It’s a long way to Tipperary,

It’s a long way to go.

- “It’s a Long Way to Tipperary” by Jack Judge and Harry Williams

Is Singapore education going to embrace authentic assessment? A friend of mine recently seemed to suggest a “yes” to that question or was that perhaps a prayer in her heart? Education in Singapore is always associated with a school system that emphasizes high stakes examinations. There have been many initiatives by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore to change that and also because the leaders of the country have felt the need to produce students who are more in tune with the needs of the workforce of the 21st century. So the MOE has introduced project work and the “through train” approach for the top schools where students do not have to sit for the GCE O levels. Recently PERI has also recommended the removal of examinations from the Primary 1 and 2 levels. It is perhaps not surprising to hope or think that MOE would move away from high stakes examinations in favor of authentic assessment.

However, despite these changes, I have serious doubts about MOE’s desire to make such a fundamental change to the system. The high stakes examinations have been long been regarded as one of the bedrock of Singapore’s education system. It has always been the way Singapore has differentiated the “good” learners from the not-so-good” learners. It is perhaps the only way that the MOE knows how to differentiate learning ability. From these high stakes examinations the bell curve will be applied to the mass of Singaporeans and each will take their “rightful” place in society. It has always been regarded as the handmaiden of Singapore’s “meritocratic” system. It has always been hailed as the way for the less well-off to socially and economically catch up with the well-to-do. The examinations-heavy school system is seen as the only “impartial” way of determining the successful and the less successful. For these reasons alone, the MOE is not likely to abandon or make these examinations less important in the near future. They simply do not have the expertise to do so. I also suspect that the officials in the MOE responsible for the school curricula are of the old paradigm and cannot but see any other method of assessment as anything more than just mere fluff. Just look at the alternative to examinations that PERI has recommended as an example of their inability to change their paradigm. Instead of the written examinations, they recommended “bite-sized, topicals tests”! The same applies for the many running and teaching in the schools in Singapore today.

Secondly, high stakes written examinations are sustained by a bureaucratic mentality, not by an educational mind set. Schools, and indeed “educational” ministries, have also seen written examinations as an easy option to use to “assess learning”. It is less complex and seemingly impartial in that “right” and “wrong” answers becomes “clear”. It is easier to administer than authentic assessments. It is also administratively easier to rank students locally and internationally. A by-product of this is that it is also easier to rank teachers in schools!

The high stakes examination culture is also important to the MOE because it is these examinations that has given Singapore that international prestige it is getting with regards to education. The Government has declared its aim to make Singapore an educational hub for the region. The exploits of students from Singapore in international surveys, like TIMSS, has been used by our leaders as justification for the success of the system and also for publicity. In fact we are so proud of our examinations success, we have even started our own examination syndicate, the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB), to sell our Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) to neighboring countries as the iPSLE. No prizes for guessing what kind of assessment is involved in the PSLE or iPSLE. We are proud that our system is being exported elsewhere.

So how do we now say we are going to change that system of assessment when we have been selling it to foreign shores? How will serious changes to our written examinations affect international perception of us. Imagine no more written examinations like the PSLE, GCE O and A levels. How will Singapore measure with the rest of the world? Will the rest of the world still continue to regard Singapre’s students highly still if it moves into an authentic assessment mode? I suspect the officials in MOE are afraid to think of that. Right now, MOE is enjoying the prestige due to the written examinations. That international prestige will come under closer and more serious scrutiny if they move into authentic assessment. It is something MOE cannot afford to let happen. The examinations have been MOE’s version of the Emperor’s new clothes. Nobody wants to admit that the so-called quality is only illusional (or delusional?). No one in MOE wants anyone to look closer. Authentic assessment is not coming to Singapore in a big way soon. While some attempts have been made to downplay the high stakes examinations role in Singapore schools, it is hard to admit that you have no clothes on when you have unconsciously been parading yourself naked to the world!

In the lean times that Singapore is facing, Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) has announced plans to recruit 3000 teachers in 2009. The current Minister of Education, Ng Eng Hen, has moved to assure everyone in Singapore that although that is the target, the MOE will be quite happy if it does not meet the quota it has set for itself. The Minister said:

“We will… ensure that only those with the passion, aptitude and commitment to teaching are selected,”

He also said:

“We would rather hire less to get the type of teachers we want to maintain a quality teaching force.”

He was responding to queries in Singapore’s Parliament by its members about MOE’s recruitment policies. The Member of Parliaments (MPs) were voicing the concerns of many in Singapore that the MOE’s recruitment drive would capture the wrong people for the job in the light of the current depressed job market. But these assurances were already given earlier so why do these MPs still need to be reassured.

Perhaps this is because the MOE has not explained how it is going to “ensure that only those with the passion, aptitude and commitment to teaching are selected.” The Senior Minister of State for Education, Grace Fu added that only half of those applicants who met the academic criteria passed the selection interview. This suggests that the MOE still depends very much on the interview process to select teachers. How the interview panel is able to do this is anyone’s guess.

It is about time that the MOE introduces psychological tests to help it make more informed choices with regards to the selection process for teachers. The MOE also can choose to look for candidates whose views of what learning is all about would be more suitable to producing students for the 21st century. Sure it is perhaps too much to ask untrained people to discuss about educational issues but at the very least, I am certain we can find out if such people are stuck in the old traditional paradigm about what schooling is. The selectors must be brave to select people who, to borrow the Apple tagline,  “think different”. Singapore needs it if it is going to solve the problems created by the old paradigm of teaching and learning.

The psychological tests can also be used to sought such people. People who are creative and dare to take on and bring on change. The MOE must also make sure there are real changes to its schooling system so that such people will not be penalized for trying to be different. Here, the MOE must work harder on changing the paradigms of the teachers and school administrators already in service. This, I suspect, will be difficult for the MOE because how do you tell a group of workers who have always been raised for a wonderful job that a lot of their current practices need a serious revamp? The MOE has always praised its teachers and the pay structure for teachers is one of the best in Singapore’s civil service. But “the times they are a-changin”. They ought to be told and given clear signals that the old ways alone will just not be sufficient anymore for education in Singapore.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.

- “The Times They Are A-Changin” by Bob Dylan

Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be a powerful way to teach students in schools about spatial distribution. When I was at the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore, I was at the forefront of the Educational Technology Division’s (ETD) attempt to encourage teachers to use GIS software as a teaching and learning tool.

While most of the teachers who took part in our workshops and projects involving the use of GIS software have generally found the tool to be powerful, I do not think we have been very successful in encouraging the widespread use of GIS even among the teachers who were involved in our workshops and projects.

In my view, there are a few reasons why GIS has not caught on among teachers in Singapore schools then. I believe one important reason for this is due to the fairly steep learning curve with regards to the use of GIS software. Many of the teachers found the software quite intimidating. This was at a time when the Masterplan for IT in Education (MPITE) was in its first phase. Teachers were still struggling with incorporating ICT into their lessons. Many of these teachers are veterans of the teaching service and generally less ICT-savvy. This made learning GIS software difficult for them. A lack of exposure to the software meant that they never acquired adequate mastery of the software for it to be useful. The lack of exposure to GIS software is also due to the relatively high costs of GIS software. Schools and HODs were reluctant to spend limited budgets on expensive software acquisition especially if the software is seen as useful only for a small portion of the examinations-oriented syllabi.

In addition to the software, to use GIS effectively, it can be argued that it needs its partner which is Global Positioning Systems (GPS). using GPS will also imply the need for GPS hardware like GPS receivers and also GPS software. This again increases costs. Effectively this means that few schools actually bought the software and hardware for using GIS and GPS for teaching and learning. Many teachers are limited to using the software only during workshops and projects undertaken in conjunction with the ETD, which admittedly were at best only sporadic.

Another reason for the lack of enthusiasm for GIS (and GPS) in schools is because the teachers have not undergone a fundamental change in the way they approach teaching. Teachers in Singapore still adopt a very traditional  approach to teaching. It is made worse, by teachers teaching only to the exams. This is largely due to Singapore’s over-emphasis on high stakes examinations that not only decide the academic fate of students but also the professional fate of teachers. Content is over-emphasized as opposed to the acquisition of skills or appropriate attitudes that will lead to independent learning. If perhaps, the emphasis had been on the learning of skills and the inculcation of proper learning attitudes, GIS might not have been seen as useful for only a small portion of the school syllabi. For example, if correct attitudes like getting students to learn to ask good questions for investigation and learning to analyze, gets the proper emphasis in Singapore schools, teachers and school administrators will probably not see the use of GIS as just a niche and expensive thing.

However, all is not lost I hope. There is available for free, legal GIS and GPS software. These are Open Source Software (OSS). They are a viable alternative to the expensive, proprietary (usually) Windows-based GIS software. This would make cost issues no longer relevant. More importantly, their ready availability means that teachers will have the chance to get properly acquainted with GIS and hopefully master the software. Alternatively, the availability of Google Earth offers an interesting alternative option for teachers to use. GPS receivers are also getting cheaper and easier to use too. Perhaps the more difficult aspect of promoting GIS use among schools is the mindset of the teachers and perhaps the policy makers. As long as learning is seen as only for the examinations, teachers will not change their view of tools like GIS to enhance and deepen learning despite its clear real-world application. Hopefully this will change with the influx of new trainee teachers exposed to GIS at the university level especially at the National Institute of Education (NIE) in Singapore. They can act as the catalyst for the widespread use of GIS in Singapore schools.