Tan, Kelvin

In describing the uses of assessment rubrics for formative and summative purposes, the utilitarian approach to rubrics assumes its positive effects and outcomes for teachers and students. But assessment itself is a political act which undeniably involves power. How rubrics embody and exercise power is addressed in Chapter 6, and three types of power are posited sovereign, epistemological and displinary power. In particular, student conduct rubrics may potentially be used for punitive rather than educative agendas. A variety of student conduct rubrics is examined and approaches for such rubrics to be constructed to emphasize virtues and values rather than culpability are discussed.

Rubrics risk portraying the complexities and nuances of learning in a grid categories that are designed to simplify, organize and thereby comfort users by generating predictability. But this may create stereotypes of learners and their learning needs and perpetuate the myth of the typical student. Careful attention needs to be given to the distinctive needs of different types of students, and how rubrics may be adjusted and used accordingly. In this chapter, examples are offered for bespoke rubric construction and application for special educational needs learners, pre-university learners and primary school learners. These contracts depict some of the diversity in any educational system – from young elementary learners, young adults and those with special educational needs.

The education system in Singapore has been transformed since its independence from colonial British rule in 1965. Reforms have occurred in four distinct phases: the survival phase; the efficiency phase; the ability-driven phase, and currently its values-driven and student-centredness phase. Each phase of education has been supported and driven by corresponding assessment reform. In the past few years, there has been a distinct effort to shift assessment purposes and discourse away from high stakes testing for placement and stratification, towards using assessment to signal and support learning within and beyond schools. Three assessment reforms are examined in this chapter—the reduction in emphasis on examinations in primary schools in 2008, the shift away from norm-referenced assessment in the high stakes national examination for primary students (announced in 2016), and the changes to assessment and streaming in secondary schools announced in 2018. These reforms demonstrate the tight alignment between policymaking and school implementation and offer insights into the complexities in grappling with tensions between maintaining rigour and control in high stakes summative assessment against transparency of assessment standards for use in formative assessment in schools.

In this chapter, assessment rubrics are discussed in the broad educational context of the contested nexus and tension(s) between curriculum, teaching and assessment. Each plays a distinct role that also offers a check on each other. Rubrics would have to be decoded in terms of its distinctive roles for curriculum, teaching and assessment, as well as how each would offer a common site for all three to exist in tension . Hence, rubrics should be appreciated for its complexity in prossessing a real risk of counterproductive outcomes. This requires underlying and underpinning agendas of rubrics to be discerned, and a sophisticated awareness of rubrics as implements of power and authority would be helpful.

The combination of qualitative and quantitative elements of a rubrics presents opportunities and challenges for its formative and summative uses. In this chapter, the formative use of rubrics begins with a discussion on the related notions of achievement, progress and success. Different purposes of assessment rubrics are contrasted to clarify what exactly makes a rubric fit for formative purpose. The question of what makes an assessment rubric formative is addressed, and examples of formative uses of rubrics in primary school, pre-university and higher education are presented and contrasted.

Numerous books have already delved into the intricacies of feedback and its impact on various academic outcomes. However, we believe that our volume holds a distinctive position within this body of work. What sets this volume apart is its foundation on an extensive program of study, providing a comprehensive understanding of feedback from diverse perspectives. Moreover, the unique context in which this research has been conducted – centered around the examination-based culture in Singapore – offers valuable insights into the complexities and nuances of feedback within this specific educational landscape. By exploring these distinct characteristics, we hope to engage readers and provide them with fresh perspectives and practical implications for feedback practices.

