Authentic and conventional assessment in Singapore schools: an empirical study of teacher assignments and student work

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 291-318

  Koh, Kim ^a   Luke, Allan ^b  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952107163     PISSN: 0969594X     EISSN: 1465329X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09695940903319703     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abedi, J., 2004. The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33 (1): 4–14.
2. Alexander, R., 2001. Culture and pedagogy, Oxford: Blackwell.
3. Anderson, L.W., and Krathwohl, D.R., 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, New York: Longman.
4. Bernstein, B., 1990. The structuring of pedagogic discourse, London: Routledge.
5. Bryk, A.S., J.K, Nagaoka, and Newmann, F.M., 2000. Chicago classroom demands for authentic intellectual work: Trends from 1997–1999, Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
6. Clare, L., and Aschbacher, P.R., 2001. Exploring the technical quality of using assignments and student work as indicators of classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 7 (1): 39–59.
7. Cicchetti, D.V., Showalter, D., and Tyrer, P.J., 1985. The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9 (1): 31–36.
8. Cohen, J., 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1): 155–59.
9. Cole, M., 1996. Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Cumming, J., and Maxwell, G., 2004. Assessment in Australian schools: Current practices and trends. Assessment in Education, 11 (1): 89–108.
11. Darling-Hammond, L., and Falk, B., 1997. Using standards and assessments to support student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (3): 190–99.
12. Department of Education, Training and the Arts (Queensland). 2004. The New Basics Research Report Queensland Government. http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/research/research.html
13. Evans, B.A., and Hornberger, N.H., 2005. No child left behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy, 4 (1): 87–106.
14. Frederiksen, J.R., and Collins, A., 1989. A district’s approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18 (9): 27–42.
15. Gopinathan, S., 1996. Globalisation, the state and education policy in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 16 (1): 74–87.
16. Kang, T., 2005. Creating educational dreams: The intersection of ethnicity, families and schools, Singapore: Marshall Cavendish.
17. Koh, K., Lee, A.N., and Gong, W., Development of the Singapore Prototype Classroom Assessment Tasks: Innovative tools for improving student learning and performance. Proceedings of the 32nd International Association for Educational Assessment Conference. May21–26, Singapore.
18. Kramer-Dahl, A., Teo, P., and Chia, A., 2007. Supporting knowledge construction and literate talk in secondary social studies. Linguistics and Education, 18 (2): 167–99.
19. Ladwig, J., 2007. Modelling pedagogy in Australian school reform. Pedagogies, 2 (1): 57–76.
20. Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., Warry, M., Ailwood, J., Capeness, R., Christie, P., Gore, J., 2001. The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study, Brisbane: Education Queensland.
21. Luke, A., 2004. “ Two takes on the critical ”. In Critical pedagogies and language learning, Edited by: Norton, B., and Toohey, K., 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Luke, A., Cazden, C., Lin, A., and Freebody, P., 2005. “ A coding scheme for the analysis of classroom discourse in Singapore (CRPP Technical Paper) ”. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice. Unpublished report.
23. Luke, A., Freebody, P., Lau, S., and Gopinathan, S., 2005. Towards research-based educational policy: Singapore education in transition. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 14 (1): 1–22.
24. Luke, A., Graham, L., Weir, K., Sanderson, D., and Voncina, V., 2006. Curriculum and equity: An international review, Adelaide: South Australia Department of Education and Community Services.
25. Luke, A., and Hogan, D., 2006. “ Steering educational research in national contexts: The Singapore model ”. In World yearbook of education: Educational research and policy, Edited by: Coulby, D., Ozga, J., Popkewitz, T., and Seddon, T., 170–184. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
26. Marzano, R.J., 1992. A different kind of classroom: Teaching with dimensions of learning, Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
27. Masters, J.R., 1974. The relationship between the number of response categories and reliability of Likert-type questionnaires. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11 (1): 49–53.
28. Matsumura, L.C., 2003. Teachers’ assignments and student work: Opening a window on classroom practice. CSE Report 602, UCLA, Los Angeles: CRESST.
29. Mok, J.K.H., and Chan, D.K.K., 2002. Globalisation and education: The quest for quality education in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
30. Moss, P., Girard, B.J., and Haniford, L.C., 2006. Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30: 109–62.
31. National Council on Education Standards and Testing. 1992. Raising standards for American education: A report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American People, Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32. New London Group. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66 (1): 60–92.
33. Newmann, F.M., and Associates. 1996. Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality, San Francisco: Josey Bass.
34. Newmann, F.M., Bryk, A.S., and Nagaoka, J.K., 2001. Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistent?, Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
35. Newmann, F.M., Lopez, A.S., and Bryk, A.S., 1998. The quality of intellectual work in Chicago schools: A baseline report, Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
36. Nichols, S.L., and Berliner, D., 2007. Collateral damage: How high stakes testing corrupts America’s schools, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
37. Nichols, S., Berliner, D., and Glass, G., 2006. High stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14 (1) Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/
38. Nitko, A.J., 2004. Educational assessment of students., 4th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
39. Resnick, L.B., 1987. Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16 (9): 13–20.
40. Rochex, J., 2006. Social, methodological and theoretical issues regarding assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30 (1): 163–212.
41. Shepard, L.A., 1989. Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership, 46 (7): 4–9.
42. Shepard, L.A., 2000. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Leadership, 29 (7): 4–14.
43. Tan, J., 1997. Education and colonial transition in Singapore and Hong Kong: Comparisons and contrasts. Comparative Education, 33 (2): 307–12.
44. Tan, J., 1998. The marketisation of education in Singapore: Policies and implications. International Review of Education, 44 (1): 43–63.
45. Watkins, D.A., and Biggs, J.B., eds. 2001. Teaching the Chinese learner, Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
46. Wilkerson, J.R., and Lang, W.S., 2007. Assessing teacher dispositions: Five standards-based steps to valid measurement using the DAATS model, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.