship dwelling areas of different ethnic communities city center parts of town prone to illicit activities

This chapter will explore (i) to (iii). The upgrading of markets and building of bridges involved the adoption of Victorian design and construction. The ambiguity of this design was that it neither conveyed fully the advances of a new industrial age nor depicted a unitary style. The First Industrial Revolution took place in Britain over an extended period of almost a century (1750–1850). Forge welding had been available before the modern age. Electric welding was discovered in 1800, while arc welding was invented in the final decades of the nineteenth century with the appearance of other competitive methods. Until then, riveting was a common method for holding together different parts of metal structures. From the perspective of design, Victorian design and style in itself drew

266

T. Y. H. Sim

from medieval Gothic, Renaissance, and Romanesque Revival among other influences. The wide use of metallic design was a function of the lowered cost (and hence increased availability) of forge welding, arc welding, as well as iron production. The Crystal Palace in London, built for the celebration of the Victorian jubilee, epitomized the materials and technology of this style. Markets are an intrinsic part of a town or city (Skinner, 1977). In the settlement of Singapore, which gradually became the administrative and political center of the British in Southeast Asia, it was not surprising to find different markets serving different hierarchical levels of needs. Sources have pointed to the existence of five markets in the settlement—Telok Ayer (today Lau Pa Sat), Ellenborough, Rochore, Clyde Street, and Orchard Road—of which the first is the “most famous” (Jayapa, 1991, p. 31). The status of Telok Ayer Market was clearly tied to the international nature of trade that flowed through the Singapore River, which the market served (Dobbs, 2011). Land reclamation took place along the banks of the river from as early as the 1820s as warehouses, shops, and a natural wharf began to be built or created there. Meanwhile, the building of the first dry dock at Keppel Harbour took place in 1868 (with the facility completed in the 1880s) (Dobbs, 2011). Goods coming into the entrepot settlement were distributed to the rest of the island via the river and the warehouses alongside it. The octagonal cast-iron structure of Telok Ayer Market is an assertion, beyond the concrete material form, of discipline, efficiency, orderliness, and cleanliness—all as part of a civilizing mission. The early incarnations of the market have been discussed to some extent by Lee Kip Lin. The early structural problems associated with it were demonstrated through letters from the National Archives, the India Office Library, as well as the State Archives of West Bengal (Lee, 1983, 1991). In an anecdotal account of the 1870s, Telok Ayer Market was segmentized according to different categories of goods, yet there was a certain chaos in the space (Bastin, 1994). The water and sewage system was not modernized until the 1870s, and it continued to have problems at the beginning of the twentieth century. In London, parliament passed an urgent resolution to set up such a system only after the “Great stink” of 1858 (Abeilan, 2017). The current market structure has certain overlaps with the structure in the nineteenth century. Telok Ayer Market has been officially gazetted by the National Heritage Board. The upriver market near Coleman Bridge no longer exists. The Telok Ayer market was relocated to its present newly reclaimed land at Collyer Quay since the end of 1870s. It became a hawker center in the 1970s (from being a wet market). The market’s present form, especially the Victorian-era cast-iron structure, remained largely untouched even when it had to be dismantled during the construction of the MRT (in the 1980s). Lau Pa Sat’s unique, octagonal, cast-iron structure was designed by James MacRitchie, who adopted George Drumgoole Coleman’s original octagonal shape for the older market. The distinctive cream-coloured clock tower at the top of the roof has also been restored although the cast-iron fountain was shifted to Raffles hotel (NHB, n.d.).

Closely associated with the study of markets is the exploration of bridges, for popular markets were usually served by bridges in the vicinity as part of an enhanced network. The use of metal gave bridges the benefit of durability. One finds a certain degree of similarity in the features of the old and present bridges stretching across

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

267

New Bridge Road to Hill Street, which permitted connections for the transportation of goods and people (Buckley, 1969). Markets upriver such as the Ellenborough market served as secondary markets (and trading posts) for goods to be brought to a rather chic part of town (Victoria Street).1 Although this writer could not locate a painting of this early market, textual sources provide a picture of such a scenario before the 1880s. The photograph of Read Bridge (dated 1900) from Singapore through 19th century photographs (Toh, 2009, p. 80) affirms that despite the changes over time in the bridge’s width and load capacity, the railings retained similar design to the earlier period; this provides rationale for a comparison between the old and new structures in the same spot. Coleman Bridge was gazetted by the National Heritage Board and retains certain features of its old form. The [present Coleman] iron bridge is a concrete bridge (as opposed to a wholly iron 3-lane bridge built in the 1880s); which incorporated several features of the iron bridge such as the decorative lamp posts and iron railings (Cornelius, 2017).

The post office was an assertion of the supposed superiority of a system. A survey of the plan view of the post office’s ground space shows that the public could head to the various registration counters (bulk parcel, registered article, franking, enquiry) on the right to perform their errands or wait and rest in the public lobby area on the left. The chief superintendent’s desk was located toward the end of the hall. A description of the system-in-working could be found for how it worked in the early twentieth century; the earlier system must have operated on a preliminary version of this: All mail had to be personally sorted by hand. […] Before postal workers were allowed to work, they had to pledge to uphold their integrity. Everything at work was strictly confidential. In the past, there was no bank transfer available thus people often sent money by post using envelopes without using registered mail due to the higher cost incurred. Thus, it was extremely important that postal workers were honest and did not steal any item that went through the mail. To reinforce the importance of confidentiality, the comptroller of the General Post Office would stand at the gallery above the sorting halls to observe all postal workers and ensure none of the letters or mail were opened while being sorted. […] Fridays used to be the day which overseas mail would arrive from Britain and postal workers had to work overtime with no extra pay, just to wait for the mail to arrive and then sieve through and sort them before ending work. (Tan, 2014)

The general post office in every major British colonial settlement was a grandiose building constructed for its capacity to handle the (telegraph) communications and mail/parcel delivery in the region. The grandiosity of the colonial facility in Singapore stood in contrast with the indigenous Chinese mail delivery and remittance service located in an extended part of Chinatown before Coleman Bridge, although the latter was not necessarily inferior. The persistence of the separate mailing channels showed that these systems catered to different groups in the colony; the more welloff or prestigious non-Western populace might also have been amenable to using the Western mail or telegraph services. A number of old features of the post office can still be detected in the building, which today is Fullerton Hotel: 1 The

Read bridge was later built upriver for pedestrians and bicycles in the 1880s.

268

T. Y. H. Sim

[The redeveloped Fullerton] building had most of its special architectural features retained and restored. […] Construction work in the interior was carried out to reinforce the beams and columns, while retrofitting done on the exterior to restore the façade. […] On the interior, the post office gallery no longer exists but has been re-constructed to provide a bar, a restaurant and the hotel foyer while the Straits Club Billiard Room was kept without its wood panelling. […] On the exterior, the building’s neo-classical columns and high-ceiling verandas were retained; they were clad in Shanghai plaster panels and restored. The windows were converted back to be housed in timber frames. […] Other adjunct features such as the tunnel (used to transfer mail onto ships waiting in the harbour) and the lighthouse were partly kept or shifted away (as an artifact near Harbour Front Tower) respectively. (Leong, 2001; Sim, 2001)

13.3 Students on the Exploration As part of a course on Southeast Asia taught in an institute at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), a fieldtrip in Singapore along with fieldwork provided options for undergraduates to be engaged on a number of levels—from posting on a forum to writing a term assignment based on part of the walk. The trip could best be termed a “guided fieldtrip,” where inquiry and observations pertained to the specific question that the undergraduates had to work on; the collection of information was more self-directed and open-ended when it came to heritage issues and questions. Although an 1860 Singapore map was used for the tour, an 1890 map was geo-tagged to a contemporary as well as Google map as the built-up areas on the island (indicated partly by roads built) around the mid-nineteenth century did not allow a wide enough network of reference points to permit GIS tagging. Once the map was tagged, there was a large degree of overlap between the basic schema of the town (the first areas that were opened up approximated, to some extent, the current CBD and its adjacent areas in the southernmost part of the island) in the nineteenth and twentyfirst centuries. Corresponding with the investigative question that the students had to probe into, the participants in the trip were required to acquaint themselves with a number of subfields before heading out: (i) mapwork and measuring “things” in the field (or in a museum)2 (ii) visual methodologies (iii) heritage studies 2 Quantifying

things in the museum draws upon the sub-field of museum studies (archaeology). Heritage studies broadly speaking looks at the relationship between people and tangible and intangible heritage through the use of social science research methods. The meanings of heritage are defined by social, cultural, and individual processes and understood through contemporary sociocultural and experiential values; therefore its meanings are rooted in the present and often subjective (than objective). Sometimes interview techniques in cultural (or social) anthropology (depending on whether it was classification in American or British scholarship) are deployed to elicit information from the specialist guide whether in a museum or overseas. Since the writer of this chapter is involved with early modern or more contemporary history, there is little or no room for use of physical anthropology (scientific discipline specifically concerned with the biological and behavioral aspects of human beings, their related non-human primates and their extinct hominin ancestors) in his fieldtrip or fieldwork.

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

269

13.3.1 Measuring “Things” Participants were encouraged to study the map closely before the trip so that they could readily trace their journey while in the field. The checkpoints could also be plotted on the trail in the Google map to facilitate the tracing of their progress while in the field. Activities in the field could take the form of comparing, ascertaining, and describing the designs of the railings on the bridge or the lamps and lampposts nearby; and comparing and describing the various design features in the market or some parts of Fullerton Hotel (old post office). In the process, students needed to take photographs and measurements of the edifices that they were attempting to describe in detail. In the transition to the mass use of iron in manufacturing and construction in the final decades of the nineteenth century, iron structures were typically larger and more durable than wooden ones serving a similar function. In the study of Telok Ayer Market, for instance, it was observed that the pre-1870 structure located on pre-reclaimed land was “built on two octagonal rings of brick piers, which supported a structure 125 feet in diameter, and an inner drum 40 feet in diameter” (Lee, 1983). Since part of the building structure of the current market was inherited intact from the post-1870s structure, we could take a field measurement of the current market (calculate its size) and compare it with the computed size of the pre-1870 market. The width of the contemporary octagonal market could be estimated by walking along one side of the structure and multiplying the number of steps by the “standard” length 3 of the step of that person (estimated at 25.8 √ meters). 2 The formula for calculating the area of an octagon is: Area = 2 (1 + 2) length , which gave the size of the market roughly as 3214 m2 . This measurement could be compared with the plans (and floor areas) of J. Coleman (1870s) and J. MacRitchie (1890s) at 1331 m2 and 5109 m2 , respectively. The current floor area is bigger than Coleman’s planned area but smaller than the planned area of the 1894 market. Here, one needed to note when the market underwent renovation in the 1980s, it reopened in a more limited form as a modern (cooked) food market in 1991 constrained by commercial developments in the surrounding areas as well as the building of Mass Rapid Transit (MRT). In the case of the bridge, the previous three-lane pathway was a reduced form of the current pathway, which has four lanes in each direction. Three-lane roads in Britain were transitioning from 5–7 meters in the early twentieth century to 10 meters or more in the 1930s (rickshaws and early Brass/Edwardian era cars spanned 0.8 meters in track dimension, although the latter were increased in size over time). Public signage on Cavenagh Bridge, which mandated the weight of the vehicles using it, gives an idea of the increasing burden of vehicles in use over time (by the early twentieth century it had become either a hassle or a hazard for horses and cattle to use the same bridge). It is possible to make a rough estimation of the width of the road today so that a comparison can be made with earlier times. The width of a four-lane road was 3 The

length of one side of the market was estimated by multiplying 29 paces of the side by the length of a single pace of the writer (0.89 m); which amounted to 25.8 metres.

270

T. Y. H. Sim

estimated at 49 meters (two-direction).4 Clearly, the individual vehicle width had also increased over time on top of the addition of an extra lane (Straits Times, 1870, April 23). 5 Lampposts in the Victorian period along main roads in London could have a height of 6 meters. Lampposts on secondary roads and more suburban environments could be half to two-thirds this height. There is enough fascination with Victorian designs and structures that there are at least a dozen architectural/design companies able to replicate these structures in the modern day. Students could also match the designs on lampposts and railings with traditional design patterns collected in books (see Figs. 13.5, 13.7 and 13.8 in the appendices). The railing design of Coleman Bridge, for instance, featured a forged iron circle design intersected by crisscross bars welded to floral tips, a common design that was duplicated on Read Bridge (see Fig. 13.10 in the appendices).

13.3.2 Visual Methodologies Gillian Rose’s work (2012), published in multiple editions (1st edition 2002), has been touted by some reviews as being a comprehensive and critical text for advanced undergraduates and novice researchers, although an advanced practitioner found the work “too critical” and not having enough theoretical underpinnings (Gering, 2017). The analysis of photographs or images captured from the field during the trip can be analyzed by compositional interpretation, discourse analysis (context analysis), and photo-elicitation. These methodologies are used to analyze a mix of images taken from the field as well as historical photographs. Compositional interpretation draws from a certain tradition in art history, pays some attention to the production of images, but is “mostly concerned with the image and its compositional modality” (Rose, 2012, p. 79). The use of compositional modality in this paper is concerned with the analysis of content and spatial organization. Discourse analysis, drawing from the theoretical legacy of Michel Foucault, uses “the notion of discourse to address the rhetorical organization and social production of the visual [and other materials]” (Rose, 2012, p. 162).

4 The length of the width of the road was estimated by multiplying 55 paces of the side by the length

of a single pace of the writer (0.89m); which amounted to 49 metres. An alternative method is to make an estimation of the distance “using the thumb” (see method suggested in “Outdoor Herbivore Bog”). Width of road = 1.96 (length of estimated object (railing)) × 2.5 (multiplication factor for selected object in relation to distance estimated by thumb) × 10 (suggested multiplication factor to achieve actual distance) = 49 m. 5 Discussion in Municipal office on why the Cavenagh bridge needed to expand. As goods were unloaded on the western side of Singapore river, they needed to be transported to the eastern side; hence the need to upgrade the crossing. As a ‘barometer’ of trade, this also explained why the Telok Ayer market faced pressures to expand over time. As a gauge and comparison, the Coleman bridge (serving Clarke quay) was already expanded to a 3-lane road/crossing by the 1880s.

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

271

From the point of view of compositional interpretation and surveying photographs and paintings in a variety of compiled collections (Toh, 2009; Wong, 2010), the photographs and paintings may be categorized as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

waterfront, Singapore River, and harbor European infrastructure or parts of town panoramas ethnic enclaves natural scenery, the interior part of the island, the Botanic Gardens, and new suburbs

Despite the increasing availability of photography, there continued to be demand for lithographic production of paintings. Paintings had a tendency to zoom in on plant and animal life, representing an interest in the natural world rather than “things technological” (Toh, 2009; Wong, 2010). The categories that overlap most with the themes of this study are (i) and (ii). Photographs usually have a central subject. In photographs of the early period, the focus was sometimes on a modernizing feature of society, something technological. Referring to Figs. 13.9 and 13.10, the bridges are captured as a centrality in the illustrations. Jackson Bridge (Fig. 13.9) was the first bridge to link North and South Bridge Roads (a connection that Coleman Bridge also served). Although the (Jackson) bridge was built of wooden materials, the accompanying description highlights that the “central portion of the bridge could be raised to allow vessels to pass upstream.” Picture B6 depict some functional aspects relating to the Read bridge (possessed similar railing design as the Coleman bridge). The illustration shows busy traffic on it as well as smaller vessels passing beneath it. One can refer specifically to the magnificent volumes of collection of paintings and photographs authored by J. Toh and H.S. Wong (refer to reference list) for a similar exercise in compositional interpretation.6 The previous section of the essay revealed that although much of the post office building’s exterior grandeur still remains, one would have to rely on one’s imagination to recreate a picture of the activities there during colonial times, as the interior has been largely reconstructed and the post office gallery no longer exists. One may simulate the environment by locating oneself at the level above the bar, restaurant, and Straits Club Room, armed with a floor plan of the gallery where the comptroller oversaw all activities taking place. Gaps in knowledge may be partially filled using the floor plan of the Fullerton post office and records of the colonial post office in Calcutta (Kolkata) and Rangoon (Yangon) where available. Participants were able to gain insights on postal rates, stamps, the challenging task of getting letters to their destinations, and even peculiar services offered by the post office (such as the services of a savings bank). Through studying photographs and paintings on bridges that were similar in structure or similar in the past and present, as well as taking actual measurements on the ground, participants gained a closer appreciation and 6 See

for instance, Toh, Singapore through 19th century photographs, pp. 80 and 89; Wong, Singapore through 19th century prints and paintings, p. 71.

272

T. Y. H. Sim

empathy of a booming place that served as an administrative center of the British colonial enterprise in Southeast Asia. Discourse analysis, which highlights “discourse to address the rhetorical organization and social production of the image,” could ideally be deployed to tease out possible subjective background contexts associated with the visual or picture under discussion (Rose, 2012, pp. 164–186). Photo-elicitation, which focuses on “the sites of production, image and audiencing in relation to the [research] participants,” could also be deployed to draw out the students’ thoughts in relation to contemporary and heritage subject matter (Rose, 2012, p. 326). This will be discussed in the next section.

13.3.3 Heritage Studies Heritage studies, broadly speaking, look at the relationship between people and tangible as well as intangible heritage through the use of social science research methods—for instance, as applied to the assessment of site damage arising from intensive tourist activities. The meanings of heritage are, however, defined by social, cultural, and individual processes and understood through contemporary sociocultural and experiential values, often leading to more subjective (rather than objective) interpretation. In Singapore, K. Ting (2015) has observed that “all laymen are experts in [local] heritage.” Students participating in the trip needed to write short forum postings and/or undertake to write an essay on an assigned topic. The methodological approach of photo-elicitation evoking the paintings and photographs from collections in books such as Singapore through 19th century photographs, Singapore through 19th century prints and paintings and/or illustrations in the appendices lent a hand to tease out the thoughts of the participants in conjunction with some guided questions. The short questions on contemporary and heritage subject matter were as follows: (i)

What does “heritage” mean to you? To what extent does it apply to the places we visited? (ii) To what extent are vestiges from the past evident at the post office/hotel, market, and bridge? (iii) Generally, to what extent are links to the past (nineteenth-century colonial Singapore) still obvious on the walking trail? Postcolonial Singapore, as Goh (2016) has shown, was not hostile to its colonial heritage and went on to embrace neoliberal development (technology, capitalism, etc.) “without the reactions” currently experienced in certain Western societies. Prior to the drafting of Renaissance City Plan III, the heritage awareness survey conducted in 2006 showed favorable perception of heritage-related issues and activities in the populace, with 70% and 90% indicating they “want[ed] to be engaged in heritage activities” and “supported the idea of heritage as a ‘rooting’ factor [that

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

273

could] augment a sense of belonging” (Lim, 2017, pp. 28–29). Although key directions in heritage policies are the domain of government business, there have increasingly been voices asserting a different view. K. S. Loh (2009) has looked at how a certain early episode of post-independence Singapore’s development (in particular, the Bukit Ho Swee fire) was framed in a more unitary mode of conception informed by the state narrative. He surmised that this was done at the expense of “silence and countermyth […] leading to a loss of agency including the extent to which one can freely [and publicly] remember the past.” The diversification of the economy from the 1970s also led to parts of the city being developed into tourist zones, for instance, the Singapore River. The pursuit of ecological and economic growth goals led to compromises in other facets of life and heritage along the river: the insistence on a clean waterway and setting up of retail stores, for example, led to the displacement of social and traditional cultural communities in these areas. Segments of society mobilized to petition the Singapore government, in one of the strongest reactions to a heritage issue, to reconsider its course of action when it announced plans in 2011 for “a road that would run through part of Bukit Brown; [which would in turn] require the destruction and exhumation of 5000 graves” (Chong, 2011; Han, 2013; Wong, 2012). How did the course attendees, as members of the public, perceive the relics and reconstructed structures along the nineteenth-century trail? In forum posts in a selected run of the course, participants in the trip were “quite fascinated” to hear about Telok Ayer Market (and secondarily Coleman Bridge) and the Victorian designs that were preserved or re-fabricated in the market’s structure. Participants were most impressed with the exterior features of Fullerton Hotel, which were well preserved. There did not appear to be any reaction in the posts to British colonialism, although some posts pointed out that a number of streets in town had British names. This was probably because Singapore had one of the “least hostile” post-independence governments compared with other former colonial states (Clammar, 1985). Although participants knew that parts of the market were from the original structure, and they were read a narrative about the market when it still sold fruit, fish, and poultry, the feeling of empathy was not easily evoked because some people from the Y generation or millennials might not even have experienced a wet market.7 On the whole, the students felt that Singapore’s well-organized system managed to preserve a number of places along the trip’s trail, especially in their exterior features, although how much of the soul of these places remained was another question (RFT, 2017). In responding to the questions on linkages to the past, students conveyed their views about issues of heritage. From the perspective of discourse analysis and linking reasons to past occurrences, students who wrote their essays on the fieldtrip topic were more interested in looking at the natives’ point of view (RFT, 2017). While it was difficult to obtain the general perspective of locals from the nineteenth century, this course tried to point out that the British colonial enterprise was forged with a certain degree of native participation, especially from the local elites, who were also most amenable to leaving behind 7A

market selling perishables such as fresh meat, fish, vegetables, and other produce.

274

T. Y. H. Sim

records. The examples linked to the discussion on the issue were Tan Kim Seng (TKS) and Tan Kim Ching (TKC), who were appointed as justices of peace (TKS and TKC); acted as go-betweens between Britain and Siam (the story was shared at the beginning of the trip, near the mouth of the Singapore River, where the elephant statue gifted by Chulalongkorn was located) (TKC); contributed to the golden jubilee of Queen Victoria (in 1887) (TKC); contributed to the building of a metal bridge (Kim Seng Bridge) (TKS), etc. As collaborators with colonial rule, the local Chinese elites closely trailed the British colonialists in embracing the technological advances of the new industrial age. They were the first to set up the mechanized factories and steamship companies that operated in the Singapore-Malaya region (Song, 1984).

13.4 Conclusion The rise of Singapore could be seen as a corollary of the British rise in Southeast Asia. Embedded in the rise was the assertion of tangible and intangible dimensions of Western colonialism such as technology and the system of administration. This paper has undertaken to probe into the surviving vestiges of British rule in the nineteenth century as well as to document and explicate a process by which students could be inducted into a course on Southeast Asia. Given that the foci on learning and life skills in the twenty-first century are markedly different from those of the twentieth century, there are benefits to adopting cross-disciplinary techniques and methodologies while at the same time maintaining the traditional emphases of the subject of history. It is suggested that students look into the following: (i mapwork and measuring things in the field (or museum) (ii) visual methodologies (iii) heritage studies in exploring the structures and edifices while walking the trail, comparing early built-up parts of Singapore with a nineteenth-century map It is hoped that through combining observations from the field with visual and textual sources, students will be able to recreate the environment of early colonial Singapore and ascertain whether specific factors (technology and the colonial system) permitted the island to play an important role in facilitating the British colonial image and administration of the region, and that such knowledge will help students round out their arguments in their essays. Beyond the more mature students addressed in this essay, it is also hoped that the approach will be adopted at various levels of schooling aligned to curricula (e.g., British colonialism in Singapore and Malaya) to offer another alternative to enliven the teaching of the subject and topic. Acknowledgements The author would like to express his special thanks to Dr Meng Ieng Ung for the interest taken in this project and for the time and effort taken to geo-tag the 19th century map of Singapore to a modern/google map.

