Lee, Shu-Shing

Education cannot adopt the linear model of scaling used by the medical sciences. "Gold standards" cannot be replicated without considering process-in -learning & diversity, and student-variedness in classrooms. This article proposes a nuanced model of educational scaling-and-diffusion, describing the scaling (top-down supports) and diffusion efforts (bottom-up innovations from teachers and schools) in Singapore's education landscape. For educational innovations that focus on explicit knowledge, scaling is mechanistic ("roll-outs"), while inquiry-based learning designs are connoted as organic ("diffusion of innovation"). Inquiry-based learning designs focus more on process rather than content dissemination, although content and process are intertwined. Roll-outs are generally sound when disseminating content as products, and in the haste of implementation, we inherently partake in the fallacy that process abilities can likewise be taught as content.

The diffusion of innovation is critical to societal progression. In the field of education, such diffusion takes on added significance because of the many stakeholders and accountabilities involved. This article presents the argument that efforts at diffusion which are designed from a top-down perspective are not sustainable over the long term because such a perspective does not sufficiently acknowledge the importance of tacit knowledge in the successful adoption and adaptation of innovations. Using examples drawn from the trialing and implementation of a suite of research innovations in the Singapore education system, the argument is made that tacit understandings of any given innovation are attained through dialogue and embodied practice within authentic contexts, and that these very contexts and opportunities for dialogue are precisely the affordances of Communities of Practice. The article draws some tentative conclusions about systems-level moves and strategies which might nurture the dialectic of theory, practice, and epistemology by leveraging existing social structures.

In 2011, the Ministry of Education (MOE) embarked on a study of five Integrated Programme (IP) schools, and sought to find out how the IP had enabled students to achieve the intended outcomes as well as the unique characteristics of IP students. Since the study was done seven years after the IP was incepted and there was no comparison group of students in the same school that had gone through an O level programme (OP), it was difficult to attribute the outcomes to the IP. It is possible that the outcomes could be due to the quality of that IP intake or it might be that the outcomes had already been achieved in those schools prior to the IP. Since 2013, more schools have started to offer IP. This study involved four of the new schools, namely: Pawai School (PS), Istana School (IS), Marina School (MS), and Sentosa School (SS). Besides the IP, these schools also offer the O level Programme, and OP students were included as a comparison group. A fifth school, Ujong Junior College (UJC), also participated in the study as it receives students from three of the schools after Year 4.

In many countries and regions, education authorities have shown interests in promoting new education initiatives or innovations. With the hefty investments, they are keen to see that their initiatives are well received by the various stakeholders, namely, national leaders, district-level leaders, school leaders, teachers, students and their parents, and can be successfully scaled and improve learning. However, are the perspectives and expectations of policymakers and practitioners with regard to education innovations and their scaling necessarily the same as those of the researchers? Some of these stakeholders may expect a linear model of scaling, i.e. innovations can be translated into ready intervention packages which can be replicated mechanically by all the practitioners and consequently uplifting learning outcomes within the nation. Others may expect extensive adaptation to be allowed for any education innovations accepted for scaling. This chapter describes an eco-logical model for scaling that allows for a productive tension due to the differences in stakeholder perspectives. Based on scaling practices and considerations that operate in Singapore, the lessons about how scaling can be advanced at the systems level, which may be relevant for school districts, regions or countries similar in size to Singapore, are drawn. The paper also attempts to distil underlying scaling principles that can provide some directions to help analyse or shape scaling strategies across a hierarchy of much larger scale levels.

The 21st century is an era of changes. Professional Development (PD) and teacher learning are critical. The Ministry of Education (MOE) recognises the importance of PD and introduced the Teacher Growth Model (TGM) in 2012. In line with TGM, there are efforts to promote teacher inquiry in communities. Teacher Inquiry (TI) is a systematic study of one’s teaching practice. Literature suggests that collaborative inquiry in communities promotes teacher learning and change in practice, which in turn, contributes to school improvement and effectiveness. Thus, it is useful to document how Singapore schools engage in self-improvement where teachers inquire critically by examining their assumptions about pedagogies and student learning to develop professionalism and change practices.

The implementation of Integrated Programme (IP) to allow students to skip a high-stakes examination at the end of Year 4 is an unprecedented step in the history of Singapore’s education. This study was timely in collecting baseline data at the beginning of the IP within the same school that offers the express (“O” level) track and thus allows the comparison of pre- and post- IP data between the Express and IP students. Such a research design was not possible in an earlier Ministry of Education (MOE) IP study as the schools involved then only had students in the IP path. However, this NIE-study provides more in-depth knowledge about the IP intervention and how it affects learning with greater confidence. Specifically, the data from this study provides multiple forms of comparisons that is, IP versus Express programme outcomes; General Certificate of Education (GCE) “A” levels versus International Baccalaureate learning pathways by which 21st century competencies (that is, critical thinking, creative thinking and readiness for self-directed learning) have been achieved. Finally, this study includes an additional measure of creative thinking, which was absent in the MOE IP study. The study also provides insights into how different school types that is, autonomous versus independent schools, respond to curriculum innovation in the context of IP. The question therefore is will the removal of the high stakes examination in fact provide a conducive space to build teachers’ adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki, 1984) in curricular innovations?