The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research
Tóm tắt
In recent years there has been a proliferation of research findings on CSCL at the micro and macro levels, but few compelling examples of how CSCL research has impacted actual classroom practices at the meso-level have emerged. This paper critically examines the impact of adopting a systemic approach to innovative education reforms at the macro, meso, and micro levels in Singapore. It presents the case for adopting design research as a methodology for CSCL integration that meets the needs of schools, and discusses a specific CSCL innovation that holds the potential for sustaining transformation in classroom practices. Our driving question is: In what ways can the routine use of CSCL practices in the classroom be supported by exploring systemic factors in the school setting through design research? We will explore the synergistic conditions that led to meaningful impact (at the micro level), mediated by systemic approaches to working with teachers in the schools (at the meso level), guided by Singapore’s strategic planning for scalability (at the macro level).
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 1–26.
Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2002). Designing an empirical account of a community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(4), 489–542.
Bielaczyc, K. (2006). Designing social infrastructure: Critical issues in creating learning environments with technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 301–329.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Chang, H., Henriquez, A., Honey, M., Light, D., Moeller, B., & Ross, N. (1998). The Union City story: Education reform and technology—Students’ performance on standardized tests. Technical report. EDC/Center for Children and Technology.
Chaudhury, S. R., Roschelle, J., Patton, C., Brecht, J., DiGiano, C., Schank, P., & Tatar, D. (2006). Coordinating student learning in the collaborative classroom with interactive technologies. Poster presented at the 3rd International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (IS-SOTL) Conference, Washington D.C. November 9–12.
Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2010). Active classroom participation in a GroupScribbles primary science classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01082.x.
Chen, F. H. J., Looi, C. K., & Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technology in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teachers’ knowledge, goals and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 470–488.
Chen, W., Looi, C. K., & Tan, S. (2010). What do students do in a F2F CSCL classroom? The optimization of multiple communications modes. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1159–1170.
Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the river city curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365.
Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin: Springer.
diGiano, C., Tatar, D., & Kireyev, K. (2006). Learning from the Post-It: Building collective intelligence through lightweight, flexible technology. In Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion, Banff. Retrieved December 16, 2010 from http://groupscribbles.sri.com/publications.html.
Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Exploring neglected planes: Social signals and class orchestration. Retrieved 30 June, 2010, from http://www.isls.org/CSCL2009/Dillenbourg.htm.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning (pp. 525–552). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Duttweiler, P. C. (1995). Systemic change to transform education. In P. M. Jenlink (Ed.), Systemic change: Touchstones for the future school (pp. 137–147). Palatine: Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D., & Yocam, K. (Eds.). (1996). Education and technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms (Jossey-Bass Education Series). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Fishman, B. (2005). Adapting innovations to particular contexts of use: A collaborative framework. In C. Dede, J. Honan, & L. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational innovation (pp. 48–66). New York: Jossey-Bass.
Fishman, B., Pinkard, N., & Bruce, C. (Eds.). (1998). Preparing schools for curricular reform: Planning for technology vs. technology planning. Atlanta: AACE.
Jephcote, M., & Davies, B. (2004). Recontextualizing discourse: Exploring the meso-level. Journal of Education Policy, 19(5), 547–564.
Jones, C., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., & Lindstrom, B. (2006). A relational, indirect, meso-level approach to CSCL design in the next decade. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 35–56.
Koh, T. S., & Lee, S. C. (Eds.). (2008). Information communication technology in education: Singapore’s ICT Masterplans 1997–2008. Singapore: World Scientific.
Lagemann, E. (2000). An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97–125.
Looi, C. K., & Chen, W. (2010). Community-based individual knowledge construction in the classroom: A process-oriented account. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 202–213.
Looi, C. K., Hung, D., Bopry, J., & Koh, T. S. (2004). Singapore’s Learning Sciences Lab: Seeking transformations in ICT-enabled pedagogy, ET R&D International Review Section. ET R&D Journal, 52(4), 91–115.
Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Ng, F.-K. (2010a). Collaborative activities enabled by GroupScribbles (GS): An exploratory study of learning effectiveness. Computers & Education, 54(1), 14–26.
Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Patton, C. (2010b). Principles and enactment of rapid collaborative knowledge building. Educational Technology, September-October, 26–32.
Lossman, H., & So, H. J. (2010). Toward pervasive knowledge building discourse: Analyzing online and offline discourses of primary science learning in Singapore. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 121–129.
Means, B. (1994). Technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ministry of Education Singapore. (2008). Opening address by Dr Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defence at the International Conference on Teaching and Learning with Technology (iCTLT). Retrieved December 6, 2010, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2008/08/05/opening-address-by-dr-ng-eng-h-1.php.
Nassaji, N., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington: National Academy Press.
Phillips, D. C. (2006). Assessing the quality of design research proposals: Some philosophical perspectives. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 93–99). London: Routledge.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4: 155–169. In N. Cross (ed) (1984). Developments in design methodology (pp. 135–144). J. Chichester: Wiley & Sons. Retrieved August, 2010, from http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Planning.pdf.
Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudhury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., Patton, C., & DiGiano, C. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. Computer, 40(9), 38–44.
Sabelli, N., & Dede, C. (2001). Integrating educational research and practice: Reconceptualizing the goals and process of research to improve educational practice. Retrieved Dec 6, 2010, from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/cdpapers/integrating.htm.
Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal Education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago: Open Court.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TIMSS. (2007). Trends in international mathematics and science study. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/.
van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. London: Routledge.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic enquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. USA: Cambridge University Press.