Assessment Practices with Academically Low Progress Learners in a Singapore Primary School

by Mr Jerome Chong (MCT903)

Abstract

This study examines the ramifications and implications of assessment practices carried out with academically low progress learners (LPL) in a Singapore mainstream primary school. A primary 5 (P5) foundation stream class of 18 students were taught by the same teacher in English and Mathematics for 2 academic years until they sat for their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) paper at the end of primary 6 (P6). This study focuses on Assessment for Learning (AfL) practices and feedback provided by the teacher, by peers of the students and through teacher supervised Technology Enabled Applications (TEA). It investigates some of the challenges faced, courses of action taken and some suggestions to improve upon the results obtained.

Introduction

There are not many studies on AfL conducted on LPL in the primary school context in Singapore. This study discusses challenges that was faced when implementing AfL practices, the resultant courses of action that were taken, some solutions that were formed and the results that were achieved with LPL in a mainstream primary school in Singapore. This paper studies actual classroom examples of the class’ journey with the same teacher who was their Form, Foundation Level English (FEL) and Foundation Level Math (FMA) teacher for 2 years from P5 to P6 in the class of (initially) 18 LPL students who were banded in the Foundation stream at the beginning of P5 to “help them build strong fundamentals, and to give them the confidence to pursue learning at a pace and level that is more suited to them” (MOE, 2019). These students were placed in the foundation class as they had not been able to catch up with the syllabus from P1 to P4. Most had consistently fallen in the bottom 10% of the cohort in terms of overall academic results in the years prior to P5. However, the students in this study had improved their results with FEL passes increasing from 56% of the class passing at the P5 entry point, to 95% passing at the P6 year-end exams prior to the PSLE and FMA passes increasing from 6% at the beginning of P5, to 95% at P6.

Statistics by the Research and Management Information Division (2018) indicate that there are an average of 39,000 students in each cohort, of these about 4,000 (10% of cohort) offer FEL and/ or FMA at PSLE. The primary school in this study has students offering FEL and FMA figures similar to national statistics with 13% of its cohort offering these. LPL students are defined as “the 15–20% lowest academic scorers” in standardised examinations in the Singapore context (Wang, Teng & Tan, 2014). 

Based on an ethnographic study of students in the Normal-Technical (NT) stream in a Singapore secondary school, the (NT) students had traits of ‘average’ self-esteem and academic achievement and poor study habits that worsened as they went on to Secondary 2. They possessed poor command of English and attention span and preferred less ‘critical’ and more ‘flexible’ teachers; their low literacy levels also compounded classroom management problems (Ismail & Tan, 2005). Another study found that students in the NT stream in secondary school are assumed to have poor behaviour, possess poor study habits and have low motivation and self-esteem. (Talib & de Roock, 2018). Similarly, in the primary school context, it was observed that LPL are from “low-income families who rarely use English as the medium of communication” (Wang et al, 2017). Most of the LPL’s academic success “intersect with other factors including poverty, racial or linguistic minority and learners are also identified as having special education needs (SEN)” (Kang & Martin, 2018).  Students with SEN have “starting points often lower than those of other pupils” (Colum & McIntyre, 2019). Based on the past records of the primary school being studied, most of its LPL and foundation students end up in the NT stream in secondary school. The LPL in this class fit into the above descriptions with various family, personal or societal related issues. These are analysed at the class level and tabulated below:

It was surmised that LPL students have low achievement traits due to the levels of (1) Individual, (2) School/ education system and (3) Family and society. It was suggested that strategies to mitigate low achievement traits should target these three levels (Wang, Teng & Tan, 2014). Some strategies include “promoting mastery goal and growth-mindset and (by) providing effective feedback” (Talib & de Roock, 2018). The teacher in this study attributes much of the improvement in the students’ overall improved results to feedback and AfL practices that were implemented; Tan succinctly surmises that literature on formative assessment (FA) has three recurring emphases, one of them being “giving feedback that enables them (students) to improve their work” (Tan, 2013). AfL was defined as the “part of everyday practice by students, teachers and peers that seeks, reflects upon and responds to information from dialogue, demonstration and observation in ways that enhance ongoing learning” (Klenowski, 2009). This paper continues by demonstrating how effective feedback and AfL practices based on the two definitions above was used in this classroom had posed some challenges, how these were addressed and some solutions that were adopted. All names of students have been changed.

Teacher-led Feedback… of AfL, feedback, power and the curriculum, 

Tan (2013) presented a simplified model for AfL, where assessment standards was represented by the vertical axis, task design by the horizontal axis, and feedback practices by the incline, forming a “triangle of practices.” (Tan, 2013). In this class, the teacher had a clear understanding of each student’s background based on the three levels to mitigate low achievement (Wang, Teng & Tan, 2014). The teacher firstly set an assessment standard to be achieved by each student, before designing and timing the feedback to be given. This then had to be interpreted and applied by the learner and to be re-given as necessary. 

About half of the class had failed English at entry point at P5 and by the end of 2019, all but the student with GDD had passed. The three students presented here are Terry, diagnosed with dyslexia, communicates in English at home with mum and siblings and in Mandarin with father and grandparents. Harshita, is a conscientious student who communicates mainly in Tamil with parents at home. Salman, diagnosed with ADHD, has several internal disciplinary cases and communicates well in English. Below is a sample of the students’ work on a continuous writing (CW) assignment where they were required to write the introduction of the CW based on the first picture of a CW assignment for the FEL stream.

By being cognizant about each student’s standards to achieve and with a clear AfL design, the teacher provided appropriate and timely feedback catered to each student to meet their individual gaps in learning, the dialogic practice between the teacher and student then completed the “triangle of practices” (Tan, 2013) for the 3 students. This can be clearly represented and compared in Figure 5 as shown:

It was also important to note that in the practice of feedback and dialogue with the student, the teacher had also built strong teacher student relationship (TSR). This is a “significant predictor of students’ academic engagement”. High quality TSR correlates with “self-esteem, level of competency and emotional connection”.  (Talib & de Roock, 2018).

Peer led AfL / feedback… of AfL, feedback, power and Social Justice

The last day/ session of the Sexuality Education (SEd) series for the P6s involved separating the boys from the girls in the P6 cohort to allow the teacher to conduct more gender-directed lessons. The teacher had a combined class of the LPL boys from Class 6H with the boys from Class 6G which is the school’s banded class (achieving the top 20% academic scores from P4 for the cohort and taking all subjects at the Standard level). The boys were reminded about the SEd lessons learned from a comic strip they had gone through 3 days prior, depicting the friendship of Roslin, Sue Ann and Gina when they were still in their respective classes. The boys were then grouped into smaller groups of mixed 6H/ 6G boys. Without the girls in the class, the boys felt more at ease and were allowed to ‘buzz’ and give each other feedback in their groups before presenting their thoughts to the class as a whole.

“The overarching principle of both relying on and providing instrumental peer support through shared inquiry, facilitates the development of original insights and discoveries” (Talib & de Roock, 2018). It was interesting to see how the boys from 6H and 6G interacted and built on each other’s feedback to come up and present what they thought about Sue Ann and Gina as Roslin’s friends. They used terms that each group may not have understood, as the 6H boys taught the 6G boys new colloquialisms.  It was also clear to see that most of the 6H boys had more real life experiences and ‘street-smarts’ than the 6G boys. The 6H boys led a lot of the discussion and seemed to have imparted a lot of knowledge to the 6G boys at the end of the lesson.

Many of the boys from 6H come from very challenging backgrounds. The reality is that they face real and tough problems compared to the 6G boys who are mostly from relatively sheltered and intact middle income families, with none falling in the discipline problem, FAS or SEN brackets. It demonstrated that when given an opportunity, there was rich cross learning to be had between peers, even when one is seemingly less ‘academically endowed’. Indeed much of the benefits of peer feedback and cooperative learning, such as improving academic achievement in a supportive and secure learning environment, improving relationships between peers and improving self-actualisation (Crawford, 1995) were clearly attained in this unusual setting of very disparate learning abilities, SES, behaviour and motivations.

The lesson also demonstrated the differences in equality that we are facing in our schools. However, it was heartening to note that in this exercise, peer feedback and assessment offered “equal classroom opportunities”, resulting in improved “self-efficacy” and “deeper learning” (Oakes, 1985) for the boys from both classes. 

When we engage students from different family backgrounds, SES and learning abilities in one class, the initial differences can be very stark, but in this classroom, there was a levelling of the playing field, where for a fleeting moment, the “power to make choices to disproportionately shape outcomes and limit options for people who don't have the power to make choices” (Teo, 2018b) was temporarily switched off, thereby creating a system that “truly serves the needs of all” (Teo, 2018a).

Technology Enabled Assessment / Feedback… of AfL, feedback and ethics

In a local study, it was concluded that the use of iPads was “associated with greater learner engagement and collaboration, the differentiated effect was enjoyed at both cohort and ability grouping and that teachers should harness technology to develop students’ ability to take charge of their learning, thus resulting in deeper learning” (Tay, 2016). This was followed by the launching of the Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS) by the MOE in 2018 to “encourage learners to be self-directed, to work collaboratively with peers, to engage in interactive resources and to learn according to their needs and interests” (MOE, 2017).

In this classroom, the students gained some success in using technology in their learning. Timmis et al (2015) highlighted some opportunities afforded by Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA); of interest being enhancing feedback to students by recognising the “importance of students in giving, as well as receiving feedback and to encourage students to act upon this as a means of sustaining learning in schools”.

Elliot’s comments on technology enhanced learning ranged from, “I like it because it’s exciting and it is fun” and “I can learn when it tells me where I am going wrong when I keep practicing it”. Malani’s thoughts included preferring the Kahoot game over other methods such as the Flash cards game and written quizzes, because it was fun, that she knows the answers and she gets to learn. A short interview (MP4 file) with her can be accessed in this link.

 

Elliot comes from a middle income background and has been diagnosed with ODD and ADHD. Elliot has no screen time limits imposed at home and admits that his ‘record’ was 20 hours gaming non-stop online. Malani resides in a Foster care home, has been diagnosed with dyslexia and has on record, various offences committed in school and at the Foster home. She has very little online privileges other than those offered by the teacher in school. Elliot has performed consistently better in all his subjects and his scores both online and his FMA exam had shown marked improvement of over 30% whilst Malani had only a 10% improvement in comparison. We thus see problems such as the risk of social exclusion associated with TEA and that TEA may not always be fair and equitable due to each students’ circumstances (Timmis et al, 2016).

 

It has been argued that technology can identify who needs to be differentiated and helps with the provision for the differentiation in the best case scenario, but technology also creates artificial ‘barriers’ and perpetuates the wrong things. It may accentuate the unequalness of it all and TEA may become a form of discrimination (Munshi & Deneen, 2018). We need to question between the Socio and Economic realities versus the Educational imperatives. Assessment in all its forms is a powerful educational practice and if it is enhanced by technology, which side does it go for?

Feedback on the teacher, turning the tables... AfL, power, social justice, rubrics

In an often neglected area when AfL is discussed, the teacher being assessed on whether he has taught and performed well holistically as a teacher through feedback given to him by his students is often not done. This is important as much can be learned from an honest and open dialogue with his students. From here, it would also convey the teacher’s confidence and trust in their students’ abilities, thereby overcoming any form of deficit thinking perceived about them (Talib & de Roock, 2018).

On a systemic front, research has also found evidence that when there is more equitable deployment of teachers with more experience with LPL and ‘better’ perceived qualities by students being assigned to the LPL groups, there will be an accompanying improvement in self-confidence and to bridge the gap of the LPL being disadvantaged socially. There is also a decrease in the occurrence of (negative) self-fulfillment prophecy of LPL that they are doomed to a “cap on learning and limitation to the development of skills” (Francis et al, 2018). It is heartening to note that in this and several other Singapore primary schools, HODs and Senior Teachers are now increasingly being assigned to LPL or foundation level subject classes, often bringing along experience and innovative teaching methods that seeks to uplift LPL. This then answers the conversations and solutions that we need to have about social selection, equality and social justice (Dunne et al, 2011).

