EDITORIAL TEAM: Alwyn Pang, Fong Sum Yi, Ong Aik Leng, Shafei Johomat

ADVISORS: Raymond Lim, Tan Eng Hong, Toh Poh Guan

SEABFive

turns

Issue No. 9June 2009

It was a birthday gift for schools - SEAB Conference 2009.

On 9th and 10th of March 2009, Orchid Country Club was bustling with life. On each day, over 400 participants from schools, MOE and other institutions attended the SEAB conference. This was organised specially for key personnel in our schools as part of the celebrations of SEAB 5th Anniversary.

Since its inauguration in 2004 as a statutory board of the Ministry of Education, SEAB had organised various events to share assessment issues and practices with school practitioners. In 2006, the International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) held its annual conference here in Singapore and SEAB played host in gathering researchers in the field of educational assessment from assessment experts and authorities around the globe to share their latest findings with our local and overseas participants. In 2007, PSLE Seminar was organised to share with the primary school principals on their roles in the PSLE and future trends in assessment.

SEAB Chief Executive, Ms Tan Lay Choo, opened this year’s SEAB Conference with her keynote presentation, In Search of the Golden Mean of Assessment which captivated the participants as she revealed her well-formulated 4A’s of the assessment journey – Alignment of Beliefs, Mindsets and Philosophy of Assessment; Audit for balance; Act to ensure assessments are fit for purpose; Assess for impact. The keynote was certainly a welcoming entrée to the spread that followed.

As the theme of the SEAB Conference 2009 was “Educational Assessment – Theories and Practices for Schools”, the presentations covered a wide spectrum of topics which exemplified assessment theories and practical assessment tools. Some of these topics were Role of Assessment in Education, Relationship between Curriculum and Assessment, Formative Assessment, Grading and Review of Borderline Cases, Moderation of Marks and Assessment of Construct of English, Mathematics, Science and Humanities.

There was no doubt that all participants had something useful to take back with them at the end of the conference.

Contributed byAdeline TengChairperson, SEAB Conference 2009 Organising Committee

2

and Practice” signifies our goal to translate theories and research findings into meaningful applications for schools.

During the recent debates on rebalancing assessment, questions such as the following were raised:• Should we do away with some examinations and introduce bite-sized tests?• How much of assessment should be national examinations and how much should be school based assessment?• Should we continue to use pen-and-paper test or introduce alternative modes of assessment?

Is there a right amount, a right proportion, or a right ratio to these? I believe that the correct proportion, even if there is one, should be contextualised and may differ from country to country. Our answers to these questions cannot be a simple act of borrowing best practices from other countries. Singapore

schools will have to find our own answers – what is our golden mean of assessment in Singapore? It is my wish that together as a fraternity of educators we will discover our own golden mean for assessment in Singapore - a balance, a proportion that educators and stakeholders would perceive to be educationally pleasing, appealing and sound.

Before we embark on such a journey, there is first a need to align our mindsets, beliefs, philosophy on the “What” and “Why” of assessment.

Assessment refers to all evidence-based evaluations and judgements that occur in interaction in all learning environments. However, in the minds of many people, including our teachers in the schools, there appears to reside a default equation: assessment = examinations. If such is our mindset, every time we hear the word ‘assessment’, we would immediately apply all our past knowledge and experiences of examinations on assessment. Hence there is a need to reset our definition of assessment by expanding the conventional instrument-based understandings of assessment to incorporate all of the evidence-based evaluations and judgments that occur in interaction in (classroom) learning environments. This includes formal assessments that we recognised as ’an assessment’ as well as informal assessments, both tacit and explicit, that routinely occur in classroom interaction.

According to the findings of a local study by CRPP/NIE, teachers’ assessment practices are strongly influenced by the preparation of students for high-stakes examination. The purpose of assessment for learning was not found to be one of our teachers’ key considerations. If our teachers have this narrow mindset and belief about assessment – they will only see their role in assessment as conducting tests / examinations / alternative assessment for high stakes examinations. It would then be difficult for them to perceive assessment as a meaningful tool for learning. Hence, there is a need to align the concept and purpose of assessment. Changing the mindsets of our teachers is key in our journey towards a more balanced assessment system.

Second, there is a need to audit our practices for balance. The key word here is ‘balance’; neither excess nor neglect. Our journey is not about having examinations or no examinations – rather it is a search for a healthy mix of the two types of assessment. How do we balance the use of examinations for placement with use of assessment to inform learning?

In Search of the Golden Mean of AssessmentMs Tan Lay ChooChief Executive, Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board

SEAB Conference 2009 9 & 10 March Extract of Keynote Address

The theme for this conference is Educational Assessment: Theories and Practice for Schools. The term “Assessment” rather than “Examination” was consciously chosen to denote a broader domain that includes assessment conducted in school by the teachers, while the sub-theme “Theories

3

To guide us in our audit, the following definition of “A Balanced Assessment” could be used:

We should seek balance between Standardised Assessment and School Assessment in the following specific areas:

The questions we must ask: Is there balance? Is there excess or neglect? If there is neglect, what do we do more of? If there is excess, what do we do less of? What capabilities do we need to address the gaps?

Next, we act to ensure assessments are fit for purpose.The clarity of purpose is key – we should know why we want to introduce a certain change in our assessment before we act.

Standardised AssessmentStrives to document achievement

For placement in courseAs checkpoints along education journey

To differentiate achievement of pupilsTo prove learning

‘Of’ learning

School AssessmentStrives to increase achievement As feedback to pupils and teachersAs actions to close learning gapTo motivate pupils to achieveTo improve learning‘For’ Learning

“To maximize students’ success, assessment must be seen as an instructional tool for use while learning is occurring, and as an accountability tool to determine if learning has occurred. Because both purposes are important, they must be in balance.” (Stiggins, 2008)

We sometimes use the terms “Assessment for learning”, “Assessment of non-academic domains” and “Use of alternative modes of assessment” interchangeably. There may be some relationship, but one does not necessarily imply the other. Each focuses on a different aspect of assessment and should not be confused as equivalent: “Assessment for learning” refers to why we assess, “Assessment of non-academic domains” refers to what we assess and “Use of alternative modes of assessment” refers to how we assess.

While alternative assessment modes may be appropriate for the assessment of non-academic domains because some of these domains cannot be assessed using just pencil-and-paper tests, assessment for learning does not come about just because we use alternative forms of assessment. The focus of assessment for learning is feedback and not the instrument used per se. We could have alternative modes of assessment, but if we do not provide feedback for learning, we only deceive ourselves that we are doing assessment for learning when we are indeed doing assessment of learning. The fundamental issue here is not the form – it is about providing feedback for follow-up actions.

Finally, we need to assess our assessment system for soundness of decision and creditability of actions. We need to be critical of our own practices to understand what works and what does not work. Over time, I hope we would be able to produce our own evidence in the form of research findings that can inform us of what works in Singapore and why it works well. We also need to assess for impact on stakeholders – did we achieve what we intend to achieve? Are there unintended consequences?

Regardless of whether we are doing assessment ‘of’ or ‘for’ learning – whether we are using traditional or alternative modes of assessment – all assessments are perceived to be high stakes by students and parents. Hence, we need to do what we do with credibility and expertise. The students, parents and public need to trust that we make sound decisions about assessment and that these decisions are executed professionally. In short, schools must be trusted to be credible and fair.

we Value your Views

4

We welcome readers to give us your feedback. Let us know how to make SEAB-ling a publication truly worth reading. Please write in to: SEAB_Seabling@seab.gov.sg

Mdm Norhuda Jumat Mr Koh Hoe Kuan Ms Fong Sum Yi Ms Lee Hui Gek Mr David Chiang

Mr Chew Ying Choy Ms Lim Leng Suan

SEAB congratulates the following service excellence award winners.

Service Excellence

Award

Ang Eng Jin, Chang Wai Yeng, Chionh Choon Yuan, Robin Quek Checking the Accuracy of Subjects Registered by Schools

Tang Kar Tian, Chang Wai Yeng, Ramesh Sambandam Reducing the Number of Candidates with Timetable Clashes

Tang Kar Tian, Rokiah Mohd, Lee Pei Yu, Phang Mei Yin, Robin Quek, Ramesh Sambandam, Chang Wai Yeng Setting Up of an Operation Room During the GCE Oral Exam Period

Jesser Png, Adeline Cheah, Ng Mei Lian Engaging Recruitment Agency for Recruiting Temporary Staff

Adeline Cheah, Jesser Png, Ng Mei Lian Review of Refreshment Services for Internal Venues

Wong Tien Han, Shanice Toh, Ramesh Sambandan, Gopala Krishan, Karen Tan Posting Private Candidates to Schools for Mid-Year MTL Examinations

Cheong Han Leong, Toh Hwee Kiong, Ang Geok Tin Early Issue of PSLE Certificates to Schools

Chin Sheng Tyng, Toh Hwee Kiong Taking Over the Despatch of Scripts to Marking Centres from Group HQ

Leow Gek Tiang, Kow Cheok Hui, Kok Mei Keng, Norhuda Jumat Research Tests for Mother Tongue Languages

WITs ProjectsSEAB thanks the following SEABlings for their contribution to the improvement of work processes in SEAB.

There was an air of excitement as SEABlings gathered together to celebrate SEAB Day early in the morning on 1 April 2009. This year’s SEAB Day celebration was a little special as it marked the fifth anniversary of SEAB. The morning started with an opening address from our Chief Executive, Ms Tan Lay Choo. Following that came the highlight of the morning - a Line Dancing session. It was great fun seeing everyone learn the dance steps and try to move their bodies in sync with the music.

1st APRILContributed by Connie Ang

Chairperson, SEAB Day Organising Committee

their feet to perform a special song-and-dance item for Ms Seah. This was then followed by a warm welcome given to the newly appointed Chairperson of SEAB and Director-General-of-Education, Ms Ho Peng.

The celebration continued into the afternoon with a lunch event, where SEAB bade farewell to our retiring Chairperson, the former Director-General-of-Education, Ms Seah Jiak Choo. It was heartwarming to see all SEABlings get up on

It was indeed a cosy and meaningful afternoon that SEABlings spent together celebrating this special day.

SEAB Day 2009

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecEL / FEL / MT / FMT 20, 21NTIL / FNTIL 21

187 - 13

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec1

MTL 7 - 20MTLB 28Foreign Languages 2 - 12MTL 23MTLB 19French (H1 & H2) 26German (H1 & H2) 26Japanese (H1 & H2) 26Music Performing 7 - 9Science 27, 29 5

6 - 13

28, 30 2, 3, 6, 9 - 30 1 - 4

For details (i.e. date, time and duration of papers), please visit our website at www.seab.gov.sg. Examination calendar is accurate as of 23rd May 2009

Exam Event

Oral

Listening ComprehensionWritten

Exam EventMid-year MTL (Written)

GCE A-Level Examination Dates

Project Work (Oral Presentation)

Written (Year End)

Oral

Listening Comprehension

Practical Examination

Examination Calendar 2009

PSLE Examination Dates

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecEL 7 - 20MTL, BMTLEL (Syll T) 7MTL, BMTL 8

Practical Examination

Computer Applications 15

7 - 9, 17 5 - 13

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec1

EL 17 - 28MTL 2 - 16MTL (Special Programme) 11 - 14

MTLB 28Foreign Languages 5 - 12MTL 22MTLB / MTL (Special Programme) 16

Foreign Languages 16, 28Music Performing 1 - 7

Science 13, 15, 20, 22

12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 26 - 30 2 - 16

For details (i.e. date, time and duration of papers), please visit our website at www.seab.gov.sg. Examination calendar is accurate as of 23rd May 2009

GCE N-Level Examination Dates

Examination Calendar 2009

Exam Event

Oral

Listening Comprehension

GCE O-Level Examination Dates

24 Jul - 6 Aug

Written (Year End)

Practical Examination

Mid-year MTL (Written)

Oral

Listening Comprehension

Written

Exam Event