A GLANCE AT THE MALAYSIAN EDUCATION REFORM: FROM HIGH STAKES TESTING TO SCHOOL BASED ASSESSMENT

           Gambar kenangan bersama dua kelas kesayangan kami, K2T5 & K2T6 Sesi 2018/2019

What is high-stakes testing?

In recent days, the debates among education policy makers have been centres much on the high-stakes testing. In very specific terms, high-stakes tests are a part of a policy design (Schneider & Ingram, 1997) that “links the score on one set of standardised tests to grade promotion, high school graduation and, in some cases, teacher and principal salaries and tenure decisions” (Orfield & Wald, 2000). As part of a policy design, high-stakes tests represent one “instrument the State uses to implement the policy and to allocate its values” (M. L. Smith, 2004) of “good” and “bad” schools, teachers and students. Like the question of global warming, the issue of standardised testing in Malaysia seems to heat up and become more intense as years pass by. The role of standardised testing has become a national policy issue where its importance becomes everyone’s concern. High-Stakes Testing in Malaysia is the sole gauge of student achievement and accountability. The students entire year, or more, as well as their grades depend on a series of standardised tests: the UPSR for students in Standard 6 (ages 7-12), the SPM for students in Form 5 (ages 16-17) and the STPM for students in pre-university Form 6 (ages 19-20).

Critic on high-stakes tests: Teaching to the test

Critics of high-stakes, standardised testings are everywhere. It simply leads to a conclusion in which a standardised test will standardised the teaching which contradicts the fact of learning should be an infinite and border-less process. According to Yeh (2005), critics on high stakes testing generally report four negative effects produced by testing which includes narrowing the curriculum by excluding the subject matter that is not being tested. Teacher become concerned with what it takes to enable students to pass the tests rather than making the classroom as a place where inquiries meet discoveries. This makes the curve of teaching and learning process to be constant as it moves towards the end of school year. If the teaching to the test is what it takes, that is exactly what the teachers will do. Ultimately, the teaching culture may become a situation where all teachers are busy finishing the syllabuses provided and indirectly neglecting thinking skills among students. Without being realised, this has caused the students to be cognitively challenged as they proceed to higher level of educations, which require them to think a lot and apply it to the real world needs. This happened because the learning to them is only a schematic process where the teacher delivers the knowledge and their job is to store it somewhere in their minds.

High-stakes tests are a form of summative assessment, a type of formal assessment used to measure students outcomes at the end of instructional program or course (Banks, 2005). They may be used to determine if the student achieved mastery of an instructional segment or an academic program. It is also being used to determine whether a student should pass a course or whether a student should receive a high school certificate. In Malaysia’s context, the issue that Ministry of Education confronted during the year of 2009-2010 was that too much of assessment taking place in school was actually summative (UPSR, PMR and SPM). Thus, much of the time was spent on teaching to prepare the students for these high-stakes exams. Each episode of these 3 high-stakes exams will be a year of waste to both teachers and students as the students being drilled to answer sets of past year questions that are most likely to come out during the real exams time. Eventually, this reduces student interest and motivation, chaining to other problems of educational achievement.

Recent Centre for Biritish Teachers (CfBT) Education Malaysia research shows that good quality student feedback is actually far more important than receiving a grade. Students who are given comment-only feedback and no score or grade on their work actually learn more. The problem with grading is that students focus more on their score without digesting the teachers’ feedbacks on how to improve. Furthermore, the problem with exams is that they have no real relationship to the types of skills that students need in the real world. Teachers are responsible to get the students to understand how to improve by giving clear and actionable feedback. As a result, this will gain much in student achievement that is among the largest ever-reported education intervention (Hamilton, 2014).  

High-stakes tests: Criterion-Referenced or Norm-Referenced?

            Among the major issues regarding classroom assessments are two questions concerning overall standards for assessments and grades: Should an assessment grade students on the basis of how they perform or master a specific subject (Criterion-referenced)? Or should it grade students on the basis of how they perform compare with other students (Norm-referenced)? These two kind of tests differ in their intended purposes, the manner in which content is chosen, and the process of interpreting results (Hambleton & Zenitsky, 2003; Bond, 1996; Frechtling, 1989; Popham, 1978)

            The purpose of a norm-referenced test is to classify students, from low to high, across a range of ability or achievement. Thus, a norm-referenced test uses a representative sample of individuals. This might be use to classify students for purposes of selection to a specialised curriculum or placement in the next level of education that students plan to pursue. On the other hand, Criterion-referenced tests focus is on what the students can do rather than on comparisons to the performance levels of others (Gregory, 2015)