Conclusion

It stands that AfL (and feedback) is a powerful tool when engaging with LPL. Feedback must be dialogic in whatever form it is employed, be they, teacher or peer directed, or technology enabled. By receiving feedback on themselves, teachers can reflect on their weaknesses and strengths. On the systemic front, there must be the “capacity or willingness of the school to accept, accommodate, and respond to them (LPL) in a manner that supports and enables their maximum social, emotional, and intellectual growth and development” through knowing the students’ backgrounds to plan and enact realistic curriculum, pedagogies and expectations (Ismail & Tan, 2005). 

As educators, can we be advocates, be more vulnerable, to walk in the shoes of the LPL, to understand their cultures, backgrounds and needs, and to respect these by giving these children enough ‘chances’ for them to get things ‘right’? Do we also, on a systemic front do enough to enhance teacher efficacy, knowledge, recruitment and personal development so that it becomes more student centric (Wang et al, 2017). Finally, we have also seen that inequality in the class can be detrimental to the children on many fronts. Some pressing reflection may be in order to wonder if we have the right people in all strata of education to make the correct decisions and to work towards these to provide equitable opportunities for our LPL to learn (Sadler, 2007) to their fullest potential. 

References

• Alderton, J. & Gifford, S. (2018). Teaching mathematics to lower attainers: dilemmas and discourses. Research in mathematics education, 2018. Vol. 20, No. 1, 53-69.
• Cheng, Y.S., Leong, W.S., and Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Assessment Rubrics for Learning. Assessment and Learning in Schools. Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd.
• Chong, W. H., Huan, V. S., Quek, C. L., Yeo, L. S., & Ang, R. P. (2010). Teacher-student relationship: The influence of teacher interpersonal behaviours and perceived beliefs about teachers on the school adjustment of low achieving students in Asian middle schools. School Psychology International, 31(3), 312–328.
• Cizek, G.J. (2009). An introduction to formative assessment- History, characteristics and challenges. Handbook of formative assessment. Great Britain: Routledge Ltd, 3-17.
• Colum, M. & McIntyre, K. (2019). Exploring Social Inclusion as a Factor for the Academic Achievement of Students Presenting with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in Schools: A Literature Review. REACH Journal of Special Needs Education in Ireland, Vol. 32.1 (2019), 21–32.
• Crawford, L. (1995). Cooperative Learning in Singapore Primary Schools: Time for Reflection. Teaching and Learning, 16(1), 12-16.
• Dickson, J. (2011) Humiltas. Michigan: Zondervan.
• Dunne, M., Humphreys, S., Dyson, A., Sebba, Gallannaugh, F. & Muijs, D. (2011). The teaching and learning of pupils in low-attainment sets. The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 2011, 485–513.
• Ee, L.L. & Joseph, J. (2011). Paving the Fourth Way: The Singapore Story. Singapore, National Institute of Education.
• Francis, B., Hodgen, J., Craig, N., Taylor, B., Archer, L., Mazenod, A., Tereshchenko, A. & Connolly, P. (2018). Teacher ‘quality’ and attainment grouping: The role of within-school teacher deployment in social and educational inequality. Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019), 183 -192. 
• Gopinathan, S. (2012). Fourth Way in action? The evolution of Singapore’s education system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice. New York: Kluwe (Issue 11:1, pp. 65-70).
• Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
• Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. 
• Ismail, M. & Tan, A.L. (2005).  Voices from the Normal Technical World- An ethnographic study of low-track students in Singapore. Singapore, National Institute of Education, Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice.
• Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319-342.
• Kang, D.Y. & Martin, S.N. (2018) Improving learning opportunities for special education needs (SEN) students by engaging pre-service science teachers in an informal experiential learning course, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38:3, 319-347.
• Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for Learning revisited: an Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16: 3, 263 – 268.
• Klenowski, V. (2015). "Fair Assessment as Social Practice." Assessment Matters 8: 76 - 93.
