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

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.

KEYWORDS:

• assessment for learning (AfL)
• formative assessment
• learning theory
• differentiated instruction
• educational policy borrowing
• Singapore

Acknowledgments

Our gratitude goes out to the study’s participants for their generous commitment to the project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. For the purpose of this paper, we use formative assessment in differentiated instruction interchangeably with assessment for learning.

Additional information

Funding

This project was supported by the National Institute of Education, Office of Education Research [Grant Number OER02/17HTT].