The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research
- 811 Downloads
In recent years there has been a proliferation of research findings on CSCL at the micro and macro levels, but few compelling examples of how CSCL research has impacted actual classroom practices at the meso-level have emerged. This paper critically examines the impact of adopting a systemic approach to innovative education reforms at the macro, meso, and micro levels in Singapore. It presents the case for adopting design research as a methodology for CSCL integration that meets the needs of schools, and discusses a specific CSCL innovation that holds the potential for sustaining transformation in classroom practices. Our driving question is: In what ways can the routine use of CSCL practices in the classroom be supported by exploring systemic factors in the school setting through design research? We will explore the synergistic conditions that led to meaningful impact (at the micro level), mediated by systemic approaches to working with teachers in the schools (at the meso level), guided by Singapore’s strategic planning for scalability (at the macro level).
KeywordsCSCL practices CSCL impact Sustainability and scaling School-based CSCL Design-based research
This material is based on the work supported by the National Science Foundation (United States) under Grants 0427783 and 0713711 and by the National Research Foundation (Singapore) under Grant NRF2007-IDM003-MOE-001. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the National Research Foundation. We are grateful to Mayflower Primary School, Whitley Secondary School, Fu Hua Secondary School, and the School of Science and Technology for collaborating with us on this research.
- Chang, H., Henriquez, A., Honey, M., Light, D., Moeller, B., & Ross, N. (1998). The Union City story: Education reform and technology—Students’ performance on standardized tests. Technical report. EDC/Center for Children and Technology.Google Scholar
- Chaudhury, S. R., Roschelle, J., Patton, C., Brecht, J., DiGiano, C., Schank, P., & Tatar, D. (2006). Coordinating student learning in the collaborative classroom with interactive technologies. Poster presented at the 3rd International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (IS-SOTL) Conference, Washington D.C. November 9–12.Google Scholar
- Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- diGiano, C., Tatar, D., & Kireyev, K. (2006). Learning from the Post-It: Building collective intelligence through lightweight, flexible technology. In Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion, Banff. Retrieved December 16, 2010 from http://groupscribbles.sri.com/publications.html.
- Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Exploring neglected planes: Social signals and class orchestration. Retrieved 30 June, 2010, from http://www.isls.org/CSCL2009/Dillenbourg.htm.
- Duttweiler, P. C. (1995). Systemic change to transform education. In P. M. Jenlink (Ed.), Systemic change: Touchstones for the future school (pp. 137–147). Palatine: Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
- Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms (Jossey-Bass Education Series). New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Fishman, B. (2005). Adapting innovations to particular contexts of use: A collaborative framework. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation (pp. 48–66). New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Fishman, B., Pinkard, N., & Bruce, C. (Eds.). (1998). Preparing schools for curricular reform: Planning for technology vs. technology planning. Atlanta: AACE.Google Scholar
- Koh, T. S., & Lee, S. C. (Eds.). (2008). Information communication technology in education: Singapore’s ICT Masterplans 1997–2008. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
- Lagemann, E. (2000). An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125.Google Scholar
- Looi, C. K., Hung, D., Bopry, J., & Koh, T. S. (2004). Singapore’s Learning Sciences Lab: Seeking transformations in ICT-enabled pedagogy, ET R&D International Review Section. ET R&D Journal, 52(4), 91–115.Google Scholar
- Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Patton, C. (2010b). Principles and enactment of rapid collaborative knowledge building. Educational Technology, September-October, 26–32.Google Scholar
- Means, B. (1994). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education Singapore. (2008). Opening address by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence at the International Conference on Teaching and Learning with Technology (iCTLT). Retrieved December 6, 2010, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2008/08/05/opening-address-by-dr-ng-eng-h-1.php.
- National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Phillips, D. C. (2006). Assessing the quality of design research proposals: Some philosophical perspectives. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 93–99). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4: 155–169. In N. Cross (ed) (1984). Developments in design methodology (pp. 135–144). J. Chichester: Wiley & Sons. Retrieved August, 2010, from http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf.
- Sabelli, N., & Dede, C. (2001). Integrating educational research and practice: Reconceptualizing the goals and process of research to improve educational practice. Retrieved Dec 6, 2010, from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/cdpapers/integrating.htm.
- Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
- Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- TIMSS. (2007). Trends in international mathematics and science study. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/.
- van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic enquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar