Scaling Innovative Pedagogy in Singapore Schools: Models for Scaling?

• In Event: Innovating Learning and Teaching in a Centralized Education System: Potentialities and Problematics

Abstract

While inventing new pedagogies has been progressively decentralized in Singapore, school leaders often use implementation model (i.e., a centralized model that mandates teachers’ adoption) to scale up innovative pedagogies (Looi, Lim, Koh, & Hung, 2005). Such top-down enforcement was found to hinder teachers’ adoption (Fullan, 1994; Sarason, 1990) because teachers are likely to be under forced compliance (Festinger, 1957) and have limited autonomy and freedom to adapt the innovations according to their own needs and context (Honey & McMillan-Culp, 2000; Luehmann, 2002; Rogers, 2003). Although the scaling of innovations has been widely studied in terms of the characteristics of innovation and factors influencing teachers’ decision-making for adoption (Surry & Ely, 2001), little is explored on why school leaders take an implementation model and what bottom-up models are available for their consideration.

This paper addresses the gaps by first exploring why school leaders think that an implementation model is necessary. Case studies involving eight school leaders were conducted. The author facilitated the participants to reflect on their scaling process in a conversational style, in particular by reflecting using metaphors. The participants used “bicycle” as a conceptual metaphor (Allbritton, McKoon, & Gerrig, 1995); “[A] school is like a bicycle. The Principal hold the bar [to set the direction], the Vice Principal paddles, Head of Departments are like the chains to pass the demand to the teachers, and finally teachers move forward like the wheels” (Huang, 2014, p. 179). The thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) of the data revealed that the participants made appeal to five themes to support the “bicycle” metaphor: the pressure to quickly demonstrate achievement, teachers’ existing heavy workload, teachers’ professionalism, innovation’s benefit to students, and teachers’ trust in school leaders (in selecting the right innovation for implementation). By making reference to Rogers (2003)’ work on diffusion of innovation and Valente’s (1996) network models of innovation diffusion, this paper argues why the “bicycle” metaphor is inappropriate to foster sustainable adoption of innovation and why teachers’ agency, autonomy and social interactions are critical for scaling.

The paper then discusses Networked Learning Community (NLC, Jackson & Temperley, 2007) which is an alternative scaling model emerged in Singapore schools. While professional learning communities are nurtured to foster teachers’ learning and professional development (e.g., on how to use an innovative pedagogy), NLC emphasizes on building strong lateral relational networks that deepen and sustain pedagogical changes. As one participant reflected in the study, “I want our core group people [in the professional learning community] to evangelize and to reach out to others [/their friends]” to create new knowledge, adapt innovation and share knowledge through networked learning (Siemens, 2014) and collaborative enquiry. NLC is built on high trust among networked members who seek to effect purposeful change together. Members voluntarily participate and connect because networked learning is founded upon discretionary effort beyond the prescribed role responsibilities and structural positions. The expansion of the membership and the networked learning knots propels the scaling of pedagogical innovations from the bottom-up.

Author

• Junsong Huang, National Institute of Education - Nanyang Technological University