The Teach Less, Learn More (TLLM) initiative is a fairly recent discourse on the use of learning centered pedagogies in the Singapore Education System. First mentioned by the Prime Minister of Singapore in his National Day address in 2004, Teach Less, Learn More and its accompanying acronym TLLM is frequently mentioned in relation to ideas and practices aimed at enhancing student learning. However, the widespread use (and misuse) of the term may have given rise to some confusion over its precise meaning. This paper examines the underlying discourses of the TLLM initiative in the Singapore education system and questions whether it is understood in ways which are consistent with its original intentions. The term ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ itself suggests a strong tendency to interpret TLLM with a quantitative perspective. However, official statements pertaining to shifting the TLLM focus from “quantity to quality in education” indicate a qualitative intent. Quantitative and qualitative discourses share different origins and epistemologies. Consequently, the contrasting quantitative and qualitative understandings of the goals of education, the means of teaching, the manner of assessment and evaluation and the notion of student learning exists in tension with each other. The tension between quantitative and qualitative discourses in the Teach Less, Learn More initiative in the areas of curriculum, assessment and learning are explored in this paper and three possible ways to (re)interpret the Teach Less, Learn More initiative are suggested.

Assessment for learning (AfL) is of critical importance in developing innovative educational engagements and learner capacity. Impact of AfL may be exhibited in a number of ways. These include promoting learning, developing students' capacity for accurate self-assessment and facilitating adjustment of instruction for enhanced outcome achievement (Black et. al., 2004). Research demonstrating the merits of AfL has led to enthusiastic promotion and adoption of AfL-informed policies, worldwide and in Singapore. AfL significantly influences current Singapore educational policy and planning initiatives. At the primary level, a Holistic Assessment approach calling for assessment to support students' learning is being progressively introduced in all primary-school classrooms (PERI, 2009). At secondary level, considerably less empirical research has been conducted. However, the recommendations of the Assessment Review Corporate Planning Team (ARCPT) call for increasing the presence of AfL to produce balanced assessment, in which Assessment for and of Learning (AfL/AoL) function sympathetically (Leong & Tan, 2014). Additionally, AfL is being promoted at the secondary level through professional development targeted at relevant assessment practices (Leong & Tan, 2014). Adoption and practices of AfL, however may vary significantly from intentions expressed through policy and promotion. One factor is the complex dynamic that assessment change, policy, development and practice exist in (Deneen & Boud, 2014; MacDonald & Joughin, 2009). There is also significant variation in understanding what, precisely constitutes AfL (Taras, 2010). There is corresponding variation in how different stakeholders perceive AfL and how they generally conceptualize the purposes and merits of assessment (Brown, 2011; Deneen & Brown, 2011; Fulmer, 2013). These factors all exist in relationship to particular contexts. In Singapore, the context of high-stakes testing and assessment-driven meritocracy impact how people perceive, interact with and practice assessment (Tan, 2011; Tan & Deneen, forthcoming). Therefore, understanding how intentions and perceptions of AfL relate to practices requires accounting for a complex set of factors and their inter-relationships. As Singapore moves forward with AfL changes, it is imperative that research be conducted towards achieving these understandings, especially at the secondary level. The aim of the proposed study is to establish a systematic understanding of AfL in the Singapore secondary context that may inform research, policy, practice and development. This will be accomplished through meeting the following objectives: - Explain relationships among AfL policies, perceptions, practices and contexts. - Develop and validate a model that accounts for these factors and relationships. - Present analytical findings that may inform theoretical and practical understandings of AfL in the Singapore secondary and global contexts. A complementary (qualitative and quantitative) methodology will be used. Data collection will be carried out in two phases. Means of data collection will consist of large-scale survey distribution, stakeholder focus groups/interviews, and classroom observations. Factor analysis, ANOVA and MANOVA will be applied to survey data. Qualitative data will undergo inductive, iterative coding (Miles & Huberman, 1999). Initial and full results will be shared via two sharing seminars for MOE, NIE and schools. Results will be framed several ways, including: - A theoretical model of AfL in the Singapore context. - School-based case studies. - A comparative analysis of participating schools. - A policy-practice relationship analysis. Research results shall inform several specific outputs, including several tier-one journal articles, a policy recommendation document for Singapore MOE, two sharing seminars and participation in international conferences by the investigatory team.