There are two key points to remember about high-stakes testing in Malaysia: 1) They are usually norm-referenced and 2) They served to compare students’ performances to that of a national group of similar students for placement purpose in advance educational level. For example, the UPSR results have been use for years to place students with good results to boarding schools such as Sekolah Menengah Sains and Maktab Rendah Sains Mara (MRSM). With overwhelming evidences of flaws of current exam-oriented system, do our standardised tests are the best way to measure the real quality and potential in students? When student score goes up in the norm-referenced test that does not mean that the students know more. This is because the obtained results are based on comparison with other students. The first case is if most students scored well in one particular test, the A grade students are undoubtedly the A scored students which indicates the high standard of the grades. The second case is when most students did average or below average then the A grade students might be lower in quality if compared to A grade students in the first case.

The purpose of large-scale tests is to provide a “panoramic view” covering content spanning a year or more (Green & Johnson, 2010). When the tests only provide a broad view, only a few items on each concept or skill can be included. These few items cannot generate the detailed information teachers need for planning lessons or figuring out which concepts a student might be missing. Norm-referenced tests too, provide general picture useful for showing how a group of students compares to standards, how a school or district compares to others, and how performance from one year compares to the next. Hence, their primary purpose is to generate information for accountability, planning, and resource allocation. Diagnostic and formative assessments are much better suited for instructional uses for individual teachers and students (Green & Johnson, 2010). In addition, the fact that these test scores are used to decide on significant sanctions leads to greater pressure to enhance scores without necessarily enhancing student achievement. With this being said, Ministry of Education has adopted a new approach, which believes to be better for Malaysian education system that is solidly aligned with the National Philosophy of Education.

PT3: The first step to reform exam-oriented education system in Malaysia

It was indeed sad to read about a Chinese student who committed suicide after finding himself unable to answer Additional Mathematics Paper I of his SPM examinations. Today school examinations have become like a race where parents place bet on their children. They go all out spending invaluable time, money and energy to ensure they win the race with flying colours. The UPSR results came out recently show that Malaysian still idolised straight A’s students and how the unlucky ones are left behind. These high achievers must be rewarded accordingly but it is equally important to make sure the others are also taken care. They are always left drown in their own beliefs thinking about how they failed their parents, teachers and more importantly their own selves. Sadly, this kind of thought does affect how they carry themselves in learning process throughout their secondary school level and simply demotivates them to learn. Opportunities must made available for these students as well.

These sorts of phenomenon strongly show how Malaysian still worships examinations when the truth is education is not all about examinations and getting good grades. Luckily, a lot of efforts are already underway to address this. For example, the revamping of Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) into school based oriented assessment (PT3) is on its way. The first batch of form three students including private candidates have completed the very first Pentaksiran Tingkatan 3 (PT3) last year. PT3 is a lower secondary school examination that replaces Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) in which it is planned to go into application of knowledge rather than the ability of memorising. PT3 has the same scope as PMR before, in which it uses summative assessment to evaluate students overall intellectual ability at lower secondary level. PT3 differs from the PMR examinations where the examination papers are prepared by the respective secondary schools with school principals being fully responsible for the execution throughout the examination period. However, the Malaysian Examination Board and state education department will be the moderator to ensure the candidates validity and reliability scores.

Apart from that, PT3 is also different from PMR in term of the assessment tools. For instance, the oral examination for language subjects is improved to ensure the candidates excel both the written and oral tests. Moreover, the introduction of case study for Geography and History subjects is hoped to produce excellent students who master technical skills as well as to grasp the knowledge together with the values. Students will then receive a set of four results slip that include the PT3, School based Assessment (PBS), psychometric assessment and also sports assessment (Malaysian Digest, 2013). This will be very helpful for the students as well as parents in determining which stream would best suited them for higher secondary level. By making the examination system less exam-oriented, the main aim is to reduce over-dependency of students to examination grades so that they can experience real education. With clarity, PT3 is a good move made by Ministry of Education that can be considered as an all-rounder that combines both academic and non-academic performance and simultaneously remove the pressure of the students sitting for examinations.

Reactions towards implementation of School Based Assessment (SBA)

Since School Based Assessment (SBA) started, it raised a lot of reactions from all strata of society. Mainstream medias have not stop in doing follow up news regarding this kind of issue in our education system. Most of the reactions involve negative complains from teachers and parents. Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE), a pro-English education group, has said that School Based Assessment (SBA) was poorly implemented even though its aims were good (The Malaysian Insider, 2014). PAGE honorary secretary Tunku Munawirah Putra said the SBA’s rushed implementation has burdened teachers while parents themselves are sceptical of how student performance is assessed.

It also has been reported that the group Suara Guru Masyarakat Malaysia (SGMM) has said that public schools are increasingly turning their backs on School Based Assessment (SBA). According to the group, teachers are finding it hard to implement SBA to track student performance and have instead fallen back on exams (The Malaysian Insider, 2014). Some schools even started adopting dual system assessment in which they combine both the new SBA along with existing internal examinations. Consequently, it results in increasing teachers’ workloads and it makes sense why most teachers find it hard to implement SBA. Teachers themselves are the product of exam driven system so as the parents. Teacher who must be the agents of change, are products of the system they are trying to change and teachers’ feelings, beliefs, and values that are opposite to constructivism are a barrier to reform in education. (Anderson & Piazza, 1996). This situation has caused the Ministry of Education to put on hold the implementation of SBA early last year to reconsider all the feedbacks and latest findings and makes necessary changes that reduces the teachers’ burdens. SBA was then resume after several changes have been made with consensus of all.

Teachers also reported the ambiguity in the grading system has prevented them from accurately assessing the students whether they understand the knowledge taught to them or not. This is due to subjectivity that varies from one teacher to another when assessing student’s actual achievement. Moreover, SBA requires teacher to evaluate students individually, which potentially cause inconsistency and bias in giving grades.

Conclusion

            School Based Assessment is not an alien to our education system as quizzes, assignments, tasks are to us during our school days. Teachers have been using this kind of assessments way before the real SBA has been introduced to our system. In fact, the new SBA is the upgraded and resourceful version of the old one. Grading is often a difficult task for teachers for four main reasons: 1) few teachers have had formal instruction in how to grade pupils (Airasian, 1991; Slavin, 1994), 2) school districts and principals provide little guidance to teachers regarding grading policies and expectations (Hubelbank, 1994), 3) teachers know that grades a pupil gets will be scrutinised and often challenged and 4) there is fundamental ambiguity in teacher’s classroom role (Brookhart, 1991) in which the knowledge of pupils’ needs and characteristics are difficult to ignore when the teacher is called upon to be a dispassionate, objective dispenser of grades. (Airasian, 2000).

            In the face of the overwhelming evidence, it makes complete sense that the Ministry of Education is pushing schools towards SBA. It also makes complete sense that schools are resisting, because old habits die hard. Teachers are themselves the product of an exam-driven system, as parents likewise. For teachers, the change to SBA is scary and a complete turnover paradigm shift. The key to successful implementation of SBA is habit change and Ministry of Education needs to get into the habit-changing business. If there is no focus on what teachers actually do in the classroom, the curriculum and assessment changes will have little impact.

By now, Ministry of Education should know that one-shot reform certainly does not work. It does take time to implement this new approach especially for teachers to understand the whole idea of SBA. A gradual reform should be adopted by our system to ensure better implementation of SBA. It is also important to establish common communities where teachers can share and learn how to assess their students in more effective ways. The direct involvement of Ministry of Education to these communities is also very crucial as they can transparently see how SBA is being implemented in schools and make necessary changes if needed.

REFERENCE

Airasian, Peter W. (2000). Assessment in the Classroom: A Concise Approach. Boston. McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Au, Wayne. (2009). Unequal By Design: High Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality. New York. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Banks, Steven R. (2005). Classroom Assessment: Issues and Practices. Boston. Pearson Education

Dewit, P. (2014, December 14). Three Reasons Why High Stakes Testing Matter. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2014/12/3_reasons_why_high_stakes_testing_matters.html

Green, Susan K & Johnson, Robert L. (2010). Assessment is Essential. New York. McGraw-Hill Higher Education

Hamilton, Arran. (2014, January 27). Don’t Choose the ‘Rojak Solution’ for Student Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/dont-choose-the-rojak-solution-for-student-assessment-dr-arran-hamilton

Mahavera, Sheridan. (2014, February 20). Parents’ group wants School Based Assessment to Be Put On Hold. Retrieved from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/parents-group-wants-school-based-assessment-system-to-be-put-on-hold

Reports: High Stakes Testing Hurts Education. (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.fairtest.org/reports-high-stakes-testing-hurts-education

Wellstone, Paul D (2000, Mac 31). High Stakes Tests: A Harsh Agenda for America’s Children. Retrieved from http://www.fairtest.org/high-stakes-tests-harsh-agenda-americas-children