Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Setting expectations for educational innovations

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the problematic enactment of instructional innovations. We examine how different interpretations of “success” might be explained within a frame of reference that confronts the complexities of and uncovers the contingencies relating to educational policy implementation in schools. Based on the detailed description and comparison of three different educational innovations developed and implemented in the same educational context—Singapore—we show how the intricate and delicate interrelationships that exist within and across adopters, innovators and environments (Cohen and Ball 2007) influence what might be reasonably expected and achieved from specific innovation initiatives. By doing so, we hope not only to test Cohen and Ball’s framework and conjectures but also lay the groundwork for future comparative work on innovation design and evaluation, moving the research agenda forward by critically examining reasonable expectations for educational innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Readers interested in finding out more about philosophic, social and ideological goals underpinning the Singapore education system are referred to Lee et al. (2008).

  2. Although the small size of Singapore might exacerbate these sorts of overlapping relationships, we suspect that they are certainly not unique to Singapore.

  3. We agree with an anonymous reviewer’s comment that there are surely differences in the drivers, bases, factors and outcomes in educational reform in localized, situated contexts. However, we have chosen not to tease out these differences in the Singapore context as our intentions in this paper relate specifically to road-testing Cohen and Ball’s theorizing.

  4. Hornberger and Ricento (1996) refer specifically to language educators but we suggest that their comments apply equally well to practitioners in other academic subjects.

References

  • Albright, J. (Under revision). Contending with underachievement in the global city: Singapore’s Normal Technical Stream.

  • Baker, E. L. (2007). Principles for scaling up. In B. L. Schneider & S.-K. McDonald (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Ideas in principle (Vol. 1, pp. 37–54). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, A., & Abernathy, T. (2007). Promoting family centered teaching: Can one course make a difference? Issues in Teacher Education, 16(1), 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principals. Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2001). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, A. (1997). The motivation, self-esteem, study habits and problems of Normal Technical students. Singapore: NIE Centre for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chua, B. H. (1997). Communitarian ideology and democracy in Singapore. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional development in policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25–46). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Educational innovation and the problem of scale. In B. L. Schneider & S.-K. McDonald (Eds.), Scale-up in education: Ideas in principle (Vol. 1, pp. 19–36). Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1995). Through the lens of a critical friend. In A. L. Costa & B. Kallick (Eds.), Assessment in the learning organization: Shifting the paradigm (pp. 153–156). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools (1880s to the present). In P. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change (pp. 85-105). Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.

  • Curriculum Planning and Development Division. (2001). English language syllabus: Primary and secondary. Singapore: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). London: Cassel Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Kwang, S. Y. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K., & Albright, J. (Under review). What does understanding look like? Performance and assessment in using an Understanding by Design framework for professional development.

  • Hay, D. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D., Lingard, B., & Mills, M. (2000). Productive pedagogies. Education Links No. 60. Retrieved November 20, 2006 from http://138.25.75.110/personal/dhayes/Education_Links.html.

  • Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–23). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornberger, N., & Ricento, T. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, G., & Goh, C. M. (2007). Cooperative learning in the language classroom. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional English Language Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. (2003). Designing language teaching tasks. Houndsmill, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, T. (2004). Taking human capital investment seriously: Reflections on educational reform. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 3(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, S., Sutherland, S., & Earl, L. (2005). Toward an evaluation habit of mind: Mapping the journey. Teachers College Record, 10, 2326–2350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. R. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L. (2004, March 22). Normal Tech doesn’t mean the N. The Straits Times. Retrieved November 23, 2005, from Lexis-Nexis database.

  • Lee, S. K., Goh, C. B., & Fredriksen, B. (Eds.). (2008). Toward a better future: Education and training for economic development in Singapore since 1965. Washington: World Bank Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefstein, A. (2008). Literacy makeover: Educational research and the public interest on prime time. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 1115-1146. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.tcrecord.org. ID Number: 13450.

  • Lingard, R., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Christie, P., Gore, J., et al. (2002). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study. Brisbane: Education Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, A. (2005). CRPP intervention plan: Moving from the core to pedagogic practice. Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore: Author (Used with the author’s permission).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luke, A., Cazden, C., Lin, A., & Freebody, P. (2005a). A coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse in Singapore (Unpublished report). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.

  • Luke, A., Freebody, P., Lau, S., & Gopinathan, S. (2005b). Towards Research-based and Reform: Singapore schooling in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M., Mullis, I., Gregory, K., Hoyle, C., & Shen, C. (2000). Effective schools in science and mathematics: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Boston: International Study Center, Lynch School of Education Boston College.

    Google Scholar 

  • McTighe, J., & Seif, E. (2003). A summary of underlying theory and research for understanding by design. Manitoba Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 11(1), 6–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, P. C., Verloop, N., & Beijaard, D. (1999). Exploring language teachers’ practical knowledge about teaching reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(1), 59–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2000). Report of the committee on compulsory education in Singapore. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from http://www1.moe.edu.sg/press/2000/ce_report.pdf.

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2004). Press release: Review of the Normal (Technical) course. Retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/press/2004/pr20040929a.htm.

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2005). Contact online. Retrieved Feb 8, 2008 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/corporate/contactonline/2005/Issue20/glossary/glossary.htm.

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2006a). Education statistics digest. Retrieved May 4, 2007 from http://www.moe.gov.sg/esd/Default.htm.

  • Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2006b). Corporate yearbook, 2006. Retrieved February 9, 2008 from http://www.moe.edu.sg/corporate/yearbook/2006/teach.html.