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

Appendices Market (M) See Figs. 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, and 13.4. Bridge (B) See Figs. 13.5, 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10. Post office (P) See Figs. 13.11, 13.12, and 13.13.

Fig. 13.1 1890 reconstruction of Old Market

Fig. 13.2 Arch, Lau Pa Sat (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim)

275

276 Fig. 13.3 Pillar and design, Lau Pa Sat (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim)

Fig. 13.4 Canopy, Lau Pa Sat (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim)

Fig. 13.5 Railing design (Reproduced with permission from Dover Publications. Source Feller Josef [2005]. Traditional Ironwork Designs (Dover Pictorial Archive). New York: Dover Publications, Inc.)

T. Y. H. Sim

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

Fig. 13.6 Coleman bridge, modern (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim) Fig. 13.7 Railing, Coleman bridge (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim)

Fig. 13.8 Street lamp, near bridge (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim)

277

278

Fig. 13.9 Jackson Bridge

Fig. 13.10 Read Bridge

T. Y. H. Sim

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

279

Fig. 13.11 Plan view of post office (Reproduced with permission from Fullerton Hotel, Singapore) Fig. 13.12 Fullerton, modern front (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim)

Fig. 13.13 Mail delivery and indigenous remittance company (Image courtesy of Teddy Sim)

280

T. Y. H. Sim

References Abeilan, J. (2017). Water supply and sanitation services in modern Europe: Developments in 19th– 20th centuries. Conference paper at University of Salamanca. Adas, M. (1989). Machines as a measure of men: Science, technology and ideologies of Western dominance. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bastin, J. (1994). Travellers’ Singapore: An anthology. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Bob, P. (2009, September–October). Making 21st century schools: Creating learner-centered school places/work places for a new culture of students at work. Educational technology. Retrieved from: http://www.bobpearlman.org/Articles/ET%20Bob%20Pearlman%20article.pdf. Briggs, A. (1963). Victorian cities. London: Odhams press. Buckley, C. B. (1969). Anecdotal history of old times in Singapore (Vol. 2). Singapore: Fraser and Neave. Chong, T. (2011). Manufacturing authenticity: The cultural production of national identities in Singapore. Modern Asian studies, 45(4), 877–897. Clammar, J. (1985). Singapore ideology, culture and society. Singapore: Chopmen Publisher. Cornelius, V. (2017). Coleman bridge. Singapore: NLB Infopedia. Cuban, L. (2015). Content vs. skills in high schools—21st century arguments echo 19th century conflicts. Retrieved from: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/content-vs-ski lls-in-high-schools-21st-century-arguments-echo-19th-century-conflicts/. Dobbs, S. (2011). Singapore river/port in global context. In D. Heng and M. K. Aljunied (Eds.), Singapore in global context (pp. 51–65) Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univeristy Press. Fullerton Hotel. (2016, January 28). The Fullerton stories personality: Mr M. Bala Subramanion youtube video. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WBzxyPwPww. Gering, Z. (2017). Review of ‘Visual methodologies: Introduction to research with visual materials’. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 8(1), 127–131. Goh, C. B. (2013). Technology and entrepot colonialism in Singapore. Singapore: ISEAS. Goh, C. B. (2016). From traders to innovators: Science and technology in Singapore since 1965. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute. Han, K. (2013, October). The fight to save Bukit Brown. The Diplomat. Retrieved from: https://the diplomat.com/2013/10/singapore-the-fight-to-save-bukit-brown/. Jayapa, M. (1991). Old Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Lee, K. L. (1983). Telok Ayer market: A historical account of the market from the founding of the settlement of Singapore to the present time. Singapore: Archives & Oral History Dept. Lee, K. L. (1991). Telok Ayer market. Singapore: Lee K.L. Leong, P. (2001, April 12). Hotel project preserves hallmarks of Fullerton building. The Straits Times, 43. Lim, T. W. (2017). Cultural heritage and peripheral spaces in Singapore. Singapore: Springer. Loh, K. S. (2009). History, memory and identity in modern Singapore: Testimonies from the urban margins. Oral History Review, 36(1), 1–24. National Commission for Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html. P 21. (2008). 21st Century skills, education and competitiveness. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st century Skills. Retrieved from: http://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21. Puri, S., & Castillo, D. A. (2016). Theorizing fieldwork in the humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rose, G. (2012). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Sim, A. (2001, July 19). Fullerton wins heritage award. The Straits Times, p. L7. Sim, Y. H. (2017). Course on “Southeast Asia in the 19th century”. Report and notes on Field Trip (RFT). Singapore: NIE HSSE. Skinner, G. W. (1977). Regional urbanization in nineteenth-century China. In G. Skinner (Ed.), Late imperial China (pp. 275–352). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

13 Exploring Singapore as an Archetypal Urban …

281

Song, O. S. (1984). One hundred years’ history of the Chinese in Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Tan, J. (2014, December 16). Keeping mouth shut vital for job. Asiaone. Retrieved from: http:// news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/keeping-mouth-shut-vital-job. The Straits Times. (1870, April 23). p. 1 (NL5197). Ting, K. (2015). Heritage. Singapore: ISEAS. Toh, J. (2009). Singapore through 19th century photographs. Singapore: Dider Millet. United States (U.S.A.). (1999). Futurework, trends and challenges for work in the 21st century. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Labor. Wong, H. S. (2010). Singapore through 19th century prints and paintings. Singapore: Dider Millet. Wong, M. W. (2012). Negotiating class, taste and culture via the arts scene in Singapore: Postcolonial or cosmopolitan global? Asian Theatre Journal, 29(1), 233–254. Yeoh, B., & Kong, L. (2003). The politics of landscape of Singapore. Syracuse NY: Syracuse University Press. NHB. Former Telok Ayer market. Retrieved from: https://roots.sg/Content/Places/national-monume nts/former-telok-ayer-market-now-known-as-lau-pa-sat.

Teddy Y. H. Sim (FRHistS) is currently lecturing at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He has published on specific involvements of the Portuguese in the East. He is the author of Portuguese Enterprise in the East: Survival in the Years 1707-57 and editor of Piracy and Surreptitious Activities in the Malay Archipelago and Adjacent Seas 1600-1840 and Maritime Defence of China: Ming General Qi Jiguang and Beyond. Teddy is passionate about fieldtrips in his history courses on South and Southeast Asia. His courses usually feature a local or overseas trip that facilitates as part of the overall study and exploration.

Chapter 14

Combining Text and Travel in the Studying of the Dutch East Indies: Incorporating Fieldtrips in the Teaching of a History Course on Southeast Asia Teddy Y. H. Sim Abstract The East Indies (currently Indonesia) was a complex region politically and culturally. The study of the East Indies in an undergraduate course on Southeast Asia has over the years integrated visits (reconnoitring and/or involving students) to Jakarta, Makassar, (Banda) Aceh and Kupang (via Dili). The travels has helped with the understanding of themes such as the extent to which Dutch colonialism evolved overseas in the East Indies or the degree to which indigenous or diasporic/intermediate groups adapted in collaborating or resisting the Dutch colonial encroachment. This essay aims to discuss the connection between points in general/niche knowledge in secondary textual sources with what is observed in the fieldtrips; in the process engaging in sub-fields outside the subject of history in order to better mitigate the vestiges of time and understand past development better in context of contemporary society.

14.1 Introduction If one could actualize Plato’s vision of the world, nurturing citizens for social and political discussion and discourse in society would be one way in which people could live out the idealized society. “Play” in Plato’s conception was intended to cultivate people to operate in the real and ultimately ideal society. In this context, play was akin to exposing and training incumbents to participate in the political and social discourse of Athens. The exposure permitted participants to make the necessary trial and error to become acquainted with the process. There are many uses of history, a discipline of study most notably aiming to inquire what happened to men. When history is deployed to study societies in different geographical regions, part of the agenda evolves to knowing about the past and near contemporary affairs of people in these societies. If one were to incorporate nontextual evidence (from the field) in the exploration of these societies, one may have T. Y. H. Sim (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_14

283

284

T. Y. H. Sim

to utilize methodologies from adjacent social sciences or new subdisciplines (such as heritage studies) to find out how objects or structures from the field might have changed over time. Hence, “play” in history is as much about honing inquiry skills as about getting to know about the society under study. This chapter forms the second part of the twin-essay to explore aspects of imperialism and colonialism in Southeast Asia and its teaching (in the form of using fieldtrips). In contrast with Chapter 13, it will focus on fieldtrips that were undertaken outside Singapore; such trips obviously entailed adjustments to be made in the exploration of the topic depending on the availability of sites for study and hence evidence that could be gathered. In terms of the structure of the chapter, the essay will study some of the key issues and trends in imperialism/colonialism, particularly the role of various cities or ports as points of control in the Dutch East Indies, as well as the evolution of cultural traits in indigenous/migrant peoples and their responses to Western encroachment. Extending from this, observations of the instructor and/or participants in the field and how these might connect to academic knowledge on the subject matter will also be discussed. Inevitably, in interacting and speaking with people (moderns) on the ground, history takes a broader perspectival approach and overlaps with contemporary subfields of studies such as heritage studies. More important, such an approach allows participants to get one step closer to perceiving the complex and more authentic world of Indonesia and hopefully fosters in them a keener sense of cultural sensitivity and empathy when they have an opportunity to go into that part of the world.

14.2 Discussion on Dutch East Indies and Going on the Trip The development of studies on colonialism/imperialism conforms, to some extent, to the general discussion in the field. J. Osterhammel (2014) has attempted to distinguish between colonialism and imperialism, relating the former distinctly with “owning colonies.” This resonates with the classification of colonialism as being more associated with pre-industrial overseas expansion. The imperialism of the late nineteenth century (Second Industrial Revolution) arising from dramatic advances in weaponry, medicine, etc., saw extensive inland conquests of the non-Western world (beyond the coasts and coastal settlements). In this, the history of colonialism/imperialism in Southeast Asia echoed developments elsewhere. The differences were revealed in, for instance, variations in mode, pace, and manifestation of the phenomenon. The mode of establishment of Western colonial maritime empires was distinct from preindustrial agrarian empires, although the former came in a variety of forms (Fieldhouse, 1961; Hobson, 2015; Roger, 1976). Most recently, Brian P. Farrell et al. (2018) edited the two-volume Empire in Asia: A New Global History, which divides empires into nineteenth and pre-nineteenth century and examines their characteristics as well as transitions as part of world history. The larger messages summed up in the book set acknowledge that the transitions occurring in the different regions of Asia might not have been “bounded by dates [rather than] vectors of change.” Also,

14 Combining Text and Travel in the …

285

the indigenous (Asian, however definable this might be) states and entities were linked to some extent to the world system, and their induction (and participation) in this system involved local responses and interaction (Bayly, 2004; Osterhammel, 2014; Pomeranz, 2000). This is somewhat different from V. Lieberman’s comparative world history titled Strange Parallels, which has the more unitary message of a world becoming increasingly homogenous, compared to a more diverse interpretation of empires (Lieberman, 2003, 2009). Elsewhere, a survey of journals (from 2000) such as the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies and Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society reveals limited research on the different regions of the Dutch in the East Indies in the early modern period and nineteenth century (Koh, 2017; Schulte, 2011; Sysling, 2018; Wessing, 2014). There are probably as many passionate teachers willing to take students to the field if the curriculum goals, lesson time, and assessment can be appropriately balanced. Given sufficient contextual preparation and pre-trip immersion (refer to bibliography list) as well as the engagement of a credible tour company, which is able to procure a senior and knowledgeable local guide, students are likely to be inducted to know Indonesia, as opposed to knowing about Indonesia. One suspects that many of the marvellous trips are not shared widely because the reporting required of such trips is usually sufficed at the level of internal reporting in the organization. In Singapore, the fieldwork school in the Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre often took selected participants to parts of Southeast Asia, although these trips were usually related to archaeology, anthropology, or the ancient period of Southeast Asian history. The Southeast Asian Studies program at the National University of Singapore also regularly features trips to different parts of Southeast Asia as part of its attractive curricular design. Outside Singapore, one of the most rigorous programs in the immersion of Indonesia is hosted by the Australian Consortium for In-Country Indonesian Studies. The organization has won the national prize in Australia for establishing one of the best programs that enhance student learning. The initiative to undertake fieldtrips to Indonesia was prompted partly by the fact that the country was too vast and diverse a place to be acquainted solely through texts (Colombijn & Lindblad, 2002; King, 2008; King, Ibrahim, & Hassan, 2017; Reid, 2004; Resink, 1968; Ricklefs, 2008; Vickers, 2013). Although it is possible to intensively study cities and the associated regions in class, there is a limit to the exposure and immersion that students can derive in such a setting. However, in anticipation of the trip abroad, participants were able to step up their reading, striving to read above their usual load (at the airport, on the flight, in the bus, etc.). The interactions the trip participants had with the tour guide and people they encountered on the ground prompted them to connect better when they realized that the static and detached information they had read became alive and connected to the environs. The senior guides on the study trips sparked the participants’ interest and intellectual level of engagement when he too brought along some of his books in order to verify the information exchanged. Moreover, although a broad thematic question was identified for study and essay writing, the issues and points of argument encountered in the different cities were contingent on the exposure that could be viably arranged on the ground (although this could present as bias as well). Although heritage issues were

286

T. Y. H. Sim

not always in the direct line of inquiry, participants could also probe into why things were conserved or not conserved in the place of visit (King, 2015). The fieldtrips in the course on Southeast Asia were undertaken with students or on a reconnoitring basis. On the past fieldtrips involving students, the overarching thematic questions that participants could choose to write their essay on were the extent to which Dutch colonialism evolved overseas in the East Indies and the degree to which indigenous or diasporic/intermediate groups adapted in collaborating with or resisting the Dutch colonial encroachment. The port settlements surveyed in this chapter (Jakarta, Makassar, Banda Aceh, and Kupang (via Dili)) were not always the foremost ports in the region; they served as symbolic or administrative centers of the region in a number of case studies under discussion; and they were plural settlements organized to some extent along economic functional communities. The last statement is somewhat borne out by J. S. Furnivall (1971), whose study on Burma and the East Indies highlighted characteristics of colonial societies in Southeast Asia. These characteristics are still applicable to some extent. Among the four key settlements discussed in detail in this essay, Jakarta and Makassar functioned as both administrative and trading settlements, while Banda Aceh served in a more symbolic and administrative capacity. In context of VOC acquisition of the East Indies, Dili was unconventional in that it had defied the Dutch expansion and served as a rival political center but faced a distorted arrangement of relations in its political-social subgroups as well as performed dismally in external trade. Other settlements in the vicinity of centers identified may be discussed in terms of their similar or dissimilar traits in the context of the loci of the key settlements identified: Jakarta, for instance, could be juxtaposed with Semarang/Surabaya and Jogjakarta/Solo in discussion.

14.3 Batavia Batavia, or Jayakarta, was a colonial settlement that has been relatively well researched and written about, from its founding to its expansion and decay (of old parts). Dutch establishment and control of Batavia was achieved to some extent in the course of the seventeenth century. By the 1680s, the administrative structure was set up and functional in the outskirts and rural parts of Batavia’s Ommelanden (Kanumoyoso, 2011). While Batavia’s regional and international trade grew in complexity, the same could not be said about the administration of the settlement. For a long time, until after the 1740 massacre of Chinese, Chinese were not allowed to live in the city. Jan Pieterszoon Coen set up a series of canals (3 + 1 crisscross) in the settlement in the hope that an eastern version of Amsterdam might be established. Economically, Batavia constituted a major point of exchange in the triangular trade in the Indian Ocean in the early modern period and nineteenth century. From an intra-regional point of view, Batavia was a collection point for goods coming from Ambon, Makassar, Pontianak, as well as ports in Sumatra (Blusse, 2008). Among the major settlements in the East Indies, a number was located on Java. The island was a volcanic but fertile place that supported a substantial population

14 Combining Text and Travel in the …

287

of Javanese and Sundanese in the early modern period. Coastal settlements such as Semarang and Surabaya were more like Batavia compared to inland cities such as Jogjakarta. Comparatively speaking, Semarang and Surabaya possessed diverse populations, although some have asserted that they were not as diverse as Batavia’s (Bacon & Collins, 2011). Both Surabaya and Semarang were precolonial in existence and possessed several distinct communities, such as Europeans, Chinese, Hadhrami, and Armenians, as witnessed by the historical structures still standing in the twentyfirst century—gerejas (churches), Chinese temples in both settlements, as well as Hotel Majapahit and Ampei mosque in Surabaya. Compared to the coastal settlements, Jogjakarta and Solo, being so close to the mystical Mount Merapi and kingdoms of the classical period, saw more regalia in their court culture—although these cities became more prominent only in the early modern period. Returning to the analysis on Batavia, there were invariably more paintings from various genres other than oil. Oils made up a sizable collection at the Jakarta History Museum (former governor’s palace). The National Museum of Indonesia, by contrast, featured more dioramas and models/miniatures. Compared to the collection at Tropenmuseum (available online), for instance, oil paintings constituted about onetenth the number of all other categories (prints, still lifes, etc.). Paintings of Batavia depict different facets of the settlement before the twentieth century. The focus on landscapes and everyday life drew upon baroque influence. Folklore (and mythology) was not obvious, but the subtheme of going back to nature, celebrated as a way for self- and spiritual discovery (serving as a bulwark against the dehumanizing effects of industrialization), was prominent in paintings, along with constant portraits of officials and civilians at the highest levels of colonial society. On a more functional level, paintings on aspects of colonial settlements, especially in the interior of the islands, served as a way to chart and keep records of new territories acquired (such as Java after 1830). Andries Beeckman’s “View of Batavia,” for instance, shows the fish market, the castle (before its demolition in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries), a canal (lined by trees on both sides), and white warehouses. Although the features in the painting have been made more vivid (for instance, part of the fish market and part of the canal), the work still has the ability to inject empathy and enliven the imagination of the place in conjunction with site visits. From Willem Bleckmann’s more modern works, we have details not only of the canals and Chinese quarters but also of Javanese peasants and harvesting activities in the suburbs and interior. At the same time, there was experimentation with light to evoke a certain mood in the drawings (Scalliet et al., 1999). In the postcolonial era, the extent of aversion for things colonial depended on the stance of the post-independence government toward the colonial period. Although multiple and contradictory stances could be embraced by post-independence states or societies, a survey of the artifact displays gathered in a collected volume of the Tropenmuseum showed that in the period after the Cold War, there was a revival of liberalness and economic cooperation and hence a de-emphasis on the derogatory or unequal relation between the Netherlands and a former colonial state (Dijk, 2011; Merrillees, 2000). Museums in Jakarta, especially the National Museum, had a tendency to depict the resistance of the indigenous

288

T. Y. H. Sim

people against the Dutch, for instance, in the dioramas on the Padri (or Minangkabau) War, Java (or Diponegoro) War, Banjar (or Banjarmasin) War, Aceh War, as well as Battle of Jagaraga (in Bali) (RFT, 2015–2017). Besides identifying the part of the settlement on the map where the Chinese dwellings were located (Godok), the participants were guided to the oldest Chinese temple, where they could examine the founding plaque to discover the circumstances of the early Chinese settlers’ survival and settlement.

14.4 Makassar Located in Celebes (Sulawesi), Makassar was one of the sizable towns in the south of the island that grew after the Makassar War (1666–1669). The inhabitants of the towns, who had been prominent seafarers and sea warriors for ages, were known to consist of three sub-ethnic groups (Bugis, Makassarese, and Mandarese). The kingdom (later sultanate) of Gowa-Tallo predated the arrival of the Dutch and had been trading in commodities such as spices, gold, and other native products. The realm of Gowa-Tallo was not always peaceful. A chiefdom of Bone led factions of the Bugis against the sultanate. From a regional trade perspective, both Makassar (Celebes) and Banjarmasin (Borneo) were local hubs as well as important intermediate trading ports between ports in the south Philippines, the Spice Islands, and ports farther east (notably Batavia). Emigration by the Bugis increased during and after the Makassar War. Prior to the war, groups of Bugis had raided and moved to different places in archipelagic Southeast Asia, not unlike the Iranuns that came after. In the Johor sultanate in the Malay Peninsula, for instance, the Bugis had established themselves as an armed force for the sultanate, competing with the Orang Lauts who had held this role before them. Other than being one of the biggest islands, Celebes was resource-rich. During periods when the Bugis and Iranuns (Balagingis) were posing a menace in the region, the Celebes Sea and Makassar Straits (aside from the routes via the South China and Moluccas Seas) were important routes through which pirate-invaders were able to strike into the core areas of the Malay Archipelago. The tentacle-like peninsula of Celebes was challenging terrain to negotiate. The Spaniards had arrived in north Celebes before the Dutch, and the latter took over the settlement of Manado in the mid-seventeenth century (1658). Closer to Makassar city, the Torajas (upland people) had been in rivalry with the Bugis/Makassarese over the ages. The Dutch allied with the lowland people, which gradually allowed them to conquer inland areas (Cummings, 2007). Not surprisingly, Dutch control of Celebes was achieved only in the early twentieth century. A field visit is able to facilitate understanding of certain issues, such as the following: (i)

The rivalry between the different sub-linguistic and sub-ethnic groups (with modern implications and legacy), substantiated by cultural differences depicted

14 Combining Text and Travel in the …

289

in the Fort Rotterdam Museum. How was this rivalry exploited by the Dutch? What was the role of subcommunities such as the Chinese? (ii) How did military and naval technology in Makassar, a society actively engaged in trade, catch up with early modern European developments in the area? (iii) The Makassarese were defeated by the Dutch during the Makassar War, at the height of the Gowa-Tallo sultanate. What was the implication of the defeat on the interpretation of trajectories of early modern states in insular Southeast Asia? On the first issue, while one can get a good idea of the different sub-linguistic and sub-ethnic groups from C. Pelras’s (1996) work as well as more layman toolkit books such as Insight Guides (2012), a field visit allows one to vividly perceive the distinctive color differences between the costumes of the Torajas and Bugis. On one visit to Makassar, it appeared that the differences between the Bugis and Makassarese were minimal, although the senior guide on the ground noted that their names and spoken (colloquial) languages were able to reveal the differences. In fact, our senior guide revered (Makassarese) Sultan Hasanudin, while the image of Bugis King Aru Palakka was covered and the king was not seen much around the city (RFT, 2015–2017). Regarding the involvement of other sub-ethnic groups, such as the Chinese, who contributed to the rise of other Dutch colonial port settlements, the Dutch conquest of Makassar in the mid-seventeenth century appeared to have led to a period of trade constriction. In the longer term (18th century), the Chinese were allowed to own more revenue farms and trade in a variety of cash crops and native products (Kispal-van Deijk, 2013). Regarding military technology and the resistance effort, it appeared that the Makassarese were able to build bastion-like forts that bore some resemblance to Western designs. The ditches and ramparts mimicked the trace italienne style adopted by Portuguese and other European communities in Makassar. Indeed, it could be verified that the battle for the fort of Somba Opu was one of the hardest for the VOC (Andaya, 1981, pp. 132–133). Here, students had ample opportunities to use improvised techniques to take measurements of indigenous fortifications after studying images of the past. At the museum of Fort Rotterdam, cannons cast with indigenous designs (such as crocodile motifs) and specimens of Western pistols were on display. Regarding the seas, one scholar has speculated that the ability of the Bugis to raid and compete for trade was due to their efforts to incorporate Western shipbuilding methods in the construction of their own ships, pinisi (Horridge, 1979; Knaap & Sutherland, 2004). We know from an Iranun case study that the largest vessels (prahu) were armed with a variety of firearms (Rutter, 1950). The defeat of Gowa-Tallo under Sultan Hasanudin has wide implications for discussion, e.g., how did a cosmopolitan and highly commercialized society that was able to arm itself to some extent with Western weaponry and defense structures, under one of its most capable kings, fall to the Dutch? Based on Lieberman’s model of trade-political-military dynamics, the Gowa-Tallo sultanate appeared to have conformed to the observation that few societies were truly stagnant and that states attempted to embrace a more effective path of

290

T. Y. H. Sim

development, verifying Lieberman’s thesis that societies within and outside Southeast Asia were gravitating toward becoming more similar (Lieberman, 2003, 2009). On the other hand, G. V. Scammell (1980) has discussed how internal divisions in non-European political entities, whether in South America or in Asia, were an important reason why Europeans were usually able to attain their hegemonic objectives halfway around the world. The fall of the Gowa-Tallo kingdom was attributed to the vassal kingdom of Bone, which rose in power and collaborated with the Europeans and also supplied many of the troops needed for the difficult storming of the Makassar fortifications. The close interaction with the tour guide revealed the at times antagonistic sentiments of different subgroups in Makassarese society today inherited from the (Gowa-Bone) conflicts of the colonial period.

