Measurement & Evaluation in Education

FACUL FACULTY TY OF EDUCA EDUCATION AND LANGUAGE LANGUAGE (FEL) (FEL)

SUBJECT: SUBJECT:

ASSIGNMENT ASSIGNMENT - QUESTION QUESTION 1

COURSE TITLE:

MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT AND EV EVALUATION ALUATION IN IN EDUCA EDUCATION TION

COURSE COURSE CODE: CODE:

HMEF50 HMEF5053 53

PROGRA PROGRAMME: MME:

MASTER MASTER OF EDUCA EDUCATIO TION N

SEME SE MEST STER ER / YEAR YEAR:: LEARNING LEARNING CENTRE: CENTRE: FACILIT ACILITATOR: TOR:

MAY MAY 2015 2015 OUM JOHOR LEARNING LEARNING CENTRE CENTRE

DR. HILMI AHMAD SHAGHIR SHAGHIR

Acknowledgment

I express my profound gratitude to Dr. Hilmi Ahmad Shaghir for his patience, guidance and encouragement in successfully completing this assignment.

Content Title: A Review on Performance Assessment and its Strengths and Weaknesses in Malaysian Schools Background .............................................................. ....................................................

1-3

Definition of Performance Assessment .......................................................................

4

Strengths of Performance Assessment ......................................................................... 4 - 5 Weaknesses of Performance Assessment ....................................................................

5-6

Discussion ....................................................................................................................

6-7

Conclusion ............................................................... ....................................................

7

References

A Review on Performance Assessment and its Strengths and Weaknesses in Malaysian Schools

RAMACHANDRAN PRABHAKARAN EMAIL: [email protected]

OPEN UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA 2015

MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION IN EDUCATION: ASSIGNMENT 1

1

Background

Kandel (as cited in Kaur, 2013, p. 8) in his theory of ‘Historical Functionalism’, espoused that Education and Assessments throughout the world do not operate in a vacuum, but are inextricably intertwined with historical, social and political forces and any study on them must necessarily include the history of Education and Assessments into the present. Hence, a walk down the memory lane in history is warranted to understand how Education and Assessments have evolved into its present form in countries like Malaysia.

Assessments has a long history which goes back to the Imperial days in China where performance testing of human abilities was first introduced as a policy mechanism in China, extending from the Han Dynasty in 210 B.C.E, until the first decade of this century (Madaus & O'Dwyer, 1999, p. 690). These assessments were conducted under the Imperial Examination known as the keju/kekao system made out of a pyramid structure of ofﬁcial selection and incorporated in its early days the local, provincial and national exam and an in-palace exam, or ‘dianshi’, personally presided over by the emperor, was incorporated into the system during the Song Dynasty (Huo, 2008, p. 56).

Today, many historians regarded the keju examination system as the first merit-based standardised test in the history of Education (Huo, 2008; Madaus & O'Dwyer, 1999; Philips, 2013). The Imperial Examination in China was very competitive and is the only way for common people to enjoy a good life, hence the ultimate goal of schooling in olden days China was to pass the Imperial Examination rather than developing knowledge and


2

understanding of the subject matter and as a consequence to this kind of rote learning, many students could not apply their knowledge to practical use (Madaus & O'Dwyer, 1999; Philips, 2013). China’s imperial examination system exerted direct influence on the modern examination system in the west (Philips, 2013, p. 3) and as a consequences, the old method of testing students competencies, i.e., rote memorization, was adapted into the Malaysian education system from the British.

Since its inception, Assessment has evolved from rote memorization of facts and principles into assessment based on performances (Madaus & O'Dwyer, 1999, p. 688-690). Philips (2013, p. 31-32) opined that when teachers and instructors assess a student, they are essentially assessing the behaviour of the student, for example the students ability to compare, explain, analyse, solve, draw, pronounce, feel and reflect that includes the learner’s ability to think (cognitive domain), to feel (affective domain) and skill performance (psychomotor domain). It’s interesting to note that behaviour includes the thinking processes too, i.e., the cognitive domain. However, Philips has not clearly defined performance assessment. For example, does the ability to compare, explain, analyse, solve, reflect and feel which belongs to the cognitive and affective domains be used to assess students’ performance? A search on available literatures in the field for the definition for performance assessment seem to converge on a common theme. For example, Madaus & O'Dwyer (1999, p. 689) categorically states that there are only 4 ways to sample behaviour: First through oral and written answers (essay questions, short-answer questions, oral disputation). Second, through producing a product (portfolio, research paper, a chair, a piece of cut glass). Third, through performance of an act to be evaluated against certain criteria (e.g., conduct a chemistry experiment, read


3

aloud from a book, repair a carburetor, drive a car). Fourth, and historically the most recent, have student select an answer to a question or a posed problem from among several options (i.e.. the multiple-choice or true/false item). However, Madaus & O'Dwyer (1999, p. 689) seeks to exclude the fourth, i.e., multiple-choice (MCQ) and true/false item from the broad definition of performance assessment and define performance assessment as a process that requires students or examinees to construct and supply answers, perform or produce something for evaluation. Further, Madaus & O'Dwyer (1999, p. 688) suggested that in much of the popular and professional literature in the field of Educational Measurement, standardized multiple-choice testing has been omitted and Performance assessment known as “authentic” or “new” assessment better known as the “3 P’s”, i.e., performance, portfolios and products, have taken the centre stage.

Interestingly, a similar concept akin to the 3 P’s has also been strategically adopted into the Malaysian School Based Assessments (PBS) to revamp Malaysia’s Education System due to the abysmal performance of Malaysian students in the 2009 ‘Programme for International Student Assessment’ (PISA) (Hashim, 2012). The questions in the PISA test are more to the types that demands analytic, evaluative and synthesizing skills in students, i.e., Higher Order Thinking Skills or HOTS (Hashim, 2012). Baker (1989) espoused that Performance Assessment is intrinsically connected to HOTS and that teachers or instructors who are seeking to assess students’ performances need to look at two dimensions: the recording of transitory behaviour of students (process approach), and the rating of students end product (product approach).


4

Definition of Performance Assessment

After reviewing several literature, it is observed that some verbs and nouns seem to emerge when describing Performance Assessment, i.e., “behaviour”, “cognitive”, “affective”, “psychomotor”, “skills”, “process”, “product”, “construct”, “supply”, “perform”, “produce”, “HOTS”. Therefore, the reviewer seeks to define Performance Assessment as a kind of testing that requires students to access Higher Order Thinking by engaging their cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills in the performance of a task. Performance assessment measures transitory behaviour of students as well as their final work.

Strengths of Performance Assessment

Performance Assessment creates a platform for students to explore different approaches to solving problems and as such, students are able to construct knowledge in the process of learning (Lutz & Huitt, 2004). In Performance Assessment, the whole work process is as important as the final product (Tighe & Ferrara, 1994). Teachers plays the role of a facilitator in assessing students’ performance, as Prensky (2008) aptly puts it, “a guide by the side” and not “a sage on the stage”. This creates space for students to be as creative as possible and they will find the teaching and learning activity, fun, motivating and positively challenging because they play an active role in the entire process of knowledge construction (Philips, 2013). For example, the benefit that accrue from Performance based school activities can be seen in Project, Portfolio and Practical work where students learn to work as a team by designating individual roles and taking responsibility for their work (Philips, 2013).


5

Therefore, it is not unreasonable for one to assume that besides skills, Performance Assessment builds character. These are the ingredients in a person most sought after by potential employers. These views on Performance Assessment by Philips (2013) is also supported by Tighe & Ferrara (1994), who suggested that Performance Assessment can be among the most authentic type of student assessments since they can replicate the kinds of actual performances occurring in the world outside of school. Therefore, in a macroscopic level, the strength of Performance Assessment lies in its capability to create a progressive and valuable human capital for the country.

Weaknesses of Performance Assessment

According to Tighe & Ferrara (1994), Performance Assessment can be time and labour intensive for teachers and students. This is also observed by the reviewer in his own classroom practice. A contributing factor to time and labour intensiveness is the sheer number of students in the Malaysian classrooms, for example each Form 3 classroom typically has more than 30 students, therefore it’s almost impossible to follow the learning process or transitional behaviour of each and every student closely, thus impeding the grading of the performances of students. This in return makes fair, valid and reliable assessment a challenge for teachers.

Assessing the final work or product of students also poses several challenges to teachers. Subjective and unclear guidelines and criteria makes it difficult for teachers to afford marks to each and every students fairly and reliably. These further increases the time for evaluating


6

the end-products that students have completed. Developing Performance Assessment questions is very challenging to teachers at times as they must consider two dimensions that have to be incorporated into the questions: content validity and construct validity (Philips, 2013).

Thomas (as cited in Philips, 2013) observed that aligning assessment goals and curriculum goals can be difficult. For example, parents are not too happy with school projects as they are unable to see how it relates to overall assessment of learning. In addition, projects can take longer than expected for teachers to prepare especially when content needs to be integrated into real-world activities. Sometimes students are not clear what is required so additional structure, guidelines and guidance on how to carry out the project need to be in place. Further, the resources needed for project work and administrative support may be lacking.

Discussion

Performance Assessments has been incorporated into the Malaysian School Based Assessment (PBS) as a remedial call for the poor performance of Malaysian students in PISA 2009 where Malaysia was ranked in the bottom third of the 74 participating countries, below the international and OECD average (MOE, 2012,). It is even disheartening to learn that 15-year-olds in Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Shanghai are performing as though they have had 3 or more years of schooling than 15-year-olds in Malaysia (MOE, 2012). What is notable is that these countries, known as the “ASEAN TIGERS”, have incorporated performance assessments of higher-order thinking in their curriculum long before Malaysia


7

and excellence in education has been shown to be connected to “ASEAN TIGERS” economic success (Waldow, Takayama, Youl, 2014). Hence, as enshrined in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013 - 2025, the Malaysian government should strife to transform its Education system in order to develop sustainable human capital that is capable of transforming the country into a first world economy (MOE, 2012).

Conclusion

In order to realize these goals and more, Malaysian government need to address issues promptly to overcome limitations and weaknesses in carrying out Performance Assessments in schools.

References

Baker, E.L. (1989). HIGHER ORDER ASSESSMENT AND INDICATORS OF LEARNING. UCLA Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/Reports/TR295.pdf

Waldow, F., Takayama, K., & Youl, W. S. (2014) Rethinking the pattern of external policy referencing: media discourses over the Asian TigersPISA success in Australia, Germany and South Korea, Comparative Education, 50:3, 302-321, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2013.860704. Retrieved June 13, 2015, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03050068.2013.860704

Hashim, R. (2012). Memenuhi Aspirasi Kemahiran Berfikir dalam Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025 menerusi inkuiri dan pedagogi filosofiyyah dalam kalangan guru. Persidangan Majlis Dekan Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://www.medc.com.my/medc/seminar_medc/fromCD/pdf/IIUM.pdf

Huo, J. (2008). The Imperial Examination System and Its Vagaries. China Today, 57(2), 54-57. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.newdc.oum.edu.my/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ea674e26-0e9a429d-8782-5bbd626fd4fd%40sessionmgr4002&vid=0&hid=4113

Kaur, K. (2013). HMEF 5033 Comparative Education (2nd ed.). OUM: Kuala Lumpur.

Lutz, S., & Huitt, W. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences,9(1), 67-90. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from http://teach.valdosta.edu/WHuitt/brilstar/chapters/cogdev.doc

Madaus, G. F., & O'Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A Short History of Performance Assessment: Lessons Learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 688-95. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.newdc.oum.edu.my/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e7b4fc7c-9f1a40f6-b87b-bfee4a8ec9b0%40sessionmgr110&vid=0&hid=103

MOE (2012). Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013 - 2025. Retrieved June 12, 2015, from http://www.moe.gov.my/userfiles/file/PPP/Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng.pdf

Philips, J.A. (2013). HMEF 5053 Measurement and Evaluation in Education (3rd ed.). OUM: Kuala Lumpur.

Prensky, M. (2008). The Role of Technology in teaching and the classroom. Educational Technology,

Nov-Dec

2008.

Ch

3,

pp

48.

Retrieved

June

13,

2015,

from

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-The_Role_of_Technology-ET-11-12-08.pdf

Tighe, J.M., & Ferrara, S. (1994). Performance-Based Assessment in the Classroom (in Press). National Education Association. Retrieved June 13, 2015, from http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-ELA_Performance_Based_Assessment_in_th e_Classroom.pdf

Measurement & Evaluation in Education

Recommend Documents