• MOE, Singapore (2017). PRESS RELEASES- Nurturing Future-Ready Learners - Empowering Students in Self-Directed Learning. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/nurturing-future-ready-learners---empowering-students-in-self-directed-learning .
• MOE, Singapore (2018). PRESS RELEASES- 'Learn For Life’ – Preparing Our Students To Excel Beyond Exam Results. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/-learn-for-life---preparing-our-students-to-excel-beyond-exam-results .
• MOE, Singapore. (2019a). Learn For Life – Remaking Pathways- Greater Flexibility With Full Subject-Based Banding. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/learn-for-life--remaking-pathways--greater-flexibility-with-full-subject-based-banding .
• MOE, Singapore. (2019b). Updates to PSLE 2021 Scoring System – Enabling Students to Progress, Regardless of Starting Points. Retrieved on 10 Nov 2019 from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/press-releases/updates-to-psle-2021-scoring-system--enabling-students-to-progress--regardless-of-starting-points .
• Munshi, C. and C. Deneen (2018). Self-regulated Learning and the role of Feedback. Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback. A. A. Lipnevich and J. K. Smith.
• Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: how schools structure inequality. London: Yale University Press.
• Ong, Y.K. (2018). Helping Singapore's students to learn for life. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/helping-singaporean-students-learn-life .
• Parkin, H., Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., & Thorpe, L. (2011). A role for technology in enhancing students’ engagement with feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Electronic First Edition.
• 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. Vol. 22, No. 1, 61–78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.1001319.
• Research and Management Information Division (2018). Education Statistics Digest. Singapore, Management Information Branch, Ministry of Education.
• Sadler, D. R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 387 - 392.
• Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College.
• Stodberg, U. (2011). A research review of e-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Electronic First Edition.
• Talib, N. & de Roock, R. (2018). Motivation Strategies for Academically Low-Progress Learners. NIE Working Paper Series No. 12, Singapore, Office of Education Research, NIE/NTU.
• Tan, K. (2013). A Framework for Assessment for Learning: Implications for Feedback Practices within and beyond the Gap. ISRN Education, Vol 2013, Article ID 640609.
• Tan, K.H.K. (2016). 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.
• Tan, K. H. K. and H. M. Wong (2018). Assessment Feedback in Primary Schools in Singapore and Beyond.  . The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback.  UK, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tay, H. Y. (2016). Longitudinal study on impact of iPad use on teaching and learning. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1-22.
• Tay, H, Y. (2017). A prototype twenty-first century class: a school-wide initiative to engage the digital native. In S. Choo, D. Sawch, A. Villanueva, R. Vinz (Eds.), Educating for the 21st Century.  Springer.
• The Straits Times (2018). Changes to school assessment: What you need to know. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/changes-to-school-assessment-what-you-need-to-know.
• Timmis, S., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Oldfield, A. (2015). Rethinking assessment in a digital age: opportunities, challenges and risks. British Educational Research Journal, 42.
• Wang, L.Y., Teng, S.S. & Tan, C.S. (2014). Levelling Up Academically Low Progress Students in Singapore. NIE Working Paper Series No. 3, Singapore, Office of Education Research, NIE/NTU.
• Wang, L., Tan, L., Li, J., Tan, I. & Lim, X. (2017). A qualitative inquiry on sources of teacher efficacy in teaching low-achieving students. The Journal of Educational Research 2017, Vol. 110, No. 2, 140 – 150. 
• Watson, A. (2002). Instances of mathematical thinking among low attaining students in an ordinary secondary classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,  20 (2002) 461–475 .
• Teo, Y. Y. (2018a). This is what inequality looks like. Singapore: Ethos Books.
• Teo, Y. Y. (2018b). When kids say "I lazy what". The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/when-kids-say-i-lazy-what.