14.5 Banda Aceh The plan to visit Banda Aceh, rather than Medan, arose from the fact that the small city more closely reflected the local culture as well as the challenging experience of the Dutch in pacifying North Sumatra. The sultanate of Aceh was, coincidentally, established in the same year as the fall of Melaka. The sultanate had always considered itself special because it was one of the first places in Southeast Asia to embrace Islam. Aceh was involved in a quadrilateral rivalry with the Johor sultanate, the Dutch, and the Portuguese for much of the 16th and early 17th centuries (Mitraing, 2015). With the weakening of the Dutch in the 18th century, the British started to actively intervene in the politics of Aceh (Lee, 1995); this partly explained the close relationship between the inhabitants of Banda Aceh and Penang. In terms of domestic politics, Aceh competed for lands to the south (Deli) with the Siak sultanate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as archipelagic politics became more multipolar. The city of Banda Aceh has been known since the days of Marco Polo (thirteenth century). From an economic perspective, Banda Aceh faced stiff competition in the spice trade in the eighteenth century as more ports opened up for trade along the Sumatran coasts, although it was still a major pepper supplier at the beginning of the nineteenth century. As one of the biggest islands in the Malay Archipelago, Sumatra also hosted a number of large-sized cities. Medan grew rapidly as a port only in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in contrast with Palembang—at the other end of the island—which had been a major political and economic center since the classical period. With the passing of Srivijaya, Palembang came under the influence of expansive powers from neighboring Java in the form of Singhasari and Majapahit. A political entity that rose in the seventeenth century and declined by the early nineteenth was the Palembang sultanate. In 1812 the British actually attacked and occupied the city for a brief period before it passed to Dutch aegis and residency. On the ground, Palembang had been a port of mediocre status since the end of the classical period. It experienced a boom in the late nineteenth century, when the Dutch introduced

14 Combining Text and Travel in the …

291

rubber in the surrounding areas. Along with the other centers such as Padang, Pekanbaru, and Aceh whose roots could be traced to the sixteenth–eighteenth centuries, the settlement presented a formidable challenge to Dutch domination well into the early twentieth century. Currently, Aceh is governed not as an ordinary province but as a special territory (under Islamic sharia law), with additional autonomy from the central government in Jakarta. Aceh waged a civil war against the Indonesian government under the banner of the Free Aceh Movement from the 1970s; this ended only in 2006, after the Asian tsunami. Aceh’s staunch adherence to the Islamic faith and the fiercely independent character of its people are not modern phenomena. The Aceh War, which took place from 1873 to 1904, presented one of the greatest challenges to the Netherlands’ expansive colonial enterprise given the partially economic motives of the Dutch (eliminating Aceh as a pepper supplier). The war held up a sizable part of the Dutch colonial force in the East Indies as well as drew substantial reinforcements from the metropole. The responses of the colonial power and those whom it sought to subjugate both exhibited characteristics that made the event and protagonists worthy of the additional foci of study as well as a trip to the field. First, from the indigenous perspective, the Acehnese resistance was not unique in the sense that, apart from Aceh, a large part of Sumatra as well as Bali and Papua New Guinea were fully annexed only in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, a perceptive understanding of the deep pride and religious culture in Aceh, which turned into deep hatred, led the Dutch to compromise and rebuild the Grand Mosque for the Acehnese. The mosque was designed by Dutch architects, and the rebuilding was undertaken during the war (1873–1904). Although the mosque was shunned by locals during the 1880s, it has become a landmark in Banda Aceh and embraced by believers of the faith. Participants in the trip could appreciate the unique black domes of the mosque, which adopted the British Mughal revival style rather than the original Acehnese multitiered style (Bouwsema-Raap, 2009). Second, they were able to understand why Acehnese prided themselves on their golden age—the seventeenth century, when Aceh was at its peak. In the field, the participants had a chance to tour the Gunongan playground and garden, believed to have been built during the heyday of eminent Sultans Iskandar Muda and Iskandar Thani. In the local museum (Aceh Museum), housed in a traditional Rumoh Aceh, portraits of Aceh’s rulers (especially from the golden age) as well as the unique rencong (Acehnese-style dagger) they used were displayed on the walls and in the display cabinets (Smith, 1998). Regarding the nature of Dutch military conquest in Aceh, a visit to the military kerkhof (“cemetery” in Dutch) revealed that the enterprise included the collaboration of Javanese, the Batak people, Ambonese, Madurese, and even Chinese, who not only assisted in organizing the logistics of campaigns but also supplied mercenaries. Interactions with museum and cemetery guides revealed that there was a small group of people (those who were interested in English and serving as guides) who had a relatively deep passion for history. The close interactions with the tour and museum guides as well as a bookseller revealed the relatively deep embrace of the Islamic religion by ordinary people, whether in the past or in today’s context. An immersion in the cultural-religious environment of Banda Aceh led to greater

292

T. Y. H. Sim

understanding of the long-standing struggles of the Acehnese against the Dutch (or the post-independence government). While the museum guide was quick to highlight the degree of indigenous resistance against Dutch occupation, the cemetery guide did not display too great an aversion toward the Dutch or the colonial period. For both guides, “things” relating to history were part of their daily life in their roles as employees or volunteers. According to the persons whom the travelling group interacted with, the local government was able to commit some resources to the maintenance of the museum and even the cemetery. While the museum featured the different minority groups, such as Gayo and Alas, we saw little discussion about their relations with the majority Acehnese group (RFT, 2015–2017).

14.6 Kupang (via Dili) From the time the Portuguese arrived in Timor in 1556, their main settlement was at Lifau. The capital was shifted to Dili in 1769, after the local creole Portuguese powers (Topasses) attempted to drive the governor and the Portuguese from the metropole out of Lifau (today in Oecussi district). Most historical monuments and displays in museums in Dili were related to the history of the twentieth and twentyfirst centuries. One would have to go out of town to experience pre-twentieth-century history. Making a trip to (and even staying at) the Portuguese Balibó Fort Hotel or the Dutch Maubara Fort were ways for us to appreciate a pre-twentieth-century historical structure. Built after the mid-seventeenth century, Fort Balibó’s walls and ramparts as well as the colonial administrator’s residence in the compound have been restored and preserved. Serving in the present day as a hotel, the fort also functions as a hub for cultural tourism. In contrast, there are few tourists at the fort of Maubara even though the gates, walls, and lone cannon are still well preserved. As part of the Lesser Sunda Islands, Timor produced some valuable products, but the receipts from these were not necessarily profitable. In the modern era (twentieth century), as competition for the islands and sea space of Melanesia and Oceania intensified, Timor was on occasion singled out as a plausible staging area for attacking these potential hot spots. Kupang, the capital of West Timor, was conquered from the Portuguese in the mid-seventeenth century (1653). The viability of the ports and settlements along the coast of Timor depended on the trade and political economy of Macau and ports in the surrounding regions. In the eighteenth century, the lucrative sandalwood trade was still largely transacted through Macau and Batavia via the respective ports of the Portuguese and Dutch on Timor. On the Dutch side of Timor, which accounted for a smaller proportion of the (tribal) people and resources on the island, including a substantial number of Chinese families, settlement-ports such as Atapupu and Kupang (a few to several hours drive from Dili)—along with other ports in the Lesser Sunda Islands, most notably Bali—acted as intermediaries between Celebes, Malukus (Spice Islands), and the western archipelagic ports (Batavia and ports in Java). Kupang competed with Dili in shipping sandalwood to China and Batavia, as well as beeswax to the latter, increasingly throughout the

14 Combining Text and Travel in the …

293

eighteenth century, although the trade was often not enough to sustain the expenses of maintaining the fort (Concordia) and garrison (Jacobs, 2006). Like in Banda Aceh, the amenities and commercial activities in Dili are not built or orientated to general tourism, although scuba diving has become a relatively popular tourist sport in the waters around the island and more homestays have been opened up for service. East Timor was one of the few places in the Malay Archipelago where the colonial dominion of the Netherlands was split and shared with the Portuguese. East Timor’s troubles began with the 1974 revolution in Portugal and the latter’s sudden relinquishing of its overseas colonies. Subsequent developments engendered the rise of pro-independence movements interspersed by interventions of external powers (culminating in the invasion by Indonesia). The opening up of Timor by the Indonesian government in the late 1980s and early 1990s led to a massacre in Dili in 1991. The ensuing reaction and activism as well as lobbying, domestic and international, led to a referendum and declaration of independence in 2002. East Timor continued to see riots and instability as recently as the first decade of the twenty-first century. The Netherlands in Timor represents a complex case study on why the Dutch did not assert their full conquest of the island. There were three main reasons for this. First, although there were lucrative products to be found on the island, they were not enough to maintain a balanced account. Second, the politics on the island had become more complex: the mestizos were a complex group that maneuvered between the Dutch and the Portuguese; the religious orders and the Church became a politicking group that gradually had an influence on the tribes; and the tribal groups aligned themselves accordingly. Third, the Portuguese received reinforcements from Macau and Goa and were able to hold the Dutch at bay from a line along the center of the island. From the second half of the nineteenth century until prior to the First World War, there were at least sixty armed expeditions to try to pacify the mestizos and tribal people (Macdonald, 2018; Molnar, 2010). Besides visiting forts and recording measurements of the fortifications, participants could also visit a Great Cathedral in Dili (gereja histórico) or travel further east to visit the aboriginal cultural villages in conjunction with taking a three-hour course on Tetum (the mixed indigenous, Malay, and Portuguese language). Although it would be ideal to visit a sandalwood plantation, the industry has unfortunately lapsed into severe decline arising from the political instability and over-exploitation in East Timor.1 The alternative would be to visit a coffee plantation (introduced to Timor in the nineteenth century) and the commodity continued to be an important source of revenue for the country today. The combination of the different sub-components of the program enabled the participants to appreciate, for instance, the process of growing and producing a commercial crop, the degree of mix among languages and the cultural thinking behind them (Tetum), as well as the nature of the European defense (forts). At the end, why Timor was split under different jurisdictions in 1 The sandalwood industry is still relatively prosperous in West Timor; one could take the opportunity

to visit the markets where the product was developed into a sophisticated variety of derivatives if s/he was traveling overland from Kupang to Dili.

294

T. Y. H. Sim

colonial times and still does in the contemporary period can then be more readily appreciated.

14.7 Sum-up This chapter has surmised the field or reconnoitring trips undertaken by the instructor with (in actual fieldtrip) or without the students (in reconnoitring trip) to parts of Indonesia (or the old East Indies) to complement the teaching of the Southeast Asian courses on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The settlements selected represented a varied sampling of the diversity inherent in the vast Indonesian Archipelago. Although the trips were undertaken on a guided study trip mode, they offered a chance for participants to engage the different facets of the thematic questions assigned to them (Questions: To what extent was the Dutch colonialism evolved overseas in the East Indies? To what degree were indigenous or diasporic/intermediate groups adapting in collaboration with or resisting the Dutch colonial encroachment?). The varying investigative foci (albeit linking to an overarching theme) was reflective of the different nature of colonial encroachment and collaboration in each of these places; it also reflected, from a heritage point of view, the different state of conservation in these places and hence, the historical environs available for visit during the trips. To encapsulate, Batavia revealed how the Dutch carved up and governed the capital-settlement; Makassar revealed how one of the fiercest group of people in the Malay Archipelago were able to resist Dutch encroachment and upon failing, adapted and embraced the tension for continued survival; Banda Aceh uncovered how the deep beliefs and defiance of the indigenous people were able to force the Dutch to acquiesce to some extent in their colonial policies; finally, Kupang (via Dili) revealed how there were places which reflected a complex political and social make-up and did not justify the costs for their conquests or occupation. The trips were not an end in themselves, if they (the trips) were discussed analytically and connected to the research or area studies, instructors and students alike could be inducted to know Indonesia rather than know about Indonesia.

References Andaya, L. Y. (1981). The heritage of Arung Palakka: A history of south Sulawesi (Celebes) in the seventeenth century. Leiden: KITLV. Bacon, D. (2011). Cultureshock Jakarta. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. Bacon, D., & Collins, T. (2011). Jakarta: A (survival) guide to customs and etiquette. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. Barber, S. (Ed.). (2009). History beyond the text. Abingdon: Routledge. Bayly, C. A. (2004). The birth of the modern world, 1780–1914: Global connection and comparison. Maiden: Blackwell Publishing.

14 Combining Text and Travel in the …

295

Blusse, L. (2008). Visible cities: Canton, Nagasaki, Batavia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bouwsema-Raap, W. (2009). The Great Mosque of Banda Aceh: Its history, architecture and relationship to the development of Islam in Sumatra. Banglamung: White Lotus Press. Cochrane, J., & Martyr, D. (2000). Indonesia. New York, NY: Random House. Colombijn, F., & Lindblad, J. T. (Eds.). (2002). Roots of violence in Indonesia: Contemporary violence in historical perspective. Leiden: KITLV Press. Cooper, D. (2001). Plato. In J. Palmer (Ed.), Fifty major thinkers on education (pp. 10–13). New York: Routledge. Cummings, W. P. (2007). A chain of kings: The Makassarese chronicles of Gowa and Talloq. Leiden: Brill. Espada, M. J. (2013). “Os Abrahams, Quikos na communidade Lusodescendente de Tugu Indonesia”. In M. Lobato (Ed.), Mestiçagens e identidades. Braga: Nicpri, pp. 163–173. Farrell, B. P., et al. (2018). Empire in Asia: A new global history (2 vols). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Fieldhouse, D. K. (1961). ‘Imperialism’: An historiographical revision. Economic history review, 14(2), 187–209. Furnivall, J. S. (1971). Colonial policy and practice: Comparative study of Burma and Netherlands India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graf, A., Schroter, S., & Wieringa, E. (Eds.). (2010). Aceh: History, politics and culture. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Guides, Insight. (2012). Insight guides: Indoneisa. London: Apa digital. Hellwig, T., & Tagliacozzo, E. (2009). The Indonesia reader: History, culture, politics. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Hobson, J. A. (2015). Imperialism: A study. Np: Andesite press. Horridge, G. A. (1979). The Konjo boatbuilders and the Bugis prahus of South Sulawesi. London: National Maritime Museum. Jacobs, E. M. (2006). Merchant in Asia: Trade of the Dutch EIC during the eighteenth century. Leiden: CNWS. Jayapal, M. (1993). Old Jakarta. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Kanumoyoso, B. (2011). Beyond the city wall: Society and economic development in the Ommelanden of Batavia, 1684–1740. PhD thesis, Leiden University. King, V. T. (2008). The sociology of Southeast Asia: Transformations in a developing region. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. King, V. T. (Ed.). (2015). UNESCO in Southeast Asia: World heritage sites in comparative perspective. Denmark: NIAS Press. King, V. T., Ibrahim, Z., & Hassan, N. H. (Eds.). (2017). Borneo studies in history, society and culture. Singapore: Springer. Kispal-van Deijk, G. von. (2013). Ubiquitous but elusive: The Chinese of Makassar in VOC times. Journal of Asian History, 47(1), 81–103. Knaap, G. J., & Sutherland, H. (2004). Monsoon traders: Ships, skippers and commodities in eighteenth-century Makassar. Leiden: KITLV Press. Koh, K. W. (2017). Familiar strangers and stranger-kings: Mobility, diasporas, and the foreign in the eighteenth-century Malay world. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 48(3), 390–413. Lee, K. H. (1995). The sultanate of Aceh: Relations with the British 1760–1824. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Lieberman, V. (2003 and 2009). Strange parallels: Southeast Asia in global context. Ann Arbor: Cambridge University Press. MacDonald, M. (2003). Indonesian folktales as retold by Murti Bunanta. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Macdonald, F. (2018). East Timor travel and tourism: The complete history, people and tradition. California: Greater Space Independent Publishing. Merrillees, S. (2000). Batavia in nineteenth century photographs. Singapore: Archipelago Press.

296

T. Y. H. Sim

Mitraing, I. (2015). The age of Aceh and the evolution of kingship 1599–1641: Trade and geopolitics in the Malacca Straits. Riga Latvia: Scholars’ Press. Molnar, A. K. (2010). Timor Leste: Politics, history, and culture. Oxon: Routledge. Osterhammel, J. (2014). Transformation of the world: A global history of the nineteenth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pelras, C. (1996). The bugis. Cambridge Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Planet, L. (2012). Lonely planet phrasebooks: Indonesia. China: Lonely Planet Global Ltd. Pomeranz, K. (2000). The great divergence: China, Europe and the making of the modern world economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Reid, A. (2004). An Indonesian frontier. Singapore: NUS Press. Resink, G. J. (1968). Indonesia’s history between the myths: Essays in legal history and historical theory. The Hague: Van Hoeve Publishers Ltd. Ricklefs, M. (2008). History of modern Indonesia. London: Palgrave. Roger, W. M. (1976). Imperialism: Robinson and Gallagher controversy. New York: New Viewpoints. Rutter, O. (1950). The pirate wind: Tales of the sea robbers of Malaya. London: Hutchinson and Co. Scalliet, M., et al. (Eds.). (1999). Pictures from the tropics: Paintings by western artists during the Dutch colonial period in Indonesia. Amsterdam: Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen. Scammell, C. V. (1980). Indigenous assistance in the establishment of Portuguese power in Asia in the sixteenth century. Modern Asian Studies, 14(1), 1–11. Schulte, N. H. (2011). Modernity and cultural citizenship in the Netherlands Indies: An illustrated hypothesis. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 42(3), 435–457. Sim, Y. H. (2015–2017). Courses on “Southeast Asia in the 19th century” and “Tradition and resistance in 20th-century Southeast Asia”. Report and notes on Field & Reconnoitring Trips (RFT). NIE HSSE. Smith, H. S. (1998). Aceh art and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sysling, F. (2018). Mixed messages: Racial science and local identity in Bali and Lombok, 1938– 1939. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 49(3), 410–425. Teeuwen, D. (2006). Fort Rotterdam, a Dutch stronghold at Ujung Pandang: An example of beautiful Dutch military architecture on Southeast Sulawesi. http://www.indonesia-dutchcolonialherit age.nl/. van der Kroef, J. M. (n.d.). Dutch colonial policy in Indonesia, 1900–1941. PhD thesis, Columbia University. van Dijk, J., & Legene, S. (Eds.). (2011). The Netherlands East Indies at the Tropenmuseum: A colonial history. Amsterdam: KIT Publisher. Vickers, A. (2013). A History of modern Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wessing, R. (2014). Pangeran Dakar’s error: A narration of the events leading to the fall of the Sultanate of Banten. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 45(3), 427–443. Wood, M., & Montagu, F. M. (1875). Remarks during a journey to the East Indies. Lichfield: F.W. Meacham.

Teddy Y. H. Sim (FRHistS) is currently lecturing at the National Institute of Education in Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. He has published on specific involvements of the Portuguese in the East. He is the author of Portuguese Enterprise in the East: Survival in the Years 1707-57 and editor of Piracy and Surreptitious Activities in the Malay Archipelago and Adjacent Seas 1600-1840 and Maritime Defence of China: Ming General Qi Jiguang and Beyond. Teddy is passionate about fieldtrips in his history courses on South and Southeast Asia. His courses usually feature a local or overseas trip that facilitates as part of the overall study and exploration.

Chapter 15

Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage Space Through Geographical Fieldwork Diganta Das and Tricia Seow

Abstract Space and time have always been integral concepts in geographical thinking and learning. The meaning(s) of space changes over time due not only to official discourses imposed by the state planning agencies but also because of the everyday use by the public through their multidimensional spatial practices. Deploying Henri Lefebvre’s (The production of space, Oxford, UK, Blackwell, 1991) concepts of production of space and right to the city and Nihal Perera’s (People’s spaces: Coping, familiarizing, creating, London, Routledge, 2016a) conceptual understanding of meanings of public space and vernacular uses in the context of the Global South, this paper seeks to showcase the ways fieldwork and observations help in understanding and tracing the changing meanings of Singapore’s Lembu Road neighborhood in the Little India heritage enclave over time. The paper further attempts to map the texturized meanings of public spaces in Little India, through deploying geographical fieldwork methods such as visual methods, observation, and landuse mapping.

