Lecturer: Yee Bee Choo

IPGKTHO

Issues and

Concerns

Related to

Assessment in

Malaysian

Primary Schools

Exam-

oriented

system

Cognitive

level of

assessment

School-

based

assessment

Alternative

assessment

The current education system in Malaysia is too examination-oriented and over-emphasizes rote-learning with institutions of higher learning fast becoming mere diploma mills.

Like most Asian countries (e.g., Gang 1996; Lim and Tan 1999; Choi 1999), Malaysia so far has focused on public examination results as important determinants of students’ progression to higher levels of education or occupational opportunities (Chiam 1984).

The Malaysian education system requires all students to sit for public examinations at the end of each level of schooling.

4 public examinations:

1. Primary School Achievement Test (UPSR) at the end of six years of primary education

2. Lower Secondary Examination (PMR) at the end of another three years’ schooling,

3. Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM) at the end of 11 years of schooling,

4. Malaysian Higher School Certificate Examination (STPM) or the Higher Malaysian Certificate for Religious Education (STAM) at the end of 13 years’ schooling.

(MOE 2004).

In public debate, the issue of teaching to the test has often translated into debates over whether the UPSR, PMR, and SPM examinations should be abolished.

Summative national examinations should not in themselves have any negative impact on students.

The challenge is that these examinations do not currently test the full range of skills that the education system aspires to produce.

An external review by Pearson Education Group of the English examination papers at UPSR and SPM level noted that these assessments would benefit from the inclusion of more questions testing higher-order thinking skills, such as application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

For example, their analysis of the 2010 and 2011 English Language UPSR papers showed that approximately 70% of the questions tested basic skills of knowledge and comprehension.

Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025“ In October 2011, the Ministry of Education launched a comprehensive review of the education system in Malaysia in order to develop a new National Education Blueprint. This decision was made in the context of rising international education standards, the Government’s aspiration of better preparing Malaysia’s children for the needs of the 21st century, and increased public and parental expectations of education policy. Over the course of 11 months, the Ministry drew on many sources of input, from education experts at UNESCO, World Bank, OECD, and six local universities, to principals, teachers, parents, and students from every state in Malaysia. The result is a preliminary Blueprint that evaluates the performance of Malaysia’s education system against historical starting points and international benchmarks. The Blueprint also offers a vision of the education system and students that Malaysia both needs and deserves, and suggests 11 strategic and operational shifts that would be required to achieve that vision. The Ministry hopes that this effort will inform the national discussion on how to fundamentally transform Malaysia’s education system, and will seek feedback from across the community on this preliminary effort before finalising the Blueprint in December 2012.”

School-based assessment

is being introduced as part of

the National Transformation Programme

to produce world-class human capital.

School-based Assessment is a holistic assessment which assesses the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains encompassing intellectual, emotional, spiritual and physical aspects. Thus, it is in tandem with the Primary School Standard Curriculum as well as the National Educational Philosophy. It covers both academic and non-academic fields. It is carried out continuously in schools by teachers during the teaching and learning process.

In 2011, in parallel with the KSSR, the new PBS format that is intended to be more:

• Holistic

• Integrated

• Balance

• Robust

4 Components of SBA/ PBS

Academic:

1. School Assessment (using Performance Standards)

2. Centralised Assessment

Non-academic:

3. Physical Activities, Sports and Co-curricular Assessment (Pentaksiran Aktiviti Jasmani, Sukan dan Kokurikulum - PAJSK)

4. Psychometric/Psychological Assessment

There are four components to the new PBS:1. School assessment refers to written tests that assess subject

learning. The test questions and marking schemes are

developed, administered, scored, and reported by school teachers based on guidance from LP

The emphasis is on collecting first hand information about pupils’ learning based on curriculum standards

2. Central assessment

refers to written tests, project work, or oral tests (for languages) that assess subject learning.

LP develops the test questions and marking schemes.

The tests are, however, administered and marked by school teachers using instruments, rubrics, guidelines, time line and procedures prepared by LP

Monitoring and moderation conducted by PBS Committee at School, District and State Education Department, and LP

3. Physical, sports, and co-curricular activities assessment

refers to assessments of student performance and participation in physical and health education, sports, uniformed bodies, clubs, and other non-school sponsored activities.

Schools are given the flexibility to determine how this component will be assessed.

The new format enables students to be assessed on a broader range

4. Psychometric assessment refers to aptitude tests and a personality inventory to

assess students’ skills, interests, aptitude, attitude and personality.

Aptitude tests are used to assess students’ innate and acquired abilities, for example in thinking and problem solving.

The personality inventory is used to identify key traits and characteristics that make up the students’ personality.

LP develops these instruments and provides guidelines for use.

Schools are, however, not required to comply with these guidelines

The new format enables students to be assessed on a broader range of output over a longer period of time.

It also provides teachers with more regular information to take the appropriate remedial actions for their students.

These changes are hoped to reduce the overall emphasis on teaching to the test, so that teachers can focus more time on delivering meaningful learning as stipulated in the curriculum.

In 2014, the PMR national examinations will be replaced with school and centralised assessment.

In 2016, a student’s UPSR grade will no longer be derived from a national examination alone, but from a combination of PBS and the national examination.

The format of the SPM remains the same, with most subjects assessed through thenationalexamination, and some subjects through a combination of examinations and centralisedassessments.

The School-based assessment results conducted by the teachers are reliable because they:

1. Continuously monitor their pupil’s growth2. Can provide constructive feedback to help

improve pupil’s learning abilities3. Have better understanding of the context

and environment that are most conducive to assess pupils

4. Appraise and provide feedback based on Performance Standards

Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Levels

1. Knowledge

2. Comprehension

3. Application

4. Analysis

5. Synthesis

6. Evaluation

1. Knowledge

Recalling memorized information.

May involve remembering a wide range of material from specific facts to complete theories, but all that is required is the bringing to mind of the appropriate information.

Represents the lowest level of learning outcomes in the cognitive domain.

Learning objectives at this level: know common terms, know specific facts, know methods and procedures, know basic concepts, know principles.

Question verbs: Define, list, state, identify, label, name, who? when? where? what?

2. Comprehension The ability to grasp the meaning of material. Translating material from one form to another (words to

numbers), interpreting material (explaining or summarizing), estimating future trends (predicting consequences or effects).

Goes one step beyond the simple remembering of material, and represent the lowest level of understanding.

Learning objectives at this level: understand facts and principles, interpret verbal material, interpret charts and graphs, translate verbal material to mathematical formulae, estimate the future consequences implied in data, justify methods and procedures.

Question verbs: Explain, predict, interpret, infer, summarize, convert, translate, give example, account for, paraphrase x?

3. Application The ability to use learned material in new and concrete

situations. Applying rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws, and

theories. Learning outcomes in this area require a higher level of

understanding than those under comprehension. Learning objectives at this level: apply concepts and

principles to new situations, apply laws and theories to practical situations, solve mathematical problems, construct graphs and charts, demonstrate the correct usage of a method or procedure.

Question verbs: How could x be used to y? How would you show, make use of, modify, demonstrate, solve, or apply x to conditions y?

4. Analysis The ability to break down material into its component parts. Identifying parts, analysis of relationships between parts,

recognition of the organizational principles involved. Learning outcomes here represent a higher intellectual level than

comprehension and application because they require an understanding of both the content and the structural form of the material.

Learning objectives at this level: recognize unstated assumptions, recognizes logical fallacies in reasoning, distinguish between facts and inferences, evaluate the relevancy of data, analyze the organizational structure of a work (art, music, writing).

Question verbs: Differentiate, compare / contrast, distinguish x from y, how does x affect or relate to y? why? how? What piece of x is missing / needed?

5. Synthesis The ability to put parts together to form a new whole. This may involve the production of a unique communication

(theme or speech), a plan of operations (research proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for classifying information).

Learning outcomes in this area stress creative behaviors, with major emphasis on the formulation of new patterns or structure.

Learning objectives at this level: write a well organized paper, give a well organized speech, write a creative short story (or poem or music), propose a plan for an experiment, integrate learning from different areas into a plan for solving a problem, formulate a new scheme for classifying objects (or events, or ideas).

Question verbs: Design, construct, develop, formulate, imagine, create, change, write a short story and label the following elements

6. Evaluation The ability to judge the value of material (statement, novel, poem,

research report) for a given purpose. The judgments are to be based on definite criteria, which may be

internal (organization) or external (relevance to the purpose). The student may determine the criteria or be given them. Learning outcomes in this area are highest in the cognitive hierarchy

because they contain elements of all the other categories, plus conscious value judgments based on clearly defined criteria.

Learning objectives at this level: judge the logical consistency of written material, judge the adequacy with which conclusions are supported by data, judge the value of a work (art, music, writing) by the use of internal criteria, judge the value of a work (art, music, writing) by use of external standards of excellence.

Question verbs: Justify, appraise, evaluate, judge x according to given criteria. Which option would be better/preferable to party y?

Alternative assessments are assessment procedures that differ from the traditional notions and practice of tests with respect to format, performance, or implementation.

It is likely that alternative assessment found its roots in writing assessment because of the need to provide continuous assessment rather than a single impromptu evaluation (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001).

Source: Adapted from Bailey (1998:207 and Puhl, 1997: 5)

Traditional Assessment Alternative Assessment

One-shot tests Continuous, longitudinal assessment

Indirect tests Direct tests

Inauthentic tests Authentic assessment

Individual projects Group projects

No feedback to learners Feedback provided to learners

Speeded exams Power exams

Decontextualised test tasks Contextualised test tasks

Norm-referenced score reporting Criterion-referenced score reporting

Standardised tests Classroom-based tests

Summative Formative

Source: Adapted from Bailey (1998:207 and Puhl, 1997: 5)

Traditional Assessment Alternative Assessment

Product of instruction Process of instruction

Intrusive Integrated

Judgmental Developmental

Teacher proof Teacher mediated

Characteristics of Alternative Assessment: Ask the students to perform, create, produce, or

do something. Tap higher-level thinking and problem-solving

skills. Use tasks that represent meaningful

instructional activities. Invoke real-world applications. People, not machines, do the scoring, using

human judgment. Require new instructional and assessment roles

for teachers.

Tannenbaum (1996), comments that alternative assessments focus on documenting individual strengths and development which would assist in the teaching and learning process.

Alternative assessments are compatible with the contemporary emphases on the process as well as product of learning (Croker, 1999)

Alternative assessment tend to be “descriptive and persuasive, rather than research-based” (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001:229).

Alternative assessments are also said to be limited to the classroom and has not become part of mainstream assessment.

Brown and Hudson, in advocating alternative assessment, seem to have taken a safer approach by suggesting the term “alternatives in assessment”.

Test formats that are considered alternative assessment Physical demonstration Pictorial products Reading response logs K-W-L (what I know/what I want to know/what I’ve

learned) charts Dialogue journals Checklists Teacher-pupils conferences Interviews Performace tasks Portfolios Self assessment Peer assessment

4 elements of a portfolio (Bailey,1998, p: 218):

Introductory Section

• Overview

• Reflective Essay

Personal Section

• Journals

• Score reports

• Photographs

• Personal items

Academic Works Section

• Samples of best work

• Samples of work

demonstrating

development

Assessment Section

• Evaluation by peers

• Self-evaluation

Advantages of Using Portfolio Assessment (Brown & Hudson,1998, p: 664-665):

enhances student and teacher involvement in assessment provides opportunities for teachers to observe students

using meaningful language to accomplish various authentic tasks in a variety of

contexts and situations permit the assessment of the multiple dimensions of

language learning provide opportunities for both students and teachers to

work together and reflect on what it means to assess students’ language growth

increase the variety of information collected on students make teachers’ ways of assessing student work more

systematic.

Both these forms of assessment are strongly advocated by Puhl (1997) as she believes that they are essential to continuous assessment, a cornerstone to alternative assessment.

The benefits of self and peer assessment are especially found in formative stages of assessment in which the development of the students’ abilities are emphasised.

Self appraisals are also thought to be quite accurate and are said to increase student motivation.

Puhl (1997), describes a case study in which she believes self-assessment forced the students to reread and thereby make necessary editing and corrections to their essays before they handed them in.

Nevertheless, in order for self assessment to be useful and not a futile exercise, the learners need to be trained and initially guided in performing their self assessment.

This training involves providing students with the rationale for self assessment and how it is intended to work and how it is capable of helping them.

In language teaching and learning, self assessment is relevant in assessing all the language skills.

An example of the self assessment of the listening skill, especially in the comprehension of questions asked is suggested by Cohen (1994), as follows:

1. I don’t understand questions well at all2. I have difficulty understanding most questions even

after repetition3. I have difficulty with some questions, but I generally

get the meaning4. I can usually understand questions, but I might

occasionally ask for repetition5. I can always understand the questions with no

difficulties and without having ask for repetition

These questions are useful in the formative stages of assessment as it helps students identify their own strengths and weaknesses and respond accordingly.

Through asking these types of self assessment questions, the students are expected to become more sensitive to their own learning and ultimately perform better in the final summative evaluation at the end of the instructional programme.

Peer assessment differs from self assessment in that it involves the social and emotional dimensions to a much greater extent.

Peer-assessment can be defined as a response in some form to other learners’ work (Puhl, 1997).

It can be given by a group or an individual and it can take “any of a variety of coding systems: the spoken word, the written word, checklists, questionnaires, nonverbal symbols, numbers along a scale, colours, etc.” (p.8)

Peer assessment requires that a student take up the role of “a critical friend” to another student in order to “support, challenge, and extend each other’s learning” (Brooks, 2002: 73).

Among the reported benefits of peer assessment are as follows:

remind learners they are not working in isolation

help create a community of learners

improve the product (“Two heads are better than one”)

improve the process; motivates, even inspires

help learners be reflective

stimulate meta-cognition.