Advertisement

Assessment for Learning Reform in Singapore – Quality, Sustainable or Threshold?

  • Kelvin Tan
Chapter
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 14)

Abstract

The education system in Singapore has been transformed since its independence from colonial British rule in 1965. Reforms have occurred in three distinct phases: the survival phase from 1959 to 1978; the efficiency phase from 1979 to 1996; and the ability-driven phase from 1997 to the present. This chapter concentrates on assessment reform in Singapore in the third phase, and examines its impact on the nature and quality of students’ learning, with particular reference to assessment for learning initiatives in schools. It argues that assessment reform in Singapore tends to emphasize and perpetuate structural efficiency at the expense of the quality of learning. It suggests that the notion of a threshold level of reform (Trafford & Leshem, 2009) could be a useful way of framing assessment reform in order to achieve a sustainable level of transformation.

Keywords

Formative Assessment Assessment Practice Sustainable Assessment Assessment Task Summative Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: principles, policy and practice, 5(1), 7–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloxham, S. (2009). Marking and moderation in the UK: False assumptions and wasted resources. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 151.Google Scholar
  4. Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the Longer Term (pp. 14–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, G., Kennedy, K., Fok, P. K., Chan, J., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 15(3), 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckles, S., Schug, M., & Watts, M. (2001). A national survey of state assessment practices in the social studies. Social Studies, 92(4), 141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, P., & Brant, J. (2006). Business, economics and enterprise: Teaching school subjects 11–19. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Filer, A. (2000). Assessment: Social practice and social product. London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goh, C. T. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. SingaporeGovernment Press Release. Speech by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the Opening of the 7th International Conference on Thinking, 2 June.Google Scholar
  10. Gopinathan, S. (1999). Preparing for the next rung: Economic restructuring and educational reform in Singapore. Journal of Education and Work, 12(3), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. In J. Tan, S. Gpopinathan, & W. K. Ho (Eds.), Challenges facing the Singapore education system today. Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Gregory, K., & Clarke, M. (2003). High-stakes assessment in England and Singapore. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawe, E. (2002). Assessment in a pre-service teacher education programme: The rhetoric and the practice of standards-based assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hogan, D., Towndrow, P., & Koh, K. (2009). The logic of confidence and the social economy of assessment reform in Singapore: A new institutionalist perspective. In E. Grigorenko (Ed.), Assessment of abilities and competencies in the era of globalization. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for Learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(3), 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(3), 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leach, L., Neutze, G., & Zepke, N. (2001). Assessment and empowerment: Some critical questions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee, H. L. (2004). Our future of opportunity and promise. Singapore Government Press Release. Address by PrimeMinister Lee Hsien Loong at the 2004 National Day Rally at the University Cultural Centre, National University of Singapore, 22 August.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within disciplines (Occasional Report No. 4). Swindon, UK: TLRP/ESRC.Google Scholar
  20. Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (1979). Report on the ministry of education 1978. Singapore: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2007). What is Teach Less Learn More? http://www3.moe.edu.sg/bluesky/tllm.htm. Accessed 29 June 2009.
  22. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2008). More support for School’s “Teach Less, learn More” initiatives: Ministry of Education Press Release.Google Scholar
  23. Ng, P. T. (2003). The Singapore school and the school excellence model. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 2(1), 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ng, P. T. (2005). Students’ perception of change in the Singapore education system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sellen, R., Chong, K., & Tay, C. (2006). Assessment shifts in the Singapore Education System. 2006 Annual IAEA Conference, Singapore.Google Scholar
  29. Tan, C. (2006a). Education developments and reforms in Singapore. In C. Tan, B. Wong, J. Chua, & T. Kang (Eds.), Critical perspectives on education. Singapore: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Tan, C. (2006b). Creating thinking schools through “Knowledge and Inquiry”: The curriculum challenges for Singapore. The Curriculum Journal, 17(1), 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tan, K. H. K. (2007). In K. H. K. Tan (Ed.), The case for qualitative approaches to assessment. Alternative assessment in schools: A qualitative approach. Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia.Google Scholar
  32. Tan, K. H. K. (2008). In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Rethinking TLLM and its consequential effects on assessment. Thinking schools, learning nation: A decade of education reform in Singapore. Singapore: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  33. Times Educational Supplement. (1997, Sept 16). Boost to morale on maths and science. Times Educational Supplement, 1.Google Scholar
  34. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 14(3), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trafford, V., & Leshem, S. (2009). Doctorateness as a threshold concept. Innovations in Education and Training International, 46(3), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Policy and Leadership Studies DepartmentNational Institute of EducationSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations