the readiness of esl teachers in implementation of school ... 5... · hazwati hashim1, noor...

© 2015 Research Academy of Social Sciences

http://www.rassweb.com 280

Studies in Social Sciences and Humanities

Vol. 3, No. 5, 2015, 280-294

The Readiness of ESL Teachers in Implementation of School-Based

Assessment in Malaysian Secondary Schools

Hazwati Hashim1, Noor Mashitah Rusli2, Nur Hazimah Nor Hashim3, Adam Chong Chin

Hua4

Abstract

Education in Malaysia has moved its way forward to the new development of teaching, assessment and

learning. This is aligned to the hope of the Ministry of Education (MOE) as to produce more competitive

learners and at the same time to upgrade the quality of education in Malaysia. At present, education in

Malaysia is more summative assessment whereby it focuses more on summative examinations instead of

holistic assessment. School-based assessment (SBA) is a new transformational movement in education in

Malaysia which focuses on the teacher’s assessment of students’ learning for better improvement. Hence,

teachers’ readiness in teaching is very crucial to ensure the effectiveness of the implementation of SBA. A

descriptive research design was used in this study involving ninety (90) teachers from fourteen schools in

two states of Malaysia. Among the major objectives of this study are to describe the teachers’ levels of

knowledge in the implementation of SBA and to identify the teachers’ best practices in the implementation

of SBA. The results reveal that the respondents have adequate knowledge about SBA and are aware of the

best practices in the implementation of SBA.

Keywords: School-based Assessment (SBA), Readiness, Levels of Knowledge and Best

1. Introduction

The Blueprint for Education Development in Malaysia declares that the toughest obstacle confronted by

the Ministry of Education (MOE) is to decrease the amount of examination oriented type of learning in the

school (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2007). Malaysia has gone through many stages in the introduction

of new policies with the aim to provide a quality education to all learners. In fact, our education has also

made a few attempts to change the examination format as from Sijil Rendah Pelajaran (SRP) to Penilaian

Menengah Rendah (PMR) which was introduced in year 1994 (Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 2014).

School-based assessment was introduced in year 2011 and implemented in all primary and secondary

school in Malaysia. Prior to its implementation, other school based assessment had been implemented on a

smaller scale, such as the school-based Oral English Test (OET) in 2003 which made up a portion of the

overall English Language grade for the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) Examination (Majid ZBA, Samad,

AA,Mohamad, M & Vethamani, M.E., 2011). According to Rohaya and Zaki (2014), the major objective of

the implementation of the national level School-Based Assessment (SBA) in Malaysian schools was to

achieve the aspiration of the National Philosophy of Education towards developing learners’ physical,

emotional, spiritual and intellectual abilities, reduce exam-oriented learning, evaluate learners’ learning

progress and enhance teachers’ integrity in assessing, recording and reporting of learners’ learning.

1Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia 2Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia 3Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia 4Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia


281

With a global shift towards decentralised assessment, similar steps towards decentralising assessment

have also been taken by the Malaysian examination bodies. Since the beginning of 2000, SBA has come into

the Malaysian classroom. Currently, both policymakers and educators are now looking towards School-based

assessment (SBA) as a medium for education reform. It is seen as influential in instructional improvement in

order to help teachers find out what students are learning in the classroom and how well they have taught the

students. According to Zaidatun & Lim (2010), the changes that have occurred in the Malaysia national

education system requires educators to make huge alteration in order to merge into the new education

system. To do so, they need to transform the way they think and practice.

With the implementation of the new education system, educators need to understand the role they play

and they must be able to comprehend the new system thoroughly (Nor Hasnida, Baharim & Afian, 2012).

Therefore, SBA is considered to be a brand-new start for our education system especially in terms of

assessing and evaluating the students’ learning.

This could also be a shift of paradigm in the way teachers evaluate students’ performances and how well

the lessons have an impact on their learning.

Background of Study

The Malaysian teachers in our society today need to be highly cooperative and be fully responsible

towards their workload and burden which is not exactly the same with those previous years back. They need

to be self-prepared in the first place to plan lessons, teach in the classroom, prepare students’ report card,

conduct co-curriculum activities, attend professional development courses, and collaborate with parents and

the community. This is supported by Lemaire (2009) who found that teachers are burdened with tasks that

are unrelated to teaching and learning, extra-curricular activities, attending meetings, conducting student

programs, and managerial duties. Therefore, this study aims to gauge the levels of knowledge and best

practices of ESL teachers as main factors in the implementation of SBA.

It is undeniable that SBA is an approach to reform assessment in schools, which is also a new idea to

actually slowly decrease the examination oriented system in our education line. However, the various

transformations of the education system contribute to teachers’ stress as they are facing challenges and

pressure to accomplish the requirements of the new system (Tajulashikin, Fazura & Mohd Burhan, 2013). In

2011, a survey by the MOE found that teachers work 40 to 80 hours per week, with the average being 57

hours (Preliminary Report of Malaysian Education Development Plan 2013-2025, September 2012). In

addition, the National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP) has complained about teachers’ workload to

the Education Minister on 30 March 2010 (Berita Harian, 1 April 2010). As SBA announced in 2012,

teachers’ workload has increased as they have to conduct the assessment process from beginning. They have

to key in the marks online in the School Based Assessment Management System (SPPBS). This means that

teachers’ understanding and commitment is crucial as they are empowered to assess their student (Md Noor

& Sahip, 2010).

Furthermore, Maizura (2010) indicated that readiness is an important aspect in determining the success

and failure in implementing changes in the curriculum. In relation to the teachers’ readiness, for instance in a

case when Malaysia implemented PPSMI policy in 2003. This policy required teachers to conduct Sciences

and Mathematics in English language. However, the PPSMI policy was discontinued in 2012 and replaced by

the policy of upholding the Malay language and strengthening the English language (MBMMBI). The

implementation of PPSMI was considered unsuccessful because most of the teachers were not fully equipped

with English language skills (Nor Safiza, 2011). Thus, this is also affecting the students’ performance and it

seems like they were also not ready to learn science and mathematics in English. Some researchers indicated

that SBA gives educators the power to improve teaching and learning and at the same time helps students

perform better. Nevertheless, based on previous research, findings show that teachers have limited skills and

knowledge to conduct SBA and lack best practices in testing & assessment. Therefore, the purpose of this

study is to gauge the level of knowledge in the implementation of SBA among secondary school teachers and

to identify the best practices in the implementation of SBA.

H. Hashim et al.

282

The objectives of this study are as follows:

1. To describe teachers’ levels of knowledge in implementation of SBA.

2. To examine teachers’ best practices in implementation of SBA. This study sought to find the ESL

Teachers’ Readiness for SBA based on the questions below:

1. What are the teachers’ levels of knowledge in SBA?

2. What are the teachers’ best practices in SBA?

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

School-Based Assessment (SBA)

The idea of SBA was first proposed in Hong Kong in year 2001, and it is known as the ‘Teacher

Assessment Scheme’ (Yip & Cheung, 2005). They elaborated on the point of view of educators as the

assessments are extra workload for them, adding on with the situation that most of the educators do not have

sufficient skills and resources which resulted as pressure for educators to cope with their packed routine. As

such, another issue is that most of the educators and learners are putting more effort and attention to become

excellent in academic examinations, and they feel proud of their achievements (Cheng, 2004). In fact, most

of the Malaysian educators are not ready for the implementation of new concept, which is SBA (Adi, 2006).

The implementation of SBA serves to enhance learners’ academic achievement by boosting their

confidence level, and also for the strengthening of educators’ teaching strategies (MOE, 2012). SBA serves

as a rebuilding process for Malaysia’s national educational plans based on National Key Result Area’s

agenda, in order to achieve the ambitions of the National Philosophy of Education comprehensively and

holistically, such as the aspects of learners’ intellectual, physical, emotional and spiritual abilities (Norzila,

2013). Furthermore, Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia listed out four characteristics of SBA: (1) able to show

the general picture of the skills and knowledge acquired by learners; (2) on-going assessment of teaching and

learning; (3) the assessment methods are designed to match with learners’ proficiency and readiness; and (4)

the performance of learners is analysed based on their achievement specifications (KPM, 2012).

Yong & Lim (2008) stated that the purpose of assessment is defined as the effectiveness of the teaching

and learning process where it should not be claimed as the evaluation for objective of learners’ learning

experiences. Hence, it should be served as an aim to achieve educational goals. Outstanding beliefs and

practices which prioritise standardised testing for summative objective contribute to the success of SBA

(Berry, 2011). SBA can be used to supplement different kinds of assessments, because it helps in the

teaching and learning process, in which educators need to design the flow of the lesson and incorporate the

proper assessment tasks (Annie, 2012).

Moreover, Davidson (2007) supported that SBA allow the output of learners be collected and evaluated

within a longer period of time. This is to ensure the effectiveness of assessment, and the feedback given by

educators need to be prompt and constructive. Besides that, Hong Kong Examination and Assessment

Authority (2009) further elaborates that SBA lays out the odds for educators to carry out progression

monitoring, evaluation and even to make amendment to the outline of teaching and learning. The

implementation of SBA serves as a good remedial action for the exam-oriented society, as examinations are

misused as a field of competition to encourage learners to work harder in academic (Adamson, 2011).

Best Practices in Implementation of SBA

o Knowledge and Planning

The role of educator in SBA is very crucial, because the teaching approaches and assessment methods

adapted will have an immediate impact to the outcomes of the assessment (Chan, Sidhu &Yunus, 2006).

Brown (2001) explained that a good assessment setup comes with lowering the stress and pressure of

learners, and at the meantime, the educators take the initiative in assessing the learners. There are 4 phases of

the assessment process which the educators need to be alert to in order to promote assessment, which are


283

planning, collecting evidence, understanding the evidence, as well as applying the result in decision making.

The Hong Kong SBA Consultancy Team (2005) elaborated that the implementation of SBA is able to offer

stable and prolonged assessment, lessening the dependence on the school oriented examinations,

strengthening the reliability of test items, reflecting the ability of learners, carrying out independent learning,

and delegating more authority to educators in the evaluation process.

However, Mansor, Leng, Rasul, Raof and Yusoff (2013) explained that due to some issues, it is difficult

for educators to cover up all the topics mentioned in SBA syllabus. Instead of assessing the content, the

learners are supposed to learn - the assessment then should be designed to assess the topics covered and the

marks will show the content of what the learners have learned. Apart from that, Rashid & Jaidin (2014)

indicated that SBA offers a platform for learners to evaluate the learning process and to identify the area to

improve by obtaining feedback from other learners and educators.

Buhagiar & Murphy (2008) added that the feedback obtained in assessment is able to provide

information to learners about their performance in the test instead of the way they should do as learners.

Moreover, Brown & Hirschfeld (2008) stated that the assessment and feedback of assessment serve as

essential roles in piloting learners in learning process, as both of them should be merged with teaching and

learning strategies. Hattie & Timperley (2007) further elaborated that the feedback include messages

delivered by ‘specific agents’, such as educators, friends, parents, and exposure. The messages are based on

learners’ performance and when the learners noticed the feedbacks and suggestion benefit them, and the

dimension of this feedback falls under the category of dialogue (Smith & Higgins, 2006).

o Scoring and Construction

Faizah (2011) explained that there is a set of procedures to guide the educators, and there is a minimum

level of professional requirements needed to be applied to educators who attend to apply SBA in their

teaching process. According to Ruzlan, Arsaythambyveloo and Hariharan (2015), SBA has two major

principles. The first principle is Standard Referenced Assessment, the performance of learners is evaluated

based on Performance Standards, this is to identify the aspects that learners are expected to achieve. The

second principle is the setup of a SBA Management System which provides a platform to support educators

and helps in recording and retaining the data or results of learners regarding to their performances.

In addition to that, AdiBadiozamanTuah (2006) added three factors to be concerned about when it

comes to SBA: (1) educators and the authority in charge are unable to analyse and thoroughly understand

into broader delivering principles that lead to strengthening in learning and teaching: (2) educators lose

interest or abandon their role to deliver short-term instructional duty for SBA as their focus is mainly on

excelling in public or national examinations; (3) the educators are not equipped with all the necessary skill

and knowledge to operate SBA as an integral part of SBA curriculum development. With all these three

factors, another worrying issue surfaces, which is the validity of SBA. Having said that, McMillan (2001)

further explained that, validity comprises the properness of the inferences, uses and the result obtained from

assessment. The validity of the assessment is not defined by measuring what it intends to measure, but the

reasonability and acceptability of the interpretation and evaluation obtained from the data received through

the assessment.

As mentioned before, the assessment adopted in SBA is based on formative assessment. According to

Black (2000), the positive characteristics of formative assessment are being practiced extensively in

educational field. Two different models have been proposed by Bell & Cowie (2001). These are planned

formative assessment and interactive formative assessment (Figure 1). Based on these models, the

assessment practiced is in an interactive manner and the elements are connected. The main objective of

formative assessment is that the ways the data is collected and utilized.

H. Hashim et al.

284

Figure 1: Models of Formative Assessment (Bell &Cowie, 2001)

In relation to formative assessment, the educators collected the data based on a set of pre-determined

criteria and proceed by grading the learners for their performance scale.

However, things work differently for interactive formative assessment. Interactive assessments surface

promptly during learning activities. Most of the time, educators are unable to delineate the details they want

to assess. This is because the behaviours of learners are unpredictable. Hence, educators are expected to

evaluate two types of data: (1) verbal response (learners’ feedback or answer), (2) non-verbal response

(learners’ body language or gestures). These two types of data are momentary and on-going. Therefore,

educators must be able to understand the greatness of the data and to identify the data’s implication to the

learners. Besides, educators are required to make immediate feedback to the learners to strengthen the

learning process.

By looking in depth into the outcomes of assessments, it is different compared to the objectives of the

assessment. This difference indicates the reason that learners appreciate and enjoy the learning experience by

receiving feedback, and this explains how learners and educators might have different feelings and

experiences under the same situation (Moss, 2003). Martin & Dowson added that learners have the tendency

to alter their goals based on the feedbacks or opinions given by educators and the way the feedbacks are

given.

It is essential for educators to be alert regarding the issue of bias (Kellagahan & Madaus, 2003) as they

might have different impressions towards every learner, in which stereotyping might have occurred. Besides,

they might disseminate more marks to the learners who are closer to them or have something in common,

and develop a negative mind set or evaluation to the learners from different cultural background or for other

reasons.

Teachers’ Understanding of School-Based Assessment

Mahamod, Yusoff & Ibrahim (2009) pointed out that educators are the operating force and momentum

to keep the process of teaching and learning running in the classroom. It is important for educators to equip

themselves with all the necessary knowledge related to SBA because switching from summative assessment

to formative assessment requires a lot of effort and dynamic transformation among the educators (Nesan,

2012). Black & Wiliam (1998) indicated that formative assessment is able to bring in positive impact to

learners’ learning, with the condition that it must be implemented appropriately.


285

Apart from that, the educators are required to brush up on their perception when it comes to their duty in

enhancing learners’ performance as well as classroom practice (Hamzah & Sinnasamy, 2009). Prior to that,

successful transformation comes with three simple steps: (1) unfreezing the status quo, (2) shifting from the

starting point to the desired final condition, (3) refreezing the new transformation and sustaining it

permanently (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Once the educators notice changes in student ability, they should

keep their effort in prolonging the changes and bring the positive impact to the educational field.

3. Research Method

The study involved ninety (90) teachers from 14 schools in two states of Malaysia comprising 80 female

and 10 male teachers. Cluster sampling was used to form the sample. This study has a descriptive research

design employing quantitative approach using a questionnaire adapted from Chan & Sidhu (2012). This

instrument used a 5-point Likert scale that ranges from 5=strongly disagree, 4=disagree, 3=neutral, 2=agree,

to 1=strongly agree. The questionnaire is divided into four sections which are:

i. Section A: consists of respondents’ demographic characteristics.

ii. Section B: Knowledge in Planning for SBA

iii. Section C: Knowledge in Developing the SBA

iv. Section D: Knowledge in Scoring the SBA

Table 1: Sample Items from the Instrument Used

Section Items SD

5

D

4

N

3

A

2

SA

1

B I am able to understand and interpret the English language

syllabus.

C I have sufficient knowledge in constructing MCQ in reading

comprehension.

D I have sufficient knowledge in scoring the MCQ.

Another part of the instrument is shown in Table 2 which is closed-ended questions, yes or no for

Sections E, F and G. These three sections particularly focused on the Best Practices of SBA from various

tasks.

Table 2: Sample Items from the Instrument Used

Section E: Best Practices in Planning the SBA

Do you do the following when you are planning the SBA?

No. Items Yes No

28 Prepare a tentative list of instructionally relevant learning outcomes.

Section F: Best Practices in the Construction of SBA

Do you do these when you are constructing the items for SBA?

No. Items Yes No

36 Copy all the items from the suitable reference books.

Section G: Best Practices in Scoring Essay Questions for SBA

Do you do the following when scoring essay questions for SBA?

No. Items Yes No

44 Prepare an outline of the expected answer in advance

H. Hashim et al.

286

The instrument used in this research is reliable as all the Cronbach alpha values were above the criteria

suggested by Nunnally (1978) cited in Ogunkola & Archer-Bradshaw (2013), who indicated that a cut off

value of 0.7 is acceptable (Raza & Hanif, 2013; Ali & Raza, 2015). The reliability values are shown in Table

3

Table 3: Reliability Values

Section Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha

B 6 0.956

C 10 0.987

D 5 0.888

E 8 0.878

F 8 0.701

G 7 0.881

4. Results

This section will discuss important factors of the respondents, the level of understanding, readiness and

workload in implementing SBA as well as differences between level of experience, academic qualification

and SBA experience. Furthermore, this section will reveal the findings on the relationship between level of

understanding and workload, and between level of readiness and workload among teachers in implementing

SBA at school.

Respondents’ Demographic Table

The first three tables are the results on important demographic factors in the study, namely the age,

experience and academic qualifications of the respondents.

Table 4: Age of Respondents

Age Percent

20-29 Years Old 22.2



>49 Years Old 31.1

Total 100.0

Table 5 shows the age of the respondents varies. The highest percentage is at the age of 30-39 years old

(35.6%). The second highest number of respondents is aged between 40-49 years old or 31.1 % of the total

number. There are also twenty (22.2%) of the respondents who are aged between 20-29 years old, whilst the

age group with the least number of respondents is the group who are more than 49 years old (11.1%).

Table 5: Respondents’ Teaching Experience

Teaching Experience Percent

Less than 1 Year 2.2

1 to 3 years 7.8

More than 3 years 90.0

Total 100.0


287

Table 6: Respondents’ Academic Qualification

Academic Qualification Percent

Master Degree 10.0

Bachelor Degree 90.0

Total 100.0

Table 7: Respondents’ SBA Experience

SBA Experience Percent

Less than 1 Year 14.4

1 to 3 years 40.0

More than 3 years 45.6

Total 100.0

Tables 5, 6, and 7 consist of the academic qualification, the years of teaching experience and years of

involvement in SBA. Based on Table 5, the highest percentage is 90% which consists of the teachers who

have more than 3 years experience, followed by 7.8% who have 1-3 years experience, and there is only 2.2%

who have less than 1 year experience. This shows that most of the teachers have more than 3 years

experience.

Table 6 represents the academic qualification of the respondents. 90% of the respondents have bachelor

degree whilst only 10% have a postgraduate education or Master Degree. As for Table 7, it shows that, the

teachers with more than 3 years experience involving and handling SBA are the highest number of

respondents, followed by 1-3 years of experience carried out about 40% of the total numbers, and less than 1

year, consists about 14.4%.

A descriptive quantitative analysis was used to compare the mean and the standard deviation for

responses to Section B, C, and D. The results are presented in Table 8.

Table 8: Results of the Mean and Standard Deviation

Items

Mean

( x )

Std.

Deviation

(sd)

Section B: Knowledge in Planning for SBA

Q7. I am able to understand and interpret the English language syllabus.

Q8. I am able to write general objectives for my lesson plan.

Q9. I am able to write specific objectives for my lesson plan.

Q10. I am able to develop table of specification for the test.

Q11. I am able to outline the instructional content for the test.

Q12. I am able to list instructional objectives for the test.

2.02

1.91

1.92

2.27

2.23

2.20

0.887

0.788

0.820

0.804

0.822

0.796

Section C: Knowledge in Developing the SBA

Q13. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing MCQ in reading

comprehension.

Q14. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing MCQ in language forms and

functions.

Q15. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing MCQ in language in use.

Q16. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing MCQ in grammar.

Q17. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing open-ended questions in cloze

text.

Q18. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing open-ended questions in guided

composition

Q19. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing open-ended question in free-

writing.

2.26

2.33

2.27

2.27

2.26

2.37

2.32

0.868

0.887

0.872

0.922

0.881

0.841

0.872

H. Hashim et al.

288

Q20. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing MCQs based on literary texts.

Q21. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing questions for listening

components.

Q22. I have sufficient knowledge in constructing questions for speaking

components.

2.38

2.34

2.39

0.869

0.837

0.844

Section D: Knowledge in Scoring the SBA

Q23. I have sufficient knowledge in scoring the MCQ.

Q24. I have sufficient knowledge in scoring essay questions.

Q25. Be able to calculate mean.

Q26. Be able to calculate standard deviation.

Q27. Be able to calculate t-score.

2.20

2.32

2.38

2.52

2.69

0.767

0.762

0.801

0.782

0.802

The analysis of the responses is provided below according to the three sections of the questionnaire.

Section B: Knowledge in Planning for SBA

The data reflects that the respondents have the required knowledge in planning for SBA. The

respondents are not facing any obstacles in writing the general and specific objectives for the lesson plan, as

their means are 1.91 and 1.92. As for the understanding and interpretation of the English language syllabus,

the respondents are not facing any problems as well; the mean score is 2.02.

The respondents also indicate that they are able to develop a table of specification for the test

(mean=2.27, SD=0.804). The respondents are reported as having sufficient knowledge in outlining the

instructional content and listing instructional objectives for the test. The scores of the mean are 2.23 and 2.20

respectively, and the SD are 0.822 and 0.796.

Section C: Knowledge in Developing the SBA

The results gathered show that the respondents have sufficient knowledge in constructing Multiple-

Choice Questions (MCQ) for reading comprehension as well as language form and function. The mean

values are 2.26 and 2.33 respectively, while the SD is 0.868 and 0.887. It is reported that the participants

have adequate knowledge in constructing MCQ for language in use and grammar, and the means are 2.27,

while the SD are 0.872 and 0.922 respectively. As for the construction of open-ended questions, it is reported

that the participants have enough knowledge of them as well, which are cloze text, guided composition and

free-writing. The scores of mean are 2.26, 2.37 and 2.32 respectively, while the SD are 0.881, 0.841 and

0.872.

With the mean of 2.38 and SD of 0.869, it is clear that the respondents carry the knowledge in

constructing MCQ based on literary texts. As for the knowledge in constructing question for listening and

speaking components, the data collected shows that the respondents have ample of knowledge of them

(mean=2.34, 2.39, SD=0.837, 0.844). It can be seen that the respondents understood the principle of applying

MCQ and open-ended question in their practice of SBA.

Section D: Knowledge in Scoring the SBA

With the means of 2.20 and 2.32, while the SD is 0.767 and 0.762, it shows that the respondents have

adequate amount of knowledge in the scoring of MCQ and essay questions under SBA. Meanwhile, the

respondents able to calculate the mean of scoring under SBA that comes with the mean score of 2.38 and the

SD of 0.801. However, for the knowledge in calculation of standard deviation and the t-score, the data

obtained shows that some of the respondents are neutral towards it, for standard deviation (mean=2.52,

SD=0.782), whereas the t-score (mean=2.69, SD=0.802). As for Sections E, F and G, the results are shown in

Table 11 and discussed below according to the three sections. The results are reported in percentages.


289

Table 9: Results of the Percentage

Items Yes No


Do you do the following when you are planning the SBA?

Q28. Prepare a tentative list of instructionally relevant learning outcomes.

Q29. List beneath each general instructional objective a representative sample of specific

learning outcomes that describe the terminal performance students are expected to

demonstrate.

Q30. Begin each general objective with a verb (e.g., knows, applies, and interprets). Omit

“The student should be able to . . .”

Q31. Begin each specific learning outcome with an action verb that specifies observable

performance (e.g., identifies, describes).

Q32. State instructional objectives in terms of: teacher performance, learning process,

course content, two or more objectives and students’ terminal performance at the end of

instruction.

Q33. Review the list for completeness, appropriateness, soundness and feasibility

Q34. Develop a table of specifications to identify both the content areas and the

instructional objectives we wish to measure

Q35. Use your test and assessment specifications as a guide.

80%

71%

88%

87%

75%

63%

65%

81%

20%

29%

12%

13%

25%

37%

35%

19%

Section F: Best Practices in the Construction of SBA

Do you do these when you are constructing the items for SBA?

Q36. Copy all the items from the suitable reference books.

Q37. Write more items and tasks than needed.

Q38. Write the items and tasks well in advance of the testing date.

Q39. Write each test item and assessment task so that the task to be performed is clearly

defined and it calls forth the performance described in the intended learning outcome.

Q40. Write each item or task at an appropriate reading level.

Q41. Write each item or task so that it does not provide help in responding to other items

or tasks.

Q42. Write each item so that the answer is one that would be agreed on by experts or, in

the case of assessment tasks, the responses judged excellent would be agreed on by

experts.

Q43.Whenever a test item or assessment task is revised, recheck its relevance.

56%

67%

78%

82%

86%

76%

70%

87%

44%

33%

22%

18%

14%

24%

30%

13%


Do you do the following when scoring essay questions for SBA?

Q44. Prepare an outline of the expected answer in advance.

Q45. Use the scoring rubric that is most appropriate.

Q46. Decide how to handle factors that are irrelevant to the learning outcomes being

measured.

Q47. Evaluate all responses to one question before going on to the next one.

Q48. When possible, evaluate the answers without looking at the student’s name.

Q49. If especially important decisions are to be based on the results, obtain two or more

independent ratings.

Q50. Grading the test.

77%

77%

85%

84%

86%

86%

90%

23%

23%

15%

16%

14%

14%

10%


Most of the respondents prepare a tentative list of instructionally relevant learning outcomes, where the

percentage is 80% and only 20% do not practice this when they plan for the SBA. 71 % of the respondents

practice listing down beneath each general instructional objective while 29% do not practice this task. Apart

from that, most of the respondents reported that they practice to begin each general objective with a verb as

well as begin each specific learning outcome with an action verb, both come with the percentage of 88% and

H. Hashim et al.

290

87%. Besides, majority of the respondents practice the usage of state instructional objectives in their teaching

routine with 75% whilst 25% do not do it.

Furthermore, the respondents also review the list of completeness, appropriateness, soundness and

feasibility in their practice of SBA with 63% while 37% do not practice the review list. The respondents also

develop a table of specification to identify the content areas and the instructional objectives they wish to

measure with majority of 65%. In this section also, majority of the respondents practice using the test and

specifications as a guide in the application of SBA with 81%. All in all, for this section, most of the

respondents believe the following tasks are the best practices that they do when planning for the SBA.

Section F: Best Practices in Construction of SBA

Most of the respondents (56%) copy the items from suitable reference books when constructing the

items for SBA compared to those who do not practice it with 44%. The respondents reported that they write

more items and tasks than needed with majority of 67% when constructing the items for SBA, and they also

writing down the items and task prior the testing date with the majority of 78%. Apart from that 82% of the

respondents reported that they write down the task so that the task performed describe the intended learning

outcomes while only 18% do not practice this task. The percentage of 86% reflected that majority of the

respondents practice writing down the item at an appropriate reading level whilst 14% do not do so when

constructing the items for SBA.

Under SBA, the respondents write down each item so that it does not aiding other items with 76%

practice it while 24% of the respondents do not practice this task when constructing the SBA items. Most of

the respondents agreed that writing the answers agreed by experts is helpful to construct SBA items with

70% as another 30% disagreed to this practice. 87% of the respondents agreed that exercise rechecking the

relevance of items when it is revised is one of the best practices in SBA. Indeed, it can be said that majority

of the respondents agreed that the best practices in the construction of SBA are by practicing the tasks listed

in this section.


Most of the respondents (77%) prepare an outline of the expected answer before they mark their

students’ writing. Moreover, 77% of the respondents agreed that by using the most appropriate scoring rubric

in marking writing is the best way in scoring essay questions for SBA while 23% disagreed with this

practice. Apart from that, most of the respondents have the ability to decide the ways to handle factors which

are irrelevant to learning outcomes being measured with 85%. It is also reported that 84% of the respondents

put in effort to evaluate all the responses of a question before proceeding to the next one whilst 16% do not

perform this task.

In order to be fair, the respondents take the chances to evaluate the writing without looking at the

student’s name with 86% agreed to this practice. If there is any important decision will be effected by the

result, 86% of the respondents think that it is crucial to obtain two or more independent ratings from the

writing and only 24% disagree to this practice. Most of the respondents (90%) grade the test when they

marking the writing as they agree that this is the best practice in scoring the essay questions for SBA.

Overall, most respondents practice the following tasks in Section G to ensure the best ways in scoring essay

questions for SBA.

5. Discussion

Davidson (2007) points out that, some educators might find difficulties in implementing SBA due to the

lack of experience, exposure, training and confidence because SBA is a rather new idea in the educational

field. Overall results indicated that the majority of the teachers at the areas of this study have an adequate

knowledge about SBA due to the years of involvement with SBA and years of teaching. They were also

ready in implementing the system based on the result of the study. However, as the SBA is anew assessment


291

system introduced by the Malaysian government, the majority of the teachers reported high level of workload

in implementing it (Norasamsinar, 2014).

In terms of gender, female teachers perceived higher number of participant and involvement in the SBA

as compared to their male counterpart. . Besides, their readiness level is high in implementing SBA at school.

According to Mahamod, Yusoff and Ibrahim (2009), teachers are the driving force and the main impetus to

the process of teaching and learning in the classroom. Therefore, a teacher must be equipped with all related

knowledge of the SBA. Implementation of formative assessment in the SBA requires serious changes among

teachers. They need to change the perception of their role in improving student achievement and classroom

practice (Nesan, 2012; Hamzah & Sinnasamy, 2009).

Besides that, SBA requires educational leaders to take proper approaches in managing the changes and

should understand factors that affecting teacher’s understanding, readiness and workload. This study found

that the level of teachers’ readiness is high in implementing SBA. Factors that contribute to their high level

of readiness are the age of the teachers, the academic qualification, the years of teaching experience, and the

years of involvement in SBA. In addition, the years of the implementation of the SBA itself did leave an

impact on the level of awareness among the teachers. The results indicated that there is a positive

relationship between the levels of understanding and the readiness of the teachers.

The study also found a few best practices in planning and conducting SBA, (based on Section E and F).

In planning the SBA most of the respondents prepare a tentative list of instructionally relevant learning

outcomes, a few others listing down beneath each general instructional objective. Apart from that, most of

the respondents reported that they practice to begin each general objective with a verb as well as begin each

specific learning outcome with an action verb. Besides, majority of the respondents practice the usage of

state instructional objectives. In this section also, majority of the respondents practice using the test and

specifications as a guide in the application of SBA.

This study also revealed a few Best Practices in conducting SBA. Most of the respondents copy the

items from suitable reference books. The respondents reported that they write more items and tasks than

needed; and also writing down the items and task prior the testing date. Furthermore, the respondents also

reported that they write down the task so that the tasks performed describe the intended learning outcomes.

Moreover, the respondents practice writing down the item at an appropriate reading level. The respondents

write down each item so that it does not aid in answering other items. Most of the respondents agree that

writing the answers agreed by experts is helpful to SBA. Moreover, the respondents agreed that exercise

rechecking the relevance of items when it is revised is one of the best practices in SBA.

Whilst, on the other side, the study also found a few Best Practices in scoring essay questions for SBA.

The respondents prepare an outline of the expected answer before they mark their students’ writing.

Additionally, the respondents reported that using the scoring rubric to mark writing is most appropriate. Most

of the respondents have the ability to decide the ways to handle factors which are irrelevant to learning

outcomes being measured. It is reported that the respondents put in effort to evaluate all the responses of a

question before proceeding to the next one. In order to be professional, the respondents take the chances to

evaluate the writing without looking at the student’s name.

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, as school-based assessment was introduced in 2012 and to be implemented in all

secondary schools in Malaysia, over the years, there have been many comments from the parents, students

and especially the teachers regarding the new system. The teachers came out with a few issues regarding the

implementation of SBA such as, the readiness of the teachers, the work load and the slow speed and massive

internet usage when it comes to the key in process. The attitude of teachers who are not comfortable with the

reform needs to be addressed. Some of them disagree and not whole heartedly into implementing the system.

Exam-oriented emphasis needs to be changed to the assessment of individual student’s skills and

achievement. Implementation of formative assessment in SBA requires a serious change in mindset among

H. Hashim et al.

292

teachers. However, teachers will be burdened and troubled in implementing the SBA if they do not

understand and not ready about the system. Hence, they need to fully equip themselves into the system.

Teachers need to be more competent in time management. They need to cope well with the latest

teaching technique, and balance it with the workload that came out from the SBA itself. Among the

challenges in implementing the SBA is the use of the on-line reporting system, management of document

files, assessment of students who have different competencies in the classroom, teaching and learning

strategies, and allocation of time for the implementation of activities in the classroom. Therefore, support

from principals is crucial in implementing the SBA in schools. Muzammil and Kamariah (2011) added that,

good interaction between the school principals and teachers will contribute to higher level of job satisfaction

and better performance among teachers. In addition, the management of the school should provide great

assistance and adequate facilities for teachers in order to implement this new system.

Since the significant positive relationship exists between level of understanding, readiness and the best

practices mentioned, there is always a possible way to improve the current system and to ensure that teachers

highly understand the requirements of the SBA and are always ready to implement it. Consequently, they

will also change their perception to a more positive view of the SBA. Findings from this study would be able

to provide important information to MOE, schools and teachers concerning the implementation of SBA in

schools. Revealed aspects such as the level of teachers’ understanding, readiness, the best practices that the

teachers used throughout the years, provide better insights on how to effectively and efficiently implement

this assessment system. However, as the findings of this study cannot be generalized, more studies are

needed in order to contribute to the existing knowledge relating to SBA implementation in Malaysia. The

ongoing process of improvement and reformation will always be the best solution to ensure SBA as one of

the successful assessment formats in the Malaysian Education System.

References

AACU. (2011). The LEAP Vision for Learning Outcomes, Practices, impact, and employers’

Views.Retrieved October 30, 2015, from

http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/leapvision_summary.pdf

Adamson, B. (2011). Embedding assessment for learning. In Berry, R. & Adamson. B. ( Eds.) Assessment

reform in education: policy and practice (pp. 197-203). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Adi Badiozaman Tuah, 2006. Improving the quality of primary education in Malaysia through curriculum

innovation: Some current issues on assessment of students’ performance and achievement.

Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Measurement and Evaluation in Education (ICMEE),

pp. 16-26. Penang: University Science of Malaysia.

Ali, M., & Raza, S. A. (2015). Service quality perception and customer satisfaction in Islamic banks of

Pakistan: the modified SERVQUAL model. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1-

19.

Annie, T. (2012). Exploring Students’ Perception of and Reaction to Feedback in School– based Assessment.

Bell, B. & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands :

Kluwer Academic.

Berry, R. (2011). Assessment reforms around the world. In Berry, R. & Adamson. B.(Eds.) Assessment

reform in education: policy and practice (pp. 89-102). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Black, P. (2000). Research and the development of educational assessment. Oxford Review of 11 Education,

26 (3&4), 407-419.

Black & Wiliam (1998). Inside the black box. London: King’s College.

Brown, G. T. L. (2001). School based assessment methods: Development and implementation. Journal of

Assessment Paradigms, 1(1), 30-32.


293

Brown, G. T. L. & Hirschfeld, G. H. F. (2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: links to outcomes.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 1(15), 3-17.

Buhagiar, M. and R. Murphy, 2008. Teachers’ assessments of students’ learning of mathematics. Assessment

in education. Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2): 169-182.

Chan. Y. F., Sihdu, G. K., & Md. Yunus, M. R. (2006). The knowledge and best practices of secondary

school ESL teachers in school-based assessment. University Teknology

Mara. Retrieved October 20, 2015, from

http://eprints.ptar.uitm.edu.my/3181/1/LP_CHAN_YUEN_FOOK_06_24.pdf

Chapman, K. (2010). Ensuring Standards are Kept. The Star. Retrieved November 9, 2015, From

http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?sec=education&file=/2010/7/4/educati on/6589510

Cheng, J., 2004, Listen to the voice of teachers. South China Morning Post, p.17.

Davison, C. (2007). Views from the Chalk face: English Language SBA in Hong Kong. Language

Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37-68.

Davidson, C. (2007). Views from the chalk face: English language school-based assessment in Hong Kong.

Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37-68.

Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L., & Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does research say about assessment? North Central

Regional Educational Laboratory.

Faizah, A. M. (2011). SBA in Malaysian Schools: The concern of the English Teachers.US China Education

Review, 8(10).

Hamzah, M. O. & Sinnasamy, P.(2009). Between the ideal and reality: teachers’ perception of the

implementation of school –based oral English assessment. The English Teacher, 38, 13-29.

Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 169-207.

Hattie, J. and Timperley. H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 1, 81-112.

Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2009). Handbook for School Leaders on School-based

Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/SBAhandbook-

SchoolLeaders-E- 300609.pdf

Kellagahan, T. & Madaus, G. (2003).Esternal (public) examinations. In Kellaghan, T. & Stufflebeam, D.L.

(eds). International handbook of educational evaluation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia KPM.(2012). Buku Panduandanperaturanpentaksiran berasaskansekolah.

Mahamod, Z., Yusoff, N.M. & Ibrahim, J.(2009). Perbandingangayapengajaran guru Bahasa Melayudan

BahasaInggeris. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia, 67-92.

Majid, Z B A., Samad, A.A., Mohamad, M. &Vethamani, M. E. (2011), The school-based Oral English Test:

Differences in opinion between teachers and students. The English Teacher, 40, 113-128.

Mansor, A. N., Wong, K. E., Rasul, M. S., Hamzah, M. I., & Hamid, A. H. (2012). Effective Classroom

Management. International Education Studies, 5(5), 35-42.

Mansor, A. N., Leng, O. H., Rasul, M. S., Raof, R. A., &Yusoff, N. (2013). The benefits of school-based

assessment. Asian Social Science, 9(8), p101.

Martin, A. & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement and achievements:

Yields for theory, current issues and educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 79(1),

327-365.

http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?sec=education&file=/2010/7/4/educati

http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/SBAhandbook-SchoolLeaders-E-

http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/SBAhandbook-SchoolLeaders-E-

H. Hashim et al.

294

McMillan, J. H. (2001). Classroom assessment: Principles and practices for effective instruction. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

MOE. (2012). Implementation of SBA for improvement of UPSR and PMR. Ministry of Education

Malaysia.

MOE. (2007). Blueprint of Education Development. Putrajaya: Educational Planning and Research Division.

Morrison, K. & Tang, F.H.J. (2002). Testing to destruction: a problem in a small state. Assessment in

Education, Vol.9, No.3. 289- 371.

Moss, P. A. (2003). Reconceptualising validity for classroom assessment.Educational Measurement: Issues

and Practice, 22(4), 13-25.

Nesan, J. S. (2012). Tahapkefahamandankemahiran guru-guru duniasainsdanteknologi KSSR

dalampelaksanaanpentaksiranberasaskansekolah di Kerian. Thesis Sarjana, UPSI.

Nor Hasnida, M. G., Baharim, Y. &Afian, A. M. (2012). Why do we need to change? Teachers’ attitude

towards School Based Assessment System (in SCR London First International Conference on Social

Sciences and Humanities in the Islamic World). London, UK, pp. 66-72.

Norzila, M.Y., 2013. School-Based Assessment: Transformation in Educational Assessment in Malaysia.

Cambridge Horizons School-based Assessment: Prospects and Realities in Asian Contexts.

Ogunkola, B.J. & Archer-Bradshaw, R.E. (2013). Teacher Quality Indicators as Predictors of Instructional

Assessment Practices in Science Classrooms in Secondary Schools in Barbados. ERIC, 43(1), 3-31.

Rashid, R.A. and J.H. Jaidin, 2014. Exploring primary school teachers’ conceptions of assessment for

learning. International Education Studies, 7(9): 69-83.

Raza, S. A., & Hanif, N. (2013). Factors affecting internet banking adoption among internal and external

customers: a case of Pakistan. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 7(1), 82-96.

Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational Behavior(. 15th Ed). England: Pearson.

Ruzlan, Md. Ali, ArsaythambyVeloo and Hariharan N. Krishnasamy, 2015. Implementation of School-Based

Assessment: The Experienced Teachers’ Thoughts. Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 9(18): 72-78.

SBA Consultancy Team. (2005). HKCEE English examination: Introduction to the SBA component. Hong

Kong. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/CE-Eng-

07IntroBook let-0610.pdf

Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback. Cambridge

Journal of Education, 36(4), 485-502.

Yip, D.Y. and D. Cheung, 2005. Teachers’ concerns on school-based assessment of practical work. Journal

of Biological Education, 39(4): 156-162.

Yong, H. T., & Lim, C. S. (2008). Implementing School-Based Assessment: The Mathematical Thinking

Assessment (MATA) Framework. Buku Koleksi Bahan Seminar Inovasi Pedagogi IPBL.

Zaidatun, Tasir& Lim Bee Yok.(2010). Tahappengetahuan, sikapdanmasalah penggunaankomputer di

kalangan guru di sekolahmenengah Daerah Alor Gajah. Retrieved from

http://eprints.utm.my/11385/1/Tahap_Pengetahuan.pdf

the readiness of esl teachers in implementation of school ... 5... · hazwati hashim1, noor...

Documents