  • Myer, J. W., Kamens, D. H., & Benavot, A. (1992a). School knowledge for the masses: World models and national primary curricular categories for the twentieth century. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myer, J. W., Ramiez, F. O., & Soysal, Y. N. (1992b). World expansion of mass education, 1870–1980. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 128–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Computer Board of Singapore. (1992). A vison of an intelligent island: The IT2000 report [aka “Ow Report”]. Singapore: SNP Publishers.

  • Newmann, F., Bryk, A., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F., et al. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, I. S. P. (2004). Perspectives on streaming, EM3 pupils and literacy: Views of participants. Unpublished B.A. thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

  • Ng, W. (2005). The elite, the gifted, and the scholar-bureaucrats of Singapore: The hows and whys of this educational elitism. Retrieved November 22, 2005 from http://thethirdweireading.blogspot.com/2005/09/singapore-educational-elitism.html.

  • Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunan, D. (1993). Task-based syllabus design: Selecting, grading and sequencing tasks. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory & practice (pp. 55–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top. Paris: McKinsey & Company. Retrieved August 25, 2008, http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/socialsector/resources/pdf/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf.

  • Oxford, R. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory & practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information-gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 301–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D., & Davis, T. (2006). Concept mapping to measure outcomes in study abroad programs. Social Work Education, 25(1), 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, L. Z. (2000). The Singapore dilemma: The political and educational marginality of the Malay community. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2002). At the elbow of another: Learning to teach by coteaching. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Tobin, K. (2005). Teaching together, learning together. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seah, C. N. (2004, February 15). Shaping elitist mindset. Sunday Star. Retrieved December 5, 2007 from http://www.littlespeck.com/content/education/CTrendsEdu-040215.htm.

  • Ser, D. (2004). I really not stupid. Videorecording of “Get Real” episode. Singapore: Channel NewsAsia, MediaCorp News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, L., & Gopinathan, S. (2002). After effectiveness: New directions in the Singapore school system? Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2002). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siew, K. H. (2001, February 20). Are schools elitist and entrenching the widening income gap? Retrieved November 22, 2005 from “Not the Forum Page” section of the old Sintercom. http://www.newsintercom.org/?itemid=126.

  • Silver, R. E. (2007a). Final report: Intervening in peer work, P1–P6. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, NIE.

  • Silver, R. E. (2007b). Language awareness and teacher expertise: Moving from collaborative learning to collaborative language learning. Paper presented at International Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference, Seattle, USA.

  • Silver, R. E. (2008a). Final report: Peer work, peer talk and language acquisition in Singapore primary classrooms. Singapore: Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, NIE.

  • Silver, R. E. (2008b). Unlocking the textbook and unleashing English language pedagogy. Workshop presented at 43rd RELC, Singapore.

  • Silver, R., & Skuja-Steele, R. (2005). Priorities in English language education policy and classroom implementation. Language Policy, 34, 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simola, H. (1998). Firmly bolted into the air: Wishful rationalism as a discursive basis for educational reforms. Teachers College Press, 99(4), 731–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Department of Statistics. (2000). Singapore census of population, 2000—Advance data release No. 3: Literacy and language. Released December 1, 2000. Retrieved August 10, 2001 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/c2000adr-literacy.pdf.

  • Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Lee, V., & Newmann, F. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, A. L., & Towndrow, P. A. (2008). Catalysing student-teacher interactions and teacher learning in science practical formative assessment with digital video technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, C.H. (2002). Speech by Rear-Admiral Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence. Official opening of the NIE complex. Retrieved January 26, 2002, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/speeches/2002/sp28012002.htm.

  • Towndrow, P. A. (2008). Critical reflective practice as a pivot in transforming science education: A report of teacher–researcher collaborative interactions in response to assessment reforms. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 903–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towndrow, P. A., Tan, A. L., & Venthan, A. M. (2008). Promoting inquiry through science reflective journal writing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 279–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towndrow, P. A., Tan, A. L., Venthan, A. M., & Dorairaju, G. (2006). Designing tasks to teach SPA skills at lower secondary level in Singapore (Unpublished technical report). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.

  • Towndrow, P. A., Tan, A. L., Yung, B. H. W., & Cohen, L. (2009). Science teachers’ professional development and changes in science practical assessment practices: What are the issues? Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-008-9103-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16. Retrieved September 17, 2007 from http://www.socialresearch methods.net/research/epp1/epp1.htm.

  • White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanting, A., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. (2003). Using interviews and concept maps to access mentor teachers’ practical knowledge. Higher Education, 46, 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper makes use of data from the research projects, “Peer work, peer talk, and language learning in Singapore classrooms” (CRP 8/04/RES), “Intervening in Peer work, P1–P6” (CRP 20/05/RES), Building teacher capacity in curriculum and pedagogical design in Normal Technical classrooms (CRP 2/06/JA), “Designing tasks to teach SPA skills at lower secondary level in Singapore” (CRP 28/04/PT) and “Transforming science practical pedagogy and practice through innovative departmental planning” (CRP 1/06 PT), funded by the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Singapore (http://www.crpp.nie.edu.sg). The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centre or the Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. English Language and Literature Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Phillip A. Towndrow

  2. Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Rita E. Silver

  3. Centre for Professional Learning in Education, School of Education Faculty of Education and Arts, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia

    James Albright

Authors
  1. Phillip A. Towndrow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rita E. Silver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Albright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phillip A. Towndrow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Towndrow, P.A., Silver, R.E. & Albright, J. Setting expectations for educational innovations. J Educ Change 11, 425–455 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9119-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9119-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation