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

Jack Canfield gave an example of how we can use negative feedback so that we can actually get to our goals. He used the analogy of a pilot taking off with a clear set destination and flight path. During any flight the plane is constantly going off course because of various reasons like strong headwinds and others. However, the pilot is constantly being given feedback through his instruments as to how to get back on course. This is a constant thing that goes on. The plane deviates off course only to be righted by the pilot upon his receiving feedback from his instruments. Despite being off course perhaps even most of the time the plane will land safely.

We can use this analogy to compare how teachers give feedback to their students about their learning goals and their learning process. If we tale a look at the goal of the pilot, it is very clear. Almost no pilot takes off without knowing where his destination is and his estimated time of arrival. Do students know what their learning goals are? They may have a vague idea that they must learn something by a certain date (usually a high stakes examination or test). How often do teachers tell students what their learning goals are? Who is flying the plane in this case? Who is the pilot? The teacher or the student? If the teacher is the pilot then the students may arrive as passive passengers but may have missed out on a whole lot of learning as the feedback is given to the teachers and not them. Will the students ever learn to fly on their own? I doubt it. Yet the students of today are expected to be able to fly on their own at the workplace. They supposed to be independent learners. The independent learner learns to trust the feedback that they get to get them on track and eventually to their destination. But before that the independent learner must be made aware of his own learning goals. Teachers cannot just say the students are going to learn “this chapter”!

The feedback that pilots get is also very precise. It is quality feedback that corrects the error and tells them how to get back on track. One wonders how often students in  schools get quality feedback especially if the teachers who are supposed to give quality feedback is responsible for a large number of students. More often then not we get a tick or a cross, a number or a grade, with at most, very cursory comments that tell us little about what we have done right or wrong. Imagine if this is the quality of feedback that a pilot gets. Would we want to fly on his plane?

The feedback would also be just that: feedback. It will not carry with it negative connotations about how bad the pilot has been. Ever met pilots before? They are a very confident breed of people despite getting negative feedback all the time while doing a very crucial piece of work. Again if we compare with our students in school, more often then not when they do receive feedback it makes them feel like failures leading to a steady erosion of confidence. Some even stop doing because they don’t want to lsiten to the feedback anymore. Why is this so in many schools? Teachers ought to take note of this. The manner in which feedback is given is crucial to the receiver. Teachers therefore ought to pay more attention to this aspect of teaching.

ICT savviness is useful but not enough (see my take on this). Teachers need to still base effective outcomes on sound pedagogical principles when they use ICT tools to bring out a learning point. Let me illustrate: Students who are asked to complete simple worksheet assignments on Tablet PCs could easily have used pen and paper. Similarly, students who are asked to use the Internet to search for information but given only 15 minutes to discuss what they have found before putting up a PowerPoint presentation. This use of ICT neither transforms nor enhances the learning experience. The most important educational value, that could have been derived from synthesizing information, presenting alternative view-points, even arguing with one another, have been subordinated to the mere technical tasks of searching for information using the Internet. In contrast, we have seen well constructed lessons where teachers require their primary level students to use simple technological tools like discussion forums to create and write stories that teachers and their classmates could critique.
- 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) at the Suntec Convention Hall, on Tuesday, 5 August 2008

Back in 1999, while I was teaching in a school in Singapore, I started using Discus (free version), a threaded discussion board, to get my students to discuss their History lessons online. I remember, a well-meaning colleague and supervisor telling me to “get more serious” (which frankly I found very insulting). I also had a school principal who was more interested in acquiring a video conferencing system than what I was trying to do with my students through the discussion board. I suspect it was because a threaded discussion board doesn’t sound as glamorous and newspaper headlining as a web-conferencing system then. This tendency to think in terms of new and glamorous tools is perhaps seen again with the new FutureSchools@Singapore initiative.

The new ICT initiative, FutureSchools@Singapore was launched by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore recently. According to the MOE’s joint media release with the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) of Singapore, the new initiative will:

focus on innovative teaching approaches that leverage fully on ICT and novel school infrastructure designs to bring about more engaged learning for their students. ICT tools such as immersive virtual environments and educational games will be used to enhance learning.

When I read this I was wondering if this new ICT initiative is really going to change the way teachers really teach in Singapore or is this another expensive ICT version of th Emperor’s New Clothes? In a newspaper report recently in the Straits Times recently, an example of the use of technology in the environment envisage by the FutureSchools@Singapore initiative was that students could use a virtual market environment to learn language. Think about it. We spend a lot of money on immersive technologies to learn how to speak in a market environment? Wouldn’t it be easier and simpler to just bring the students to the market? Wouldn’t it be better to bring them to a real market to experience the sights, sounds and smells of the market instead of an expensive virtual one?

Why don’t take a leaf from what the Minister said in his speech? It is not the hardware but how you teach. Simpler and even free technologies can do a great job in the hands of great teachers. Not the other way around. But having said that, here you see the Jekyll and Hyde nature of the MOE. On the one hand the importance of relevant and effective use yet on the other hand the MOE is so enamored by new and expensive technologies. Come on, MOE. Decide what you want.

So much money has been pumped by the MOE since the MasterPlan for IT in Education (MPITE) was announce more than a decade ago. Yet we hear of the Minister of Education even mention in another newspaper report that the new initiative among others was to address the “uneven” progress on the ICT front among Singapore teachers and schools. Countries in other parts of the world will scramble for the ICT goodies that is available in our schools but in Singapore most of it seems to be frittered away on unsound ICT-based lessons. I suspect that as long as the MOE is sticking to the “new technology is better” approach, teachers and schools in Singapore will always have ICT lessons that are ICT lessons in name only but lacking in sound pedagogical principles.

When the MPITE was first announced, the then Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, said:

“Computers are changing the way we work and the way we live…We will use IT to encourage pupils to learn more independently, to learn actively.”
Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong
National Day Rally,1996

Why, after more than a decade, has this still not taken place? Where is the active learning and independent learning?