Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International

Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

At the intersection of educational change and

borrowing: teachers implementing learner-centred
education in Singapore

Tang T. Heng & Lynn Song

To cite this article: Tang T. Heng & Lynn Song (2023) At the intersection of educational
change and borrowing: teachers implementing learner-centred education in Singapore,
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 53:2, 305-323, DOI:
10.1080/03057925.2021.1910014

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2021.1910014

Published online: 27 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 821

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccom20
COMPARE, 2023
VOL. 53, NO. 2, 305–323
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2021.1910014

At the intersection of educational change and borrowing:

teachers implementing learner-centred education in Singapore
Tang T. Heng and Lynn Song
Policy, Curriculum and Leadership, Nanyang Technological University-National Institute of Education,
Singapore, Singapore

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The lived realities of agents involved in educational borrowing or Educational change;
transfer are often omitted as research and discussions reside predomi­ educational borrowing;
nantly at a macro level. Through the lens of a comparative educational learner-centred education;
differentiated instruction;
change framework synthesising concepts in educational change and
Singapore
comparative education, this study examines the lived experiences of
teachers in Singapore implementing differentiated instruction, a form
of learner-centred education, borrowed from the U.S. Interviewing and
observing teachers, we found that they experienced postmodern and
political tensions around sociocultural expectations of teaching, learn­
ing, and learners. Simultaneously, they struggled with technological
considerations like structural conditions in schools and insecurities
around their competencies. These findings spell implications for how
we support teachers involved in educational borrowing professionally,
intellectually, and emotionally. Educational borrowing on the ground
can benefit from the consideration of technological, sociocultural,
political, and postmodern perspectives of educational change.

Introduction
The body of research on educational borrowing or transfer1 has developed in various
directions over the past few decades. Without being exhaustive or representative, it has
been historicised (Beech 2006; Cowen 2009), theorised with models (Perry and Tor 2008;
Rappleye 2006; Phillips and Ochs 2004), analysed for motivations behind borrowing
(Forestier and Crossley 2015; Steiner-Khamsi 2006; Takayama 2007), and studied as cases
(Qiang and Kang 2011; Sperandio et al. 2009). Yet, despite the expansion of educational
borrowing research, by virtue of the history, goals, and methods in comparative educa­
tion, studies continue to reside predominantly at a macro level, investigating policies,
theories, conceptual lens, and methodologies. Indeed, Crossley (2019) forewarned that
existing work tends to omit the ‘lived realities’ (176) of agents, particularly teachers and
learners, implicated in educational borrowing. Concurrently, recent preoccupation with
international league tables and big data application marginalise more intimate qualitative
approaches that privilege the voices of agents involved (Ro 2018). Mukhopadhyay and
Sriprakash (2011) observed that ‘there is a paucity of detailed research in the field of

CONTACT Tang T. Heng tangtang.heng@nie.edu.sg Policy, Curriculum and Leadership, Nanyang Technological
University-National Institute of Education, Singapore, Singapore
© 2021 British Association for International and Comparative Education
306 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

international and comparative education examining how policies and programmes are
constituted in local settings, especially in contexts of significant political, social, and
economic change’ (314). As such, this study aims to illuminate the tensions teachers face
in enacting Differentiated Instruction (DI), a learner-centred educational approach, that
is borrowed from the U.S. to Singapore. In foregrounding teachers and locality, we hope
to highlight the tensions teachers grapple with as they experience multiple and, some­
times, conflicting contextual forces that shape their notions of teaching, learning, and
learners in the classroom. Another aim is to test a theoretical framework from a previous
study examining a different group of teachers’ perceptions of DI. By setting this article
within conversations around educational change, educational borrowing, and learner-
centred education (LCE), we aim to fill in the gaps around the lived experiences of
teachers implementing LCE in a country with a high-income economy – Singapore. We
hope to illuminate the complexities of educational borrowing and expand its under­
standing beyond the North-South nexus.

Examining educational borrowing through a comparative educational change

framework
Educational borrowing is deeply intertwined with educational change as the borrowing
process is typically motivated by a desire to change or reform existing policies and practices.
Hence, we situate our research analysis within a ‘comparative educational change framework’
(Heng and Song 2020). The framework emerged through combining concepts in educational
change and comparative/international education literature with empirical data from
a previous study. Pertaining to educational change, House and McQuillan (1998) argued
that change and innovation are predicated upon three perspectives – technological, political,
and cultural. The technological perspective foregrounds production concepts (e.g. techniques,
processes, structures, and systems). The political perspective examines negotiation by study­
ing conflicts and compromises, and the influence of power and authority. The cultural
perspective scrutinises how meanings and values are produced within communities.
Updating House and McQuillan’s three perspectives, Hargreaves et al. (2000) added
a postmodern perspective that spotlights the ‘chaos, uncertainty, paradox, complexity, and
ongoing change’ (122) associated with the postmodern society. In examining Ontarian
teachers’ responses to educational reforms (like, detracking and curriculum integration),
Hargreaves et al. (2000) found that teachers were worried about technological (e.g. block
timetabling, acquiring new pedagogies), political (e.g. negotiating with leaders, peers, and
parents), and cultural issues (e.g. beliefs around teaching and learning). Further complicating
educational reform was the postmodern condition where teachers grappled with reconciling
complexities and contradictions (e.g. how to attend to equity issues when prevailing attitudes
trend towards equality).
While these scholars’ perspectives are helpful in interpreting the educational change
process, they were derived from studying a single national context, with culture narrowly
defined. Yet, in an age of globalisation, educational change requires cognisance of overseas
education systems and contexts to make sense of ideas and practices that cross borders. Thus,
we drew insights from comparative and international education scholarship to foreground
contexts. In studying how pedagogy was enacted in five different countries, Alexander (2001)
concluded that pedagogy is intimately intertwined with the geography, history, culture, and
 COMPARE 307

policies of the local context. To illustrate, he observed that ‘in an authoritarian teaching
culture, routines will not be negotiated or contested because teachers will simply not permit
this to happen, while in a teaching culture that espouses democratic values routines not only
will be negotiated and contested but by definition must be’ (385). Alexander associated the
authoritarian teaching culture in India to Brahmanical and colonial hierarchies and the
democratic teaching culture in the U.S. to individualism and a history of ‘radical dissent’
(108). He argued for pedagogy to be understood alongside a country’s ‘unique mix of values,
ideas, and practices’ (Alexander 2001,507). Alexander’s work reminds us that the borrowing
of educational ideas from source to destination is a complex process and warrants an
examination of how contexts shape the interpretation or enactment of ideas. Contextual
sensitivity affords sharper insights in comparing education systems and, consequently, under­
standing (and implementation) of education ideas and practices borrowed from abroad.
Likewise, comparative and international education scholars warned that educational ideas
are often construed as acontextual, revealing shortsighted and myopic assumptions of its
universality (Rappleye and Komatsu 2017; Schweisfurth and Elliott 2019; Sriprakash 2009;
Vavrus and Bartlett 2012). Hence, the proposed framework foregrounds a critical and
reflexive comparison of both source (where borrowed ideas/policies originate) and destina­
tion (where ideas/policies are transferred) contexts, rather than either.
The postmodern perspective deserves further elaboration. Global communication net­
works, the internet, and transport advancements have intensified the postmodern condition,
characterised by plurality of belief systems, diverse cultural ways of being, and multiple
(sometimes contradictory) realities (Broadfoot 1999; Paulston 2000). In transferring ideas
across space, values around the meaning of education, society, and knowledge associated with
both source and destination contexts are juxtaposed against each other, sometimes seamlessly,
other times uncomfortably (Rappleye and Komatsu 2017; Schweisfurth and Elliott 2019;
Vavrus and Bartlett 2012). To illustrate, when Lesson Study was transferred from Japan to
the U.S., American teachers confronted different cultural and ontological assumptions around
education and society (Rappleye and Komatsu 2017). Japanese teachers were more self-
critical, process-focused, and valued interdependency in learning and knowledge-making,
while American teachers were less open to critiques, more product-focused, and individua­
listic. Consequently, American teachers, struggling with new and different ways of doing
education and society, tended to approach Lesson Study in an instrumental manner, devoid of
the onto-cultural context of its source. Similar observations around onto-cultural conflicts
surfaced when Lesson Study transferred to Singapore (Lim-Ratnam et al. 2019). The tensions
American and Singaporean teachers faced arose out of the postmodern condition – as space
becomes compressed vis-à-vis educational borrowing, agents involved are caught in the chaos,
contradictions, and multiplicities of different values, beliefs, and ways of doing education. To
some extent, these chaos, contradictions and complexities mirror those experienced by
teachers in Hargreaves et al.’s (2000) study. Yet, with more prevalent circulation of ideas
and peoples (Liu and Dervin 2017), contemporary teachers, arguably, face a more pronounced
postmodern condition than those considered by Hargreaves et al. (2000) more than
20 years ago.
To better represent concepts in the comparative educational change framework, we
created a visual (Figure 1). As we peer through the peep-hole on either ends of the
‘telescope’ to understand how educational borrowing is enacted or experienced at the
destination, we are inadvertently making sense of the process via the origin. Our
308 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

Figure 1. Comparative educational change framework.

interpretations can be filtered through four lenses (i.e. sociocultural, technological,

political, and postmodern perspectives). These perspectives interact with each other:
they may be present or absent, enlarged or reduced, depending on contexts. Emerging
from our previous research that studied teachers’ perceptions of differentiated instruction,
we leverage this framework to guide our research analysis and ascertain its applicability
in understanding the tensions teachers in Singapore faced enacting differentiated instruc­
tion (DI), a learner-centred educational idea, transferred from the U.S.

Learner-centred education (LCE)

Driven by economic, cultural, and political globalisation, there has been a resurgence of
interest in educational borrowing (Crossley 2019; Steiner-Khamsi 2016). Global financial and
political institutions or international development agencies routinely earmark education
reforms as a means to economic development, indirectly transferring cultural values around
teaching and schooling from origin to destination contexts (Anderson-Levitt 2003; Steiner-
Khamsi 2016). International league tables, global surveys, and testing movements, in con­
junction with domestic anxieties around under-performance and societal discontentment,
entice governments to look abroad to justify education reforms (Forestier and Crossley 2015;
You and Morris 2016). Increasing intercultural contact through the circulation of ideas across
the internet as well as the temporary and permanent migration of people further widens the
channels of educational borrowing beyond formalised institutions (Liu and Dervin 2017).
Amongst the international transfer of educational ideas, LCE has gained prominence
(Schweisfurth 2013). Concurring with Schweisfurth (2013) that LCE needs to be seen along
a continuum and is hard to objectify, we nonetheless adopt a working definition she had
cautiously proposed: ‘[LCE is a] pedagogical approach which gives learners, and demands
from them, a relatively high level of active control over the content and process of learning.
What is learnt, and how, are therefore shaped by learners’ needs, capacities and interests’ (20).
Existing research tends to highlight tensions that arose when LCE travels from high-income
economies (e.g. the U.S., and the U.K.) to lower-income economies, like Cambodia (Ogisu
 COMPARE 309

2014), India (Smail 2014; Schweisfurth 2013; Sriprakash 2009), Russia (Schweisfurth 2013),
South Africa (Schweisfurth 2013), Tanzania (Vavrus and Bartlett 2012), and Timor Leste
(Shah and Quinn 2016). Studies in Japan (Bjork 2011; Cave 2001) and Scotland (Britton,
Schweisfurth, and Slade 2019) are the few featuring horizontal transfers within high-income
economies, suggesting a lack of studies considering LCE transfers to similarly high-income
economies, like Singapore. While we recognise that there exists heterogeneity and nuances
among education systems and that economic development exists along a continuum, for
shorthand and comparative purposes, in this article, we generalise contexts to high-income
and lower-income economies2 (United Nations 2020).
We organised existing research studying the transfer of LCE into technological, political,
sociocultural, and postmodern concerns. Where LCE was transferred from high-income to
lower-income economies, agents in destination countries grappled with technological ten­
sions pertaining to material issues. For example, teachers struggled with poor working
conditions (Schweisfurth 2013; Shah and Quinn 2016), and bottlenecks emerged from
a lack of funds, infrastructure, material resources and equipment (Schweisfurth 2013;
Vavrus and Bartlett 2012). Exacerbating an already underqualified teaching force
(Schweisfurth 2013; Shah and Quinn 2016) was the lack of professional development on
not just LCE, but curriculum and technological know-how (Shah and Quinn 2016; Vavrus
and Bartlett 2012), and consequently, inadequate teacher competency (Shah and Quinn 2016;
Smail 2014). Political tensions also arose because policy actors perceived LCE as a top-down
initiative and remain unconvinced (Ogisu 2014); in particular, teachers struggled to under­
stand contradictory or convoluted policy messages (Schweisfurth 2013).
The transfer of LCE also saw sociocultural tensions in destination countries. Teachers
tended to see themselves as holders of epistemic and pedagogical authority as well as
disciplinarians, reluctant to cede control over to learners or reduce the hierarchical teacher-
learner relationship expected of LCE (Shah and Quinn 2016; Smail 2014; Vavrus and Bartlett
2012; Sriprakash 2009). Further, LCE’s focus on individuals was seen to be at odds with more
interdependent and hierarchical ways of living, which translated to more collectivistic and
top-down instructional approaches (Cave 2001), revealing conflicts associated with the post­
modern condition (Schweisfurth 2013). LCE also appeared to be incompatible with existing
education structures as it required flexibility that was absent in the more rigid curriculum and
assessment structures of destination systems (Bjork 2011; Britton, Schweisfurth, and Slade
2019; Cave 2001; Schweisfurth 2013; Smail 2014). These studies reveal the challenges of
transferring LCE across contexts. Thus, in light of the lack of research examining the transfer
of LCE across economically-similar destinations and the gap in nuanced understanding of
how agents on the ground experienced educational borrowing, this article aims to examine the
tensions teachers face when borrowing LCE from the U.S. to Singapore.

Singapore context
Singapore is a small city state in Southeast Asia with a GDP per capita of more than US$65,000
(Department of Statistics Singapore 2018). The 5.6 million resident population is categorised
into four ethnic groups: Chinese (74%), Malay (13%), Indian (9%), and other ethnic groups
(3%) (Department of Statistics Singapore 2018). Singapore public schools follow a centralised
curriculum regulated by the Ministry of Education (MOE). Learners complete six years of
compulsory primary school education and are subsequently streamed (or tracked) based on
310 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

national standardised examination scores (MOE 2018). After four (or five) years of secondary
education, learners participate in another national high-stakes examination to determine their
post-secondary options. Teachers hired by MOE are recruited from the top 30% of each
graduating cohort and centrally educated at the National Institute of Education (Low and Tan
2017).
Over the past decade, the Singapore education system has been distinguished by its
exceptional achievements on international assessments, like TIMMS and PISA
(Gopinathan and Deng 2016; Hogan et al. 2013). Up to the 1990s, the education system
is characterised by a drive for efficiency, pragmatism, standardisation, and account­
ability (Gopinathan and Mardiana 2013; Tan and Ng 2007). These functionalist and
achievement orientations serve the nation-building purpose of workforce preparation,
and is seen to reflect ideologies of meritocracy and equality. From the mid-1990s, the
MOE rolled out policy initiatives to steer educators towards a more liberal view of
education where diversity and innovation are valued as with academic and non-
academic abilities (Tan and Ng 2007; Ng 2010; Gopinathan and Mardiana 2013).
Despite policy shifts, learner-centred, inquiry-oriented, and hands-on experiences
have been slower to establish. Instructional strategies continue to be described as
teacher-centred and exam-oriented, emphasising knowledge transmission and rote-
learning (Hogan et al. 2013; Yang, Tzuo, and Komara 2011). Further, teachers have
been observed to struggle with concepts of assessment for learning and multicultural
education (Lim and Tan 2018). Challenges in the transition towards more learner-
centred and process-focused teaching approaches have been attributed to, among other
reasons, the backwash effect of high-stakes national examination, meritocratic narra­
tives that displace discussions around differences, cultural clashes, and Confucian
cultural influences (Alviar-Martin and Ho 2011; Heng, Song, and Tan 2021; Leong
et al. 2018; Ratnam-Lim, Li, and Tan 2015; Curdt-Christiansen and Silver 2012).
The shift towards more learner-centred and inquiry-oriented educational approaches
has been accompanied by demographic changes. The non-resident Singapore population
has more than doubled between 2005 and 2019 (Department of Statistics Singapore
2019). In response to diversifying demography, there have been increased calls for more
inclusivity and enhanced LCE system; educators in Singapore have thus begun to
embrace differentiated instruction (DI). DI is an educational philosophy popularly
associated with Dr Tomlinson from the University of Virginia (U.S.A.). DI has been
referenced in policy documents from 2007 (MOE 2007) and was earmarked as one of six
prioritised areas of professional development in 2020 (MOE 2020). Across the years, DI
professional development feature Dr Tomlinson and US DI scholars frequently
(Principals Academy Inc n.d., Academy of Principals n.d.).
Fundamental to DI is centring learners at the core of instruction. Centring learners
necessitates a recognition of differing interests, learning approaches, and experiences.
Concurrently, teachers maximise learner’s potential by modifying curricula, instruction,
and assessment according to students’ preferences and learning needs (Tomlinson 2001).
Learners are expected to be comfortable with self-assessment and self-choice when
driving their own learning. DI, arguably, can be construed as a kind of LCE as it requires
learners to exercise agency in their learning and teachers to respond to learners’ ‘needs,
capacities, and interests’ (Schweisfurth 2013, 20). While DI has gained popularity world­
wide (Ritzema, Deunk, and Bosker 2016; Strogilos et al. 2017; Heng and Fernandez 2016),
 COMPARE 311

relatively few research has looked into implementation in Asian, or, more specifically,
economically-developed but culturally-dissimilar contexts. Thus, studying the tensions
teachers in Singapore face in implementing DI, a form of LCE borrowed from the U.S.,
would enhance understanding of educational borrowing in economically similar, yet
culturally dissimilar, contexts.

Methodology
We chose a qualitative methodology to privilege participants’ lived experiences and
co-construct knowledge with them. By situating this research in a naturalistic set­
ting – the classroom – we are able to observe participants’ experience emerging within
their sociocultural contexts, as well as discuss their views and perceptions at inter­
views (Hatch 2002). Within our methodology, we leveraged Plano Clark and
Ivankova’s (2015) ‘embedding’ (140) of a secondary method (qualitative or quanti­
tative) into research. In our case, we embedded quantitative data analysis (rating
scale) of qualitative data (observations) so that results of the rating scale can inform
further qualitative data collection (Interview 2), to strengthen the trustworthiness of
our interpretations (Shenton 2004).

Context and participants

Upon approval by our college’s institutional review board, ten participants were
recruited from public schools by criterion sampling for core teaching subjects
(English, Mathematics and Science teachers), school level (primary and secondary),
teaching experience (more than two years), and gender. All but a handful of
Singaporean learners attend public schools, and the sampling is indicative of the
Singapore teaching force by gender and level taught (Department of Statistics
Singapore 2018; MOE 2018). We assigned pseudonyms to our participants to protect
their anonymity.

Data collection
We collected data with the aid of ethnographic tools. First, we conducted 39 lesson
observation cycles – four with all but one participant – where each cycle included
a lesson observation (LO) and pre-and post-lesson observation interview (LO#Intv).
Before the lesson observation, we asked participants for their lesson intentions and
issues faced in planning the lesson; after the observation, we asked participants to
reflect on their lesson. During lesson observations, we kept separate observation logs
detailing minute-by-minute teacher practices. After each observation cycle, we used
data from our own observation logs and the pre-/post-observation interviews to
complete a rating sheet with descriptors based on the five principals of DI. We then
derived consensus ratings on a scale of 0 (no evidence) to 3 (strong evidence) (see
Table 1) that are justified by our qualitative observations. These ratings were averaged
in a table to offer a synoptic overview of teachers’ DI implementation. Second, we
conducted two semi-structured interviews: a 60-minute beginning-of-the-year inter­
view (Intv1) and a 90-minute end-of-the-year interview (Intv2). In Intv1, we sought
312 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

Table 1. Summary of lesson observation ratings*.

DI principle LO rating#
I. Creating environments that are catalysts for learning 1.5
a. Teacher builds a community of learning 1.7
b. Teacher builds a safe and inclusive environment (establishes trust) 2.2
c. Teacher appreciates each child as an individual and encourages learner independence 0.7
II. Building a foundation of quality curriculum 2.0
a. Teacher intentionally aligns lesson goals to the curriculum 2.8
b. Teacher organises conceptual ideas, essential facts and skills to help learning 2.1
c. Teacher ensures curriculum is authentic and relevant 1.0
III. Using assessment to inform learning and teaching 1.1
a. Teacher assesses Readiness 1.8
b. Teacher assesses Interest 0.6
c. Teacher assesses Learning Profile 0.8
d. Teacher assesses Learner Profile 1.3
IV. Tailoring instruction to learner variance 1.1
a. Teacher selects and aligns learning content to learner variance 1.1
b. Teacher organises learning processes according to learner variance 1.3
c. Teacher designs products that respond to learner variance 0.9
V. Leading and managing a flexible classroom 1.8
a. Teacher implements a flexible classroom 1.6
b. Teacher exhibits good classroom management 2.0
0 = No evidence; 3 = Strong evidence.
*This is an abbreviated version for illustrative purpose as we primarily analysed interview data.
#
Average of 39 lesson observations.

to understand participants’ teaching and learning philosophies, as well as interpreta­

tions of DI. In Intv2, we reported patterns from our lesson observations (Table 1) and
asked participants to share about the extent they agreed with the patterns, and offer
reasons for the patterns or tensions raised. All interviews were audio-recorded and
transcribed. These data were supplemented with background information (e.g. years
of experience, subject taught) elicited from an online questionnaire that was admi­
nistered prior to the start of interviews and observations.

Data analysis
We analysed qualitative data from our interviews to privilege participants’ voices and
lived realities. In preliminary data analysis, we conducted inductive coding on the
transcribed interviews (Hatch 2002). Bracketing our conceptual framework, we coded
using participants’ terms, some of which include ‘frontal teaching’, ‘rote learning’,
‘chaos’, ‘lack of knowledge’, ‘high-stakes exam’, ‘results’, being ‘efficient’. Recurring
ideas were further sorted according to their relationships: e.g. ‘frontal teaching’ and
‘rote learning’ were grouped under ‘prevalent teaching and learning practices’ and ‘high-
stakes exam’ and ‘results’ under ‘high-stakes testing system.’ These inductive codes were
then compared against our conceptual framework. Seeing overlaps, we subsumed these
inductive codes along the categories in our conceptual framework: Sociocultural (e.g.
prevalent teaching and learning practices, preference for collectivism), technological (e.g.
schooling system, structural and material conditions), political (e.g. teacher control and
performance), and postmodern (e.g. uncertainties and conflicts associated with beliefs
and values undergirding issues such as testing and teacher-student relationship).
We enhanced credibility and trustworthiness in various ways. To enhance credibility
of our data, we conducted iterative questioning – i.e. having recurring questions across
 COMPARE 313

LO#Intv, Intv1, and Intv2 around issues faced in implementing DI – and collected
different sources of data (observation, interviews) so that they can be verified against
each other (Shenton 2004). To enhance trustworthiness in analysis, we conducted
member checking (asking participants to comment on our key observations) and peer
scrutiny (the first author checked the codes of the second).

Findings
Postmodern and political tensions around sociocultural expectations
We observed that participants found themselves in what Hargreaves et al. (2000) termed
a postmodern condition, as they were confronted with multiple realities and beliefs. They
needed to navigate existing sociocultural values associated with teacher-directed educa­
tion and exam-achievement, and experienced discomfort highlighting individualism and
learner differences. As participants negotiated these sociocultural tensions, they found
themselves reconciling political tensions with education agents (i.e. supervisors, collea­
gues, learners and parents) who held different expectations and preferences.

Negotiating sociocultural expectations associated with teacher-directed education

Participants were caught between existing sociocultural expectations of teachers as
authority figures who hold epistemic control and disseminate information deductively,
versus teachers as facilitators who elicit learners’ ways of knowing and incorporate
learner backgrounds into lesson planning. They shared that within the teaching com­
munity, themselves included, there is a preference for an ‘I teach, you learn kind of
relationship’ (Mun, Intv2), and the continued belief that learning is ‘better with frontal
teaching’ (Jules, Intv2). According to them, the resistance to relinquishing epistemic
authority could have stemmed from familiarity and confidence with longstanding tea­
cher-directed practices. Participants observed that the learner community was likewise
more accustomed to teacher-directed education and ‘rote learning’ (Azmi, Intv2). Terry’s
learners even ‘feedback that they want more teacher centred’ activities like lectures
(LO3Intv). Participants explained that learners resisted because they perceived teachers
as ‘more powerful’ (Mun, Intv2), ‘only feel at peace when I [the teacher] check the
answer’ (Mun, Intv2), and felt unconfident with learning activities that required them to
generate knowledge or questions. Existing top-down, hierarchical, and teacher-directed
practices in Singapore appeared to conflict with the bottom-up, less hierarchical and
learner-centred practices expected of DI.
Participants also felt caught between the teaching community’s expectations of class­
room orderliness and their perceived DI ‘chaos’ that came from centring learners in the
curriculum or ceding authority to them. Participants recognised that in a learner-centred
classroom, group work could accommodate varied learner needs and learner-led discus­
sions could privilege learners’ opinions. Yet, participants acknowledged their personal
reluctance to include group work, give choices or encourage self-directed learning and
assessment as frequently as they felt they should. They explained how they valued having
a ‘tight control’ of their classroom and had low ‘tolerance for mess or uncertainty’ (Kelly,
Intv2). This need to avoid ‘chaos’ (Azmi, Intv2) stemmed partly from the fear of
judgment – that colleagues or supervisors might form a ‘bad impression’ (Jules, Intv2)
314 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

of them, and ‘think you [they] are not in control of your [their] class’ (Mun, Intv2). As
such, other than being caught between conflicting expectations of good teaching, parti­
cipants also navigated the politics of peer/supervisor expectations. Likewise, teachers
worked with and against expectations of the learning community as they attempted to
empower learners, an act that draws learners out of their comfort zones, and sometimes
incur resistance. These examples of conflicting sociocultural expectations, as well as
political sensitivities around teachers and teaching, pointed to the postmodern concerns
teachers faced when educational practices from a different context were transplanted.
Teachers in Singapore are considered well-qualified as they are hired from the top 30%
of each cohort (Ellis and Armstrong 2014). Furthermore, participants had attended
professional development courses in DI, ranging from in-service workshops to 13-
week long post-graduate courses. Yet, they shared about having insecurities in their
own competencies. Participants were of the opinion that teachers ‘don’t know enough’
(Jessie, Intv2) and were often ‘second guessing’ their own educational decisions (Azmi,
LO3Intv). Participants also felt that there was a ‘lack of knowledge or exposure’ to DI
(Kelly, Intv2), largely because teachers’ ‘own upbringing and experiences in school’ were
more didactic (Jude, Intv1). In their opinion, teachers tended to ‘teach according to how
we’re [they’re] trained or our [their] own educational experience’ (Kelly, Intv2). Tasked
with implementing a more learner-centred educational approach, they struggled with
having confidence in decision-making and continued to experience uncertainties as such
approaches run against the educational values they have been ingrained with.

Negotiating sociocultural expectations around academic achievements

Participants struggled with sociocultural expectations around standardised national
curriculum and exam achievement in Singapore. They felt that the primary responsibility
expected of them from stakeholders (i.e. learners, colleagues, supervisors, and parents)
was to help ‘students reach the highest potential, the report card, the grade, we want to
help them achieve’ (Terry, Intv2). They talked about how the ‘high stakes exam’ (Poh,
Intv2) bore implications on learners’ lives. At Intv2, Jules argued, ‘whether they [learners]
have the opportunity in their post-secondary education . . . relies on the numbers [exam
results]’. Mun shared that ‘[having learners] prepared for national exams . . . that’s very
dominant in the thinking of the society’ (Intv2).
As a result, they felt the need to ‘rush’ (Zubi, LO1Intv) syllabus completion and ensure
learners were ‘prepared with good baseline foundation’ (Poh, LO4Intv). They shared that
they had to be ‘efficient’ and ‘save time’ (Jules, Intv2) in their teaching practice in view of the
exams. ‘Knowing your students, that takes time’ (Jules, Intv2), and hence need not be the
most efficient way of helping them achieve. Participants also felt that they had ‘little leeway’ to
depart from the national curriculum embedded in the exam-oriented system (Jude, Intv2).
While Zubi wished that, ‘ideally we want to have a lot of these kind of activities [learner-
centred work] in a classroom,’ she acknowledged limitations, ‘I’m not sure whether teachers
have the luxury of time to actually do it’. Additionally, she provided an observation that most
teachers were ‘giving them [learners] choices . . . interesting things like snake and ladder
game, coming up with a song’ only after the exams. Amidst sociocultural expectations
around the standardised national curriculum and exam system, participants struggled to
accommodate learner interests/experiences and alternative ways of eliciting learner
 COMPARE 315

understandings. Further, they worried about the politics of having to account to stakeholders
should grades fall as a result of DI implementation.

Negotiating sociocultural tensions around collectivism, individualism, and

differences
Participants found it challenging reconciling sociocultural preference for the collective
with DI’s emphasis on the individual. Interviewing participants, it was evident that
participants recognised the uniqueness of the ‘particular child’ (Jude, Intv1), understood
that ‘every child is different’ (Terry, Intv1), and considered it their responsibility to help
each child ‘achieve their individual fullest potential’ (Terry, Intv1). Yet, participants
acknowledged that they were reluctant to discuss learner differences publicly. Noel
attributed this apprehension to societal norms – ’it’s not in our society, we don’t discuss
differences,’ adding that if culture were discussed, learners may call her ‘racist’. Her
reluctance was not uncommon as scholars have observed that teachers in Singapore
tended to keep to state-sanctioned rhetoric around differences and multiculturalism
(Alviar-Martin and Ho 2011). Zubi alluded to the concept of ‘face’ and not wanting to
‘embarrass the children’, even if it was to compliment them, preferring instead to ‘speak
to them privately’. Jessie echoed this apprehension, sharing that the teaching community
hesitated to ‘draw attention to a particular thing’. Participants also perceived a similar
discomfort within the learner community, citing that their learners ‘are not willing to
share’ about themselves (Jules) and become ‘uncomfortable’ when cast in the spotlight.
These findings indicated how sociocultural discomfort with highlighting the individual
interfered with participants’ implementation of DI as they felt that, typically, in an Asian
society, being low-key was valued, as with keeping face (not humiliating someone in
public) (Ji 2000).

Tensions in navigating technological considerations

Participants also found themselves facing technological challenges involving technical
expertise and educational processes/systems as they navigated the organisation of school­
ing, structural and material conditions in schools, and their DI competencies.

Negotiating the organisation of schooling

Participants described the local schooling system as ‘factory’-style, ‘industrial age’ (Jude,
Intv1), and lacking the flexibility typically required for DI to take place. Firstly, partici­
pants shared that schools in Singapore practiced subject specialisation, where teachers
taught no more than two subjects but more than one class across different grade levels.
Consequently, some participants found themselves assigned up to 12 different classes of
30 to 40 learners each (Terry) or teaching more than 300 learners (Kelly) annually.
Coupled with the large number of learners in each class, where the teacher-learner ratio
could go as high as 1 is to 42, participants found it strenuous knowing their learners well
enough to conduct DI, which they felt required more customised attention. Participants
shared that there was ‘a lot to take [handle] per person per class’ (Zubi, Intv2) resulting in
a ‘limit to how teacher can look at the child holistically’ (Poh, Intv2). They found forming
close rapport with learners challenging as it was difficult to ‘remember everyone’s
interests and hobbies and learning styles and everything’ (Kelly, LO2Intv).
316 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

Secondly, participants shared that subject lessons were scheduled in fixed time slots,
constraining the flexibility with which they could adjust instruction in response to their
learners. For example, prior to a lesson observation, Zubi had to swap lessons with her
colleagues so that she could have extended time to do activities as none of her allocated
time brackets was sufficient for the hands-on group activities she had planned. Jude
found himself spending curriculum time providing extensive weekly recap because his
class’ three Science lessons were scheduled at the beginning of each week, and his learners
had forgotten what they have learnt by the following week, resulting in less time
remaining for learner-centred activities. In sum, participants felt that rigid timetabling
posed a technological limitation that restricted their freedom to conduct DI as these
inductive and learner-centred activities were seen as more time-consuming and require
greater flexibility than teacher-directed instruction.
Finally, participants bemoaned that heavy non-teaching duties hindered their ability
to implement educational change. They were bogged down by non-teaching duties – like
meetings, external examination invigilation, courses, appraisal exercises, and event
planning – and felt overwhelmed with ‘too many things on their plates’ (Poh,
LO3Intv). Jude questioned if teachers were ‘still able to perform their bread-and-butter
work [of lesson planning and teaching]’ (Jude, LO2Intv) in view of additional responsi­
bilities they had to attend to after the school day (e.g. committee meetings, co-curricular
activities). Indeed, Singapore teachers ranked 7th worldwide in terms of the longest
working hours per week in a recent OECD survey and spent more time on administrative
work compared to the OECD average (Teng 2019). To implement any pedagogical
innovations, participants shared that they would have to ‘sacrifice your [their] rest
time’ (Kelly, LO3Intv). Even though Jude often started his workday preparing for class
at 2 a.m., and went to bed at 8 p.m., he shared that he was still ‘having a hard time
finishing everything on my[his] plate’ (LO4Intv). It was therefore unsurprising to him
that teachers ‘revert to tried-and-tested drills that works to get results’, and resisted
implementing a learner-centred teaching approach.
These examples indicated that educational systems and organisations were
a technological consideration participants had to negotiate as they felt that implementing
DI required more attention for each learner and was feasible only with smaller class sizes
or fewer overall learners, greater flexibility in timetabling and more time for planning.
Yet, they felt that the conditions necessary for a borrowed educational approach were
lacking in the existing organisation of subjects, learners, teachers, and time.

Negotiating structural and material conditions

Classrooms we observed in Singapore were well equipped with furniture and technolo­
gies like visualisers or Smartboards. Participants also shared that they had access to
additional information technology resources like iPads and computer labs. Teachers
moved from classroom to classroom to teach, unlike the home room system practised
in some U.S. schools. While participants had access to modern technology, they struggled
with an infrastructure that was organised for frontal teaching, rather than smaller group
learning. In all ten classrooms observed, learners sat in rows of pre-assigned seats, from
singles to triads, facing the whiteboard and projector screens. To conduct group activ­
ities, participants often had to have learners rearrange furniture from neat rows to
clusters. Noel spent the first ten minutes of her lesson rearranging tables, while Azmi
 COMPARE 317

had learners miss break time to rearrange furniture. Jude relocated his Science lesson to
a furniture-free music room that was more conducive for learner movement and flexible
grouping, but consequently lost curriculum time as learners moved across venues. In face
of an educational approach that values learner input and co-creation of knowledge, as
well as flexible grouping and activities, participants found classroom structures in
Singapore fitted for frontal teaching a hindrance to their implementation of DI.
Participants shared that while they had access to teaching resources (like MOE lesson
packages) and funds to purchase teaching materials, they had to repurpose the one-size-
fits-all resources to their needs. Frequently, participants spent a lot of time searching for
and modifying resources so that the lessons could address the needs of their learners,
with Azmi reporting feeling ‘stressed out’ looking for resources. To illustrate, planning
for a differentiated one-hour lesson took Poh about three hours, and Jessie six, with both
sharing that it was untenable to devote this much time daily in light of other non-
teaching responsibilities. These anecdotes pointed to how participants had to negotiate
material access and conditions, elements of technological considerations, when educa­
tional transfers took place across contexts.

Discussion
This study examined the tensions teachers in Singapore faced when implementing a form
of learner-centred instruction – DI – borrowed from the U.S. We acknowledge that this
study could have been strengthened by involving a larger number of teachers to deepen
qualitative nuances and robustness. That teachers were nominated by their principals or
volunteered to participate suggest that these teachers may not be your ‘typical’ teacher –
they may be more receptive to new educational approaches. Yet, it might be worthwhile
to contemplate: if these teachers, who implement DI on their own accord, are facing
tensions, what additional reservations might teachers who are mandated to adopt an
educational change face? Additionally, more enriching insights could have been yielded
through a study that compared participants across different contexts, as opposed to
comparing one country’s findings with existing literature. Nonetheless, insights from
this study may be transferable to similar contexts.
Given that there are comparatively few studies examining the transfer of LCE between
similar-income economies with different cultural contexts, our study could help illumi­
nate the nuances and complexities in such transfers. Teachers in Singapore have access to
curricular and teaching resources, as well as classroom infrastructures, unlike teachers
that have less material access in parts of countries like Tanzania, South Africa, and India
(Schweisfurth 2013; Vavrus and Bartlett 2012). However, despite the relatively well-
endowed material conditions in Singapore, existing structures nonetheless create tech­
nological tensions for teachers. For instance, while teachers in Singapore may have funds
to purchase curricular resources/manipulatives, the lack of a larger eco-system and
private market to readily purchase culturally- and curriculum-relevant LCE/DI materials
result in teachers having to invest substantial time repurposing existing resources.
Further, while classrooms do not lack furniture, the placement of tables and chairs in
rigid rows in classrooms shared by multiple teachers, creates barriers to LCE/DI imple­
mentation. This physical infrastructure exacerbates tensions because teachers are reluc­
tant to waste instructional time rearranging furniture to support LCE/DI group-based
318 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

activities. Based on our observation of Singapore teachers, adequate resources alone is

insufficient, technological structures need to be modified so that they are fit for purpose.
As Alexander (2001) asserted, educational systems are a reflection of a context’s history,
geography, culture, and policies; Singapore’s education system reflects the preference for
efficiency, epistemic authority, and the collective. To illustrate, classroom set-ups for frontal
teaching and rote learning are legacies of what has been termed by scholars as a ‘factory’-style,
efficiency-driven education system since it was aimed at fostering rapid economic growth and
national survival upon independence in 1965 (Gopinathan and Mardiana 2013; Tan and Ng
2007). Additionally, they are reflective of the Confucian-heritage culture, maintaining the
hierarchy and distance between ranks and seniority (teacher vs. learner) (Heng, Song, and
Tan 2021; Curdt-Christiansen and Silver 2012). These top-down, hierarchical, and teacher-
directed practices overlap with those researched in lower-income economies (Shah and Quinn
2016; Smail 2014; Vavrus and Bartlett 2012). Our findings indicated that while material
conditions in Singapore align closer with high-income countries like the U.S., sociocultural
and educational expectations in Singapore veer closer to that of lower-income countries. This
adds to the literature on educational borrowing across higher-income countries by revealing
that transfers across high-income contexts are not necessarily easier and can be complicated
by other contextual influences. These findings underscore how deeply education is embedded
within history and sociocultural norms, and the need to analyse education within context,
alongside attendant ‘values, ideas, and practices’ (Alexander 2001, 507). Consequently, educa­
tional ideas construed as a ‘globalised form of knowledge and a source of “best practice”’
(Vavrus and Bartlett 2012, 636) need to be approached critically, be it by policymakers,
teachers, or the general public as they grapple with education ideas from abroad.
We further illustrated how the postmodern condition sharpens the relevance of
sociocultural influence in educational borrowing. Teachers in lower-income economies
have reported that issues like an underqualified teaching force (Schweisfurth 2013; Shah
and Quinn 2016), sparse professional development (Shah and Quinn 2016; Vavrus and
Bartlett 2012), or inadequate teacher competency (Shah and Quinn 2016; Smail 2014) are
barriers in the LCE-transfer process. In Singapore, given teachers’ qualifications (top
graduates endorsed by the MOE) and professional development access (above-OECD
average access to professional development activities like courses, peer and/or self
observation, and teaching networks) (OECD 2020), it would be reasonable to expect
that teachers would face fewer issues around technological conditions pertaining to
professional competency. Yet, teachers struggle with feeling competent, and reported
constant feelings of ‘second guessing’ themselves and a lack of confidence in their
practices. This conundrum may be a result of teachers being torn by the demands of
two contrasting educational approaches – teachers are caught in a postmodern condition
that sees educational practices and values transplanted into a dissimilar, and even
conflicting, system. These teachers, enculturated with didactic teaching, struggle to
adopt LCE’s more democratic approach and resist ceding epistemic authority to learners.
Additionally, these teachers face tensions – within themselves, and, with stakeholders –
privileging individual learners as the Singapore society prioritises the collective. Even
though teachers may not be personally averse to attempting DI, they need to first
negotiate the larger education community and society’s expectations. Indeed, earlier
studies have shown that teachers tasked with implementing ideas transferred from
another context feel ill-at-ease and insecure as they grapple with ‘onto-cultural’
 COMPARE 319

(Rappleye and Komatsu 2017; Lim-Ratnam et al. 2019) concerns. This study thus
contributes to micro level insights on the postmodern ‘lived realities’ (Crossley 2019,
176) of agents embedded in educational transfer processes that are rarely discussed.
Understanding the lived realities of teachers in educational borrowing is critical since they
are the key agents of change. In the case of Singapore, appreciating the postmodern conflicts
teachers face – be it along sociocultural, political, or technological fronts – can influence
support for them. Paulston (2009) argues that there is a need for agents to experience an
‘ontological shift from an essential view of one fixed reality . . . to an anti-essentialist view
where reality constructs are seen to resist closure and where multiple and diverse truth claims
become part of a continuous agonistic, or contested, struggle’ (966). This shift is necessary so
teachers understand that how they experienced teaching may differ from how they are now
expected to practise it. Thus, rather than just having teachers be passive recipients at
professional development sessions, professional development could be more teacher-
centred, allowing them to drive the content and process of the sessions. More space and
time could also be set aside for teachers and course instructors to hold conversations around
conflicts teachers may experience, discuss the cause of conflicts, and propose solutions to
better manage the postmodern condition. We also need to consider how we can better
support the emotional and mental wellbeing of teachers – not just their technological
competencies – as they live out onto-cultural conflicts. Further, policymakers, administrators
and teachers need to recognise the complexities and relationships of educational borrowing
and change as they are shaped by the interactions of the technological, sociocultural, political,
and postmodern perspectives. Our study revealed that educational borrowing is constricted
when different aspects are not aligned: technological structures like material conditions and
educational systems need to change in tandem with sociocultural perspectives for holistic
changes to take place.
Findings in this study contribute to theory (and, eventually, practice). Teachers’ experi­
ences of the implementation process revealed tensions along the same four broad perspec­
tives – technological, sociocultural, political, and postmodern – in the comparative
educational change framework. This suggests that education change concepts by House
and McQuillan (1998) and Hargreaves et al. (2000) can be useful for understanding
educational borrowing. In combining concepts from educational change, as well as com­
parative and international education, we yield a framework for understanding vital and
nuanced aspects of the educational borrowing process. Existing education policy borrow­
ing models like those from Phillips and Ochs (2004), Perry and Tor (2008), and Rappleye
(2006) provide macro perspectives; we hope our conceptual framework can complement
their models and, together, illuminate the educational borrowing processes from the macro
to micro level. Next, we aver that elements in our proposed framework should be inter­
preted dynamically. For instance, through this study, we observed that because teachers
herein are deeply entrenched in the implementation process while grappling with day-to-
day operational concerns, they referenced the origin context less. Consequently, teachers
may not fully appreciate the effect of the origin lens on their practice and are less equipped
to manage the transfer. This was in opposition to our previous research – examining how
teachers in a Master’s course on DI perceived DI before implementation (Heng and Song
2020)– where teachers foregrounded the origin context more frequently. Thus, we posit
that in applying this framework to study different transfer contexts (e.g. before vs. during
implementation, horizontal transfers within lower-income economies) the lenses may be
320 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

subject to change. Likewise, testing this out in other contexts may yield more perspectives
or omit some. On the practical front, agents embarking on educational borrowing may
benefit from using this framework to guide their analysis of how the four different lenses
shape education policies and ideas in origin and destination contexts, determine the
viability of the borrowing or explore how education policies and ideas can be hybridised
or localised. Rather than assuming education ideas can be universally applied, this frame­
work can help to arrest our assumptions and facilitate how we manage the educational
borrowing and change process.

Notes
1. We recognise that there are definitional debates around educational borrowing and transfer.
In this article, we use both terms interchangeably for expedience sake.
2. Lower income economies include economies classified by the United Nations (2020) as
upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income and low-income.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education under the Education Research
Funding Programme [Project Number OER02/17HTT].

ORCID
Tang T. Heng http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9676-8019

References
Academy of Principals (Singapore). n.d. “Previous Conferences.” Accessed 15 December 2020.
https://www.aps.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=111
Alexander, R. J. 2001. Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Alviar-Martin, T., and L.-C. Ho. 2011. “‘So, Where Do They Fit In?’ Teachers’ Perspectives of
Multi-cultural Education and Diversity in Singapore.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (1):
127–135. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.009.
Anderson-Levitt, K. M. 2003. “A World Culture of Schooling?” In Local Meanings, Global
Schooling, edited by K. M. Anderson-Levitt, 1–26. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beech, J. 2006. “The Theme of Educational Transfer in Comparative Education: A View over Time.”
Research in Comparative and International Education 1 (1): 2–13. doi:10.2304/rcie.2006.1.1.2.
Bjork, C. 2011. “Imagining Japan’s ‘Relaxed Education’ Curriculum: Continuity or Change.” In
Reimagining Japanese Education: Borders, Transfers, Circulations, and the Comparative, edited
by D. B. Willis and J. Rappleye, 147–169. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Britton, A., M. Schweisfurth, and B. Slade. 2019. “Of Myths and Monitoring: Learner-centred
Education as a Political Project in Scotland.” Comparative Education 55 (1): 30–46. doi:10.1080/
03050068.2018.1541667.
 COMPARE 321

Broadfoot, P. 1999. “Stones from Other Hills May Serve to Polish the Jade of This One: Towards a Neo-
comparative ‘Learnology’of Education.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education 29 (3): 217–231. doi:10.1080/0305792990290303.
Cave, P. 2001. “Educational Reform in Japan in the 1990s: ‘Individuality’ and Other Uncertainties.”
Comparative Education 37 (2): 173–191. doi:10.1080/03050060120043402.
Clark, V. L. P., and N. V. Ivankova. 2015. Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field, Vol. 3.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Cowen, R. 2009. “The Transfer, Translation and Transformation of Educational Processes: And Their
Shape-shifting?” Comparative Education 45 (3): 315–327. doi:10.1080/03050060903184916.
Crossley, M. 2019. “Policy Transfer, Sustainable Development and the Context S of Education.”
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 49 (2): 175–191. doi:10.1080/
03057925.2018.1558811.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., and R. E. Silver. 2012. “Educational Reforms, Cultural Clashes and Classroom
Practices.” Cambridge Journal of Education 42 (2): 141–161. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2012.676631.
Department of Statistics Singapore. 2018. “Population and Population Structure.” Government of
Singapore. https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/population-and-
population-structure/latest-data
Department of Statistics Singapore. 2019. Population Trends, 2019. Singapore: Ministry of Trade &
Industry, Republic of Singapore.
Ellis, N. J., and A. C. Armstrong. 2014. “How Context Shapes Practitioner Research and
Professional Learning in Schools in Singapore and NSW.” Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 44 (3): 435–454. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.767674.
Forestier, K., and M. Crossley. 2015. “International Education Policy Transfer– Borrowing Both
Ways: The Hong Kong and England Experience.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 45 (5): 664–685. doi:10.1080/03057925.2014.928508.
Gopinathan, S., and A. B. Mardiana. 2013. “Globalization, the State and Curriculum Reform.” In
Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum, edited by Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, and C. E. Lee,
15–32. Singapore: Springer.
Gopinathan, S., and Z. Deng. 2016. “PISA and High-performing Education Systems: Explaining
Singapore’s Education Success AU - Deng, Zongyi.” Comparative Education 52 (4): 449–472.
doi:10.1080/03050068.2016.1219535.
Hargreaves, A., L. Earl, S. Moore, and S. Manning. 2000. Learning to Change: Teaching beyond
Subjects and Standards. California, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Hatch, A. J. 2002. Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Heng, M. A., and L. Fernandez. 2016. “Re-examining Differentiation: Big Ideas and Misguided
Notions.” In Curriculum Leadership by Middle Leaders, edited by K. H. K. Tan, M. A. Heng, and
C. Lim-Ratnam, 116–136. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Heng, T. T., and L. Song. 2020. “A Proposed Framework for Understanding Educational Change
and Transfer: Insights from Singapore Teachers’ Perceptions of Differentiated Instruction.”
Journal of Educational Change 21 (4): 595–622. doi:10.1007/s10833-020-09377-0.
Heng, T. T., L. Song, and K. Tan. 2021. “Understanding the Interaction of Assessment, Learning
and Context: Insights from Singapore.” Educational Research 63 (1): 65–79. doi:10.1080/
00131881.2021.1874248
Hogan, D., D. Kwek, P. Towndrow, R. A. Rahim, T. K. Tan, H. J. Yang, and M. Chan. 2013.
“Visible Learning and the Enacted Curriculum in Singapore.” In Globalization and the
Singapore Curriculum, edited by Z. Deng, S. Gopinathan, and C. E. Lee, 121–149. Singapore:
Springer.
House, E. R., and P. J. McQuillan. 1998. “Three Perspectives on School Reform.” In International
Handbook of Educational Change, edited by A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. W.
Hopkins, 198–213. Berlin: Springer.
Ji, S. 2000. “‘Face’and Polite Verbal Behaviors in Chinese Culture.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (7):
1059–1062. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00068-5.
322 T.T. HENG AND L. SONG

Leong, W. S., H. Ismail, J. S. Costa, and H. B. Tan. 2018. “Assessment for Learning Research in East
Asian Countries.” Studies in Educational Evaluation 59: 270–277. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.09.005.
Lim, L., and M. Tan. 2018. “Culture, Pedagogy and Equity in a Meritocratic Education System:
Teachers’ Work and the Politics of Culture in Singapore.” Curriculum Inquiry 48(2): 184–202.
Lim-Ratnam, C. T.-L., et al. 2019. “Lost in Adaptation? Issues of Adapting Japanese Lesson Study
in Non-Japanese Contexts.” Educational Research for Policy and Practice 18(3): 263–278.
Liu, H., and F. Dervin. 2017. “‘Education Is a Life Marathon Rather than a Hundred-meter Race’:
Chinese ‘Folk’comparative Discourses on Finnish Education.” Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 47 (4): 529–544. doi:10.1080/03057925.2016.1257351.
Low, E. L., and O. S. Tan. 2017. “Teacher Education Policy: Recruitment, Preparation and
Progression.” In Teacher Education in the 21st Century, edited by O. S. Tan, W. C. Liu, and
E. L. Low, 11–32. Singapore: Springer.
MOE. 2007. The PETALS™ Primer. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
MOE. 2018. “Ministry of Education, Singapore.” Ministry of Education, July 13. Accessed 14 July
2018. https://www.moe.gov.sg/home
MOE. 2020. “SkillsFuture for Educators.” https://www.moe.gov.sg/microsites/cos2020/skillfuture-
for-educators.html
Mukhopadhyay, R., and A. Sriprakash. 2011. “Global Frameworks, Local Contingencies: Policy
Translations and Education Development in India.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 41 (3): 311–326. doi:10.1080/03057925.2010.534668.
Ng, P. T. 2010. “The Evolution and Nature of School Accountability in the Singapore Education
System.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 22 (4): 275–292. doi:10.1007/
s11092-010-9105-z.
OECD. 2020. “Singapore: Teachers and Teaching Conditions (TALIS 2018).” Accessed 06 March
2020. http://gpseducation.oecd.org/
Ogisu, T. 2014. How Cambodian Pedagogical Reform Has Been Constructed: A Multi-level Case
Study. Michigan: Michigan State University.
Paulston, R. 2000. “Imagining Comparative Education: Past, Present, Future.” Compare: A Journal
of Comparative and International Education 30 (3): 353–367. doi:10.1080/713657467.
Paulston, R. G. 2009. “Mapping Comparative Education after Postmodernity.” In International
Handbook of Comparative Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, edited by
R. Cowen and A. M. Kazamias, Vol. 22. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6403-6_62.
Perry, L. B., and G.-H. Tor. 2008. “Understanding Educational Transfer: Theoretical Perspectives
and Conceptual Frameworks.” Prospects 38 (4): 509–526. doi:10.1007/s11125-009-9092-3.
Phillips, D., and K. Ochs. 2004. “Researching Policy Borrowing: Some Methodological Challenges
in Comparative Education.” British Educational Research Journal 30 (6): 773–784. doi:10.1080/
0141192042000279495.
Principals Academy Inc. n.d. “Institute on Effective Differentiation.” Accessed 15 December 2020.
https://www.pai.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=307:webinars-by-dr-
carol-ann-tomlinson&catid=45:upcoming-courses-events&Itemid=73
Qiang, H., and Y. Kang. 2011. “English Immersion in China as a Case of Educational Transfer.”
Frontiers of Education in China 6 (1): 8–36. doi:10.1007/s11516-011-0120-8.
Rappleye, J. 2006. “Theorizing Educational Transfer: Toward a Conceptual Map of the Context of
Cross-national Attraction.” Research in Comparative and International Education 1 (3):
223–240. doi:10.2304/rcie.2006.1.3.223.
Rappleye, J., and H. Komatsu. 2017. “How to Make Lesson Study Work in America and Worldwide:
A Japanese Perspective on the Onto-cultural Basis of (Teacher) Education.” Research in Comparative
and International Education 12 (4): 398–430. doi:10.1177/1745499917740656.
Ratnam-Lim, C., T. Li, and K. H. K. Tan. 2015. “Large-scale Implementation of Formative
Assessment Practices in an Examination-oriented Culture.” Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice 22 (1): 61–78.
Ritzema, E. S., M. I. Deunk, and R. J. Bosker. 2016. “Differentiation Practices in Grade 2 and 3:
Variations in Teacher Behavior in Mathematics and Reading Comprehension Lessons.” Journal
of Classroom Interaction 51 (2): 50–72.
 COMPARE 323

Ro, J. 2018. “Capable Teachers, Mundane Teaching: Korean Novice Teachers’ Experience in
a High-performing Education System.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 26 (4): 529–545.
Schweisfurth, M. 2013. “Learner-Centred Education in International Perspective.” Journal of
International and Comparative Education 2 (1): 1–8. doi:10.14425/00.45.70.
Schweisfurth, M., and J. Elliott. 2019. “When ‘Best Practice’ meets the Pedagogical Nexus:
Recontextualisation, Reframing and Resilience.” Comparative Education 55 (1): 1–8.
doi:10.1080/03050068.2018.1544801.
Shah, R., and M. Quinn. 2016. “Mind the Gap: Global Quality Norms, National Policy
Interpretations and Local Praxis in Timor-Leste.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 46 (3): 394–413. doi:10.1080/03057925.2014.952930.
Shenton, A. K. 2004. “Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects.”
Education for Information 22 (2): 63–75. doi:10.3233/EFI-2004-22201.
Smail, A. 2014. “Rediscovering the Teacher within Indian Child-centred Pedagogy: Implications
for the Global Child-Centred Approach.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education 44 (4): 613–633. doi:10.1080/03057925.2013.817225.
Sperandio, J., D. Hobson, R. Douglas, and R. Pruitt. 2009. “Does Context Matter? Importing US
Educational Programs to Schools Overseas.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 39 (6): 707–721. doi:10.1080/03057920802483359.
Sriprakash, A. 2009. “‘Joyful Learning’in Rural Indian Primary Schools: An Analysis of Social
Control in the Context of Child-centred Discourses.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 39 (5): 629–641. doi:10.1080/03057920903125677.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. 2016. “New Directions in Policy Borrowing Research.” Asia Pacific Education
Review 17 (3): 381–390. doi:10.1007/s12564-016-9442-9.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. 2006. “The Economics of Policy Borrowing and Lending: A Study of Late
Adopters.” Oxford Review of Education 32 (5): 665–678. doi:10.1080/03054980600976353.
Strogilos, V., E. Tragoulia, E. Avramidis, A. Voulagka, and V. Papanikolaou. 2017. “Understanding the
Development of Differentiated Instruction for Students with and without Disabilities in Co-taught
Classrooms.” Disability & Society 32 (8): 1216–1238. doi:10.1080/09687599.2017.1352488.
Takayama, K. 2007. “A Nation at Risk Crosses the Pacific: Transnational Borrowing of the US
Crisis Discourse in the Debate on Education Reform in Japan.” Comparative Education Review
51 (4): 423–446. doi:10.1086/520864.
Tan, C., and P. T. Ng. 2007. “Dynamics of Change: Decentralised Centralism of Education in
Singapore.” Journal of Educational Change 8 (2): 155–168. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-9016-4.
Teng, A. 2019. “Teachers Work Fewer Hours Now, but Teach More: Poll.” The Straits Times, June
20. Accessed 22 June 2019. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/teachers-work-
fewer-hours-now-but-teach-more-poll
Tomlinson, C. A. 2001. How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-ability Classrooms. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
United Nations. 2020. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2020. New York: United Nations
Publications.
Vavrus, F., and L. Bartlett. 2012. “Comparative Pedagogies and Epistemological Diversity: Social
and Materials Contexts of Teaching in Tanzania.” Comparative Education Review 56 (4):
634–658. doi:10.1086/667395.
Yang, C.-H., P.-W. Tzuo, and C. Komara. 2011. “WebQuests and Collaborative Learning in
Teacher Preparation: A Singapore Study.” Educational Media International 48 (3): 209–220.
doi:10.1080/09523987.2011.607325.
You, Y., and P. Morris. 2016. “Imagining School Autonomy in High-performing Education
Systems: East Asia as a Source of Policy Referencing in England.” Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education 46 (6): 882–905. doi:10.1080/03057925.2015.1080115.