Understanding the interaction of assessment, learning and context: Insights from Singapore

IF 2.7 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
T. Heng, Lynn Song, K. Tan
{"title":"Understanding the interaction of assessment, learning and context: Insights from Singapore","authors":"T. Heng, Lynn Song, K. Tan","doi":"10.1080/00131881.2021.1874248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background Assessment for learning (AfL) discourses and practices have gained popularity globally, as educational policies and ideas are transferred across borders. An important area of investigation is how AfL may be construed and enacted differently, according to context. Purpose By examining how teachers in Singapore understand and use AfL – a core principle embedded within differentiated instruction – this study explores how context influences assessment, learning and teaching beliefs and practices. Method As part of a larger study of how 10 public school teachers in Singapore understand and use differentiated instruction, the research reported here adopted a qualitative approach to elucidate teachers’ lived experiences. Data, which were analysed thematically, included 10 questionnaires, 30 semi-structured interviews, 39 lesson observation logs and pre- and post-lesson observation interviews. Findings The analysis identified three themes: (i) teaching and learning for Assessment of Learning (AoL) rather than AfL, (ii) teacher-directed rather than learner-driven AfL practices and (iii) behaviourist approaches in teaching and assessment practices. The finding suggested that teachers in Singapore face tensions as personal beliefs and practices around teaching, learning and assessment collide and/or coexist with their sociocultural and educational contexts. Conclusions Rather than assuming that educational ideas like AfL are acontextual or represent a ‘best practice’ that transfers easily across countries, scholars, policymakers and educators would benefit from considering more fully how AfL is a ‘situated’ concept, and reflecting more deeply on the complex interplay between source and destination contexts.","PeriodicalId":47607,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research","volume":"63 1","pages":"65 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00131881.2021.1874248","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1874248","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Assessment for learning (AfL) discourses and practices have gained popularity globally, as educational policies and ideas are transferred across borders. An important area of investigation is how AfL may be construed and enacted differently, according to context. Purpose By examining how teachers in Singapore understand and use AfL – a core principle embedded within differentiated instruction – this study explores how context influences assessment, learning and teaching beliefs and practices. Method As part of a larger study of how 10 public school teachers in Singapore understand and use differentiated instruction, the research reported here adopted a qualitative approach to elucidate teachers’ lived experiences. Data, which were analysed thematically, included 10 questionnaires, 30 semi-structured interviews, 39 lesson observation logs and pre- and post-lesson observation interviews. Findings The analysis identified three themes: (i) teaching and learning for Assessment of Learning (AoL) rather than AfL, (ii) teacher-directed rather than learner-driven AfL practices and (iii) behaviourist approaches in teaching and assessment practices. The finding suggested that teachers in Singapore face tensions as personal beliefs and practices around teaching, learning and assessment collide and/or coexist with their sociocultural and educational contexts. Conclusions Rather than assuming that educational ideas like AfL are acontextual or represent a ‘best practice’ that transfers easily across countries, scholars, policymakers and educators would benefit from considering more fully how AfL is a ‘situated’ concept, and reflecting more deeply on the complex interplay between source and destination contexts.
理解评估、学习和情境的互动:来自新加坡的见解
摘要:随着教育政策和思想的跨国转移,学习背景评估(AfL)话语和实践在全球范围内越来越受欢迎。调查的一个重要领域是如何根据上下文对AfL进行不同的解释和实施。目的通过考察新加坡教师如何理解和使用AfL——差异化教学中的核心原则——本研究探讨了情境如何影响评估、学习和教学信念与实践。方法作为对新加坡10名公立学校教师如何理解和使用差异化教学的更大规模研究的一部分,本文采用定性方法来阐明教师的生活经历。按主题分析的数据包括10份问卷、30份半结构化访谈、39份课堂观察日志以及课前和课后观察访谈。研究结果分析确定了三个主题:(i)为学习评估而教学(AoL)而非AfL,(ii)教师指导而非学习者驱动的AfL实践,以及(iii)教学和评估实践中的行为主义方法。研究结果表明,新加坡教师面临着紧张局势,因为他们在教学、学习和评估方面的个人信仰和实践与其社会文化和教育背景相冲突和/或共存。结论学者、政策制定者和教育工作者将受益于更充分地考虑AfL是一个“情境”概念,并更深入地反思来源和目的地背景之间的复杂相互作用,而不是假设像AfL这样的教育理念是相互关联的,或代表一种容易在各国之间传播的“最佳实践”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Research
Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Educational Research, the journal of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), was established in 1958. Drawing upon research projects in universities and research centres worldwide, it is the leading international forum for informed thinking on issues of contemporary concern in education. The journal is of interest to academics, researchers and those people concerned with mediating research findings to policy makers and practitioners. Educational Research has a broad scope and contains research studies, reviews of research, discussion pieces, short reports and book reviews in all areas of the education field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信