Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the teaching equity enactment scenario scale in Singapore: a mixed-methods convergent study

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given the persistent and endemic educational inequalities and increasingly diverse and yet politically divisive societies, teaching that is inclusive for all students with a commitment to recognizing and seeking ways to challenge systemic inequity is one approach to addressing persistent disparities. To support teachers’ professional growth and provide evidence for research/evaluation on teacher learning, this study validates the Teaching Equity Enactment Scenario (TEES) Scale, an existing instrument first conceptualized and developed in mostly Western contexts, among Singapore teachers. A mixed-method design, integrating a survey of 78 teachers and a follow-up interview using the think-aloud technique to illicit pedagogical practices of five survey participants, is used. The quantitative results indicate that the TEES Scale measures a unidimensional construct of enacting equity-centered teaching practice from the lower to the higher level as hypothesized and can provide reliable and meaningful interpretations of participants’ scores. The qualitative results provide contextualized information about participants’ survey experiences and the patterns of practice among higher- and lower-scoring teachers. Specifically, despite the common boundaries, structure, and parameters that condition Singapore teachers’ work, higher- and lower-scoring teachers diverge in their views of learners, knowledge and knowledge construction, perceived professional roles and identities, and instructional practices in important manners. Findings of the two components confirm each other and offer a fuller picture of the degree to which the TEES Scale can provide reliable and meaningful information about Singapore teachers’ practice for equity for the intended uses. Limitations and future studies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The international literature includes three New Zealand Best Evidence Syntheses (Aitken and Sinnema 2008; Alton-Lee 2003; Anthony and Walsaw 2007), the Teaching and Learning Research Project in the U.K. (James and Pollard 2006), the Measures of Effective Teaching in the U.S. (MET Project 2013), Te Kotahitanga Effective Teaching Profile (Bishop et al. 2009), and the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence’s five standards for effective pedagogy (Dalton 2007).

References

  • Abu Bakar, M.: 30 years of streaming: are we still giving some of our students half a loaf? Mendaki Policy Digest 1, 123–138 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  • Akiba, M., LeTendre, G.K. (eds.): The International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy. Routledge (2018)

  • Alviar-Martin, T., Ho, L.-C.: “So, where do they fit in?” Teachers’ perspectives of multi-cultural education and diversity in Singapore. Teach. Teacher Edu. 27, 127–135 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, the American psychological association:,the National council on measurement in education: Standards for educational and psychological testing:. (2014). https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/standards_2014edition.pdf

  • Anderson, K.T.: The discursive construction of lower-tracked students: Ideologies of meritocracy and the politics of education. Educ. Policy Anal. Archives 23, 110 (2015). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D.: A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 43, 561–573 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G.: Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds.) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 1st ed., pp. 95–118. Sage (2010)

  • Bokhorst-Heng, W.D.: Multiculturalism’s narratives in Singapore and Canada Exploring a model for comparative multiculturalism and multicultural education: J. Curriculum Stud. 39(6), 629–658 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270701506324

  • Borg, I., Shye, S.: Facet theory. Sage (1995)

  • Buchanan, E.M., Scofield, J.E.: Methods to detect low quality data and its implication for psychological research. Behav. Res. Methods 50, 2586–2596 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1035-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, W.C., Ludlow, L. H., Grudnoff, L., Ell, F., Haigh, M., Hill, M., & Cochran-Smith, M.: Measuring the complexity of teaching practice for equity: Development of a scenario-format scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82, 69–85. (2019).

  • Chang, W.C: Measuring the complexity of equity-centered teaching practice: Enhancement and validation of a Rasch/Guttman scenario scale. J Appl Measurement, 22(1/2), 35–59. (2021).

  • Chang, W.C., Cochran-Smith, M.: Learning to teach for equity, social justice, and diversity: Do the measures measure up? Journal of Teacher Education.(2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871221075284

  • Chua, B.H.: Multiculturalism in Singapore: An instrument of social control. Race & Class 44(3), 58–77 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396803044003025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., Ludlow, L.: Initial teacher education: what does it take to put equity at the center? Teach. Teacher Edu. 57, 67–78 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J.W., Clark, P.: Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd edn. Sage, Los Angeles (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, A.L., Low, E.L.: Rethinking conceptualisations of teacher quality in Singapore and Hong Kong: a comparative analysis. Eur. J. Teacher Edu. 44(3), 365–382 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1913117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopinathan, S.: Education. Singapore Press Holdings (2015)

  • Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L.: Teaching for equity: Insights from international evidence with implications for a teacher education curriculum. Curriculum J 28(3), 1–22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1292934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E.G.: ERIC/ECTJ annual review paper: criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Edu. Commun. Technol 29(2), 75–91 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, R., Greenbaum, C.W.: Facet theory: its development and current status. Eurp. Psychol. 3(1), 13–36 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.3.1.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, L.: Introduction to facet design and analysis. In: proceedings of the fifteenth international congress of psychology, pp. 130–132. North Holland: (1959)

  • Heng, M.A., Atencio, M.: ‘I assume they don’t think!’: teachers’ perceptions of normal technical students in Singapore. Curriculum. J.  28(2), 212–230 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1181558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heng, T.T., Lim, L.: Diversity, difference, equity: how student differences are socially constructed in Singapore. Cambridge J. Edu. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2021.1910204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, L.-C.: “Our students do not get that equal chance”: Teachers’ perspectives of meritocracy. Camb. J. Educ. 51(2), 173–193 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2020.1796927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, L.-C., Alviar-Martin, T., Leviste, E.N.P.: “There is space, and there are limits”: The challenge of teaching controversial topics in an illiberal democracy. Teachers Coll. Record 116, 1–28 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811411600402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Turner, L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mixed Methods Res 1, 112–133 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M.T.: Validation. In: Brennan, R.L. (ed.) Educational measurement, 4th edn., pp. 17–64. The National Council on Measurement in Education & the American Council on Education (2006)

