“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!

On January 27, 2009, the Singapore Ministry of Education (MOE) released  the preliminary recommendations of the Primary Education Review and Implementation (PERI) Committee. While the preliminary recommendations represents another attempt to change the direction of education in Singapore schools it still suffers from the MOE‘s traditional reluctance to let go or downgrade the position of the main reason why education is not education in Singapore but just a huge examination preparation exercise, namely, the high stakes examination system.

If we just look at the people that PERI consulted it will be no surprise why the changes are not fundamental changes. The changes would result in miniscule impact on the education system. the Committee it seems consulted “School Management and Advisory Committees of Primary Schools, Principals, Vice-Principals, Heads of Department (HODs), teachers, parents, students, as well as members of the public.” One can’t help feeling that what the MOE has done is to ask the people who have been responsible for perpetuating the Singapore school system’s emphasis on examinations to change themselves. As much as I would like to believe that real changes or reforms will take place as a result of these group of people’s recommendations and views, I am reluctant to believe so. These are the people who have through sheer inertia or reluctance to contemplate other possibilities, scuttled most of the MOE‘s initiatives in the past because of they can see nothing better than what they have been good at, that is, examination preparation. These are the people who have long been in their comfort zone. They are just implementers of the examination systems. But where are the experts? Where are those people in academia who specializes in education? Are we to assumed that they are included in the consultations as members of the “School Management and Advisory Committees“, “parents” and “members of the public”? Is this a reflection of the traditional disdain in MOE and schools for these academics? I know that lecturers for example at the National Institute of Education (NIE) of Singapore have often been regarded by MOE staff both at HQ and school levels as people who are out of touch with reality and as people who are stuck in their ivory towers. This is because the reality that the MOE people refer to is that examinations is one of the bedrock of Singapore’s “education” system.

It is interesting that the recommendations started with the following ominous words:

“Retain the strong fundamentals of our education system…”

No prizes here for guessing what one of those “strong fundamentals” are. In effect what those words really mean is “It is the exams, stupid!” This has been repeatedly hammered by MOE and this simply means that no matter what the changes that will take place as a result of these recommendations, the front line workers in the Singapore school system knows that at the end of the day it is the examinations that matter. School principals and teachers will humor these new initiatives as another that will come and go.

PERI wants that through this recommendations “the future of primary education should be about developing well-balanced and confident children who enjoy learning as they build strong fundamentals in both knowledge and skills during their foundational years of education.” It is strange that to change the primary education to be more well-balanced the high stakes examination system will on the whole remain untouched. The PERI Committee recommended that, among others, instead of the semestral examinations at Primary 1 and 2, the “MOE consider using “bite-sized” modes of assessment, such as topical tests, to provide regular feedback on pupils’ learning to parents.” Here I agree with an editorial by Singapore’s leading newspaper, the Straits Times. In an editorial entitled “Parents primary (school) concerns” on 30 January 2009, it pointed out:

“But how the substitute periodic tests are to be conducted will also depend on the inclination and occupational beliefs of subject teachers and principals. Old-style educators (sic) reared on drilling and school rankings could design these “mini” tests to be as grueling and constant as normal exams.

When spread over subjects and topics within subjects, continuing assessments can grow so intense they become replicas of the semester exams. The net effect is that child stress attributed to “exam hell” is hardly reduced.”

I can already imagine the MOE responding by saying that the stress is due to the parents as no matter what it does, it is the parents who will push their children and cause the additional stress. This view is based on past comments from the MOE. It does not take a genius to see that this will be the net result of “bite-sized” topical tests! So why still insist on topical tests. Where is the Senge system thinking that MOE has tried to push to its administrators and teachers?

The answer is in the mindset of the people that PERI have consulted, namely the school principals, vice-principals, HODs and teachers. The fact that the term “topical tests” is used indicates the mentality of the people that PERI have been listening to. They cannot see any other way of assessing learning. Such tests by nature also tend to focus on the end result rather than the process of learning itself. That same editorial goes on to say:

“The pedagogical (sic) system has been so exam- and grades- validated it is hard to shake habits. Teachers need to undergo self-reform of mind and reflex in order to accomplish what the Review committee has suggested in the way fo rounded learning for pupils and giving parents more useful feedback on their children’s strengths and weaknesses than test scores.”

Therefore base on this comment, we can, by logical extension, also say that because these teachers (school principals, vice-principals and HODs included) still need to make that self-reform in their minds, they should perhaps be the LAST people to be consulted about reforms in the school system in Singapore.

Don’t forget also that the “removal” of the examinations is only for the Primary 1 and 2 levels. The message to teachers and principals is still very clear. At the risk of sounding boring, it is the exams, stupid! This is because teachers will still see the examinations as the real “business end” of their work. After those two levels, the preparation for the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) will continue maybe even at an increased pace since as the time given to complete the course has been shortened by two years. Knowing the mindset of many of those in Singapore schools today, the first two years of Primary school learning without the examinations will be soon  be considered as mere fluff. It will not be considered as fluff only if the topical tests become extended “bite-sized” exam hell.

One also wonders about other possible reasons for the retention of the PSLE, and retained probably not much different from its current format and approach. Is it also because MOE has through the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) been pushing the international version, the iPSLE, to our neighbouring countires as part of the effort to make Singapore an education hub and bring in the money? How can they be selling the iPSLE to out neighbours if we do away with it or even admit problems with it? Moving away from the PSLE may also eventually affect our Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) performance which has been used by MOE shamelessly to sell Singapore’s education system. Maybe they are doing systems thinking here after all!