Editorial
The landscape of education and…
by Liew Pei Li, Management and Leadership in Schools Programme, July 2023
Emerging global trends. New education policies. Revised subject syllabi. Digitised assessments. Evolving students’ needs. The impetus for change in the curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments that we plan, enact, and evaluate abound. Without intentionality and thoughtfulness, it is easy to get lost in the sea of change. As such, the insights gleaned from considering the four levels of perspectives—(i) satellite, (ii) map, (iii) street, and (iv) inner world—serve as anchors to why we do what we do, and how we go about doing them.
In particular, three models are especially helpful in shedding light on how to identify and bring about needful change:
- Four Quadrants of Curriculum Decision-Making (Lim-Ratnam and Fulmer, 2014)
- Four Boxes of Assessment Literacy (Tan, 2022)
- Technical, Tactical, and Ethical Assessment Leadership (Tay et al., 2020)
Crucially, these models encourage systematic thought that expands our understanding beyond default ways of thinking and opens our eyes to potential blindspots. An application of how these models have been applied in the English classroom can be accessed here.
Satellite Level as National Policies
On the satellite level, there are various nationwide policies and movements, which shape and inform the changes in our curriculum, pedagogy, and assessments. Lim-Ratnam and Fulmer’s (2014) Four Quadrants of Curriculum Decision-Making engages with two dilemmas of curriculum change: firstly of scale and scope (general to particular) and secondly that of the time at and for which decisions are made (for the present or the future).
The model is particularly helpful because many-a-time, when changes are introduced, we focus only on the Subject Syllabus (Quadrant 3) and quickly operationalise it into lesson packages and activities in the classroom (Quadrant 4). This short-circuiting of thinking is captured in the figure below:
However, the truth of the matter is that the refreshed Subject Syllabus (Quadrant 3) is informed by the desired learner outcomes and purposes articulated in the Nationwide Policies and Movements (Quadrant 1). Without any regard for these aims and goals, the changes in the Subject Syllabus become decontextualised. Instead of thinking about the “why”, the focus is on the “what” and “how”.
Additionally, the School’s Context (Quadrant 2) is also a lens through which schools view and adapt the Subject Syllabus (Quadrant 3). Rather than uniform application, different facets are prioritised or left out based on the leaders’ and teachers’ perceptions of their students’ profiles and needs.
The interplay between the quadrants has been captured in the figure below:
This awareness is a key reminder to always bear in mind the “whys”. Only with clear learner outcomes can we make sense of the assessments we design, the criteria we identify, the standard we set, and the feedback we give.
Map Level as Contextualised Department Change
As established from the model above, any change—no matter how big or small—is context-specific. In particular, “[g]ood curriculum work is context- and case-specific and based on the “here-and-now” of human experience” (Dewey, 1938 / 1997; Schwab, 1969 in Heng et al., 2017, p. 3). On the map level, we need to consider what the changes for the Department might look like.
A pivotal concept to purposeful change is the threshold level of Assessment Leadership (Tan, 2017). This means that Assessment Leadership needs to bring about irreversible change; should be coherent and integrative; can be a pivot acting as a valuable catalyst for transforming the direction and value of education; and should be prepared to confront and address potentially troublesome discomfiting issues. At times, we might tinker with our assessment practices to replace or modify parts which we feel may no longer serve their purposes. However, we need to remember that these changes should be part of the roadmap of needful change we have identified from the evolution of learners’ outcomes.
As achieving a threshold level of change depends on teachers adjusting their practices, the type and quality of feedback that they receive is key. Rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach, we need to be “cognisant of a teacher’s imminent capacity for curriculum and assessment change before guiding teachers on identifying what they are accountable for, as distinct from what they can be responsible for, in curriculum and assessment matters” (Tan, 2017, p. 67). The key difference between accountability and responsibility is that the former is what one is likely able to achieve, whereas the latter is what one may reasonably achieve with sufficient effort and guidance.
While we are often patient and mindful of our students’ learning progress and needs, we tend to neglect the fact that all teachers are also different in their levels of readiness in various contexts of Professional Learning. This awareness can better help us to meet our colleagues where they are, so that we can all work collectively to enact the change we want to see.
Street-Level as Enactment in the Classroom
Apart from their readiness in terms of Professional Learning, the street level reminds us that it is important to manage and guide teachers’ experiences in the classroom. To avoid falling into the trap of becoming those who “choose to use assessment to drive reform [instead of using] assessment to reflect reform” (Mabry, 1999, p. 679), we can adopt Tan’s (2022) design of the Four Boxes of Assessment Literacy to guide our change process:
By first forming a collective understanding of the desired learning outcomes (skills and dispositions) of the assessment change [Box 4], teachers can gain a better understanding of what students need to do—correspondingly—to learn, practise, and review their understanding [Box 3]. By extension, this can aid in the design of assessment tasks (formative and summative) to elicit the desired learning outcomes [Box 2]. Going through this process of thinking would then allow teachers to arrive inductively—and hopefully voluntarily since they can now better appreciate the imperative—at the knowledge they would need to gain to develop and assess students’ competencies [Box 1].
In fact, the Four Boxes of Assessment Literacy can be better facilitated with the application of Technical, Tactical, and Ethical (TTE) Assessment Leadership (Tay et al., 2020). For instance, Ethical Leadership helps us to appreciate the Learning Outcomes [Box 4], giving us purpose and direction for the changes we are enacting. With the help of Tactical Leadership, we can better scope and sequence—while taking into consideration staff- and student-readiness—the Student Practices [Box 3] and Assessment Practices [Box 2]. Finally, Technical Leadership is, at its core, tied to the Assessment Literacy [Box 1] we seek to imbue in our colleagues to prepare them for the journey of change. The relationship between the two models is captured below (elucidated using Multiliteracies as the proposed assessment change):
Returning to the Four Quadrants shared in the Satellite Level, at times, teachers might experience the nationwide changes as singular events that are frustrating in the strain it places on them. It is thus imperative for teachers to understand that Quadrant 1 changes are “actually part of a continuum in improving teaching and learning” (Ratnam-Lim, 2017, p. 46). Additionally, these changes can be contextualised within existing programmes. By demonstrating intellectual leadership in our own capacities (Hargreaves et al., 2001), we can help to allay our colleagues’ anxieties about what they see as ceaseless changes in the education landscape.
Another area that requires attention, in relation to teachers’ enactments in the classroom, is the spiral progression of the changes through the levels within the school. The ability to have ““umbrella vision”—a sense of how the work of the department plays out across grade levels—to steer the department in a holistic manner towards a common goal” (Ratnam-Lim, 2017, p. 48) is critical. Oftentimes, teachers get too caught up with the daily grind, and focus only on the activity or question item. They may lose sight of the skills, capacities, and dispositions that these activities and assessments are meant to draw out. As such, we need teachers to frontload these learners’ outcomes, bearing in mind the scope and sequence across the grade levels in school, when they are engaging students in their learning.
Inner-World as a Teacher, Colleague, and Leader
This brings me to the last level: my inner-world. In a lecture by Professor Kelvin Tan, I came to realise that Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) Four Levels of Feedback was not about the types of feedback we gave, or the intent, but how it shaped students’ learning. Some years back, my colleagues and I spent a fair amount of time thinking about what each category of feedback looked like in the context of the tasks we gave. This was a sobering moment. Even though we engaged with research—poring over a few books—before embarking on this change, we mistook the intent of the model. I wondered what that would mean for my teachers and me as we embark on conceptualising and enacting changes in the Department.
However, my recent experience in the Management and Leadership in Schools Programme gave me hope. The feedback and alternative perspectives from my peers—Cheryl, Elizabeth, Juliana, and Shaiful— helped me to see my blindspots, not just for various tasks at hand, but also the mental model that I have habituated. While the perspectives of leaders in the field are important in informing my knowledge and plans, it is the people around me who can help me to see and bridge the gaps in my own thinking, learning, and leadership.
References
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education (1st Touchstone ed.). New York: Touchstone.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. John Wiley & Sons.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112.
Heng, M. A., Ratnam-Lim, C., & Tan, K. (2017). Curriculum leadership by middle leaders: The Singapore story. In Curriculum Leadership by Middle Leaders (pp. 1-9). Routledge.
Lim-Ratnam, C., & Fulmer,G. W. (2014). What part does assessment play in curriculum design? In W. S. Leong, Y. S. Cheng & K. Tan (Eds), Assessment and Learning in Schools (pp. 27-36). Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia.
Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric: Lingering effects of traditional standardised testing on direct writing assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 673–79
Ratnam-Lim, C. (2017). Decision-making in curriculum leadership. In Curriculum Leadership by Middle Leaders (pp. 42-57). Routledge.
Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The school review, 78(1), 1-23.
Tan, K. H. K. (2017). Curriculum and assessment leadership for learning. In Curriculum leadership by middle leaders: theory, design and practice (pp. 58-72). Routledge
Tan, K. H. K. (2022). The Four Boxes of Assessment Literacy Feedback. Assessment For All Learners. https://assessmentforall.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-four-boxes-of-assessment-feedback.html
Tay, H. Y., Tan, K. H. K., Deneen, C. C., Leong, W. S., Fulmer, G. W., & Brown, G. T. (2020). Middle leaders’ perceptions and actions on assessment: the technical, tactical and ethical. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 45-63.