Abstract
The recent focus on AfL has shifted from defining its scope and extent to understanding its implementation, and research has revealed AfL implementation to be complex and contested. AfL implementation is especially challenging in national contexts that emphasise high stakes examination performance and grades. One such example is the nation state of Singapore, which recently implemented Assessment for Learning nation-wide in all its primary schools in the form of “bite-sized assessment”. This article examines how bite-sized assessment in Singapore came to be implemented as a form of AfL, and how it was subsequently constructed as policy dictate, as opposed to being recognised as a form of best practice. A study of teachers’ perspectives of bite-sized assessment practices in Singapore primary schools reveals inconsistency between policy intent and school implementation. An inquiry-based approach is recommended for teachers to frame AfL implementation as a practice to be understood, rather than a package of pre-determined practices to be administered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: a critical and post structural approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Barr, M. D., & Skrbiš, Z. (2008). Constructing Singapore: elitism, ethnicity and the nation-building project. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies.
Bennett, R. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assess Educ, 18(1), 5–25.
Berry, R. (2011). Assessment trends in Hong Kong: seeking to establish formative assessment in an examination culture. Assess Educ, 18(2), 199–211.
Black, P. (2013). Formative and summative aspects of assessment: Theoretical and research foundations in the context of pedagogy. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), Sage handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 167–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment—an optimistic but incomplete vision. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract, 22(1), 161–177.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ, 5(1), 7–74.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Lessons from around the world: How policies, politics and cultures constrain and afford assessment practices. Curric J, 16(2), 249–261.
Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education: private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Gipps, C. V., Harlen, W., James, M., et al. (1999). Assessment for learning: beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge School of Education.
Broadfoot, P. M., Daugherty, R., Gardner, J., Harlen, W., James, M., & Stobart, G. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge School of Education.
Brown, G. T., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract, 16(3), 347–363.
Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: implementing formative assessment in confucian heritage settings. London: Routledge.
Carless, D., & Lam, R. (2014). Developing assessment for productive learning in Confucian-influenced settings. In C. Wyatt-Smith (Ed.), The enabling power of assessment. London: Springer.
Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: the case of Singapore. Lang Educ, 12(3), 192–209.
Cizek, G. (2010). An introduction to formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge.
Codd, J. A. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents. J Educ Policy, 3(3), 235–247.
Corson, D. (1988). Making the language of education policies more user-friendly. J Educ Policy, 3(3), 249–260.
Edwards, R., & Nicoll, K. (2001). Researching the rhetoric of lifelong learning. J Educ Policy, 16(2), 103–112.
Fu, G. (2010). Speech by Ms Grace Fu, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Education, at the PERI Holistic Assessment Seminar 2010 on Tuesday, 13 July (2010)
Fulcher, G. (1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability London. London: The Falmer Press.
Good, R. (2011). Formative use of assessment information: it’s a process, so let’s say what we mean. Pract Assess Res Eval, 16(3), 1–6.
Gopinathan, S. (2001). Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. J. Tan, S. Gopinathan and W.K. Ho. (Eds.) Challenges facing the Singapore education system today. Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Hitchings, H. (2013). Those irritating verbs-as-nouns. New York: New York Times.
Hogan, D., Towndrow, P., & Koh, K. (2009). The logic of confidence and the social economy of assessment reform in Singapore: A new institutionalist perspective. In E. Grigorenko (Ed.), Assessment of abilities and competencies in the era of globalization. New York: Springer.
Hui, S.K.F., & Brown, G.T.L. (2010). Contrasting teacher’s espoused and enacted classroom assessment: Exploring Hong Kong Chinese teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Paper presented at The International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) 36th Annual Conference, “Assessment for the Future Generations”, Bangkok, Thailand.
Kennedy, K. J., & Lee, J. C.-K. (2008). The changing role of schools in Asian societies: schools for the knowledge society. London: Routledge.
Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: an Asia-Pacific perspective. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract, 15(3), 263–268.
Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: an empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assess Educ Princ Policy Prac, 16(3), 291–318.
Leong, W. S., & Tan, K. H. K. (2014). What (more) can, and should, assessment do for learning? Observations from ‘successful learning context’ in Singapore. Curric J, 25(4), 593–619.
Lim-Ratnam, C. (2013). Tensions in defining quality pre-school education: the Singapore context. Educ Rev, 65(4), 416–431.
Pryor, J. (2011). Pedagogies of in/equity: Formative assessment/Assessment for Learning.
Ratnam-Lim, C., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large-scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination oriented culture. Assess Educ, 22(1), 61–78.
Report PERI. (2009). Report of the primary education review and implementation committee. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Schlack, J. W. (2014). ‘Nounification’ and other assaults on the english language. Cognoscenti http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/12/02/linguistic-pet-peeves-julie-wittes-schlack. Accessed 21 April 2016.
Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: school leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educ Policy, 16(5), 731–762.
Stables, A. (1996). Paradox in compound educational policy slogans: evaluating equal opportunities in subject choice. Br J Educ Stud, 44(2), 159–167.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Sound performance assessments in the guidance context: ERIC Digest ED388889.
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: the uses and abuses of assessment. New York/London: Routledge.
Tan, K. H. K. (2008). Rethinking TLLM and its consequential effects on assessment. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning Nation: a decade of education reform in Singapore. Pearson Education: Singapore.
Tan, K. H. K. (2011). Assessment for learning in Singapore—unpacking its meanings and identifying some areas for improvement. Educ Res Policy Pract, 10(2), 91–103.
Tan, K. H. K. (2013). A framework for assessment for learning: implications for feedback practices within and beyond the Gap. ISRN Education, (pp. 1–6).
Tan, K. H. K. (2016). Curriculum and assessment leadership for learning. In K. H. K. Tan, M. Heng & C. Lim (Eds.), Curriculum leadership by middle leaders: theory, design and practice (pp. 58–72). Abington, UK: Routledge.
Tan, K. H. K., & Deneen, C. C. (2015). Aligning and sustaining meritocracy, curriculum and assessment validity in Singapore. Assess Matters, 8, 31–52.
Tan, K. H. K., Koh, K., & Tay, H. Y. (Eds.). (2015). Authentic Assessment in Schools (2nd ed.). Singapore: Pearson Education South East Asia.
Tan, F., Teng, E., Tan, J., & Yim, W. P. (2014). Holistic assessment implementation in Singapore primary schools – developing teacher assessment capacity to improve student learning. In Paper presented at the IAEA 40th Annual Conference.
Taras, Maddalena (2012) Where is the Theory in Assessment for Learning? Online Educational Research Journal.
Tay, H. Y., & Tan, K. H. K. (In Press). (2016). What does assessment require of school leadership? In B. Wong & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Education leaders in action: case studies of leadership challenges in Singapore schools: Springer.
Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract, 16(2), 165–184.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Stud Educ Eval, 37, 3–14.
Willis, J., Adie, L. A., & Klenowski, V. (2013). Conceptualising teachers’ assessment literacies in an era of curriculum and assessment reform. Aust Educ Res, 40, 241–256.
Wylie, E. C., & Lyon, C. J. (2015). The fidelity of formative assessment implementation: issues of breadth and quality. Assess Educ Princ Policy Pract, 22(1), 140–160.
Yeatman, A. (1990). Bureaucrats, technocrats, femocrats. Essays on the contemporary Australian State London. London: The Falmer Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9204-9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tan, K.H.K. Asking questions of (what) assessment (should do) for learning: the case of bite-sized assessment for learning in Singapore. Educ Res Policy Prac 16, 189–202 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9196-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9196-5