Week 11: Educational Evaluation

Evaluation can be defined as “the systematic assessment of worth or merit of an object” (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994, p.3). This topic refers to the need for evaluation in organisations primarily for the vitality of the organisation as the main reason. From this, other sub-reasons such as improving student outcomes, improving curriculum and programmes, improving staff morale and performance and so on may be inferred.

In the Higher Education sector in Singapore, the Ministry of Education takes an important view in assessing organisations of HE and have set up a Higher Education Division or HED (SMOE, 2014) which:

…oversees the provision of tertiary and technical education in Singapore as well as registration of private schools. It oversees nine statutory boards – five Polytechnics, the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), the Science Centre Singapore (SCS), the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Council for Private Education (CPE). HED also oversees the development of four autonomous universities (the National University of Singapore, the Nanyang Technological University, the Singapore Management University and the Singapore University of Technology and Design). HED also oversees the provision of publicly-subsidised places in the following institutions: Singapore Institute of Management University, Singapore Institute of Technology, LASALLE College of the Arts and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. (SMOE, 2014)

HED is sub-divided into 8 branches. The branch directly concerned with the assessment of organisations of higher education is the Higher Education Quality Assurance Section. Its mission is two-fold: to oversee quality assurance in post-secondary educational institutions and to conduct benchmarking with higher education systems in other countries (SMOE, 2014).

Many institutions use the School Excellence Model or SEM as part of their assessment processes. SEM contains 9 criteria of scrutiny (Seah & Ow, 2014):

(i) Leadership: How school leaders and the school’s leadership system address values and focus on student learning and performance excellence; and how the school addresses its responsibilities toward society.

(ii) Strategic Planning: How the school sets clear stakeholder-focused strategic directions towards realising the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation vision; develops action plans to support its directions, deploys the plans and tracks performance.

(iii) Staff Management: How the school develops and utilises the full potential of its staff to create an excellent school.

(iv) Resources: How the school manages internal resources and external partnerships effectively and efficiently in order to support its strategic planning and the operation of its processes.

(v) Student-Focused Processes: How the school designs, implements, manages and improves key processes to provide a holistic education and enhance student well-being.

(vi) Administrative & Operational Results: What the school is achieving in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of its administration and operations.

(vii) Staff Competence and Morale: What the school is achieving in building staff capacity in relation to training and development and enhancing staff morale.

(viii) Impact on Partners and Society: What the school is achieving in relation to its partners and the community at large.

(ix) Key Performance Results: What the school is achieving in the holistic development of its students, in particular, the extent to which the school is able to achieve the Desired Outcomes of Education.

The RADAR scoring system is part of SEM and is summarised (Seah & Ow, 2014):

In order for schools to have a sense of how they are doing in each criterion and their overall achievement, the SEM criteria are scored using the RADAR logic which assesses the Results, Approach, Deployment, Assessment and Review.

The logic states that a school needs to:

• Determine the Results it is aiming for as part of its strategic planning process. These results cover the performance of the school in the key areas, and perceptions of its stakeholders.
• Plan and develop an integrated set of sound Approaches to deliver the required results both now and in the future.
• Deploy the approaches in a systematic way to ensure full implementation.
• Assess and Review the approaches and their deployment, based on monitoring and analysis of the results achieved and on-going learning activities. Based on this identify, prioritise, plan and implement improvement where needed (Seah & Ow, 2014).

Reflection

Specific data on assessment and evaluation results of my organisation are not published here or critiqued due to the sensitive nature of the data in a public space. For many, the data or results are indicative of a perceived value-added dimension to the organisation and are confidential.

Russel-Eft and Preskill’s (2009) view that the organisation benefits greatly from a systematic and professional evaluation is very true because such as exercise is absolutely necessary for the organisation’s vitality.

In the (high-tech) chart below, I theorise that all organisations that are doing well will eventually either stagnate (2) or decline (3) if there are no processes put in place for the organisation to assess, evaluate and innovate. If corrective measures are taken, then there is a higher chance that the organisation will progress (1).

References

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russel-Eft, D. & Preskill, H. (2009). Evaluation in organisations: A systemic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change. New York: Basic books.

Seah, J. C., & Ow, A. (2014).  The school excellence model. Singapore: Civil Service College. Retrieved from https://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/Ethos/Ethos%20June%202003/Pages/The%20School%20Excellence%20Model.aspx#notes

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2014). Higher education division.  Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/about/org-structure/hed/

  

Week 10: Academic development and building academic careers

This topic refers to the need for academic and professional development of staff in higher education organisations. This issue in higher education needs to be viewed in connection with a country’s wider key policy considerations and implications on higher education institutions such as economic relevance, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness (MOE, 2012a). Academic development is a strategy therefore for the raison d’etre of higher education and must be viewed with this in mind.

Singapore’s Ministry of Education convened a Committee on University Education Pathways beyond 2015 (CUEP) to recommend strategies to revamp the university sector in order to provide more opportunities and pathways for its citizens to obtain a tertiary education (MOE, 2012a). Recommendation 5 of the committee’s findings includes conducting an in-depth study of the private education sector (MOE, 2012b). This was found to be one of the priorities because:

The Committee recognises that private education institutions (PEI) play a role in complementing the public university sector, by injecting greater course diversity and supporting workforce development. However, the PEI landscape in Singapore is large and of uneven quality. We are concerned that this uncertain quality of education could compromise students’ learning outcomes, and lead to less than ideal outcomes and returns on investment for students. (pp.8-9).

The committee recognised that there was insufficient data to fully evaluate the parameters of higher education, and therefore called for an in-depth study of the private education sector that is hoped would lead to an “[improved] quality of the sector as a whole and building up [of] public confidence in the value of its offerings” (MOE, 2012b, p.9).

In a fast paced, economically driven country, institutions of higher education have little choice but to develop their academic staff and programmes in order to remain viable and attractive to students. Hénard and Roseveare (2012) suggest that professional development could include a hybrid of programmes all aiming to “improve the quality of the teaching process, of the programme content, as well as the learning conditions of students” (Hénard & Roseveare, 2012, p.7). Levin et al., (1987) posited that the incentive for any organisation to be ‘investing’ in development would be a sound awareness of the appropriate returns of that investment. Similarly, institutes of higher education need to ‘invest’ in academic development of their staff because the potential returns of their investment have far-reaching benefits. These potential returns could include benefits to the major stakeholders in higher education (students, teachers, organisations and nations’ economies). 

Moses (1985) proposed that the purpose for staff development was to cause change. But to achieve this change, Moses (1985) continues, a few conditions need to be considered at an organisational and personal level:

At the institutional level: 1. An evaluation programme of subjects and teaching must be made available which is accepted by academics as valid, reliable and useful. 2. Professional development activities must be available which complement the teaching aspects evaluated. 3. Official encouragement, support or sponsorship for development must be given, either by heads of departments or by the Executive, the "administration". 4. The reward system must reflect, and be perceived to reflect, the importance of pursuit of excellence in teaching and research

On the personal level: 5. Staff must perceive a need for development. 6. Staff must accept organised staff development as one way to meet that need. 7. Staff must perceive development activities as cost effective (p. 91)

Reflection

The need for academic development is an on-going one if the organisation is to be viable, and possess vitality and relevance for students and society in general. Organisations with little or no professional development will sink into stagnation as the organisation fails to respond to the needs and demands of an ever discerning end-user (students). Very often, staff in organisations are wary of development programmes because, among other factors, they do not recognise the need and importance for on-going development.

For further consideration

Realising the  consequences of good teaching methodologies and academic programmes that attract and/or repel the client, how much resources are spent on staff development and academic development? This might be indicative of the priority (or lack of it) that is given to the development of teaching-learning programmes in institutions of higher education.

References

Hénard, F. & Roseveare, D. (2012). Fostering quality teaching in higher education: Policies and practices (An IMHE guide for higher education). OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/QT%20policies%20and%20practices.pdf

Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., Gilbert, R.,& Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3, 783-831.

Moses, I. (1985). Academic Development Units and the Improvement of Teaching. Higher Education, 14(1) 77-100.

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2012a). Singapore’s university landscape. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/feedback/2011/committee-on-university-education-pathways-beyond-2015/singapore-university-landscape/

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2012b). Report of the committee on university education pathways beyond 2015 (CUEP): Greater diversity, more opportunities (Final Report). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2012/08/cuep-report-greater-diversity-more-opportunities.pdf

Week 9: Teaching, assessment and feedback in a blended or open learning platform

Blended learning refers to any time a student learns, at least in part, at a brick and mortar facility and through online delivery with student control over time, place, path and pace (http://www.knewton.com/blended-learning/).  Staker and Horn (2012) define blended learning as “a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online delivery of content and instruction with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace and at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home.” (Staker & Horn, 2012, p.3).  Graham (2004) proposes that blended learning is “the combination of instruction from two historically separate models of teaching and learning: traditional F2F learning systems and distributed learning systems” (Graham, 2004, p.4). Skrzypek (2013) summarises blended learning as a combination of face to face instruction and online learning:

Blended learning is becoming more significant in the educational sector, especially in higher education institutions for several reasons:

• Blended learning provides a more time efficient and cost saving method of instruction for the teacher. S/he is able to make better economic use of time in lesson preparation and delivery.
• Blended learning suits the learning needs of students who come from varied backgrounds (e.g. students who have to manage employment, part time studies and the demands of family life etc).
• Blended learning is a favourable teaching-learning platform to cater for the growing number of students pursuing higher education as it can reach a wider student audience.
• Blended learning appeals to the 21^st century learner who relies on multi avenues for learning such as information technology and the use of smart devices to facilitate learning and research.
• Blended learning promotes collaboration and sharing among students especially those who are too shy to share their views in a face-to-face platform.

Besides these benefits listed above, research by Osguthorpe and Graham (2003) identified six benefits in blended learning: (1) pedagogical richness, (2) access to knowledge, (3) social interaction, (4) personal agency, (5) cost effectiveness, and (6) ease of revision. Graham, Allen and Ure (2003) found that BL is chosen for three reasons. First BL improves pedagogy. Next, it increases access and flexibility to students, and finally BL increases cost effectiveness.

Reflection

Blended learning (BL) in my organisation is becoming more significant and important as a tool of delivery and feedback. Teachers are using BL to enhance teaching and providing feedback in many subjects in classroom and at home. Several school wide initiatives have impacted teaching and learning such as the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiative, e-learning day and varied methods of formative assessments and presentations that use technology.

While the benefits of BL are significant, there is still a high priority given to face-to-face (f2f) instruction and the special relationship a teacher has with his/her students in the intimacy that only a physical classroom can offer. Ramsden (1992) observed that technology itself is not likely to surpass quality teaching.

In many ways, nothing can really substitute the effectiveness and power of good f2f instruction of middle school students if BL is compared to f2f. However, if BL is viewed as a complement to f2f and vice versa, then the significance of BL in the future of education will be even greater and more important for educators.

For further consideration
How does BL impact  student outcomes in toto? Does a possible over emphasis in technology etc lead to any negative effects (e.g. personality fragmentation (DSM), and/or any other disorders?) and have there been any studies that might verify this?

References

Graham, C. R. (2004). Blended learning systems: Definitions, current trends and future directions. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing

Graham, C. R., Allen, S. & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments: A review of

the research literature. Unpublished manuscript, Provo, UT.

Osguthorpe, R. T. & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning systems: Definitions and

directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-234.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Skrzypek, F. (2013, March 26). What is blended learning? [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIh4jJlvF44

Staker, H. & Horn, M.B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning2.pdf

Week 8: Assurance and improvement of quality processes and outcomes in Education

This topic concerns the assurance and ongoing relevance of quality processes and outcomes in education and must be seen in the context of the other topics in education dealt with previously.

First, if the educational establishment to remain relevant and vibrant for today’s student, the quality of the teaching staff is essential to any quality teaching-learning programme in any organisation in the education sector. While research into the quality of teachers in centres of higher education has been extensive (Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini & Reason, 2009) studies in their particular approach to education or teaching methodology has not. In a study conducted by Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) it was found that no research was extant dealing with instructional approaches such as active learning, collaborative learning, cooperative learning, small-group learning, constructivist-oriented approaches (e.g., problem-based learning), or learning communities. Post-1990 evidence suggested that each of these instructional approaches were statistically significant and positive when contrasted with traditional pedagogies. (Cox, McIntosh, Terenzini & Reason, 2009). Since the 1990s, a major increase in the number and variety of instructional approaches that are more student or learning-centered compared with traditional pedagogies have been noted (Lindholm, Szelenyi, Hurtado, & Korn, 2005). Nonetheless, lecturing remains the preferred method of instruction in most Universities. Juxtaposed with O’Neill’s theory of education as being a delicate interaction between the nature of the student, the role of the teacher and the method of instruction (O'Neill, 1979; Blaikie, 1998), the current challenge for administrators is to ensure that teachers develop instructional methods with a commitment to teaching excellence and meaningful assessment of teaching (Paulsen & Feldman, 1995) that influence positive student outcomes in the best way for the new generation of technologically savvy students.

Next,  quality assurance in an educational establishment benefits the end user, primarily. Besides providing a quality and holistic education to the student, a higher education degree opens up avenues in life options. A study by Rumberger and Thomas (1993) posited that acquiring a qualification in Higher Education had multiple benefits for the student later in the workplace. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) listed the benefits of having a tertiary education qualification:

• Provides a net occupational status advantage over high-school diploma of about .95 a standard deviation

• Increases workforce participation and the likelihood of being unemployed decreases

• Produces positive yet complex influences on job satisfaction

• Holds a statistically significant advantage in financial mileage over the non-higher workforce educated doing the same job

• Potentially better chances at increasing earning power (p. 535-536)

Finally, the push to ensure and improve the quality of teaching processes and outcomes in education is an economic one. The education sector is a multi-billion dollar sector in Australia alone and is her fourth biggest export. Ahead of Tourism but behind Gold, the Education sector in 2012/2013 was worth $14.385 billion (Connelly & Olsen, 2013) as shown below:

Conclusion

There are three main reasons why the assurance and improvement for the quality of teaching processes and outcomes in Education is essential. First, to meet the evolving educational landscape of the present technologically savvy student, teachers must adapt and change their teaching methodology to a satisfactory level as highlighted above if the educational institution is to remain vibrant and relevant. Next, the acquisition of a degree in Higher Education has long term ramifications on the bigger economy and the well-being of the country’s citizens. Finally, the assurance and improvement for the quality of teaching processes and outcomes in Education is a multi-billion dollar industry that warrants continual improvement and updating if the sector is to remain attractive.

In Tort Law, we are reminded of the duty of care which is a legally binding obligation and carries a certain amount of moral responsibility. So too does education. Educators and educational establishments have a duty to provide the best for its students because we are in a large way responsible for our students' future. W.B. Yeats read by Harvey Keitel cautions educators to tread lightly on our students' dreams:

For further consideration

What evidence is there to support the view that educational institutions actively invest in QA? Besides external validation requirements, what internal structures are put in placed to assure a quality product is given to the end user? If finance is a consideration, what ratio is this given in overall budgets? 

References

Blaikie, J. (1998). My philosophy of education: A synthesis project – The history and philosophy of education. (unpublished project paper). Nairobi, Kenya: CTIE.

Connelly, S. & Olsen, A. (2013). Education as an export for Australia: Green shoots, first swallows but not quite out of the woods yet. Retrieved from http://www.spre.com.au/download/AIEC2013ModelingPaper.pdf

Cox, B.E., McIntosh, K.L., Terenzini, P.T. & Reason, R.D. (2009). Culture of teaching: It’s causes and consequences. Retrieved from https://www.ed.psu.edu/educ/parsing- project/.pdf%20documents/AIR%202009

Headlink. (2008, October 18). The Cloths of Heaven - W. B. Yeats (by Harvey Keitel). [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZjwLu9cXJ8&feature=youtu.be

O'Neill, J. (1979). Accountability as an individual mission (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Columbia University, USA.

Lindholm, J. A., Szelenyi, K., Hurtado, S., & Korn, W. S. (2005). The American college teacher: National norms for the 2004-2005 HERI faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (vol. 2): A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Paulsen, M. B & Feldman, K. A. (1995) Taking teaching seriously: Meeting the challenge of instructional improvement. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.2. Washington DC.

Rumberger, R. W. & Thomas, S. L. (1993). The economic returns to college major, quality and performance: A multilevel analysis of recent graduates. Economics of Education Review, 12(1), 1-19.

Week 7: Changing Student Demographics

Changing Student Demographics

In Singapore, and presumably as with the rest of world, the demographics of students enrolling in centres of Higher Education are changing.

As of June 2013, with a population of 5.4 million people (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2013), Singapore’s rising trend in higher education is established with an overall improvement in the educational outlook of Singapore residents. The Department of Statistics goes on to highlight that “the proportion of university graduates increased from 7.2% in 1990 to 51% in 2013” (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/visualising_data/visualiser/education/education2013.html).

Similarly, data from the Ministry of Education lists 369 schools at all levels: primary, secondary, tertiary and mixed schools offering diverse programmes and varied pathways to a tertiary educational experience (http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/landscape/). This means that there will be more than one way for a child to enter university compared to the traditional mode of yesteryear.

External data compiled by the OECD relate high enrolment ratios in primary and secondary schooling in Singapore and found that about “25% of a cohort goes on to university in Singapore (the number of places will [increase] to 30% in 2015)” (OECD, 2010, p.165). To form a perspective from one university alone, the National University of Singapore’s 2013/2014 statistics record 27,391 undergraduate enrolments and 10,061 graduate enrolments respectively (https://share.nus.edu.sg/registrar/info/statistics/ug-enrol-20132014.pdf).

It is important to note also that many Singaporean students emigrate overseas to study. However, data on student emigration is not readily accessible. The published number of Overseas Singaporeans is 207,000 but this includes non-students as well (National Population & Talent Division, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore Department of Statistics, Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, 2013.)

In summary, the reasons for changing student demographics could be due to several factors. First, as the quality of schooling in primary and secondary levels have improved, this enables more students to have the option of entering tertiary education and the Government’s creation of many pathways to the tertiary level has facilitated this. Next, students’ immigration into Singapore and emigration to other countries due to socio-economic and other reasons contribute to the balance (or imbalance) of changing student demographics. Finally, the blurring and melding of various educational programmes and the increasing number of institutions offering tertiary programmes possibly driven by economic factors are some reasons for the changing student demographics in Higher Education.

Reflection

People are Singapore’s most important resource and I admire the Ministry of Education for creating many pathways for enabling students to have access to a tertiary educational experience. I agree with Ernst & Young’s 2012 report which indicates that existing university models are stagnant and in need of “new business models that are dynamic, modern and fit for the decades ahead” (Ernst & Young, 2012, p.4). To meet the demands of students of the future, Higher Education and by extension all of the educational sector will have to evolve and adapt. More study into the various mega-trends effecting education, namely “democratisation of knowledge and access, digital technologies, integration with industry, global mobility and contestability of markets and funding” (Ernst & Young, 2012, p.6) and other factors that contribute to a changing student demographic is needed if the educational sector is to remain viable for the future.

To address the elephant in the room, the race for a degree is likened to the pursuit of a better life, happiness and fulfilment. In the end, would it have mattered?

Frost captured it best in The Road not Taken as read by Alan Bates:

For further consideration

Can happiness, fulfilment and success be measured and what correlations can be made to this with the acquisition of a higher education? In other words, would a degree almost certainly guarantee happiness in life? Is there empirical evidence for this?

References 

Ernst & Young. (2012). University of the future: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound change. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/AU/en/Industries/Government---Public- Sector/UOF_University-of-the-future and http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/U niversity_of_the_future_2012.pdf

Frost, R. (1916). The Road not Taken. [Visual illustration]. Zenpencils.com. Retrieved from http://m.9gag.com/gag/aNeGjL3?ref=mobile.s.fb

Headlink. (2008, October 14). The Road not Taken - Robert Frost (by Alan Bates). [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzUm0wqhE7E

National Population & Talent Division, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore Department of Statistics, Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration & Checkpoints Authority. (2013). Population in brief: 2013. Singapore: Government.

National University of Singapore. (2001-2011). Student and Graduate Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nus.edu.sg/registrar/statistics.html and https://share.nus.edu.sg/registrar/info/statistics/ug-enrol-20132014.pdf

OECD Report. (2010). Singapore: Rapid improvement followed by strong performance. Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA in the United States. 7, 159-176. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/46581101.pdf

Singapore Ministry of Education. (2014). The Singapore education journey. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/landscape/

Singapore Department of Statistics. (2013). Latest key indicators. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/

Singapore Department of Statistics. (2013). Educational attainment of residents non- students aged 25-34 years. Retrieved from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/statistics/visualising_data/visualiser/education/edu cation2013.html