  • Kwek, D., Miller, R., Manzon, M.: "Bridges and Ladders”: The paradox of equity in excellence in Singapore schools. In: Teng, S.S., Mazon, M., Kwek, D. (eds.) Equity in excellence: Experiences of East-Asian high-performing education systems, pp. 87–108. Springer, Singapore (2019)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, L.: Meritocracy, elitism, and egalitarianism: a preliminary and provisional assessment of Singapore’s primary education review. Asia Pac. J. Educ 33(1), 1–14 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.711294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, L., Tan, M.: Culture, pedagogy and equity in a meritocratic education system: teachers’ work and the politics of culture in Singapore. Curriculum Inq 48(2), 184–202 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2018.1435974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J.M.: Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas. Trans 7(4), 328 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J.M.: What do infit and outfit,mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions:. 16(2): 878(2002)

  • Linacre, J.M.: When to stop removing items and persons in Rasch misfit analysis? Rasch Measurement Transactions:. 23(4),1241(2010)

  • Linacre, J.M.: Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program User’s Guide Beaverton, O.: Winsteps.com (2016)

  • Linacre, M.: WINSTEPS (Version 5.1.7) [Computer software]. (2021). https://www.winsteps.com/

  • Ludlow, L.H., Haley, S.M.: Rasch model logits: interpretation, use, and transformation. Edu. Psychol. Measure. 55(6), 967–975 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055006005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, L.H., Matz-Costa, C., Johnson, C., Brown, M., Besen, E., James, J.B.: Measuring engagement in later life activities: Rasch-based scenario scales for work, caregiving, informal helping, and volunteering. Meas. Evaluation Couns. Dev 47(2), 127–149 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614522273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludlow, L. H., Baez-Cruz, M., Chang, W.C., Reynolds, K.: Rasch/Guttman Scenario (RGS) scales: A methodological framework. Journal of Applied Measurement, 21(4), 361–378. (2020).

  • Ludlow, L. H., Reynolds, K., Baez-Cruz, M., & Chang, W.C.: Enhancing the interpretation of scores through Rasch-based scenario-style items. In U. Luhanga & G. Harbaugh (Eds.), Basic elements of survey research in education 673-718. (2021). Information Age Publishing.

  • Maul, A.: Moving beyond traditional methods of survey validation. Measure.: Interdisciplin. Res. Perspectiv. 15(2), 103–109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2017.1369786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J.: Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE Publications (2013)

  • Morgan, D.L.: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res. 1(1), 48–76 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G.: Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (Copenhagen, Danish Institute for Educational Research), expanded edition (1980) with foreword: and afterword by B. D. Wright.The University of Chicago Press(1960/1980)

  • Ro, J.: Curriculum, standards, and professionalization: the policy discourse on teacher professionalism in Singapore. Teach. Teacher Educ.  91, 1–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talib, N., Fitzgerald, R.: Inequality as meritocracy: the use of the metaphor of diversity and the value of inequality in Singapore’s meritocratic education system. Crit. Discourse Stud. 12, 445–462 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2015.1034740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, C.: Narrowing the gap: The educational achievements of the Malay community in Singapore. Intercultural Educ 18(1), 53–64 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980601143710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K.P.: Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: ideological shifts in Singapore. Int. Political Sci. Rev. 29(1), 7–27 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512107083445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J.: Equity and meritocracy in Singapore. In: Teng, S.S., Mazon, M., Kwek, D. (eds.) Equity in excellence: Experiences of East-Asian high-performing education systems, pp. 111–126. Springer, Singapore (2019)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J.: Closing the Achievement Gap in Singapore. In: Clark, J.V. (ed.) Closing the Achievement Gap from an International Perspective: Transforming STEM for Effective Education, pp. 251–262. Springer (2014)

  • UNESCO [United Nations Educational:, Scientific, and Cultural Organization]: Education for all 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. (2015). http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232205e.pdf

  • VERBI Software: MAXQDA (Version 2020) [computer software]. VERBI Software. maxqda.com: (2019)

  • Wolfe, E.W., Smith, E.V., Jr.: Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation: using Rasch models: Part II—validation activities. J. Appl. Measure 8(2), 204–234 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B.D., Masters, G.N.: Rating scale analysis. MESA Press, Chicago (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, D., Carterette, B.: An analysis of assessor behavior in crowdsourced preference judgments. In: Lease, M., Carvalho, V., Yilmaz, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR 2010 Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search Evaluation. Geneva, Switzerland (2010)

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Drs. Heng Tang Tang and Mardiana Bte Abu Bakar for their constructive feedback on the early version of the TEES Scale and ongoing support for this work during the implementation stage.

Funding

This work was supported by Singapore’s Ministry of Education’s Education Research Funding Programme Planning Grant under OER PG03/19CWC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education, NIE2-03-59, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Wen-Chia Chang

Authors
  1. Wen-Chia Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Chia Chang.

Ethics declarations

Declarations

The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. This manuscript is not under review by another publication.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, WC. Validation of the teaching equity enactment scenario scale in Singapore: a mixed-methods convergent study. Qual Quant 57, 5257–5282 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01578-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01578-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation