Abstract
This study attempts to explore the links between research, policy and practice. Specifically, it investigated how teachers enact a national policy on the implementation of formative assessment practices and explored what affects their capacity and will to carry out educational reform. Using a case study approach, formative assessment-related practices of six teachers within three primary schools in Singapore were examined. Findings from interviews, document analysis and classroom observations brought out how teachers reframed policy and implemented instructional practices in terms of what they knew or thought they understood of it. Policy enactment was also found to be influenced by the contextual setting as the schools also played a part in the way these teachers implemented their practices. Drawing on these findings, the study discusses issues pertinent to policy implementation and makes recommendations for policy enactment.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ball, S. J. (2001). ‘You’ve been NERFed!’ dumbing down the academy: national educational research forum: ‘A national consultation- consultation paper’: A brief and bilious response. Journal of Educational Policy, 16(3), 265–268.
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. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 347–363.
Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in confucian-heritage settings. Routledge.
Cheah, Y. M. (1998). The examination culture and its impact on literacy innovations: The case of Singapore. Language and Education, 12(3), 192–209.
Chen, Q., Kettle, M., Klenowski, V., & May, L. (2013). Interpretations of formative assessment in the teaching of English at two Chinese universities: A sociocultural perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 831–846.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Silver, R. E. (2012a). Educational reforms, cultural clashes and classroom practices. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2), 141–161.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Silver, R. (2012b). New wine into old skins: The enactment of literacy policy in Singapore. Language and Education, 27(3), 246–260.
Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2014). Patterns of resistance in managing assessment change. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 577–591.
Deneen, C. C., Fulmer, G. W., Brown, G. T. L., Tan, K., Leong, W. S., & Tay, H. Y. (2019). Value, practice and proficiency: Teachers’ complex relationship with assessment for learning. Teaching and Teacher Education: an International Journal of Research and Studies, 80(1), 39–47.
Deng, C. R., & Carless, D. R. (2010). Examination preparation or effective teaching: Conflicting priorities in the implementation of a pedagogic innovation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(4), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2010.510899
Evans, R. (2001). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Routledge.
Fulmer, G. W., Lee, I. C. H., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Multi-level model of contextual factors and teachers’ assessment practices: An integrative review of research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1017445
Gardner, J., Harlen, W., Hayward, L., & Stobart, G. (2008). Changing assessment practice: Process, principles and standards. Assessment Reform Group. Retrieved from https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/JG%20Changing%20Assment%20Practice%20Final%20Final(1).pdf.
Gioka, O. (2009). Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 411–428.
Gopinathan, S., & Mardiana, A. B. (2013). Globalization, the state and curriculum reform. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan & Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum (pp. 15–32). Singapore: Springer. https://springer.longhoe.net/book/10.1007/978-981-4451-57-4
Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 213–224.
Harlen, W. (2009). Assessment for learning: Research that is convincing (Part 1). Education in Science, 231, 30–31.
Harrison, C. (2013). Collaborative action research as a tool for generating formative feedback on teachers’ classroom assessment practice: The KREST project. Teachers and Teaching, 19(2), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2013.741839
Hayward, L., Priestley, M., & Young, M. (2004). Ruffling the calm of the ocean floor: Merging practice, policy and research in assessment in Scotland. Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 397–415.
Hill, M. F. (2011). ‘Getting traction’: Enablers and barriers to implementing assessment for learning in secondary schools. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 347–364.
Kaur, K. (2022). Formative assessment in English language teaching: Exploring the enactment practices of teachers within three primary schools in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(4), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1997707
Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P., & Stobart, G. (2007). Revolution, evolution or a Trojan horse? Piloting assessment for learning in some Scottish primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 605–627.
Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16(3), 263–268.
Koh, K. (2011). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development. Teaching Education, 22(3), 255–276.
Koh, K., & Luke, A. (2009). Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: An empirical study of teacher assignments and student work. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 291–318.
Kwek, D. (2021). NIE CORE 3 research programme: Findings from P5, S1 and S3 English and literature classrooms. National Institute of Education.
Lee, C., Oh, P. S., Ang, A., & Lee, G. (2014). Holistic assessment implementation in Singapore primary schools - part I: Using assessment to support the learning and development of students. Paper presented at the International Association of Educational Assessment Conference, Singapore.
Lee, C., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Studying changes in the practice of two teachers develo** assessment for learning. Teacher Development, 9(2), 265–283.
Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English national literacy strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 701–737.
Leong, W. S. (2014). Knowing the intentions, meaning and context of classroom assessment: A case study of Singaporean teachers’ conception and practice. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 43, 70–78.