15.1 Introduction Space and time are integral concepts in geographical thinking and learning. Geographers often deploy inquiry-based learning to understand the changing meaning(s) of space over time and everyday spatial changes through conceptual thinking. This chapter intends to understand the changing meanings of space over time within Little India in Singapore—a designated heritage space through geographical fieldwork. In doing so, we have deployed sensory observation, walking through the neighborhood, and visual methods as part of the geographical fieldwork conducted in Little India. Through the fieldwork, we intended to understand in-depth the geographical D. Das (B) · T. Seow National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] T. Seow e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_15

297

298

D. Das and T. Seow

(classroom) concepts of production of space and right to the city by Henri Lefebvre (1991) and meanings of space and vernacular uses by Nihal Perera (2013, 2016b). We also wanted to explore in what ways fieldwork helps us to understand and relate the concepts in relation to the texturized meanings as well as how the public provide their meanings to space through their everyday uses. In what follows, the next section details the conceptual framework following the production of space and spatial meanings and then the geographical methods and their applications. This section is then followed by the first fieldwork case study of Little India, where we demonstrate that Little India is not only an ethnic enclave for the Indian community, but it is also a residential and commercial area for other ethnic communities along with tourists from diverse backgrounds. This is followed by the second fieldwork case study that specifically looks at how Lembu Road Open Space area in Little India has changed over time. From a communal place of cattle trading during colonial period to tourist and commercial space in 1970s and 1980s, the Open Space is popularly remarked as Bangla Square today due to the everyday use by the South Asian migrant workers which also shaped the commercial activities along the Lembu Road and Desker Road. This is followed by the conclusion of the chapter.

15.2 Literature Review and Conceptual Frameworks Actors imbued with knowledge and power can have the agency to shape the meanings of space (Lefebvre, 1991). These actors such as planners, urbanists, and technocrats who have the power can exert certain parameters of control to denote how space should be used by its inhabitants (Perera, 2016a). This exertion of power and control on spaces is illustrated through the case of Galle Fort in Sri Lanka. In an attempt to demark the space as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, policy-makers have imposed several restrictions and “conservation” efforts that were against the meanings of space constructed by its inhabitants. Although this was an intrusion to their sense of belonging and livelihood, they had limited authority to intervene or halt the efforts (Perera & Habarakada, 2016). However, while power might be important determiner in creating these spaces, it does not mean that it is “absolute” in defining it. Meanings of space are also actively shaped by its inhabitants, users, and ordinary people whose lives intersect with these spaces (Lefebvre, 1991); it is also their given right to do so (Lefebvre, 1996). The inherent conflict that arises through the different meanings of space by powerful actors vis-à-vis ordinary people results in the form of reaction— negotiation (Perera, 2016b). This negotiation occurs when inhabitants shape their daily activities and sociocultural practices around the “limitations” imposed (Perera, 2016a), creating new meaning(s) of space. Hence, they should also be understood as “political products, and strategic spaces” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 84) where conflicts and interactions of multiple actors actively (re)produce the meanings of space. While meanings of space are constructed through actors which intersect these spaces, they should not be understood as territorially bounded in a particular locality (Perera,

15 Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage …

299

2016b, p. 234). Rather, space(s) should be seen through the connections and influences across different places across the globe, with interactions spanning across multiple scales—from the local to the global. Hence, space can be conceptualized as organic, being actively (re)produced through the interactions of multiple actors transcending past territorial boundaries. In an inquiry into the meanings of space in the Global South, researchers should move beyond a Western-centric theoretical lens. In Perera and Tang’s (2013) conceptual understanding of Asian urbanisms, “Asia still lacks a representative intellectual or theoretical presence in literature” (p. 3). Analyses are often conducted on Asian cities through the lens of Western urban theorization and methods, attempting to map these knowledges to reflect the ground realities of these “Asian” spaces. This deductive approach toward understanding spaces “sanitize, discipline, and contextualize the outcomes” (Perera, 2016a, p. 8), negating the complexity of interactions (drawing on different circumstances, traditions, histories from the local to the global) in the production of space. This results in an attempt to fit and understand the meanings of space in Asia as a subset of the West, which is not representative of the actual realities of Asian urbanism. Hence, to make the latter more visible, there is a need for a more grounded theoretical understanding of local processes in these spaces (Perera, 2016a; Perera & Tang, 2013), particularly the need to focus on “human subjects and their everyday experiences” (Perera, 2016a, p. 12), a bottom-up understanding of these spaces inhabited by ordinary people. In understanding that, Perera (2016a) prioritized the need for utilizing qualitative methods such as observation, ethnographies, and participant observation. These methods help researchers to understand the meanings and negotiations attached to space from the lens of the ordinary people. For example, interviews among different stakeholders in an Indian neighborhood helped to reconcile the residents’ imaginations of space against that of the state, accounting for their appropriation of the neighborhood (Vidyarthi, 2013). To delve into how meanings of space are produced, researchers can embark on participant observation as a research method. Participant observation involves the researcher by taking part in the everyday lives of individuals as a way to learn the different aspects of their everyday lived experiences, interactions, and behaviors (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002). According to Crang and Cook (1995), this method helps to immerse the researcher “into the everyday rhythms and routines of the community” (p. 21). This develops a relationship with the people who can “show and tell the researcher what is ‘going on’ there” (Crang & Cook, 1995, p. 21). Building up relationships with individuals or the community is important as it helps to unravel and open up voices, which would otherwise not be heard (Perera, 2016a). For example, ethnographic fieldwork conducted in a neighborhood in Singapore helped researchers to unravel the uses, appropriation, and transformation of public spaces in Toa Payoh Central (Yeo, Ho, & Heng, 2016). To further supplement the analysis and possibly open up new research directions, a suite of visual methods can be utilized in tandem with participant observation. Visual methods such as the use of photographs, films, and videos (whether taken by the research subjects or the researchers) can help to open up possibilities of understanding the subject (Crang & Cook, 1995) and give “better access to the immediate lived and felt everyday world [and] come closer to lived life”

300

D. Das and T. Seow

(Oldrup & Cartensen, 2012, p. 226). Photography, in particular, helps to produce a particular representation of the lived world (Rose, 2016), examining the geographical knowledge and even power relations underpinning the visuals taken (Rose, 2003, 2008). This is done by directing the researchers’ observation to a particular space, explicitly bringing out and analyzing the details and relationships present (Hall, 2009). For instance, the use of photography was used to map everyday practices and explore the emergent geographies of people living in war zones in Jaffna, Sri Lanka (Perera, 2016c). This, together with the use of participant observation, helps to triangulate the information gathered (Crang & Cook, 1995) and concretize the understanding of how meanings of a particular space are (re)produced.

15.3 Fieldwork Case Study 1: Texturised Meaning and Ambiguities in Public Space Use in Little India The state’s emphasis on the productive economic aspects of heritage spaces can also be seen within education. In the Singapore context, researchers have noted how education “features in many national strategies” and is “always adjusting to align with national directions” (Ng, 2008, p. 2). For instance, Seow, Das, and Chang (2015) have analyzed how the representations of public housing in geography education support the developmental state’s nation-building agenda. Similarly, the geography syllabus at the upper secondary level (15–17 years old) focuses on the issue of global tourism as an important aspect of the economy and invites students to inquire into the challenges associated with global competition for the tourism dollar as well as how to manage it sustainably (MOE, 2012). The topic has also been selected for geography fieldwork in schools. Many school teachers, therefore, visit heritage spaces in Singapore, particularly ethnic enclaves like Little India, with their geography students. In the official narrative, the state portrays Little India as the heart of authentic Singapore Indian culture. The Singapore Tourism Board promotes Little India as a “buzzing historic area that shows off the best of Singapore’s Indian community, from vibrant culture to incredible shopping” (“Little India”, n. d.). The Indian Heritage Centre along Campbell Lane, with its museum artifacts showing the history of Indians in Singapore and its calendar line-up of cultural activities, offers up culture for tourists’ consumption. At the same time, tourists are invited to enjoy the architecturally distinctive shophouses in the area where traditional pulled tea sellers are branded as having “amazing showmanship,” and old shophouses are retrofitted as accommodations with a “bohemian vibe.” Schools visiting Little India for geographical fieldwork similarly tend to focus on this representation of Little India as an economic tourism space. School students often collect data on the types of cultural attractions and amenities offered to tourists and ask questions about how space can be improved for continued economic sustainability. However, Little India is not only a historical, ethnic enclave and tourism destination; it is also a residential area for other ethnic groups in Singapore. In fact there is

15 Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage …

301

even a range of schools catering to different age groups located within it. Moreover, it is a site for migrant workers from South Asia to congregate on the weekends. In 2013, Little India also saw the first riot that Singapore has experienced in over 50 years. As such, it would also be important to extend pre-service teachers’ conceptions of the area beyond that of a tourism destination and to develop an awareness of how experiences of spaces in Little India vary for different individuals and groups. To this end, we suggested fieldwork that encouraged them to see the texturized meanings of Little India beyond just the economics by using sensory observations and landuse mapping.

15.3.1 Making Geographical Observations Pre-service teachers were asked to walk around Little India to observe the spectrum of social activities in the area, which extended beyond the state narrative of Little India as a tourist space. They were specifically directed to pay attention to areas like the Lembu Road Open Space, a nearby public housing residential estate, shops catering to residents’ needs, which are not evidently part of Indian culture, as well as places of worship of other religious groups. As they made their observations, they were asked to identify between 8–10 buildings, signboards, or features of the area that caught their attention and mark their locations on a blank map of Little India. They were also tasked to take photographs and annotate them on their mobile devices (Figs. 15.1a and 15.1b), highlighting what caught their attention about the space. They filled in a worksheet and recorded who they saw using the space and why they thought space was used by the people they identified. Finally, different groups were tasked to create landuse transects of the different streets in the area, in order to force them to pay close attention to how space was being used, and by whom.

15.3.2 Exploring Texturized Meanings and Ambiguities After the pre-service teachers had completed their initial observations, they were asked to work in groups to discuss who the users of the space were and to categorize them in ways that made sense to them. For instance, they used categories like “locals residing in Singapore,” “tourists,” “migrant workers,” etc. Shared spaces with multiple social groups can lead to contested landscapes, which arise when existing land users compete due to conflicting ideals on the purpose of public space. Increased social collisions and encounters of individuals from different social groupings could cause tension when one group is deemed as invading the space of another. The pre-service teachers were further asked to think about which of their groups of users could be said to have insider or outsider status. The assignation of these categories is often not straight forward. They wrestled with questions like whether

302

D. Das and T. Seow

Fig. 15.1 (a) Annotated photograph showing forbidding loitering at the foot of residential blocks, and (b) Annotated photograph showing Chinese clan associations in Little India

15 Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage …

303

all Indian people naturally have what Chang (2000) termed as existential insideness (identity forged through a sense of belonging and experience) and whether this similarly applied to migrant workers whose presence in Little India, particularly after the Little India Riot, is policed through regulations on the sale of alcohol (Ismail & Shaw, 2014) and video cameras in their congregation spaces as well as signs that prohibit loitering (Fig. 15.1a). Similarly, pre-service teachers questioned if the Chinese residents in the area can lay claim to such existential insideness, also given the presence of several Chinese clan associations observed in the area (Fig. 15.1b). Additionally, the pre-service teachers referred to their landuse transects to understand if Little India is predominantly an economic space for tourism. Using such transects, they noted what type of use each shop along the street has been put to (e.g., hostels, food establishments), and were also asked to code them according to whether they felt it catered to tourists, local residents, or migrant workers (Fig. 15.2). Through the fieldwork (annotated photographs and landuse transects), the pre-service teachers realized that though Little India is imaged by the state as a tourist space for the consumption of Indian culture, it is in fact a highly diverse and texturized space, catering to diverse user groups with complex and ambiguous associations with space.

Fig. 15.2 Landuse transect of Cuff Road

304

D. Das and T. Seow

15.4 Fieldwork Case Study 2: Changing Meanings of Space of Lembu Road, Little India As mentioned above, Little India has been an ethnic enclave for the Indian community since centuries as well as a residential area for other ethnic communities. While Little India is historically known as a place dominated by ethnic Indian community with dominant sociocultural everyday practices, over time the enclave has been transformed into a more vibrant touristic enclave to showcase the cultural tourism aspect as well as to cater to the increasing demand of Singapore’s tourism economy. This is very much evident by the increasing number of luxury hotels, boutique hotels as well as bohemian back-packing accommodations. A large number of tourist patrons is from South Asia and they like to stay in and around the Little India enclave purely for the ease of walking through a similar neighborhood away from their home country and finding restaurants catering to vegetarian, Indian, and other South Asian cuisines and for the ultimate 24-hour shopping experience in the Mustafa Shopping Center. Just across the Mustafa Shopping Mall along the Syed Alvi Road of Little India, there is a connecting road known as Lembu Road. “Lembu” in Bahasa Malayu (language) means cattle or cow. As shown in Fig. 15.3, Lembu Road has an open area, known as Lembu Road Open Space, as demarcated by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), and it comes under the Little India Conservation Zone. Historically, this open space has been used

Fig. 15.3 Lembu Road open space and Mustafa Shopping Center (Source Based on a map from OneMap.sg)

15 Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage …

305

by the Indian community for cattle trading, livestock, and other commercial purposes. However, with changing time and economic needs, the meanings of the open space have also changed—from cattle trading to slowly catering to the tourism economy, hospitality, and ethnic shopping landscape. With the increasing congregation and use by the South Asian foreign workers—especially from Bangladesh for buying everyday groceries to sending money back home and purchasing telephone cards and other essentials, the Open Space is now popularly known as Bangla Square (Wong, 2009) (see Fig. 15.4). Mustafa Shopping Center also plays a strong role in shaping the economic activities and working as a magnet in bringing tourists and the general public for varied shopping needs ranging from spices to electronic goods. During the public holidays and during the weekends, the majority of the foreign workers of South Asian descent like to visit Little India for their weekly shopping, for remittance purposes, to meet friends and to have some quality time away from the daily work schedule. While the Mustafa Center and the surrounding shops work like a magnet for the general public and especially to the foreign workers, the Lembu Road Open Space works as a common meeting point, a place to rest and relax. To know more about the use of the Lembu Road Open Space, and the ways it unboxes the meanings of space, we conducted a fieldwork with our pre-service teachers and deployed sensory observations, informal chats with foreign workers, and visual methods to capture the everyday use of the open space and understand the changing meanings of space in and around the Lembu Road Open Space. In what follows, we describe the fieldwork activities that we have conducted and the way inquiry-based learning has been used to understand the geographical meanings of space over time. As part of the Year 2 course on urban geography for NIE’s undergraduate requirement, fieldwork was planned and conducted in Lembu Road during early 2016. There were nine pre-service teachers who participated in the fieldwork. The broad objective of this one-day fieldwork was to understand in what ways the open space became “people’s space” for the Bangladeshi migrants and how they created their own ethnic meaning to the place over the time. For this, students largely used qualitative methods as described earlier.

Fig. 15.4 Shops along Lembu Road and Desker Road catering to the needs of the Bangla community ranging from a travel agency, groceries, remittances, mobile phone services, among others

306

D. Das and T. Seow

The pre-service teachers were provided with adequate reading materials on fieldwork methods long before the actual date of the fieldwork along with other logistical instructions. The fieldwork was conducted from 9 am to 2 pm on a Saturday as the majority of the Bangladeshi migrant workers have their workdays off during the weekends. Students were instructed to observe and walk the neighborhood to have a feel of the place, grasp it through their lens, and write about the neighborhood in their field notebooks. A lot more emphasis was given to sensory observation as this method can bring out people’s everyday life and their interactions and negotiations in and around Lembu Road (Fig. 15.5). Further, the students deployed visual methods to complement the observation technique and were able to capture the changing nature of Lembu Road area over time and the way present-day shops along Lembu Road and Desker Road area have shifted to catering everyday needs of ethnic Bengali food and other products ranging from groceries, international calling cards, and remittances. After three hours of observation, visual documentation, and notebook writing about the field activities, we sat down in a restaurant, and the pre-service teachers discussed and deliberated the initial observation points. It was clear that they were able to link the classroom concepts with the changing dynamics and meanings of space as seen during the fieldwork. They were able to figure out the ways Lembu Road Open Space has slowly transformed to be known popularly as Bangla Square among the everyday users. As evident from the images above, today Bangla Square provides the foreign workers a space to meet their friends below the shade of the Raintrees, a convivial space to relax, laugh, play a game of carrom board and enjoy some “jhalmuri” (a spicy street food of South Asia). A new meaning of the space has been given by the public’s use, and accordingly, the surrounding shopping landscape began changing to accommodate the spatial change. From the above two fieldwork case studies, it becomes evident that physical spaces are often socially produced, and the intermingling of different actors and cultures at different times and in different spaces brings out a culturally vibrant heritage space with multiple layers of meanings. The fieldwork, observations, and interactions at the sites had provided us with rich theoretical understanding of spatial practices,

Fig. 15.5 Students walked through Lembu Road and Desker Road to get a feel of the neighborhood around the open space

15 Tracing the Changing Meaning(s) of a Heritage …

307

vernacularities, and re-production of spaces and texturized meanings in Little India of Singapore.

15.5 Conclusion In this chapter, we have demonstrated that geographical fieldwork helps in enhancing inquiry-based learning, learning about geography knowledge and concepts, and relating them to everyday spatial practices on the ground. The case studies from the Little India heritage space inform us that through geographical inquiry, preservice teachers were able to learn in-depth about the texturized meanings of space as well as their changing spatial meanings and uses over time. By being a part of the fieldwork, they were able to construct knowledge related to varied meanings of space, capture and analyze visual materials, and observe geographical phenomena in the field sites. They were able to understand that beyond the simple meaning and naming of a place/space, places or spaces can provide layers of meanings and textures overlapping with changing times and their related uses.

References Chang, T. C. (2000). Singapore’s little India: A tourist attraction as a contested landscape. Urban Studies, 37(2), 343–366. Crang, M., & Cook, I. (1995). Doing ethnographies. Norwich, UK: Geobooks. DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Oxford, UK: AltaMira Press. Hall, T. (2009). The camera never lies? Photographic research methods in human geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(3), 453–462. Ismail, R., & Shaw, B. (2014, November). Little India: Diverging destinies in heritage spaces. Paper presented at South East Asian Geographer Association Conference, Siem Reap, Cambodia. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings of cities. Oxford: Blackwell. Little India. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.visitsingapore.com/see-do-singapore/places-to-see/ little-india/. Ministry of Education (MOE). (2012). 2013 Upper secondary geography teaching syllabuses. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore. Ng, P. T. (2008). Thinking schools, learning nation. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 1–6). Singapore: Prentice Hall. Oldrup, H. H., & Cartensen, T. A. (2012). Producing geographical knowledge through visual methods. Geografiska Annaler Series B, Human Geography, 94(3), 223–237. Perera, N. (2013). Critical vernacularism: Multiple roots, cascades of thought, and the local production of architecture. In N. Perera & W. S. Tang (Eds.), Transforming asian cities: Intellectual impasse, asianizing space, and emerging translocalities (pp. 78–93). London: Routledge. Perera, N., & Tang, W. S. (2013). Introduction: In search of Asian urbanisms. In N. Perera & W. S. Tang (Eds.), Transforming Asian cities: Intellectual impasse, asianizing space, and emerging trans-localities (pp. 1–19). London: Routledge.

308

D. Das and T. Seow

Perera, N. (2016a). Introduction: Seeing and engaging people’s spaces: Deprivations and challenges. In N. Perera (Ed.), People’s spaces: Coping, familiarizing, creating (pp. 1–22). London: Routledge. Perera, N. (2016b). Conclusions: Production of social space: From coping with provided and imposed spaces to creating their own In N. Perera (Ed.), People’s spaces: Coping, familiarizing, creating (pp. 217–238). London: Routledge. Perera, N. (2016c). Spaces of survival: People’s adaptation of a war zone in Sri Lanka. In N. Perera (Ed.), People’s spaces: Coping, familiarizing, creating (pp. 61–81). London: Routledge. Perera, N., & Habarakada, S. (2016). From resisting to familiarizing impositions: Living in the world heritage site at Galle Fort, Sri Lanka. In N. Perera (Ed.), People’s spaces: Coping, familiarizing, creating (pp. 82–101). London: Routledge. Rose, G. (2003). On the need to ask how, exactly, is geography “visual”? Antipode, 35(2), 212–221. Rose, G. (2008). Using photographs as illustrations in human geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 32(1), 151–160. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. UK: Sage Publishing. Seow, T., Das, Diganta, & Chang, J. (2015). (Re)constructing the nation? Representations of public housing in school geography textbooks. HSSE Online, 4(2), 78–90. Vidyarthi, S. (2013). Indianising the neighborhood unit: The Jawahar Nagar plan. In N. Perera & W. S. Tang (Eds.), Transforming asian cities: Intellectual impasse, asianizing space, and emerging trans-localities (pp. 190–206). London: Routledge. Wong, S. Y. (2009). Not such a little India: In Singapore, migrant workers create their own leisure spots in unused spaces. Retrieved from http://reclaimland.sg/rl/?p=30. Yeo, S. J., Ho, K. C., & Heng, C. K. (2016). Rethinking spatial planning for urban conviviality and social diversity: A study of nightlife in a Singapore public housing estate neighborhood. The Town Planning Review, 87(4), 379–399.

Diganta Das is an Associate Professor in the Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. He is a human geographer. His research interests focus on relations between the production of smart cities, hightech space making and issues of human agency in urban South Asia, (urban) policy mobility, changing dynamics of (urban) waterscape, and issues of liveability and sustainable urban development. He is currently involved in two research projects: the first examines dynamics of (urban) waterscapes, production of high-tech spaces, and grounded realities; and the second project intends to provide detailed genealogies of smart cities through in-depth empirical contexts of India and South Africa. Tricia Seow is a Senior Lecturer in the Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Her research interests and publications include teachers’ subject knowledge and identities, classroom and field-based geographical inquiry, and climate change education.

Chapter 16

“A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips Through Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives Chin Ee Loh, Tricia Seow, and Chelva Rajah

Abstract In a globalized world of mass migrations and movements, education can provide a much-needed focus on understanding local place as part of the larger ecosystem we call our world. Local knowledge and understandings constitute the anchor from which students can begin to interpret and make sense of the world. In this context, it is valuable to engage in place-based learning that focuses on using local place, community, and environment as a beginning point for engaging in real-world disciplinary and community understandings. Drawing from actual fieldtrips with preservice teachers at the National Institute of Education, this chapter brings together the perspectives of three teacher educators—from geography, history, and literature—to highlight how different disciplinary lenses and questions shape fieldtrips about the same location. Each disciplinary lens brings new understanding to place and adds to students’ layered sense of place. Such cross-disciplinary collaborations are necessary in our complex, interconnected world to help students gain holistic understanding of how place matters.

16.1 Introduction In a globalized world of mass migrations and movements, education can provide a much-needed focus on understanding local place as part of the larger ecosystem we call our world. Local knowledge and understandings constitute the anchor from which students can begin to interpret and make sense of the world. In this context, it is

C. E. Loh (B) · T. Seow · C. Rajah National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] T. Seow e-mail: [email protected] C. Rajah e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_16

309

310

C. E. Loh et al.

valuable to engage in place-based learning that focuses on using local place, community, and environment as a beginning point for engaging in real-world disciplinary and community understandings. Field-based inquiry learning or fieldtrips in different subject areas is one form of place-based learning with the potential to shape students sense of place and disciplinary understandings. However, all too often, fieldtrips are undertaken within the silos of each discipline and without an understanding of what other disciplines can bring to the students’ understanding of place and of each discipline. Each disciplinary lens brings new understanding to place and adds to students’ layered sense of place. Such cross-disciplinary collaborations are necessary in our complex, interconnected world to help students gain holistic understanding of how place matters in our learning and daily living. We argue in this chapter that each discipline brings different ways of seeingfeeling-thinking to individual perception of space, and that cross-disciplinary dialogue can reveal different dimensions of sense of place in place-based learning. Drawing from actual fieldtrips with pre-service teachers at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, this chapter brings together the perspectives of three teacher educators—from literature, geography, and history—to highlight how different disciplinary lenses and questions shape fieldtrips to the same location, Toa Payoh, a housing estate in Singapore. We first explain how the subjects of history, geography, and literature provide multiple ways of “seeing” place from their disciplinary perspectives. We argue for an expanded understanding of place-based education through our comparisons of how the three disciplines of history, geography, and literature address the issue of place in the development of subject-related fieldtrips. Finally, we explore commonalities and differences across the disciplines before concluding with discussions of how crossdisciplinary perspectives can enhance current understandings of place-based learning and fieldtrips.

16.2 Place-Based Education and Sense of Place from Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives 16.2.1 Place-Based Education and Sense of Place Local knowledge and understandings constitute the anchor from which students can begin to interpret and make sense of the world. Writing about place-based learning, David W. Orr (1994) notes: A world that takes its environment seriously must come to terms with the root of its problems, beginning with the place called home. This is not a simple-minded return to a mythical past but a patient and disciplined effort to learn, and in some ways, to relearn the arts of inhabitation. These will differ from place to place, reflecting various cultures, values, and ecologies. They will, however, share a common sense of rootedness in a particular locality. (p. 170)

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

311

Place-based learning thus begins from the premise that teaching and learning begins with students’ knowledge of place and seeks to develop student awareness of their roles as engaged citizens living with others within a particular community (Bartholomaeus, 2013; Gruenewald, 2003; Sobel, 2004). As such, practitioners of place-based learning emphasize hands-on, real-world learning experiences, and the local community and environment as a starting point to teach concepts and knowledge in the different subject areas. In addition to greater knowledge of place, placebased learning can also lead to increased academic achievement when students see connections between school learning and the world around them (Comber, 2015; Gruenawald, 2003). Place is defined by John Agnew (1987) as (1) locale, or place as setting for social interaction, (2) location in geographical space, or (3) sense of place, or attachment between people in place. In this chapter, we are interested in the concept of sense of place and disciplinary explorations in specific places in helping students develop a sense of place to specific locations within a country or to a country as a place. There are two aspects of sense of place, according to Jennifer Cross (2001)—relationship to place and community attachment. Relationships to place may be biological, spiritual, ideological, narrative, commodified, or dependent (constrained by lack of choice based on economic or personal situation). Community attachment consists of a person’s experiences in a particular setting and their feelings about that particular place. Writing about affect and place, Tuan (1990) notes in his book, “Topophilia,” that place is not just a physical location but is invested with meaning and love by humans. Attachment to place is developed through perception, attitude, and value toward place. Perceptions are responses to external stimuli and purposeful activity, attitudes are cultural stances or positions taken toward the world at large and values are worldviews that shape experiences and understandings of place. Place-based learning, with its emphasis on bringing students “out to the field” thus provides the location, locale, and sense of place (Agnew, 1987) to mediate students’ personal and communal understandings of specific places and nation as place. Place, as such, is a “meaningful location” (Cresswell, 2015, p. 12) which is invested with myriad human meanings, and disciplinary explorations can help students engage with thinking about and experiencing the meaning of specific places. Literature mediates our understanding of place through narratives. History tells the story of a place, providing it with meaning in relation to the individual and/or collective historical memories and events of significance (Yeoh & Kong, 1996). Geography focuses on how space sets the context for social interactions, which creates the cultural and human aspects of place. Bringing students out to specific locales and mediating their experiences with texts and materials can thus provide opportunities to generate new understandings of place, as well as encourage critical discussions of what place means in a changing world. Tuan (1979) argues that place as a concept exists at two different levels. At one level, place involves larger scale public symbols that can bind a community and

312

C. E. Loh et al.

society. For instance, Yeoh and Kong (1996) have studied how history binds places to temporal contexts, and in turn, provides places their meaning or significance. Individuals therefore can relate to landscapes or symbols of historical and cultural significance in a society’s collective history. In addition, places can also be understood as fields of care, understood as the invisible relationships that people have with the places that they inhabit. These relationships with place can be seen as mediated by the different axes of identities that people have. In another example, Chang (2000) recognizes that the Indian residents in Singapore’s Little India neighborhood experience an existential inside-ness forged through a sense of belonging and experience, whereas the Chinese merchants in the area embody incidental outside-ness, with the neighborhood providing a mere backdrop for their businesses. As such, place as a concept can be both collective and individual in its meaning. While individuals may relate to certain places based on their personal biographies, they also find meaning in other places on the premise of national histories or the collective memories embedded in that place’s history. Hence, places can be seen as the sedimentation, and at times, the intersection of individual and national biographies, which becomes the basis on which people, form their sense of a given place. In an increasingly complex world of multiple flows of goods, peoples, and cultures (Appadurai, 1996), students need a broader sense of the place they call home and tools—which include what Tuan (1979) calls “a moral and aesthetic discernment” (p. 210)—to imagine or reimagine place. These disciplinary fieldtrips extend their understanding in two ways: (1) students are exposed to various places within the nation, extending their understanding of the locales that make up the country, and (2) viewing these places through disciplinary lenses provide new tools for thinking about what constitutes place, what should constitute place and students’ roles within society. In the following section, we examine how the disciplines of geography, history, and literature contribute to different and intersecting understandings of place through actual fieldtrips conducted with NIE pre-service teachers.

16.2.2 Geography, History, and Literature Fieldtrips Within the Singapore context, National Education (NE) is one, though not the sole, impetus for place-based learning. NE was launched in Singapore in 1997 with the aim to develop national cohesion and the instinct for survival and confidence in Singapore’s future (HistorySG, 2019). The aim of NE is to socialize the young by inculcating a sense of belonging and rootedness to the nation. While NE was officially launched only in 1997, its objective of fostering a sense of national identity and unity among Singapore citizens was not new with the Singapore government perennially concerned with survival and preparation for the future since independence (Tan, 2008). NE, however, was only formalized in 2001 as a requirement for school’s curriculum integration. All subjects taught in schools were required to map out how the six NE messages could be infused into the curriculum wherever possible. For instance, the NE message “Singapore is our homeland; this is where we belong”

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

313

could be mapped back to the learning of Singapore history as well as going on local fieldtrips. Since 2014, the NE messages have also been explicitly mapped back to the “Core Values” of the Character and Citizenship Education curriculum (Student Development Curriculum Division, MOE, 2012). The current curriculum for humanities subjects, such as geography and history, adopts a common Humanities inquiry approach, which allows for the development of critical thinking skills in Singapore students. This inquiry-based learning involves students in knowledge construction. The Humanities inquiry approach has four elements: question-driven, evidence-driven, reflection, and knowledge construction. The four aspects in the process of inquiry are sparking curiosity, gathering data, exercising reasoning, and reflective thinking (MOE, 2013). Inquiry is not necessarily a linear process and can involve some back and forth movement between and across stages when new questions emerge. In the humanities, inquiry-based learning is often conducted through fieldtrips, where students get to exercise various aspects of inquiry. Inquiry through fieldtrips not only provide students with opportunities to discover little-known information about selected local sites; they may also enhance students’ awareness of their own culture and heritage and raise opportunities for discussions about space, place, and history. Within geography, fieldwork is an important part of the curriculum throughout secondary school and junior college. Fieldwork skills are examined at the capstone national examinations for both secondary and A-level education. One component of fieldwork in geography involves fieldtrips to cultural heritage sites. Using the Humanities inquiry approach, geography students engage in investigations on the different types of tourism opportunities offered by cultural heritage sites. They also explore the impact of tourism on these tourist destinations. These fieldtrips support students’ understanding of concepts and content learned in the textbooks by helping them to relate to tourism sites experientially and to construct personal understandings of heritage spaces and attractions. At the same time, they also encourage students to connect these sites with larger historical and social narratives as they explore why these heritage spaces are attractive to tourists, and how tourism consumption affects the development and trajectories of these sites. Geography fieldtrips also occur in everyday lived spaces. Students are encouraged to explore how the built environment can promote a sense of place and belonging on different levels (personal, community, national). History fieldtrips are commonly conducted through visits to heritage sites such as Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India, and Katong. They provide students with the opportunity to conduct first-hand historical investigations and actively construct knowledge through interactions with historic places. For example, in engaging students in an inquiry-based historical fieldtrip into the nation’s past, students can generate key questions about aspects of Singapore’s past, gather and make sense of the data collected on-site, and allow them to construct knowledge in light of the question/s investigated. The development of literature fieldtrips is particularly tied to the introduction of learning journeys. In addition to NE-infusion lessons to curriculum and instruction, learning journeys were launched in 1998 (NLB, 2014) to encourage teachers to

314

C. E. Loh et al.

bring their students out of the classroom to specific places in Singapore to help them understand the nation’s history and the role of specific institutions in contributing to nation-building. The focus on New Criticism and text-centered ways of reading in the literature classroom meant that the study of literature tended to stay within the classroom. However, with the introduction of learning journeys, NIE pre- and in-service teachers began to design fieldtrips that allow students to engage with poetry and other literary forms in place. Literature fieldtrips are inherently interdisciplinary, often drawing on historical and geographical connections to help students better understand both poetry and place (Loh, 2018; Whitehead & Tang, 2013). While NE has been criticized as linear and uncritical, particularly in its earlier reiterations (Liew, 2013), literature fieldtrips with their focus on critical questioning and creative productions encourage critical and complex engagement with students’ understanding of both literature and place (Ball & Lai, 2006).

16.3 Three Perspectives of Toa Payoh 16.3.1 A Brief History Toa Payoh literally translates to “Big Swamp” in Hokkien and Teochew (“Toa” means big, and “Payoh” is a loanword from the Malay word for swamp—“paya”). The place used to be mainly forests and swamps until the British developed it into gambier and pepper plantations in the mid-nineteenth century. In the early 1960s, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) started the development of Toa Payoh New Town. It was the first town to be completely planned and built by HDB—a national experiment to create self-sufficient towns where public housing was met with amenities such as schools, polyclinics, flatted factories, markets, cinemas, community centers, and playgrounds. Over the years, Toa Payoh has become “the archetypal granddaddy of all public housing towns in Singapore” where many of today’s public housing estate plans were first prototyped (NHB, 2014, p. 1). The list of Singapore’s “firsts” in Toa Payoh includes the first Residents’ Association, the first NTUC supermarket cooperative, the first town with a neighborhood police post, and the first Mass Rapid Train (MRT) station built (NHB, 2014). Such rich historical developments underscore the significance of Toa Payoh New Town as a place within the country’s national biography and social memory, which makes it a particularly appropriate locale for our discussion of place-based learning, national education, and sense of place. At the same time, for residents of Toa Payoh New Town, it exists not only as a historic place but also as a “neighborhood.” Drawing on Tuan’s (1979) notion of places as fields of care, neighborhoods can be understood as loosely bounded areas where people live and interact with one another, and with their environment. Neighborhoods can be seen as having distinct identities, based on the characteristics of the people who live there, as well as features of the built environment. Inquiring into Toa Payoh New Town from the perspective of a neighborhood complements understandings of its

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

315

historical significance, allowing students to view it as textured and multidimensional space.

16.3.2 Place from Geographical Perspectives Geographers recognize that a person’s knowledge of a place is developed through his/her social interactions within the space. How people view and experience space, is furthermore the result of a complex interaction of individual and group identities—for instance, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and class. Collectively, these affect a person’s feelings of emotional attachment and belonging to the place (sense of place). In preparation to conduct the lower secondary field-based inquiry on the topic of housing, NIE geography pre-service teachers or student teachers were invited to first engage with the geographical disciplinary concept of place, through considering the ways in which different groups of residents in a Toa Payoh precinct interact within the space. Since the 2000s, HDB has focused on developing distinct place identities in public housing estates like Toa Payoh. These included the subdivision of the estates into precincts, with each precinct comprising a cluster of blocks which shares common community and recreational spaces and are designed to be visually distinct from other precincts through the use of markers, distinct architectural facades, and colors (Teo, Yeoh, Brenda, Ooi, & Lai, 2004). The student teachers also examined the ways in which the features of the space might or might not promote a sense of place among the different groups of residents. In this fieldtrip, student teachers were tasked to explore a cluster of public housing flats within the Toa Payoh Green precinct. In particular, they were asked to focus on ten different locations within the precinct (Fig. 16.1). These points were purposefully

Fig. 16.1 Photographs of locations studied in the Toa Payoh Green Precinct

316

C. E. Loh et al.

Table 16.1 Task/s, concept/s targeted and rationale Location: Toa Payoh Green Precinct Task/s at Locations A-J

Concept/s Targeted

Rationale

Fill in worksheet on who the users of the space are/could be

Identity

To develop a more nuanced understanding of who different groups of users of space are, and where they might congregate

Take and annotate photographs Environment of the physical characteristics of Insider/Outsider the site

To be sensitized to the characteristic features of the built environment that are unique/special, or which explicitly include/exclude certain groups of users

Conduct survey of 10 Toa Payoh Green precinct residents who have lived there for more than five yearsa

To find out which spaces in the neighborhood residents frequent, where they interact with other members of the community, and if any sites within the area hold significance for them

Identity, Built Environment, Sense of Place

Source a As individual attachment to places requires time to develop, students limited their interviews to residents who have lived in the area for more than five years

selected to cater to the varying needs of different users in the area. The activities to be conducted are listed in Table 16.1. Key concepts addressed in the fieldtrip included the following: Sense of Place. People develop attachment to and form mental images of different places, based partly on the collective historical memories and cultural understandings of places, and partly, as a result of their own experiences within the place. In this fieldtrip, the student teachers investigated the residents’ meaning making of and attachment toward their neighborhood, defined at the level of Toa Payoh Green precinct. Identity. Qualities which define who a person is or group of people are, which define them, and differentiate them from other persons or groups. Human geographers view identity as complex. It exists at the intersection of physical qualities like gender, race, age, disability, and socioeconomic characteristics like class, political affiliation, citizenship, and educational qualifications, etc. In this example, students explored the ways in which residents’ identities interacted with their sense of place in the Toa Payoh Green precinct. Environment. An environment is the result of the interaction of physical and human features that shape a place. In the case of this fieldtrip, student teachers examined the built environment of the Toa Payoh Green precinct and how it shapes social interactions and the residents’ sense of place. Insider/ Outsider. People can be insiders or outsiders in a place. As sense of place is a social construction, whether people feel at home or alienated within Toa Payoh is

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

317

the result of the interplay of complex factors like whether they belong to the dominant social group within the space. For instance, dominant social groups affect the built environment of a place through the ways in which they plan for or control social behavior (e.g., the presence of community spaces or the provision of infrastructure for particular groups). The built environment then shapes whether or not people feel they belong or matter to the neighborhood. In the post-fieldtrip phase, the student teachers were instructed to analyze, synthesize, and present their findings using the following media: (1) bar graphs and other graphical formats which explicate the identity features of respondents (e.g., age, gender, length of residence, etc.), (2) annotated maps showing the places that were significant or meaningful to (different groups of) residents, and (3) annotated photographs that highlight the features of particular locations which are significant or meaningful to (groups of) residents. Throughout the presentations, the student teachers were encouraged to consider more fully the inter-relationships between the built environment of the Toa Payoh Green precinct and residents’ sense of place. In addition, the student teachers discussed the complexities involved in identifying different categories of residents, given the multiple axes of identity residents might have (e.g., a disabled elderly man from a middle-income background might interact differently within the space compared with a mobile elderly women with limited financial means). Finally, students considered those residents who were explicitly left out in the planning of the space (e.g., foreign domestic workers). Through this fieldtrip, student teachers therefore develop a nuanced and textured understanding of the ways in which people living in a housing estate in Toa Payoh use and relate to their environment and with other members of their community. They are also sensitized to how features of the built environment can enhance or reduce an individual’s sense of place within the precinct. Through this fieldtrip, the student teachers construct knowledge of Toa Payoh neighborhood through Tuan’s (1979) lens of place as a field of care. They also develop an understanding of the concept of sense of place through exploring the mutually constitutive relationships among space, social relations, and identity.

16.3.3 Place from Historical Perspectives The heritage of neighborhoods like Toa Payoh, encompasses rich and intangible historical phenomena such as collective memories, traditions, values, and ways of life. Such sites serve as a conduit to the past, offering its observer a glimpse of its sedimented memories, history, and culture. Fieldtrips, based on the premise of historical investigation or inquiry, are integral instruments to provide students with the opportunity to gather primary data through observations and interactions with the physical environment and the people embedded in them. Rather than passively

318

C. E. Loh et al.

receiving historical information from classroom lectures and textbooks, fieldtrips allow students to actively observe the site, architecture, historical markers, monuments, or the like as rich historical sources to be critically interpreted, analyzed, and evaluated (Afandi, Baildon, & Rajah, 2014). To put this into practice, pre-service teachers structured and conducted a historical fieldtrip to the Toa Payoh Town Centre for lower secondary school students. The overarching inquiry question for the fieldtrip was “Using Toa Payoh Town Centre as a case study, how did the development of public housing impact the lives of everyday residents?” This question was mapped back to one of the chapters in the Lower Secondary History Syllabus focusing on the advent of the public housing system and the consequent transformation of people’s living standards post-independence. The activities and site visits during the fieldtrip prodded students to answer the overarching inquiry question through the perspective of key historical concepts such as chronology, change and continuity, significance, accounts, and empathy. A summary of the fieldtrip can be found in Table 16.2. Key concepts addressed in the fieldtrip included the following: Chronology. The historical concept of chronology or time and periodization enables students to perceive and visualize the development of the place over the years. What has happened over time and what is the sequence of that development? To answer these questions, students must first be privy to the background information and its time-bound context (political, economic, social). To this end, students were given two in-class lessons prior to embarking on the fieldtrip. The lessons were designed to provide them with sufficient contextual knowledge on the living conditions of Toa Payoh residents in pre-independent Singapore, prior to its development into a satellite town for public housing. Through textual and visual historical sources, students were able to build a chronology of Toa Payoh, from being a swampland to becoming a gambier plantation, and eventually comprising “kampongs” (Malay word for village), shophouses, and squatters. By learning about the everyday life of kampong living in Toa Payoh, students will have the necessary contextual knowledge to appreciate the field site’s heritage better. Change and Continuity. Chronology serves as a foundation for students to appreciate or evaluate the changes and continuities of Toa Payoh as a place across key time periods. With independence and the advent of the public housing scheme serving as a turning point in history, students are able to structure their observations such that they are able to perceive the key changes and continuities of residents’ livelihoods and ways of life. For instance, students visited the Tree Shrine, a historical landmark in Toa Payoh that has existed since the kampong days. The shrine was set up under the tree in 1969 following an urban legend that the tree was immovable and mysteriously caused unexpected obstacles for the redevelopers whenever they tried to clear it; so much so that the layout of the shops had to be rearranged to accommodate the tree (NHB, 2014). Since then, the shrine has been popular among the residents, upkept and even re-built in 2013. It also reflected the continuity in religious beliefs and culture despite rapid urbanization. Through such observations and inferences, students are then able to evaluate the nature or impact of changes over time.

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

319

Table 16.2 Site, Inquiry questions, field activities, and historical concepts Site

Inquiry questions

Activities

Historical concepts

Classroom

• How was life like in squatters and kampongs? • Why was there a need for public housing and the Housing Development Board?

Pre-fieldtrip classroom Chronology lesson for contextual Accounts and knowledge, including a Empathy video depicting generic kampong life, historical sources of Toa Payoh before independence, and students’ sharing

SEAP games village • Why was Toa Payoh chosen as the site of the SEAP Games Village? • What does this suggest about the quality of life of everyday residents in Toa Payoh?

Answer questions using less than 100 words with pictorial evidence for support Students are suggested to look at the physical infrastructure around them (e.g., location of blocks that housed the athletes in relation to surrounding facilities)

Significance

Toa Payoh Public Library

• How and why did the purpose of this building change after the end of SEAP Games?

Source for clues in the Change and library to answer question Continuity (e.g., newspaper reports found in a mini-exhibition on the second level)

Block 179 Void Deck

• How have these spaces changed or remained constant from pre- to post-independence period? • What activities have remained constant?

Observe and interact with the features of the site, activities and people Take a photograph of a feature in the site and provide a write-up explaining its significance in relation to the questions

Change and Continuity Accounts and Empathy

Tree Shrine

• How did the residents adapt or resist their changing environments in order to continue engaging in these activities?

Write a poem of the site and their observations

Change and Continuity

Significance. The concept of significance enables students to assess the importance of a place and how it has affected people and their lives over an extended period of time. The significance of Toa Payoh was easily established given that it was the first public housing estate prototype that became the model for the rest of urban Singapore. The fieldtrip to the various “firsts” established in Toa Payoh helped students understand its impact by relating back to the similarities that can be found in their own neighborhood estates. By appreciating the tremendous changes the site

320

C. E. Loh et al.

has brought about beyond its own confines, dramatically shifting the Singaporean way of life, students are able to evaluate the historical significance of Toa Payoh. Accounts and Empathy. Through exposure to various historical accounts of the place as written by historians or through the oral histories of people who have lived there, students are able to recognize that there can be no single or complete account of the past. Rather each account adds to a diverse pool of perspectives to be critically analyzed and evaluated for its respective insights. In addition to the textual historical sources analyzed in the classroom, students were tasked during the fieldtrip to speak to Toa Payoh residents for first-hand personal accounts of their reactions to and experience with resettlement into HDB flats. Seeing and hearing from people who live in Toa Payoh, especially those who lived through the 60s, helped students develop an empathetic understanding of the place. Taken together, the historical concepts discussed above, provides some of the key lenses through which students acquire a more holistic sense of a place. From the vantage of the present, grounded on the knowledge of the past, students are able to better appreciate the history and heritage of the place and how these places have impacted the local community as well as the broader society. In other words, fieldtrips become an important avenue through which students actively take part in making sense of a place—its relationship to the past and present, as well as its meaning to both the citizen and the nation.

16.3.4 Place from Literary Perspectives Literature fieldtrips have been conducted at NIE since 2007 and presupposes a paradigm shift from New Criticism and other more text-based and examinationoriented ways of studying literature (Whitehead & Tang, 2013). Literature fieldtrips may be organized to expose students to Singapore’s culture (e.g., through theatre visits and workshops), situate studies of Singapore texts (e.g., visits to the Peranakan museum visits to complement the study of “Emily of Emerald Hill,” a Singapore play), to engage in discussions of National Education through engagement in local place and poetry, or to use place as inspiration for critical discussions and creativity (Loh, 2018). At NIE, literature fieldtrips are part of the curriculum, and pre-service teachers are equipped to design their own fieldtrips through participation and creation. Table 16.3 shows the locations, texts, and tasks designed for the Toa Payoh fieldtrip. Key concepts addressed in the fieldtrip included the following: Language and Representation. In contrast to history and geography, a key emphasis of literature fieldtrips would be on language and representation, as teachers expose students to literary texts that mediate students’ understanding of place. Literature fieldtrips often take a form of “critical place-based pedagogy” that “listens to the locals by paying close attention to students’ interest and by examining texts, artifacts, and performances of local cultural production” (Ball & Lai, 2006, p. 261). Exposure to local texts, including those of the marginalized, and encouraging students to

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

321

Table 16.3 Locale, text, task, and rationale Location

Task

Rationale

National Institute of “A Brief History of Education Toa Payoh” by Koh Buck Song

Text

Pre-trip activity: Discuss poem and unfamiliar terms

Prepare for the fieldtrip by discussing the connections between literature and place. Close read the poem and discuss terms that may be unfamiliar to pre-service teachers

Housing Development Board (HDB) Hub

“The Planners” by Boey Kim Cheng

Visit the HDB Hub for exhibition of housing development in Singapore and read “The Planners”. Reflect on the attitude of the poet towards change

Generate discussion about multiple perspectives and how poetry mediates our understanding of place

The Dragon Playground, an old playground

“2 Mothers in a HDB Dramatize “2 Mothers Playground” by in a HDB Playground” Arthur Yap or create an audio recording of the poem

Void deck, HDB flat Excerpt from “Malay Sketches”, short stories by Alfian Sa’at

Write a poem or a short prose paragraph to evoke a memory or place significant to the student

Explore voice and tone. Contextualize and visualize the poem by reading it in place Creative writing to engage students in thinking about their own responses to place

create their own works empower students when their knowledge and sense of place are renewed. Evocation through Immersion in Place. A key element of literature fieldtrips is the inclusion of literary texts that mediate students’ understanding of place. The visit to a place is a form of place memory (Casey, 1987), contributing to the reproduction of social memory. In the case of literature fieldtrips, visits to specific locales provide students with opportunities to rethink their personal and communal understandings of place through experience. At the same time, literary works are about representations of ideas of the world through art. Thus, reading poetry or narratives of place enhances students’ experience of place by providing them with different ways of viewing the world. For example, reading “The Brief History of Toa Payoh” and “The Planners” provide students with not just factual descriptions of place but evoke different impressions of place. Through these readings, students come to inhibit past perceptions and attitudes toward place and to see the values embedded in the literary works of a particular time. Critical Readings of Text and Place. Evocation of an experience may be achieved by reading poetry in place, as the students did for “2 Mothers in a HDB Playground.” Reading the poem in an old-style playground built in the 1970s serves to provide a context for transporting the students to another time. However, a critical place-based

322

C. E. Loh et al.

approach cannot linger in nostalgia but must get students to discuss and critique how the past and present connect and differ, using the poem as a starting point for thinking about place. In this case, the dramatization was followed up by students’ discussions of current attitudes and past attitudes toward education and success, allowing them to think about the past, present, and future. Juxtapositions of various texts—literary and non-literary, may also allow students to see multiple perspectives and question dominant perspectives. Reflection and Creation. Finally, a key feature of literature learning journeys, is reflection and creation. Students’ engagement with the texts and places are a form of dialogue (Bakhtin, 1981), where they come to greater knowledge of texts, the world around them and themselves. The provision of activities that allow students to reflect (e.g., written reflections, conversations) and create (e.g., writing a poem, creating an Instagram post or audio recording) allow them to rethink their understanding of both poetry and place. Creation is ranked highly on Bloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2010) because the act of creation encourages active engagement, analysis, and evaluation. Through students’ close reading and creation of literary texts, they deepen their understanding of both place and literature. Being in place and reflecting on place through literary works connect students to their sense of place, whether specific or as part of a nation. These conversations layer to their understanding of what it means to be Singaporean, preparing them to be active participants in ongoing conversations about place and their roles as inhabitants of these specific places.

16.4 Discussion Place is valuable in helping individuals to make meaning, to understand the world in which they live, and a place-based orientation to students’ learning can help them become more place-conscious (Gruenewald & Smith, 2010) in their understanding of the world. A key objective of place-based education is to avoid homogenization of education toward economic aims in a global economy, to allow students as citizens to understand other people in relation to local and global space. Place-based education is not just about embracing culture but is also about creating cultures of care for place and for people. The Indonesian term “gotong royong,”used to describe cooperation in a community, captures the idea that students as citizens of local and global space need to work together to care for place and people in place. At the same time, a critical place-based pedagogy (Gruenewald, 2003) requires students not just to engage in nostalgic, unquestioning acceptance of place but engage in critical rethinking of place that evaluates underlying beliefs, values, and actions that shape place. Engagement with place should include creative re-imagination of values and relations within the space (Massey, 2005). The understanding of place is not mere cognitive activity but a sense-making exercise. This sense-making sensibility requires both emotional and intellectual engagement in the presence of actual place. To be in place as part of a fieldtrip is to create an opportunity for “an intimate exchange” (Tuan, 1979, p. 141), for a chance to

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

323

see-feel-touch what would otherwise be missed in textbook understandings of place. This sense of place is, undoubtedly not built through a single visit. However, these fieldtrips do open up the concept of home and nation for discussion through engagement with other locales within students’ experiences of places within the nation. The sense of rootedness that is so valued in discussions of National Education cannot be developed without exploration of particular places that mean something. Landmarks such as monuments and shrines, and in the case of Toa Payoh, a neighborhood of significance, are visible signs that contribute to awareness of place and add to attachment to nation as place (Tuan, 1979). We argue in this chapter that disciplinary lenses can bring new ways of looking at and experiencing place, contributing to students’ tools for navigating place in a constantly changing world. This cross-disciplinary exploration has demonstrated the different emphasis of each discipline. For geography, the study of place begins with understanding how spatial layouts and the built environment are integral to the ways in which communities and individuals make sense of their place and identities within society. For history, the main emphasis is on change and continuity. In seeing the changes and continuities in the precinct since the early years of development, students are expected to have a strong grasp of the nature of “change” such as change can happen at varying rates and it is stimulated by various factors. For literature, a core emphasis is on how language and representation in art can bring new ways of understanding place. Through the reading of works by different writers, students experience different voices and experiences of place that they might otherwise miss. Literary works, particularly poetry, condense meaning, requiring students to think deeply about what and how place might mean to different individuals. Understanding the different disciplinary emphasis allows educators to see how each discipline brings a unique focus to the exploration of place. As humanities educators, knowledge of how the different disciplines contribute to pre-service teachers’ understanding of place enhances their capacity for developing students’ sense of place through place-based learning. For example, history pre-service teachers tasked to write a poem in a history fieldtrip are afforded the opportunity to construct imagined narratives and voices, to step into another person’s shoes. Literature teachers exploring space through concepts of inclusion and exclusion may gain insight about their own society and be made aware of marginalization within their communities. Geography teachers may conduct historical research, drawing on images to guide their interviews of residents’ feeling of place. The capacity to “feel” is an important element of the humanities. Humanities fieldtrips can provide pre-service teachers with opportunities to develop their affective capacity alongside their cognitive abilities. The knowledge of other disciplinary lenses can therefore complement each disciplinary approach toward fieldtrips, expanding explorations through borrowing and appropriation from each other. Across the humanities, there is also a clear focus on listening to different voices, official and non-official. For history and literature, there is particular emphasis on students understanding the multiple perspectives to a single place or values with reference to multiple data sources. Across history and geography, there is an emphasis on understanding perspectives through oral histories and interviews with residents.

324

C. E. Loh et al.

In that way, fieldtrips bring the different subjects to life, making connections among the texts studied in class, the texts encountered in everyday life, and the places in which history, geography, and literature are situated. Sense of place is thus developed through exposure and repeated engagement with place at an emotional level. However, teacher educators need to note that bringing students to a place does not necessarily engender similar attachments or engagements to place, for different individuals hold varied personal histories and identities that guide their interaction with particular places. There may be a tendency to reify place, to engage in nostalgic reflections of a rose-tinted past (Chua, 1994). Toa Payoh as a neighborhood stands for a slice of Singapore’s past but exists in the present. Rather than a fixed notion of place, students need to understand that place is produced (Appadurai, 1996) and that shifting notions of place are required to address new realities. Educators should ask questions that address themes such as identity, society, environment, and change with the knowledge that difficult questions should not be avoided as these questions help humanities educators to shape more critical humanities fieldtrips. Given that fieldtrips are a regular feature of the Singapore humanities classroom, educators can plan fieldtrips that are centered around critical issues as well as important places in the national agenda. As students mature into late adolescence, they may be exposed to more complex issues in their fieldtrips. Teacher educators should consider how they can scaffold pre-service teachers’ learning to include these complex discussions of space through their design and organization of fieldtrips. Teacher educators can also highlight how different disciplinary lenses and questions shape fieldtrips about the same location.

16.5 Conclusion The value of the humanities, we argue, is that it provides students with the competencies to read place. Here, the verb “read” means to interpret. Toa Payoh as a locale provides a location for cultivating students’ sense of place, but students draw on their personal geography and bring their own understandings to shape their notion of belonging and citizenship. Through the exploration of place, they make their own interpretations of place for themselves. The disciplinary perspectives of geography, history, and literature equip students with tools for reading place differently, allowing them to come to layered, complex, and critical understandings of place. These understandings are crucial for their participation as national and global citizens, for knowledge of place requires knowledge of people who live within the space. To care, students need to first step out of their comfort zone to understand others who live in the place they call home. Humanities fieldtrips allow such opportunities for seeing-feeling-thinking, and understanding the different disciplinary tools across geography, history, and literature allow teacher educators to utilize these tools to enhance the learning within each discipline.

16 “A Sense of Place”: Understanding Fieldtrips …

325

References Afandi, S., Baildon, M., & Rajah, S. N. C. (2014). “Reading” monuments and memorials of war. Be Muse, 7(4), 32–39. Agnew, J. A. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). TX: University of Texas Press. Ball, E. L., & Lai, A. (2006). Place-based pedagogy for the arts and humanities. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 6(3), 261–287. Bartholomaeus, P. (2013). Place-based education and the Australian curriculum. Literacy learning: The middle years, 21(3), 17–23. Casey, E. S. (1987). Remembering: A phenomenological study. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Chang, T. C. (2000). Singapore’s Little India: A tourist attraction as a contested landscape. Urban Studies, 37(2), 343–366. Chua, B. H. (1994). That imagined space: Nostalgia for the kampung in Singapore. National University of Singapore, Department of Sociology Working Paper. Singapore: NUS. Comber, B. (2015). Literacy, place, and pedagogies of possibilities. NY: Routledge. Cresswell, T. (2015). Place: An introduction. UK: Wiley Blackwell. Cross, J. (2001). What is sense of place? Archives of the Headwaters Conference. CA: Western State College. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 619–654. Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (2010). Introduction: Making room for the local. In D. A. Gruenewald, & G. A. Smith (Eds.), Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. xiii–xxiii). New York: Routledge. HistorySG. (2019). Launch of National Education: 17th May 1997. Retrieved from http://eresou rces.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/44fa0306-ddfe-41bc-8bde-8778ff198640. Krathwohl, D. R. (2010). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–208. Liew, W. M. (2013). Teaching literature through and beyond National Education. In C. E. Loh, D. Yeo, & W. M. Liew (Eds.), Teaching literature in Singapore secondary schools (pp. 176–190). Singapore: Pearson. Loh, C. E. (2018). The poetry of place, the place of poetry: The promise and perils of a place-based literary pedagogy in the Singapore literature classroom. In C. E. Loh, S. S. Choo, & C. Beavis (Eds.), Literature education in the Asia-Pacific: Policies, practices and perspectives in global times (pp. 194–210). London: Routledge. Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage Publications. Ministry of Education (MOE. (2013). Lower secondary history teaching and learning guide: Express & normal (academic) courses. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education, Singapore. National Heritage Board. (2014). Toa Payoh heritage trail. Singapore: National Heritage Board. National Library Board. (2014). Launch of learning journeys (28 February 1998), accessed online from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/f3a07da7–06b5-4720-9ac1-daffbfbbc469. Orr, D. W. (1994). Ecological literacy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connection classrooms and communities. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society. Student Development Curriculum Division, MOE. (2012). 2014 syllabus character and citizenship education secondary. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.

326

C. E. Loh et al.

sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/character-citizenship-education/files/ 2014-character-citizenship-education-secondary.pdf. Tan, J. (2008). Whither national education? In J. Tan & Ng, P. T. (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nations: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 72–86). Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall. Teo, P., Yeoh, B. S. A., Ooi, G. L., & Lai, K. (2004). Changing landscapes of Singapore. Singapore: McGraw Hill Education. Tuan, Y. F. (1979). Space and place: Humanistic perspective. In S. Gale & G. Olson (Eds.), Philosophy in geography (pp. 387–427). Dordrecht: Springer. Tuan, Y. F. (1990). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. New York: Columbia University Press. Whitehead, A., & Tang, C. O. (2013). “No nostalgia in the future of the past?”: Exploring local texts and spaces through literature fieldtrips. In C. E. Loh, D. Yeo, & W. M. Liew (Eds.), Teaching literature in Singapore secondary schools (pp. 206–221). Singapore: Pearson. Yeoh, B. S. A., & Kong, L. (1996). The notion of place in the construction of history, nostalgia and heritage in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 17(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9493.1996.tb00084.x.

Chin Ee Loh is an Associate Professor and Deputy Head (Research) in the English Language and Literature Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Her research interests are in literature curriculum and instruction, reading and social class and teacher education. She has published widely on literature education and reading. Some of her recent books are The Space and Practice of Reading: A Case Study of Reading and Social Class in Singapore (2017, Routledge), Literature Education in the Asia-Pacific: Policies, Practices and Perspectives (2018, Routledge), and Poetry Moves: An Anthology of Poetry (2020, Ethos). Tricia Seow is a Senior Lecturer in the Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Her research interests and publications include teachers’ subject knowledge and identities, classroom and field-based geographical inquiry, and climate change education. Chelva Rajah is a Senior Teaching Fellow in the Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic Group at the National Institute of Education. He has been seconded from the Ministry of Education (MOE) since 2010 as a History educator and teaches pre-service, in-service and postgraduate courses in History. He has 23 years of classroom teaching experience in schools and his main teaching subjects were History and Social Studies. He was previously seconded to the History Unit, Curriculum Planning and Development Division, MOE, from 2001 to 2003.

Chapter 17

A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary Trips—A Summative Reflection Kalyani Chatterjea

Abstract A landscape is never manifested through one single disciplinary understanding. Concentrating on one and neglecting the rest, for the sake of data-driven research, might give good disciplinary understanding of the researched processes, but fails to provide a well-rounded knowledge and appreciation of the total environment. Through many years of in-depth, as well as diverse field exposures, the chapter shows the ways new vistas are opened up when students engaged in singlediscipline-driven fieldwork are exposed to the multiple experiences offered in any given location. The outcome has generally proved to be more complete and has helped students to analyze their own given issues better, in addition to making them aware of things they never expected to learn. As youths of very dynamic times, such knowledge is always useful in equipping them with additional perspectives to enrich their own. From this perspective, it is felt that multidisciplinary, joint field exposures could be woven into the curriculum and conducted by groups of academics from the related disciplines. This will provide the learners a more multidimensional view of the actual world, provide authentic learning environments, and, thus, equip the future generations with a grounded knowledge of environments, rather than providing only one disciplinary perspective of a place or issue. The author will discuss the issue and provide examples and students’ views from the many such fieldwork expeditions conducted for university undergraduates over many years.

17.1 Fieldwork: An Opportunity to Achieve Authentic Learning Experience A “learning environment refers to the diverse physical locations, contexts, and cultures in which students learn” (Bates, 2012, p. 2) and it is with this understanding

K. Chatterjea (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2_17

327

328

K. Chatterjea

that fieldwork can be proposed as the ultimate learning environment for all disciplines that need a connection with not just the physical location, but the people and every aspect that is associated with that physical entity. Fieldwork has been regarded as an essential tool to extend class-based learning, to deepen conceptual understanding, and even to instil a sense of belonging to the working group and the environment one is working in. Usually fieldwork strategies are advocated and used as the final step toward developing and understanding the concepts introduced in the classroom, though the alternative way of an initial exploration before actual immersion into concepts is also followed by many. While fieldwork and geography have always been the perfect combination, each complimenting the other as essential partners, very little has been mentioned regarding how this entire field exposure not just enhances the geographical framework that is deliberately set out in the learning objective of a geography course, but also, almost unknowingly, ignites the mind to aspects that go hand in hand to form any environment. No field experience is a one-dimensional learning environment. Every field location offers a combination of various aspects worthy of observation and analysis, and a comprehensive study requires a multidisciplinary perspective and approach. The opportunity for authentic learning is somewhat restricted if students are given to look through only one single disciplinary lens, and the knowledge outcome fails to provide a comprehensive peek into the reality, as some aspects remain unnoticed and unappreciated. Increasingly, therefore, educators are looking for possibilities of a multidisciplinary perspective of an issue or place. As opposed to a classroombased lesson, where mostly a single disciplinary lesson is the norm, fieldwork, by nature, provides a multiple dimension to the situated knowledge. Learning to observe and decipher the multiple knowledge domains from a field situation opens up the complex relationships, reveals the authenticity of the situation, and equips the learner for a higher level of understanding of the complexities of any location. Quite rightly, fieldwork is regarded as an essential element of learning in disciplines that have components of spatial dimensions such as geography, history, and social studies. In the current learning environment where there is constant struggle to fit in multiple learning objectives and a loaded curriculum into a reducing curricular time, educators need to relook at optimizing every exercise that stretches the learner during curricular time. Traditionally, though, geography was always seen as a field-based discipline, while some others such as history were thought to be best covered within the boundaries of classroom and traditional libraries. The realization that almost all disciplines are in some way or other connected to life, in general, is picking up. Fieldwork designed by the facilitator, to give just the prescribed geographical understanding, serves only a partial purpose, and the learner misses out on the opportunities of benefiting from the experiences that can potentially provide learning opportunities of a varied nature. But this requires not just proper planning but also awareness for the variety of scopes that can be harnessed. This requires some adjustments to our traditional single-discipline mindset, and teachers as well as learners need to be open about such ventures.

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

329

An environment is almost always not just geographical. It is simultaneously a spatial geographical entity, and also a historical, biological, social, cultural, literary, and even perhaps a mathematical entity. Thus, any field experience a learner goes through has the potential to offer a learning experience in multiple ways. While a strict object-oriented field exercise may focus keenly on a specific research topic, if the learners do not have an open mind on the scopes of acquiring other areas of knowledge, learning from that specific experience ends up being very limited. A field experience strictly adhering to the prescribed boundaries of subject-specific research falls short of the untapped potentials of a field exposure. While we tend to put emphasis on research specifics, we tend to forget a few things: (1) Time and scopes of active fieldwork involving a large number of students outside classrooms are hard to come by and difficult to organize in any educational setup. This limits the number of times students can be exposed to such immersive experiences. (2) Experiential learning, learning from direct involvement, learning from authentic situations and environments are all touted to form the backbone of usable knowledge acquisition and behavioral change. (3) From a mere logistic perspective, organization of multiple field experiences in every field of study can be a nightmare for the instructor. This can lead to only limited opportunities for such exposures for the individual learner. In practice, we often label only certain disciplines as being field-oriented. But in practice, if learning is life-centric, then theoretically all disciplines can have scopes for learning outside the four walls of the classroom. Even literature and math can be and should be learnt through experience. Hence, there is no real reason for restricting the field exposures to just certain disciplines. The onus, therefore, solely lies on the instructors or the curriculum planners to emphasize the need for experiential learning in multidimensional authentic environments. So far this aspect of bringing about effective education is well-accepted. This paper, however, goes further to suggest that field exposure with just one research focus, based on or restricted to one single discipline, does not do justice to the enormous effort and time invested by both the instructor and the students. While the students may come back from the field, well-trained in discipline specific techniques, observations, and knowledge, much of the authentic environment is left untapped. This can be deemed as opportunity lost, particularly because such extensive immersive field experiences can only be limited in numbers during the students’ course of study because of logistics.

17.2 Place of Fieldwork in Learning: Some Viewpoints As mentioned by Hammerman (1980), Julian W. Smith began the National Outdoor Education Project in 1955 where the connection between outdoor education and the

330

K. Chatterjea

school curriculum was explained: “Outdoor education means learning ‘in’ and ‘for’ the outdoors. It is a means of curriculum extension and enrichment through outdoor experiences” (Hammerman, 1980, p. 33). Though outdoor education traditionally was used mostly for nature study, today it is used to introduce many different aspects such as providing contexts to further learning and practical experiences that are related to the classroom-based knowledge. Adkins and Simmons (2002) expanded the understanding of outdoor education to experiential education and mentioned that it is “a process through which a learner constructs knowledge, skill, and value from direct experiences” (Adkins & Simmons, 2002, p. 5). This definition includes the following points related to learning: (1) Experiential learning occurs when carefully chosen experiences are supported by reflection, critical analysis, and synthesis. (2) The results of the learning are personal and form the basis for future experience and learning. Itin (1999) added that experiential education requires “the learner to take initiative, make decisions, and be accountable for the results” (p. 93). Taken together these definitions suggest that experiential education is a “process” or “method” that can be used to teach many related disciplines that may be enriched with some direct locational experiences. Although research on outdoor education has become more niched as well as diverse and researches a variety of agendas such as co- or extracurricular education and forest kindergarten or pre-school, progress continued to be made in the outdoor dimension of the various disciplines being taught in schools (Waller et al., 2017). Geography gives high emphasis on location and space, and therefore, it requires students to connect with the location, the community, and the environment. History, as a discipline, is similarly very much a spatial discipline when it connects with the community, the culture, the heritage, the historic structures, and citizenship. Both these disciplines, in various ways are tied to the spatial aspects of any study site, and hence, are good cases for integrative studies. An integrated learning environment is one that has a systematic organization with some meaningful pattern of learning. If geography and history can be systematically integrated, they can provide an understanding of not just the physical landscape and its environmental aspects, but also the sites and objects that connects it to the human society and culture. Many a time, an understanding of the indigenous customs, traditions are woven around logic that is derived from a deep understanding of the local geography. An awareness of such integrated local knowledge goes a long way in appreciating the location and the society that exists in any geographical area. While each discipline has its own purpose and objective, and sharp lines are traditionally drawn separating disciplines, geography and history share some related purposes and foci and lines can often blur, especially when an outdoor experience is in consideration. One can easily conceptualize educational purposes that build from the strengths of both the disciplines. For example, a group of learners studying the history of cross-mountain invasions in the past would gain more comprehensive understanding if the topographical aspects of the invasion route are discussed from a

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

331

geographical perspective such as the routes being essentially through narrow mountain passes. Some historical facts become more meaningful when the geography behind is explained. For example, the capital of Moghul India was shifted from Agra to Delhi, among other reasons, because of severe water shortage in Agra and also because River Jamuna was more navigable at Delhi. The geographical aspects of navigability of a river and access to water controlled much of the history associated with a vast empire in Asia. A study of the ancient Silk Route would become more vibrant and comprehensible; and the cultures along the route will be better appreciated if the actual geography of the route is studied alongside. Strong and lasting lessons take shape when some related aspects of these two disciplines are combined, and especially when outdoor, experiential, historical, and environmental education are combined to support one another. While we discuss the knowledge outcome from an integration of aspects of geography and history, it can be argued that such is better and easier achieved through outdoor education. Outdoor education in an authentic field setting is ideal for integrated study of disciplines such as geography and history. Redefining outdoor education is really a matter of integrating some relationships as Priest (2010) emphasized. He presented a new definition of outdoor education founded upon six major points. Outdoor education: (1) is a method for learning, (2) is experiential, (3) takes place primarily in the outdoors, (4) requires use of all senses and domains, and (5) is based upon interdisciplinary [or multidisciplinary] curriculum matter, and (6) is a matter of relationships involving people and natural resources. Trends in education call for traditional curricula and a clear connection between school and the outside world. One means of addressing the two goals would be a conscious effort to blend outdoor education themes with core courses (Simpson, 1988). In this respect, this author feels that fieldwork, as it is done under the geography curricula at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), offers a very good prospect for integrating both geography and history. Examples of some actual efforts undertaken are discussed in the following sections.

17.3 Multidisciplinary Geographies of Life Through Fieldwork As a geography instructor in the university, one usually conducts fieldwork that supports and enhances the concepts covered in the courses. In order to reach the desired end, every fieldwork requires planning, organization, management, and execution, and depending on the place and scope of the exposure, this might involve months of preparation. When peripheral or multidisciplinary learning is intended as an additional outcome, the possibilities of such experiences need to be carefully blended in within the time frame and seamlessly executed, so that the exposures have the potential to provide additional learning experiences and make the learning

332

K. Chatterjea

more complete than just enhancing disciplinary knowledge. Some of such field experiences will be described and analyzed here to examine the results of inclusion of peripheral and multidisciplinary learning exposures, along with the immediate disciplinary learning outcomes from fieldwork organized by this author as the geography instructor during her many years at the university. Each of the discussed fieldwork exercises was primarily meant to enhance the understanding of geomorphological and hydrological concepts through direct field data collection and subsequent data analysis. However, while the intended research activities were focussed on prolonged data collection and in-depth data analysis, invariably the field locations provided a lot more information and knowledge to the keen minds than just the focussed research topics. To this end, it was clear that ignoring such details would definitely not provide the maximum knowledge and experiential output that these field exposures might offer. The following examples of field research details and procedures will demonstrate how field situations may yield the comprehensive knowledge acquisition that can be achieved, just through some awareness and some deliberate inclusions made by the instructor. Case 1: Bedload Analysis of Kosi and Ramganga Rivers, India These two rivers were the research scopes for a group of final year geography students; and before going to the field, students decided on the specific areas they would study and gather data from and analyze in order to cover very in-depth topics on stream load, channel migration, braided channel morphology, bed load mobility, streamflow dynamics, channel configuration, forest regeneration, river-forest interaction, and even fish spawning locations along the braided mountain channels. These two rivers are at the margins of Corbett Tiger Reserve, one of the largest tiger reserves in India. Students chose their individual research topics and pre-planned their field investigations and data collection. At the field locations they were deeply involved in their individual study topics and being driven by the shortage of time and the demands of data collection, had minimal scopes for gaining any further insight into other aspects of learning interests. Several observations can be made about the way students operated: (1) Although they helped each other in data collection when stipulated by this author, being extremely focussed, when left on their own, they concentrated too much into their individual topics and never extended their enthusiasm to know what their peers were researching on. (2) They invested almost their entire free time into organizing their own work without showing any interest in the surroundings. They were basically driven by what they perceived as the disciplinary requirements. Rest was irrelevant and therefore, could be ignored. (3) They stopped questioning the why, what, and how about anything around them that was beyond their delineated scopes of work as long as they had completed their given tasks. These responses clearly restricted their learning outcomes from an area so rich and diverse in its offerings. But learning from this author’s earlier similar experiences,

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

333

these types of responses were pre-empted, and certain activities were incorporated and integrated in the students’ activities during the planning stage. These were given to the students after they completed their desired tasks. (1) Two safaris into the forest were conducted to give students an idea of the biodiversity and the ecosystem that exist in the area. The location and objective of a dam inside the forest were discussed, which was different from what they normally study, as this dam was solely to assist in forest water management and for sustaining the animal population during dry months. The dams built inside the forest were unlike the usual ones erected for irrigation or hydroelectricity production, as the students had earlier read about. They also learnt why conservation of tigers was extremely important in the total conservation effort and how the various aspects of the two rivers they researched on played important roles in maintaining the forest ecosystem and the riverine system. This clearly added a new dimension to their understanding as it drew them forcefully out of the carefully set out boundaries of knowledge they had drawn around themselves when they looked at their individual problems. This also helped them to connect their peers’ research to their own for a better understanding. (2) The second thrust was to introduce the human aspects that are part and parcel of the complete situation. During one of the field sessions, there was some scope of interaction with the villagers who had come for illegal grazing of cows within the buffer zones of the forest where the students were collecting river data. But they failed to see the issues associated with such activities and continued to concentrate on collecting their own data, without raising any questions. But when a visit to the nearby villages was conducted, through interaction with the villagers, the students appreciated the issues that surrounded the rural life. They learnt first-hand the behaviors of wild animals and about human-animal interactions resulting in conflicts and got interested in the ways these were handled by the local organizations. Suddenly they were not just studying the river and the forest but also everything that constituted the total environment, the problems, the issues, the amelioration programs, the village community’s history, their lifestyles, problems faced by them, and the prospects they have. Learning was no longer a single dimension, controlled by single research topic. Students developed a more complete understanding of the entire environment. The initial apathy for anything beyond the immediate research topic was preempted and, during the field stay, visits to the forest and the surrounding villages were already planned. Though these visits did not directly relate to the research topics, safaris into the reserve and the village interaction opened their eyes to the place of wildlife and humans in a juxtaposed situation, where co-existence was the key to conservation of the ecosystem. Human aspects and animal behaviors made them more empathetic to the actual situation and allowed them to go beyond being either oblivious to or uninterested in the environment where they were working. This exposure was beyond the bounds of their disciplinary research and yet enriched their knowledge by relating to actual events and provided the authenticity to the learning outcome. Some elements of animal behavior study, apart from providing

334

K. Chatterjea

light-hearted amusement, went further into understanding how the natural world and the human world relates and interacts. This also made the students aware that in spite of regular damages caused by stray wild animals to the village crops, the villagers still remained positive about protecting all wild animals: something urban societies find hard to understand. Sir David Attenborough’s statement that “…we have no greater right to be here than any other animal” can only be fully understood with interactions such as this. A trip to the Corbett Forest for mere discipline-related research would have fallen short of providing that completeness to the students’ learning. Case 2: Research on Invasive Plant Species and Tiger Poaching in a Forest in India For this research, another group of final year students chose different aspects of the issue for their study. This time, for the fieldwork part, all students were made to work in one group, helping to collect all data. This strategy was to ensure that students learn about all techniques of data collection rather than concentrating on only those relevant to their own research question. Another very important reason was to ensure that they learn how to work cooperatively, how to manage and organize their work and not be selfishly doing only their own. Beyond the disciplinary requirements, the students were taken for safari into the forest, to observe how deep the invasive species had infiltrated the forest and how that influenced both animals and the tribals who lived there. They learnt that the success of the invasive species, though an ecological problem, was not entirely frowned upon, even by forest management. Although from a purely biogeographical analysis this seems rather unusual, they learnt how the forest officials actually allow the forest tribals to enter a tiger reserve, albeit with some restrictions, just so that they not only get their much-required firewood from the forest but also empathize with tiger conservation and actually extend some assistance unknowingly against illegal poaching. Such complications within the topic of conservation are hard to appreciate unless there is a direct experience into the lives of the forest dwellers. The topic of poaching is an important part of any tiger reserve visit as are the strategies to combat such a deep-seated problem. To expose students to the broader issues, they were taken for various activities. Firstly, a meeting with a key personality, Mr. Fateh Singh, who spearheaded the first conservation efforts at Ranthambhore forest under the Project Tiger, was organized. Students learnt from him about the social, cultural, and economic problems around tiger conservation in an informal setting. For any urban society, this definitely was an eye-opener to know how living inside a forest with tigers shaped the sociocultural lives of the forest dwellers and how that was handled under the Project Tiger scheme. They also came to know how the ancient historical and cultural traditions were incorporated in the conservation efforts, to make them more effective and acceptable to the local population. They learnt how the invasive plant, Prosopis Juliflora, students’ original research topic, played both positive and negative roles in the natural as well as human landscapes of Ranthambhore forest and what was being done to maintain a balance. History of the forest and the earlier rulers had to be discussed as they went about learning about the area. While they visited the temple and the historically significant fort inside the forest, walking the exact path taken by

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

335

thousands of pilgrims every year through the tiger reserve, they could appreciate the rituals, the age-old culture, the history of the people, their connection with the forest, and why this walking path through the tiger reserve is not stopped even in the face of dangers from animal attacks, and how and why the forest management supports this old cultural connections to support both tiger conservation and human cultural expectations. It was also a revelation about animal behaviors and a lesson in handling human-animal conflicts effectively, without disturbing historical and cultural associations. That life is full of such compromises became an awareness, and yet, this had nothing much to do with the students’ actual research objectives. Yet, they were enriched through this understanding of the environment where they went to work. Had the historical aspects of this society and area been set outside the scopes of the field exposure, the knowledge derived would not have been a rounded one and would have been incomplete. It is the realization that the history and the geography of a place are very inter-twinned that provides a comprehensive exposure to the authentic knowledge in any location. Further, poaching as an illegal act was studied and discussed in the course on Conservation and Environmental Management. This fieldtrip was deliberately integrated with activities that opened the issue to be appreciated with the human aspects of the poaching community. Students paid a visit to the Boy’s school and hostel run by Tiger Watch, an NGO, where boys from the poachers’ families were rehabilitated, so that they learn that there is more to life than poaching tigers for a livelihood. Though language could have been a barrier in the Singapore students’ communication with the local boys at the hostel, they seemed to manage it fairly well, when the boys joined in to give the Singapore students a lesson in the game of cricket. Language did not seem to be a barrier as the novice Singaporeans enjoyed this cricketing experience with boys from a totally different culture, background, and upbringing. No amount of discipline research can bring this awareness of sharing the world with people who might be different in many aspects and yet so similar in many more of life’s ways. These interactions beyond the research requirements brought knowledge about the history, culture, and society and contributed to a better understanding of their own research through appreciating that conservation is not just a physical exercise but has to weave in social and cultural appreciation of the local people to be effective. Case 3: Stream Channel Dynamics of Jia Bhorelli and Brahmaputra Rivers, India This was conducted for another group of final year students of geography. It required a very difficult and demanding work regime as it involved spending a lot of time on the huge sand banks of the rivers, doing rafting through the turbulent Jia Bhorelli river. But along with that there was this wider issue of looking at the deforestation problems and the growing sustainable agriculture now practiced by a previously nomadic tribe. The students were taken to two places, one an Army Camp devoted to conservation and education, and the other, a visit to the tribal village, followed by a tribal dinner. Both had no apparent connection with the deep-seated Fluvial Geomorphology topics of their research. But to avoid any possible avoidance by the students, these activities this time were made compulsory and every student

336

K. Chatterjea

had to go for both. The visit to the Army Camp was an eye-opener as, till then, they all thought that a country’s army only protects the country during war. That the Indian army can take on civilian problems such as deforestation, good farming habits, education on farming and conservation under their work scopes was by itself an eye-opener to the students. Next was the visit and dinner at the tribal village of the local “Mising Tribe.” After the initial introduction, dances, and some light-hearted moments, it was time for dinner. Dinner was prepared by all the women from the entire village for the visiting students and the instructor, this author. The dinner was served by the Headman’s wife herself, which showed the social hierarchy and the importance they paid to us, which was not just a humbling experience, but also provided interesting insight into the tribal customs. The most intriguing part was the plates made out of the trunk of banana plants and how the food was served. They had to eat with their hands, something Singaporean students are new to. Again, even for urban Singaporeans who are used to different types food, the Mising food was totally foreign, using local ingredients, plants, and herbs—a taste they had never experienced before. But what was most heartening to see as an instructor for this author was something totally unexpected. The Mising people use a lot of meat which none of us knew. When the food came, it was full of different types of meat, and under normal circumstances, it would have been objectionable to many of the students coming from different religious backgrounds. But to this author’s greatest joy, they ate everything heartily without batting an eyelid although they realized that it had ingredients that they do not normally eat. This was, in their own words, “to give respect to the tribe and their culture,” which made this author extremely proud as their instructor. The true value of education as a human being, which is showing mutual respect for the host, goes much beyond any disciplinary research and the learning that comes with it. Exposure to others’ social and cultural norms and appreciation of that heartily is the ultimate education that can come out of fieldwork; and it was achieved through this exchange. This is when education culminated from social, historical, and geographical awareness into a much greater humanistic approach. Case 4: Field Research on Sand Dune Morphology in Thar Desert, India Not always did the initiatives of this author go the intended way. While the above extensions to the learning exercises were positively taken by the students, there had been some instances when even the very carefully scheduled activities failed to provide the right benefits. During one such fieldtrip to the deserts of Rajasthan, India, the groups were engaged in studying the sand dune mobility, migration, and dune morphology. Tasks relating to direct data collection were done extremely diligently and data collected was of very good quality. During the pre-fieldwork preparation, the intriguing geology of the location was explained through lectures, and the students were told that time permitting, they would be taken on a walk around the camping site and a little beyond to an old fort that was less than a kilometer away from the dune fields and the campsite. But it would not be a part of their grading exercise. They were informed that the objective of the exercise was to expose them to the five different sedimentation regimes that this region had undergone in the geological past, and the history of the fort that was in semi-ruined condition as a witness to

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

337

the recent-past colorful history of the place. The location of the fort had a lot of historical as well as geographical significance. Geologically, the existence of five different types of rocks that could be very easily explored by simply walking around the fort remnants made it a lucrative fieldwork proposition. The history of the rulers and the peek into the villagers’ lives in the old days were there to be explored in the ruins in and around the fort ramparts. The old building structures, architecture, the village living hierarchy, and the rural lifestyle were clearly evident from the ruins of the fort. However, none of these were related in any way to the research topics students were working on. The last day of the fieldwork was kept as an extra day for rest, assimilation of leftover work, if any, and for some extra opportunity to see the surrounding areas, such as the above. The students were given the option of going for this half-day trip when they had already completed their stipulated work in the field location, at no extra cost, with transport provided. But, much to the disappointment of this author, none of the students were interested in the tour and preferred to stay in the camp, doing nothing, or just text messaging their friends and posting on Facebook. An excellent opportunity to learn about the ancient history and even pre-historic geology was lost, although their proposed research topics were well-covered. From a purely academic point of view, there was nothing wrong with this omission as the extra areas of learning would not have enhanced the disciplinary knowledge of the students. Yet, when there is much opportunity to learn about the history and geography of the surroundings and when exploration could add to the experiential learning about the place much beyond what was done through working on the dunes, this could be considered as an opportunity lost. This is particularly so since these students would have got the additional knowledge on how to look for such information that was not documented anywhere, except being embedded in the environment only to be explored, along the way through an activity that would prepare them for their future task as teachers. The same students also refused to even watch some local folk dances, performed by the local tribes, which were organized by the camp management, as in their own words, they “did not find it interesting enough and wanted to spend the time on the internet.” Perhaps this reluctance to know a bit more about the local residents were driven by the lure of the internet or their apathy to anything that did not have direct benefits to them. Or perhaps being urbanites, they did not know how to get entertainment in ways other than through their known avenues. But, again, it was an opportunity lost for knowing some cultural aspects of the place they went to and perhaps never will again, in future. The finer aspects of a feeling of closeness with other inhabitants of this same world were too far-fetched for these non-receptive students. That fieldwork is not just for learning the hard objectives but also appreciating the “others” in the environment, to share just a fragment of their own lives with the others who are opening their world to them, was still not an automatic response. But such responses can be difficult to enforce on adult students. Developing such awareness is perhaps the realm of other aspects of character building, to be covered in some place during life’s learning journey.

338

K. Chatterjea

Case 5: Geography Learning that Incorporates History—A Visit to a Fifteenth Century Fort A visit to the historical Mehrangarh Fort in Jodhpur, India was part of the field itinerary for the above group of students who did their fieldwork in the Thar Desert. Historically, this fort is a significant study site, being one of the largest forts in India. Built around 1459 by Rao Jodha, the founder of Jodhpur, and steeped in history of Rajasthan, the fort provided much insight into the local culture, art, and livelihood during the old reigns, as well as the present cultural scene. Geographically, this fort is unique. It stands above the 600–700 million years old rhyolite (volcanic) rock of Malani Igneous Suite of Aravalli range, representing the last segment of igneous activity of Precambrian age in the Indian Subcontinent. The volcanic rocks are overlain by thick piles of 50–60 million years old sedimentary rocks, mainly sandstones that were deposited in the Trans-Aravalli Vindhyan basin. The fort is carved out of these sedimentary rocks. Its geological significance led to it being declared a National Geological Monument. While the students were reluctant to visit the ruins of the small fort near their field site at the Thar Desert, a trip to the fifteenthcentury fort was received with much enthusiasm. They did not mind the academic aspects of the trip, the geological observations of the rocks, probably because the fort itself held a huge attraction. This is where geography became juxtaposed with history and provided a backdrop of amazing sights and experiences. The historical and strategic significance of the fort, clearly determined by its commanding geographical location on the precipitous volcanic cliff was much discussed by the students, and the enthusiasm was not dimmed by the prospect of climbing some thousand steps over a steep incline. The old artefacts at the Fort Museum, describing the history of the fort and the old city, were observed with interest by the students; and they asked many questions regarding both the history and the geography of the location during the trip. So, it seems that even reluctant students can be persuaded to get out of their comfort zones, if the field locations offer something visibly spectacular. Similar enthusiasm for learning from other-than-subject-matter-topic was also noticed when these same students were earlier taken for a midnight trek into the dune fields, for stargazing. Many students, on their own, had prepared themselves with the knowledge of required camera settings for taking pictures of the desert night sky and even wanted to spend the entire night in the cold and possibly dangerous desert, possibly because there was an element of adventure in the entire exercise.

17.4 Strategies to Facilitate Fieldwork Infusing learning within unorthodox environments and integrating these experiences to interweave multidisciplinary cognitive understanding is an ideal way to learn about life, when disciplinary boundaries do not curtail the way a person formulates knowledge. But such outcomes are not warranted, neither are they always predictable. As instructors, therefore, prior planning is essential. Some strategies have worked in

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

339

fusing different objectives during one single field exposure and these are discussed below: A little flexibility can do wonders. Through the various fieldwork conducted for students, it was evident that with some infused flexibility and awareness of possibilities of integrated learning, one single field exposure can sometimes lead to multiple learning opportunities. During one fieldwork session at MacRitchie Reservoir forest in Singapore, students of Biogeography and Geomorphology (both taught by this author) were asked to do streamflow analysis, stream channel bedform analysis as well as soil surveys and soil textural and organic matter assessment along banks of the stream. For all this data collection, students were asked to do detailed mapping and plotting of the survey points and log their findings on a channel map. They were also instructed to prepare detailed field sketches as data related to their observations. Two students in the group who also had art as a university subject decided to use the location simultaneously for their Art project. They used the same field exercise and depicted the locational characteristics as their detailed field sketch for the geography submission as well as for their art course submission. While this was not pre-planned by this author or the art lecturer, the students sought permission during the fieldwork for extra time and were allowed the same by the art lecturer, which helped them work on their submission. These flexibilities in the learning deliverables yielded not just two happy students but also two observant students and provided them with a more integrated experience. On another occasion, a student under the Gifted Education Programme in a secondary school was doing his geography research under the guidance of this author. His study involved some in-depth analysis of the mangrove environment. While he did that, he came across some useful literature and also had many hours of discussion on the various aspects of the biogeographical environment of mangroves. A quick field sketch of a mudskipper by this author and a very rare sighting of the strange creature during one of the field sessions with the author somehow inspired him to use his thoughts during a concurrently running English Creative Writing workshop. He wrote a poem on the mudskipper and how its life was totally controlled by the mangrove environment and its sustainability. The serious geographical concepts learnt during his geography research kindled in him a deep appreciation of the environment, and he could express himself in the most authentic way through a poem. The outcome of his knowledge was a comprehensive appreciation of the mangrove environment. While this is an example of a very creative mind, similar results can be achieved if a well-thought out integration of several related disciplines is allowed at the university level. When the entire journey is made into a learning environment. There were many examples where freedom from the rigid boundaries of the given topic and venturing out during fieldwork provided the much-needed wider perspective on life and environment. The route taken to travel to the field sites provided an opportunity when much learning could take place beyond the specified topics. Short halts along the way always provided a moving panorama of things that could be easily missed out, if not woven into the itinerary. On earlier geography fieldwork, such observations by students were expected but never made mandatory. Most of the trips went without

340

K. Chatterjea

any student participation during these long bus trips and much observation was lost as students preferred to either snooze during the road trips or do their own stuff. On subsequent trips, one of the examinable deliverables was a daily logbook where students were expected to note down things they observed during the journey. Apart from giving a break to the monotonous bus rides, this field log activity forced students to observe and learn from all kinds of exposures that came along the way—starting from the different rock outcrops along road cuts and the influence of the local geology and structure, to the way constructions were done, to how the dresses of the people changed as the bus went to higher altitudes along mountain roads, how the vegetation changed with altitude, how the only road running through remote villages provided cultural spaces as they doubled up as living spaces (sometimes used as surfaces to dry grains in remote villages of India), and how the rural house types and even the shapes of granaries changed according to the changing climate, and none of these might be even remotely related to their actual research topics and yet were deeply interwoven with the social, cultural, and human texture of the areas visited. Knowing that the world is different from one’s own is a great way to learn about diversity and tolerance. In order to maximize the scope of exposing students to some useful knowledge, fieldwork routes were always planned to cover places that might hold some interesting aspects, not necessarily directly related to the research topics, but on broad knowledge of the areas traversed. Students were told to keep a carefully documented logbook. This was for recording relevant details, sketches, links to photographs (if the logbook was a hard copy), own observations along the route. It was emphasized that the logbooks did not have to be neat and clean. But they had to include field details some of which were described/explained by this author, while some had to be student generated. To suit the students’ perpetual thirst for exam grades, the logbooks were given specific grade allocation and were examined at the end of the submission. This added exercise forced students to keep their minds open, observe, and record many details, which would have otherwise gone unnoticed, or would be forgotten at the end of each day. At the end of each day, during the after-dinner round table discussion of the day’s events, students could ask questions and clarify what they saw or described. This effectively summarized the day’s observations and enhanced their learning of the place they were visiting. On many occasions, this led them to visit nearby villages, see a different lifestyle, even observe different housing types, and building materials, and later this was related to aspects of academic interests such as the source of such building materials or the reasons for storage of grains in a certain manner in different parts of the traversed route due to the local climate. Much of this was directly related to the cultures and inherited historical traditions rather than their own chosen field research topic. But it provided awareness and in the students’ own words, “it opened windows to other cultures, and made us realize how different we all are, and yet we share the same world, having similar basic requirements and aspirations.” This stated awareness is the true essence of education. One point emphasized during the fieldwork was the flexibility of observations beyond expected ones. Students were taught to include a blank column on the field sheet at the beginning of the fieldwork, which was used to record any unexpected

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

341

data/observations/comments during the actual work. The mobile application that was used for all fieldwork (mGeo) was specifically equipped with this format and students were told to include their comments or sketches along with the data collected at the sites. These proved to be very useful for later discussions as well as data interpretation. For all fieldwork, entries to logbooks were graded, to ensure full student participation, as the freedom of choice given during earlier fieldtrips in previous years had ended with only a small fraction of students doing at best a half-hearted job in recording broad field experiences. But with even a small fraction of the grade attached, everyone got into recording their observations and it was heartening to see that once they started, all students actually did a very good job of this recording task, although the grades allocated were a mere 5%. Some even went far enough to create truly beautiful entries, not just academically, but aesthetically as well. In the post-fieldwork reflections, the broad knowledge gathered was always mentioned as positive outcomes; and some students even included the humorous part of how they were enticed by the lecturer to work instead of dozing off during bus rides. Overall, keeping logbook records is strongly indicative of being a positive strategy in helping students consolidate their greater knowledge beyond their research scopes. It helped students to observe beyond the narrow scopes of their respective projects. The place of fieldwork became one with both historical and geographical perspectives.

17.5 Further Deliberate and Integrative Strategies As discussed above, expanding the scope of field exposure does not necessarily involve more work by the students. But it requires some pre-planning by the trainers and some flexibility during execution as well. The idea that a much-planned fieldwork exercise need not be restricted to just the set research topics need to be accepted by the institution and the trainers first, and then preached to the students. Several strategies can be undertaken to make a single field exposure more productive and more meaningful in a multidisciplinary way. First, institution-wide, this strategy has to be accepted and that will obviously require much deliberation and need to be regulated. However, in this section, this author shall stay with the discussion on how this strategy can be implemented at the training level. In cases where two or more disciplinary areas are agreed to be integrated through a field exercise, it is essential that the relevant staff have to first believe that such an exercise can be pulled through effectively and some good outcome can be achieved. This acceptance is an essential starting point for such a complicated exercise. Staff from different disciplines can form a working committee, to discuss the possibilities of extending and expanding the research focus. Along with that, the areas that might provide a more comprehensive comprehension of the location can be explored. Once the disciplinary barriers are removed from the instructors’ perspectives, the subsequent strategies of incorporating multidisciplinary activities can be easily woven in. This whole approach, however, has pre-requisites of a high degree of collegial understanding and collaborative work style. In addition, the institution needs to allow

342

K. Chatterjea

such collaborative efforts in terms of time allocation, staff allocation, and a general acceptance in terms of examination and grading. Such integration of multidisciplinary approach to fieldwork requires a considerable amount of intra-staff discussion, cooperation, mutual acceptance, adjustments in schedules, and expectations in outputs both from staff involved as well as from students. Hence, the first step toward such an integrated approach must come with the full support of the institution. Once that is set in, staff committees can formulate the course of action during the pre-, during, and post-fieldwork distribution. Once such a structure is well set, planning is done, preparations are in place, getting the students to buy the idea is not a difficult task, as students usually follow a set path, even when it appears different from what they had experienced earlier. An openness and clear understanding of the process among the staff involved is an essential requirement for a successful execution of a multidisciplinary fieldwork exercise. While the task of planning can be daunting, effective collaboration and the sheer well-rounded outcome are enough to make it an effort worth trying. Combining disciplines such as history, geography, literature, social studies, and biology can easily be achieved. After the initial hurdles are sorted out, several fieldwork essentials need to be planned. For a fieldtrip to be successful, the choice of location is important, and the next task is to research on the common observable aspects that can be woven into the research or observation. Not all locations provide a source of knowledge in all disciplines. But what is more important is to appreciate that every location has aspects that can be observed and analyzed from more than one perspective. In this respect, a strict ruling of disciplinary combinations may not work out. For instance, a study of mangroves and their locational attributes can provide an excellent opportunity to have an integrated research prospect for geography and biology, but the location may or may not be ideal for any historical study. A location such as an ancient ruin or a battle field could be ideal for a combined study of geography and history but not for biology. So a fair amount of flexibility is required while planning. But once the integration is conceived, such ideas and scopes of observation and work have to be well-explained to the students during pre-fieldwork instructions. Subsequently, both the daily work as well the details of the field activities have to be well-planned, and since the instructors are expected to be the leaders, the itineraries and activities have to be delineated to the students. Detailed pre-field planning and preparation is essential for an effective knowledge acquisition later. Joint lectures for the integrated part of the study works better as students are attuned to see their work as integrated as well. From this author’s personal experience in her earlier years of teaching, it was seen that idealistic expectations from the instructor might not yield the intended result. Therefore, in later years, as discussed, several strategies were consciously taken before and during fieldwork, to bear more integrative outcomes. But if this integration is a deliberate educational objective, supported by the institution, much more can be achieved. However, thorough and meticulous planning and execution is essential. Maps form an essential part of any locationally integrative analysis and as such, should be taken as a starting platform. This helps students to be spatially situated and subsequent questions and thoughts can be built up on that spatial knowledge.

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

343

Lectures on individual disciplines help in building up the common knowledge base and breaking the disciplinary barriers among students. Once a general knowledge base is created, chances of success in the integrative study improve. Students go beyond their initial mental barriers of disciplinary boundaries and are more open to keen observations. For all this author’s field courses, mapping and route analysis were the starting points during pre-field preparation work. Tools such as Google Earth or Google Earth Pro (both free to use) provided easy access and the necessary tools for creating a base map, if other GIS applications were not used. For remote areas, offline maps were downloaded so that students were always situated in a geo-spatial space when the fieldwork was being conducted. This provided a muchneeded background for all observations. During the physical geography fieldwork exercises since 2011, students have always used the mobile app mGeo developed by this author (Chatterjea, 2012, 2014, 2018), and Google Earth Pro for their prefield preparation. During the pre-fieldwork preparation, locational pins could be dropped with descriptions on the map of the area and saved for later use. During subsequent field investigations, the pins dropped on the maps earlier provided good guidance to points of interest as well as the details that could be referred to while in the field. The many affordances of mGeo, such as quantitative and qualitative information recording, picture taking, the geo-spatial reference for all field locations, the field sketching facilities, and the field notes section that allows the user to record any kind of comments are some of the affordances used heavily during the field sessions. Thus, any integrative and multidisciplinary fieldwork can be enhanced by using these or other applications, not just for quick records or observations, but also for jotting down some initially unexplained observations to be discussed later. During all the above-mentioned fieldwork exercises, the mapping and data recording tools discussed provided a huge impetus for integrative study and the observations could be recorded effortlessly for subsequent discussion. During a multidisciplinary field session, this is a boon as not all students are equally equipped with adequate knowledge of all the disciplines that are being targeted. But with a very flexible system for recording field observations, students can freely record what might seem difficult to decipher initially but can be explained later. Mobile applications like mGeo that allow sharing of data among all students and the instructor, also have another advantage. Since all students may not be equally proficient in all the disciplines under the scope of study, a sharing platform that allows questions and comments help in deciphering the less understood events, occurrences, and evidences and makes learning a shared experience. For any multidisciplinary field investigation, this can be very useful. Finally, it needs to be mentioned that conducting a multidisciplinary fieldwork is not an easy task, by any standards. Much needs to be planned and coordinated. There has to be total collegial trust and respect among the lecturers involved in the task, to break the disciplinary boundaries. But the results are encouraging enough for supporting this mode of learning. Beyond crossing this traditional barrier, planning, coordination, and handling of unforeseen circumstances may prove to be a challenge, especially for not-so-experienced lecturers. But again, a sincere desire to make it happen and a good dose of planning and rational thinking will definitely go a long

344

K. Chatterjea

way. To ensure participation by all students, some innovative strategies may have to be taken such as inclusion of some activities in the compulsory activities list. Though this may sound somewhat demanding, they are not as oppressive as it might seem and usually bear results eventually. Some extracts from students’ logbooks revealed that such mandatory tasks were not seen as too demanding, and they provided an avenue for expressing themselves.

17.6 Conclusion Throughout this chapter it is emphasized that, since a field setting provides far more variety of knowledge than one single disciplinary scope can give, getting students to observe only a section of a certain situation will restrict the possible knowledge domain acquisition and therefore, adversely affect the complete cognition of the situation. It is, therefore, argued that any fieldwork session can be an authentic study only if more than one dimension of analysis is performed. Since both geography and history, two humanities subjects, essentially involve some spatial contexts, and since any human landscape can be said to have evolved under the influence of the physical entities as well as the past historical occurrences, it can benefit the students from these two disciplines, in particular, if field experiences can be conducted with both disciplines in mind. Such multidisciplinary fieldwork, while not diluting the individual disciplinary scope, can provide a more grounded and comprehensive knowledge for the others in the group: Geography students can learn more about the historical background of the field site, while history students can get a geographical perspective of their study sites. The integration not just provides a wider perspective of situations, but also makes disciplinary understanding stronger. Since through fieldwork, students are encouraged to create and organize their own personal, relatively autonomous learning environments, an integrated exercise of multidisciplinary fieldwork provides them an opportunity to find their own levels of understanding of the authentic world. In spite of the inherent difficulties of making it a success, learning derived from such multidisciplinary fieldwork exercises cannot be overemphasized.

References Adkins, C., & Simmons, B. (2002). Outdoor, experiential, and environmental education: Converging or diverging approaches? ERIC Digest. (ED467713 2002-08-00). Retrieved from https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED467713.pdf. Bates, A. W. (2012). Teaching in a digital age. Online learning and distance education resources (ISBN 978-0-9952692-0-0). Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/ 5-2-what-is-a-learning-environment. Chatterjea, K. (2012). Use of mobile devices for spatially-cognizant and collaborative fieldwork in geography. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 2(3), 303–325.

17 A Case of Multidisciplinary Learning on Disciplinary …

345

Chatterjea, K. (2014). Mobile technology in management of field-based learning in geography: An analysis of NIEmgeo. International Journal of Scientific Research, 3(11), 258–260. Chatterjea, K. (2018). Authentic Learning: making sense of the real environment using mobile technology tool. In Chang, C. H., T. Seow, Wu, B. S., & K. Irvine (Eds.), Learning geography beyond the traditional classroom: Examples from Peninsular Southeast Asia (pp. 111–132). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte. Ltd. Hammerman, W. M. (Ed.). (1980). Fifty years of resident outdoor education, 1930–1980: Its impact on American education. Martinsville, IN: American Camping Association. Itin, C. M. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for change in the 21st century. Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 91–98. Priest, S. (2010). Redefining outdoor education: A matter of many relationships. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 3–15. Simpson, S. (1988). Speaking for the trees: The use of literature to convey outdoor education themes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 19(3), 25–31. Retrieved from https://doi-org.libproxy. nie.edu.sg/10.1080/00958964.1988.9942760. Waller, T., Arlemalm-Hagser, E., Sandseter, E. B. H., Lee-Hammond, L., Lekies, K., & Wyvers, S. (Eds.). (2017). The Sage handbook of outdoor play and learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kalyani Chatterjea by training, is a Geomorphologist. In addition to her primary training as a Geomorphologist, she also specialised in Geology, Biogeography, Hydrology, Oceanography and Tribal Sociology. During the course of her Undergraduate, Masters and Ph.D studies, she was engaged in multiple fieldwork expeditions where she used all her specializations to interpret landscapes, both physical and social. During her academic career in different Colleges and Universities in UK and in Singapore spanning over almost three decades, she has conducted numerous fieldwork expeditions to remote mountainous locations, river valleys, deserts and ancient historical locations. Kalyani’s research interests have also been on teacher training, distance education, webbased education, as well as mobile learning, specifically location-aware, context-rich field-based learning using mobile technologies.

Index

A Accounts and empathy, 319, 320 Archaeology excavation (Singapore), 12, 156, 167, 171, 198, 238 maritime, 13, 175, 177, 178, 183, 186, 190, 191, 198 multidisciplinary nature, 204

Curricular-instructional gatekeeper, 135

B Banda Aceh Banda Aceh Museum, 15, 286, 290, 291, 293, 294 Basic good, 29, 30, 32, 33

D Dialogic model of interaction, 78 Digital humanities, 7, 170 Dili (East Timor), 15, 283, 286, 292–294 Disciplinary disciplinary inquiry, 133 disciplinary ways of thinking, 100 Discourse analysis, 270, 272, 273 Distancing, 34, 39 Doing history, 10, 50, 95, 237 Dutch East Indies, 15, 284

C Change and continuity, 15, 52, 57, 63, 65, 78, 85, 110, 148, 263, 318, 319, 323 Chinese Malay Indian Others (CMIO), 10, 79 Chronology, 232, 318, 319 Coleman Bridge (Singapore), 266, 267, 270, 271, 273, 277 Constructivist learning, 115 Contact theory, 78 Cook’s Tours, 114 Critical analysis, 95, 148, 330 Critical readings of text and place, 321 cross-disciplinary, 15, 16, 264, 274, 309, 310, 323 Cuisine, Costume, Celebration (3CS), 10, 79 Cultural justice, 76, 78, 82, 88 Cultural Resource Management (CRM), 196, 205, 214

E Environment, 2, 14, 16, 113, 115, 120, 180, 188, 215, 232, 258, 270, 271, 274, 291, 309–311, 313, 314, 316, 317, 319, 323, 324, 327–330, 333, 335, 337–339, 344 Epistemological understanding (of history education) criterialist, 134, 135, 144, 145, 148, 149 objective/naïve, 134, 206 subjectivist, 134 Essence of things, 10, 24 Evocation through immersion in place, 321 Existential inside-ness, 303, 312 Experiential education, 4, 330 Experiential learning and fieldtrip, 12, 46, 148, 160, 217, 230, 329, 330, 337

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 T. Y. H. Sim and H. H. Sim (eds.), Fieldwork in Humanities Education in Singapore, Studies in Singapore Education: Research, Innovation & Practice 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8233-2

347

348 F Field school assessment, 195, 197, 215–217 methods, 168, 197, 204, 214 Fields of care, 312, 314 Fieldtrip as experiential learning, 12, 46, 148, 160, 217, 230, 329, 330, 337 Fieldwork, 1–12, 15, 16, 38, 93–103, 108– 110, 113–128, 171, 191, 196, 199, 211, 222, 248, 255, 259, 264, 268, 285, 297–301, 303–307, 313, 327– 329, 331, 332, 334, 336–344 Focal meaning, 10, 26–29, 39 Food, Fashion, Festival (3Fs), 10, 79–82, 85 Fort Canning Park, 157 Fort Rotterdam Museum, 289 Framework for thinking about/inquiring about Kampong Glam, 11, 80 Fullerton Hotel, 267, 269, 273, 279 G Gedung ilmu (house of knowledge), 85 Geographical fieldwork methods, 297 Geography, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 46, 78, 80, 119, 150, 209, 222, 252, 264, 300, 305, 307, 309–313, 315, 320, 323, 324, 328, 330–332, 335, 337–339, 342–344 H Heidegger, 23, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39–42 Heritage definition, 74 heritage studies, 3, 15, 263, 268, 272, 274, 284 war heritage, 248, 249 Historical empathy, 46, 47, 65, 101, 103, 141, 201, 232 Historical inquiry, 12, 46, 49, 50, 52, 58, 59, 61, 65, 103, 131, 132, 135, 138, 140, 143–149, 225, 226, 228–232, 236 Historical interpretation, 47, 52, 61, 88, 137, 226, 230, 234 Historical investigation, 12, 51, 52, 93, 94, 144, 313, 317 Historical memory, 98, 99, 101, 103, 311, 316 Historical significance, 51, 52, 57, 100, 101, 103, 108, 140, 141, 145, 190, 222, 248, 256, 257, 315, 320 History

Index History of Singapore (17-18th century), 181, 183, 187, 189, 190 Humanities inquiry approach, 313

I Identity, 30, 57, 73, 74, 76, 80–82, 85, 87– 89, 93, 95, 96, 99, 109, 110, 114, 119, 256, 259, 303, 312, 314–317, 323, 324 Inquiry approaches, 115 closed style, 115 framed style, 115 negotiated style, 115 Inquiry-based fieldwork, 11, 12, 15, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 109, 110, 113–116, 118–122, 124–128 Inquiry-based learning, 4, 97, 115, 118, 297, 305, 307, 313 Insider, 301, 316 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), 12, 168, 196, 210 Integrated learning environment, 330 Interdisciplinary, 2, 3, 9, 16, 47, 73, 88, 150, 158, 196, 204, 216, 217, 310, 314, 331 Interpretive approach, 93, 94

J Jakarta History Museum, 287 Japanese Occupation, 50, 108, 143, 144, 247, 249–251, 254

K Kampong Glam, 8, 10, 11, 46, 51, 69, 73–77, 79–82, 84–89, 143, 156, 313 Kranji War Cemetary, 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 248, 253, 254

L Language and representation, 320, 323 Learning by doing, 199 Learning journey, 6, 14, 52, 73, 75–81, 83– 87, 89, 118, 119, 124, 126, 248, 251, 252, 259, 313, 314, 322, 337 Localities, 11, 94, 95, 98, 113, 114, 158, 176, 298, 310

M Makassar, 15, 283, 286, 288–290, 294

Index Malay-Muslim community (Singapore), 73, 76, 82, 86, 87 Maritime maritime archaeology in various parts of Southeast Asia, 177 mobile, 344 Multicultural, Multiracial, Multireligious, Multilingual (4Ms), 10, 79, 81, 82 Multidisciplinary, 1–3, 8–10, 13–16, 45, 46, 48, 120, 127, 195, 196, 198, 199, 204, 206, 208, 210, 215, 217, 236, 327, 328, 331, 332, 338, 341–344 Multidisciplinary perspective and approach, 328 Museum Museum-based fieldtrip, 13, 223, 230

N Nalanda-Sriwijaya Centre (NSC), 13, 168, 195–199, 201–203, 207–211, 213– 217, 285 National Education, 83, 126, 141, 251, 252, 312, 314, 320, 323 National Museum of Indonesia, 287 National narrative, 82, 251, 252, 255, 259 Network Learning Community (NLC), 7, 14, 222–226, 229–232, 235–237 New millennium, 7, 47 Non-classroom learning experience (types), 199

O Orientalism, 76 Outdoor education, 4, 16, 329–331 Out-of-bound (OB), 80, 88 Outsider, 301, 316

P Performative (understanding of history), 32, 33, 39, 40 Physis, 10, 23, 33, 34, 36–40, 42 Place, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, 23, 34, 35, 46–48, 51–53, 64, 69, 73, 74, 76, 80–82, 84, 88, 93–97, 108–110, 114, 117, 121, 125, 135, 136, 139, 145, 149, 150, 156, 157, 159, 166–169, 171, 176, 180, 182–184, 188, 198, 201, 222, 228, 238, 247, 248, 250, 253, 254, 256–258, 264–266, 271– 273, 285–288, 290, 291, 293, 294, 298, 299, 301, 304–307, 309–324,

349 327–329, 331, 333, 335, 337, 339– 342 Place-based learning, 4, 148, 309–312, 314, 323 Prisoner-of-War (POW), 254 Problem-based learning, 4 Production of space, 15, 297–299, 307 Project-based learning, 4 R Racial Harmony Day, 79 Readings of visual texts critical/reflexive reading, 97 iconic reading, 97 instrumental reading, 97 narrative reading, 97 Reflection and creation, 322 Rights to the city, 15, 297, 298 S Said (Edward), 75 Sense of place, 15, 16, 309–311, 313–317, 321–324 Sherds handling, 227 Shipwreck (17-18th century, related to Singapore and surrounding regions) Binh Thuan (c.1608), 13, 175, 177, 183, 184 Ca Mau (c.1730), 13, 175, 178, 186, 187 Vung Tau (c.1690), 13, 175, 177, 186, 188 Wanli (c.1625), 13, 175, 178, 185 Snapshot view of history, 187, 191 Social studies, 6, 9, 11, 46, 76–79, 85, 113, 114, 118–120, 122, 124–128, 146, 156, 159, 232, 248, 328, 342 Space consumption space, 15, 76, 86, 303 everyday space, 10, 45, 46, 48–52, 57, 58, 60, 62, 67, 69 heritage space, 9, 15, 73, 74, 76–89, 297, 300, 306, 307, 313 ideological space, 132 subjective space, 132 Staff ride, 14, 248, 257–259 Stages in planning fieldwork evaluation stage, 116, 118 fieldwork stage, 11, 116, 117 post-fieldwork stage, 116, 118 pre-fieldwork stage, 116 Studies on imperialism/colonialism, 264, 284

350 Subordinate group, 78

T Taman Warisan Melayu (Kampong Glam), 82 Tang Shipwreck, 176 Technology, 344 Telok Ayer Market, 266, 269, 273 Textolatry, 30 Thaumazein, 10, 23, 33–40 Thomistic, 26, 36, 38, 40–42 Touristification, 82

Index U Urban colonial history (Singapore), 263 Use of photographs and paintings in interpreting history, 299

V Vernacular uses of space, 15, 297, 298 Victorian, 133, 265, 266, 270, 273 Visual methodologies, 15, 268, 270, 274

W War commemoration sites, 14, 249, 254, 259 World War One, 253–256