Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 425–455 | Cite as

Setting expectations for educational innovations

  • Phillip A. Towndrow
  • Rita E. Silver
  • James Albright
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper considers the problematic enactment of instructional innovations. We examine how different interpretations of “success” might be explained within a frame of reference that confronts the complexities of and uncovers the contingencies relating to educational policy implementation in schools. Based on the detailed description and comparison of three different educational innovations developed and implemented in the same educational context—Singapore—we show how the intricate and delicate interrelationships that exist within and across adopters, innovators and environments (Cohen and Ball 2007) influence what might be reasonably expected and achieved from specific innovation initiatives. By doing so, we hope not only to test Cohen and Ball’s framework and conjectures but also lay the groundwork for future comparative work on innovation design and evaluation, moving the research agenda forward by critically examining reasonable expectations for educational innovation.

Keywords

Educational change Educational policy implementation Innovation-based educational research Instructional innovation Singapore educational context Teacher professional development 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper makes use of data from the research projects, “Peer work, peer talk, and language learning in Singapore classrooms” (CRP 8/04/RES), “Intervening in Peer work, P1–P6” (CRP 20/05/RES), Building teacher capacity in curriculum and pedagogical design in Normal Technical classrooms (CRP 2/06/JA), “Designing tasks to teach SPA skills at lower secondary level in Singapore” (CRP 28/04/PT) and “Transforming science practical pedagogy and practice through innovative departmental planning” (CRP 1/06 PT), funded by the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Singapore (http://www.crpp.nie.edu.sg). The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centre or the Institute.

References

  1. Albright, J. (Under revision). Contending with underachievement in the global city: Singapore’s Normal Technical Stream.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, E. L. (2007). Principles for scaling up. In B. L. Schneider & S.-K. McDonald (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Ideas in principle (Vol. 1, pp. 37–54). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Bingham, A., & Abernathy, T. (2007). Promoting family centered teaching: Can one course make a difference? Issues in Teacher Education, 16(1), 37–60.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principals. Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  6. Chang, A. (1997). The motivation, self-esteem, study habits and problems of Normal Technical students. Singapore: NIE Centre for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  7. Chua, B. H. (1997). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional development in policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25–46). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In B. L. Schneider & S.-K. McDonald (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Ideas in principle (Vol. 1, pp. 19–36). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1995). Through the lens of a critical friend. In A. L. Costa & B. Kallick (Eds.), Assessment in the learning organization: Shifting the paradigm (pp. 153–156). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  14. Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In P. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change (pp. 85-105). Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.Google Scholar
  15. Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2001). English language syllabus: Primary and secondary. Singapore: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  16. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). London: Cassel Education.Google Scholar
  18. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Kwang, S. Y. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  20. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, K., & Albright, J. (Under review). What does understanding look like? Performance and assessment in using an Understanding by Design framework for professional development.Google Scholar
  22. Hay, D. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayes, D., Lingard, B., & Mills, M. (2000). Productive pedagogies. Education Links No. 60. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from http://138.25.75.110/personal/dhayes/Education_Links.html.
  24. Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–23). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hornberger, N., & Ricento, T. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobs, G., & Goh, C. M. (2007). Cooperative learning in the language classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional English Language Centre.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Kang, T. (2004). Taking human capital investment seriously: Reflections on educational reform. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz, S., Sutherland, S., & Earl, L. (2005). Toward an evaluation habit of mind: Mapping the journey. Teachers College Record, 10, 2326–2350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, L. (2004, March 22). Normal Tech doesn’t mean the N. The Straits Times. Retrieved November 23, 2005, from Lexis-Nexis database.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, S. K., Goh, C. B., & Fredriksen, B. (Eds.). (2008). Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965. Washington: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Lefstein, A. (2008). Literacy makeover: Educational research and the public interest on prime time. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 1115-1146. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.tcrecord.org. ID Number: 13450.
  34. Lingard, R., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Christie, P., Gore, J., et al. (2002). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study. Brisbane: Education Queensland.Google Scholar
  35. Luke, A. (2005). CRPP intervention plan: Moving from the core to pedagogic practice. Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore: Author (Used with the author’s permission).Google Scholar
  36. Luke, A., Cazden, C., Lin, A., & Freebody, P. (2005a). A coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse in Singapore (Unpublished report). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.Google Scholar
  37. Luke, A., Freebody, P., Lau, S., & Gopinathan, S. (2005b). Towards Research-based and Reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin, M., Mullis, I., Gregory, K., Hoyle, C., & Shen, C. (2000). Effective schools in science and mathematics: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Boston: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education Boston College.Google Scholar
  39. McTighe, J., & Seif, E. (2003). A summary of underlying theory and research for understanding by design. Manitoba Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 11(1), 6–16.Google Scholar
  40. Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2000). Report of the committee on compulsory education in Singapore. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www1.moe.edu.sg/press/2000/ce_report.pdf.
  42. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2004). Press release: Review of the Normal (Technical) course. Retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/press/2004/pr20040929a.htm.
  43. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2005). Contact online. Retrieved Feb 8, 2008 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/contactonline/2005/Issue20/glossary/glossary.htm.
  44. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2006a). Education statistics digest. Retrieved May 4, 2007 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/esd/Default.htm.
  45. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2006b). Corporate yearbook, 2006. Retrieved February 9, 2008 from http://www.moe.edu.sg/corporate/yearbook/2006/teach.html.
  46. Myer, J. W., Kamens, D. H., & Benavot, A. (1992a). School knowledge for the masses: World models and national primary curricular categories for the twentieth century. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  47. Myer, J. W., Ramiez, F. O., & Soysal, Y. N. (1992b). World expansion of mass education, 1870–1980. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 128–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Computer Board of Singapore. (1992). A vison of an intelligent island: The IT2000 report [aka “Ow Report”]. Singapore: SNP Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  50. Newmann, F., et al. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Ng, I. S. P. (2004). Perspectives on streaming, EM3 pupils and literacy: Views of participants. Unpublished B.A. thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.Google Scholar
  52. Ng, W. (2005). The elite, the gifted, and the scholar-bureaucrats of Singapore: The hows and whys of this educational elitism. Retrieved November 22, 2005 from http://thethirdweireading.blogspot.com/2005/09/singapore-educational-elitism.html.
  53. Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory & practice (pp. 55–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  55. OECD. (2008). How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top. Paris: McKinsey & Company. Retrieved August 25, 2008, http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/socialsector/resources/pdf/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf.
  56. Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory & practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  59. Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information-gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poole, D., & Davis, T. (2006). Concept mapping to measure outcomes in study abroad programs. Social Work Education, 25(1), 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rahim, L. Z. (2000). The Singapore dilemma: The political and educational marginality of the Malay community. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  63. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  64. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  65. Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2005). Teaching together, learning together. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  66. Seah, C. N. (2004, February 15). Shaping elitist mindset. Sunday Star. Retrieved December 5, 2007 from http://www.littlespeck.com/content/education/CTrendsEdu-040215.htm.
  67. Ser, D. (2004). I really not stupid. Videorecording of “Get Real” episode. Singapore: Channel NewsAsia, MediaCorp News.Google Scholar
  68. Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2002). After effectiveness: New directions in the Singapore school system? Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2002). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Siew, K. H. (2001, February 20). Are schools elitist and entrenching the widening income gap? Retrieved November 22, 2005 from “Not the Forum Page” section of the old Sintercom. http://www.newsintercom.org/?itemid=126.
  71. Silver, R. E. (2007a). Final report: Intervening in peer work, P1–P6. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, NIE.Google Scholar
  72. Silver, R. E. (2007b). Language awareness and teacher expertise: Moving from collaborative learning to collaborative language learning. Paper presented at International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference, Seattle, USA.Google Scholar
  73. Silver, R. E. (2008a). Final report: Peer work, peer talk and language acquisition in Singapore primary classrooms. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, NIE.Google Scholar
  74. Silver, R. E. (2008b). Unlocking the textbook and unleashing English language pedagogy. Workshop presented at 43rd RELC, Singapore.Google Scholar
  75. Silver, R., & Skuja-Steele, R. (2005). Priorities in English language education policy and classroom implementation. Language Policy, 34, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Simola, H. (1998). Firmly bolted into the air: Wishful rationalism as a discursive basis for educational reforms. Teachers College Press, 99(4), 731–757.Google Scholar
  77. Singapore Department of Statistics. (2000). Singapore census of population, 2000—Advance data release No. 3: Literacy and language. Released December 1, 2000. Retrieved August 10, 2001 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-literacy.pdf.
  78. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith, J., Lee, V., & Newmann, F. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  80. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  81. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tan, A. L., & Towndrow, P. A. (2008). Catalysing student-teacher interactions and teacher learning in science practical formative assessment with digital video technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Teo, C.H. (2002). Speech by Rear-Admiral Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence. Official opening of the NIE complex. Retrieved January 26, 2002, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2002/sp28012002.htm.
  84. Towndrow, P. A. (2008). Critical reflective practice as a pivot in transforming science education: A report of teacher–researcher collaborative interactions in response to assessment reforms. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 903–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Towndrow, P. A., Tan, A. L., & Venthan, A. M. (2008). Promoting inquiry through science reflective journal writing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 279–283.Google Scholar
  86. Towndrow, P. A., Tan, A. L., Venthan, A. M., & Dorairaju, G. (2006). Designing tasks to teach SPA skills at lower secondary level in Singapore (Unpublished technical report). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.Google Scholar
  87. Towndrow, P. A., Tan, A. L., Yung, B. H. W., & Cohen, L. (2009). Science teachers’ professional development and changes in science practical assessment practices: What are the issues? Research in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11165-008-9103-2 Google Scholar
  88. Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16. Retrieved September 17, 2007 from http://www.socialresearch methods.net/research/epp1/epp1.htm.
  89. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  90. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  91. Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2003). Using interviews and concept maps to access mentor teachers’ practical knowledge. Higher Education, 46, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip A. Towndrow
    • 1
  • Rita E. Silver
    • 2
  • James Albright
    • 3
  1. 1.English Language and Literature Academic Group, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Centre for Professional Learning in Education, School of Education Faculty of Education and ArtsUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options