Leong, W. S. (2018). Professional learning of classroom assessment in Singapore: Understanding epistemic and cultural mediations of practices through the case of pei pei. In J. Heng & M. Hill (Eds.), Teacher learning with classroom assessment: Perspectives from Asia Pacific (pp. 161–176). Springer.
Leong, W. S., Ismail, H., Costa, J. S., & Tan, H. B. (2018). Assessment for learning research in East Asian countries. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 27–277.
Leong, W. S., & Tan, K. H. K. (2014). What (more) can, and should, assessment do for learning? Observations from ‘successful learning context’ in Singapore. Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 593–619.
Marshall, B., & Jane Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(02), 133–149.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Jossey-Bass Incorporated Publications.
Ministry of Education, MOE (2017). Education statistics digest 2017: Moulding the future of our nation. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from: https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/publications/education-statistics-digest/esd_2017.pdf.
Ministry of Education, MOE (2010, November). Holistic assessment (HA) in primary schools. Presented at the NIE TE21 Summit and Director’s Annual Address. Retrieved from: https://www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/te21_docs/nie-te21-sharing-on-holistic-assessment-in-peri-print-02112010.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
PERI. (2009). Report of the primary education review and implementation committee. Ministry of Education.
Ratnam-Lim, C. T. L., & Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large-scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination-oriented culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 61–78.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2008). Advancing educational policy by advancing research on instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 206–230.
Sach, E. (2012). Teachers and testing: An investigation into teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment. Educational Studies, 38(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.598684
Silver, R. E., Wright, S. K., Amasha, S. A., Abdullah, R.B., Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., Lakshmi, S., Yang, Y., Yeo, J.K.K., & Pak, S. (2011). Curriculum implementation in early primary schooling in Singapore (CIEPSS). Final report. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Available at http://repository.nie.edu.sg/jspui/handle/10497/4453.
Silver, R. E., Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., Wright, S., & Stinson, M. (2013). Working through the layers: Curriculum implementation in language education. In Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, & C. Lee (Eds.), Globalization and the Singapore curriculum: From policy to classroom (pp. 151–167). Springer.
Singh, K. K. R. (2019). Enactment of formative assessment in the lower primary English classroom: case studies of teachers' practices in three schools (Doctoral dissertation).
Smylie, M. A., & Evans, A. E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 187–208). State University of New York Press.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage.
Stritikus, T. T. (2003). The interrelationship of beliefs, context, and learning: The case of a teacher reacting to language policy. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2(1), 29–52.
Tan, K.H.K. (2011b). Assessment for learning reform in Singapore – Quality, sustainable or threshold? In R. Berry, & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education, education in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues, concerns and prospects 14 (pp.75–87). New York: Springer, Dordrecht.
Tan, F. X., Teng, E., Tan, J., Yim, W. P. (2014). Holistic assessment implementation in Singapore primary schools – part II: Develo** teacher assessment capacity to improve student learning. Paper presented at the International Association of Educational Assessment Conference, Singapore.
Tan, C., & Ng, P. T. (2007). Dynamics of change: Decentralised centralism of education in Singapore. Journal of Educational Change, 8(2), 155–168.
Tan, K. H. K. (2008). Rethinking TLLM and its consequential effects on assessment. In J. Tan & P. T. Ng (Eds.), Thinking schools, learning nation: Contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 246–257). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Tan, K. H. K. (2011a). Assessment for learning in Singapore: Unpacking its meanings and identifying some areas for improvement. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(2), 91–103.
Tan, K. H. K. (2017). Asking questions of (what) assessment (should do) for learning: The case of bite-sized assessment for learning in Singapore. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 16(2), 189–202.
Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. Sage.
Tunstall, P. (2001). Assessment discourse and constructions of social reality in infant classrooms. Journal of Education Policy, 16(3), 215–231.
Volante, L., & Beckett, D. (2011). Formative assessment and the contemporary classroom: Synergies and tensions between research and practice. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 239–255.
Wiley, C. R. H., Good, T. L., & McCaslin, M. (2008). Comprehensive school reform, instructional practices throughout a school year: The role of subject matter, grade level, and time of year. Teacher College Record, 110(11), 2361–2388.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
The authors certify that the data and work submitted in this article are the result of original research. It presents findings from the completed doctoral dissertation of Kiren Kaur. Data collected were subjected to ethics and data collection approval, at Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education (NTU/NIE), in accordance with the IRB-approved protocol, IRB requirements/policies and all applicable rules and regulations.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kaur, K., Lim-Ratnam, C. Implementation of formative assessment in the English language classroom: insights from three primary schools in Singapore. Educ Res Policy Prac 22, 215–237 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09327-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-022-09327-y