Many years ago, when I was still fairly new at teaching, I attended a course on assessment for History. The course was meant to provide teachers with a better understanding of the marking of student’s History essays. This was before the days of the current History syllabus with the incorporation of the thinking skills. It was conducted at the National Institute of Education (NIE).

What I remembered most of the experience was the lecturer telling us that there wasn’t much to discuss as we all should know how the marking should be done and we would already know what is a good essay. He said that by just reading a good essay we should “know”. Of course, I immediately felt that I had wasted my time coming for the session and it turned out to be just that.

Several years later, when I was with the Educational Technology Division (ETD), I was asked to chaperoned some foreign guests from the ASEAN countries to the NIE. The visitors were all officers from educational institutions from the ASEAN countries. We were going to look at NIE‘s use of discussion forums in their teacher training. We were given an overview by one of NIE‘s lecturers and at the Q&A after the overview, a Malaysian guest asked the NIE lecturer how they assessed the students learning on the forum. The lecturer rather flippantly said that they just read the comments and contributions of the students on the forum and have a “feel” for the correct marks. I remember cringing and shifting uneasily in my seat, when the Malaysian who had asked the question, looked at me and whispered, “What he means is that he is just doing impression marking?” I also remember just smiling sheepishly at him. I was at a loss for words as I knew what the Malaysian guest meant.

A few days ago, I was at a meeting between teachers and parents of my son’s class. Just before the actual meeting started, a teacher for Design and Technology, was complaining to a parent about her son’s portfolio work that was due to be submitted for the GCE O levels. The parent accepted that her son was not doing what he should and asked the teacher what was lacking in her son’s work. All the teacher said was that her son was not doing “enough”. The teacher proceeded to say that her son was over-confident and had thought that he was doing a good job. The parent asked again what was lacking and again the teacher only said that he was “over-confident” and that her son had thought that he had done enough when in reality it was far short of acceptable standards. It, perhaps, never crossed his mind that it wasn’t a case of over-confidence at all but rather the student not knowing how to assess his own performance.

As I watched this last incident, the first two incidents came to my mind. I have come to the conclusion that students in Singapore are, in general, not taught how to assess their own learning and performance.In the first two examples, it seems that even the teachers concerned have no clear inkling of how the assessment of learning is to be done. If teachers have no idea of how assessment is to be done, we can safely assumed the students have even less of an idea of how to do it.

The sad thing is that, the last incident showed that it is still happening today. Teachers mark with some hazy idea in their heads about the assessment standards. Because they are hazy about it, they cannot transfer their knowledge to the students. Students will, therefore, always be dependent on the teacher to assess their performance. The students cannot do it on their own. I suspect this haphazard approach to assessment is still prevalent in Singapore schools. I am sure many students, for example, don’t know why their English language essay is considered good or bad. Sure there will be marks and some comments made on the student’s essay paper but rarely is the student given clear criteria for what constitutes a good essay. Writing essays is a hit-and-miss affair. Students who do well, don’t really know why their essay is good. The poor essay writer also does not know why his essay is good. They are all dependent on the teacher.

Now this might seem normal to some of us but at a time when schools are spouting slogans like “independent learners” and “life-long learning”, how do we expect students to display such characteristics when they are not taught to assess their own learning? How are they going to be taught this if teachers themselves are hazy and vague?

In my view, independent learning and life-long learning will not happen as long as this state of affairs continue. It is just as bad for students to be waiting for an “assessment” from the teachers about their learning, as waiting for the teachers to provide them with ready-made notes.

The independent learner needs to be taught how to assess his own learning. He has to be his own “man in the mirror.” He must be able to reflect accurately on his own abilities and decide what he lacks and what he is good at. Without this skill and attitude, independent learning will only remain an illusion.

I’m Starting With The Man In

The Mirror

I’m Asking Him To Change

His Ways

And No Message Could Have

Been Any Clearer

If You Wanna Make The World

A Better Place

(If You Wanna Make The

World A Better Place)

Take A Look At Yourself, And

Then Make A Change

(Take A Look At Yourself, And

Then Make A Change)

- “Man in the mirror” by Michael Jackson

“As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science.”

- Robert Tai, Associate Professor, University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education

In a post on the teaching of science, I have put forth the view that not much science if actually being taught in Singapore schools. I was referring to the lack of the teaching and application of scientific inquiry in Singapore schools. What it means is that the teaching approach for science and the humanities in Singapore is probably no different as what they amount to most of the time is a strong reliance on textbooks and teacher-prepared notes. Not much in the way of skills to differentiate a student of science from a student of the humanities. I also suggested that perhaps this is because of the high stakes examinations-based science curriculum in Singapore.

The high stakes examinations in Singapore schools also meant that a premium is given to the teaching of a wide range of topics rather than depth. This I have suggested is a reason for the lack of proper teaching of concepts. Teaching is at best tuned at the superficial level of the kinds of examination questions that students in Singapore schools are likely to face at the PSLE, GCE O and A levels. In the light of this it is important for us to take note of a recent study made in the US. The study found that “high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each.”

The study (click here for more) done by a team comprising of Associate Professor Robert Tai of the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, Marc S. Schwartz of the University of Texas at Arlington, and Philip M. Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, compared the performance of 8310 students. They found that in courses that stress mastering a particular topic had double the impact on students as compared to those students in courses that touched on every major topic.

In another interesting conclusion, the team found that standardized testing “may not capture a student’s high level of mastery in a few key science topics.” Tai also noted that teachers who “teach to the test” may not be properly preparing their students’ chance of success in college science courses.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore should take note of this study. It is another piece of evidence which shows that the Singapore’s education system while garnering lots of accolades is in serious need of a major overhaul. If Singapore is to prove itself competitive in the economic and scientific fields it has to produce students who have greater and deeper mastery of what they have learned rather than make them just masters of high stakes examinations and international surveys like TIMSS.

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!