UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|This paper presents a theory-based evaluation of the School-based Assessment (SBA), an assessment system which is conducted by subject teachers in schools to assess students cognitive (intellect), affective (emotional and spiritual) and psychomotor (physical) aspects. The implementation of SBA is in line with the National Philosophy of Education and the Standards-based School Curriculum in Malaysia. A survey was employed within the theoretical framework of the CIPP Evaluation Model. Findings from the survey suggest that all 376 teachers are quite satisfied with the input received from the governments. Regarding process dimension of evaluation, the implementation goes well but could still be strengthened. And looking at the product dimension of evaluation when system is implemented, teachers are satisfied with the students’ attitude and knowledge but not really with the motivational level especially the students’ reading interest. The study thus provides some support for the effectiveness of the SBA system implementation and for the theoretical model that is proposed.|
1. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College. 2. Chan Y. F. and Gurnam K. S. (2012). School-based Assessment Among ESL Teachers in Malaysian Secondary Schools, Journal of the Malaysian Education Deans’ Council, Vol. 9, 1-18. 3. Che Noraini, H., Adlina, A. & Nurhidayah, M. H. (2013) ‘Ideal vs Reality: Evidences from senior teacher experiences on the Malaysia SBA system’ Proceedings of the Malaysian Educations Dean Council. UIAM, 23-25 September. INSTED. Available at: http://www.iium.edu.my/ medc2013 /documents/ProsidingMEDC. pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2014). 4. Cheng, L., Andrews, S. & Yu, Y. (2011). Impact and consequences of SBA: students’ and parents’ views of SBA in Hong Kong, Language Testing, 28(2), 221-250. 5. Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., & Sammons, P. (2010). Methodological advances in educational effectiveness research. London: Routledge. 6. Davison, C. (2007) Views from the chalk face: SBA in Hong Kong, Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37-68. 7. Faizah, A. M. (2011). School-based assessment in Malaysian Schools: The Concerns of the English teachers, Journal of US-Chine Education Review, 8(10), 1-15. 8. Feng, H. (2007). Senior ESOL Students’ Experiences of and attitudes towards Formative Assessment in Mainstream Secondary Classrooms.Available at: http:// ir. canterbury .ac.nz/ bitstream /10092 /1058/1/ thesis_fulltext.pdf (Accessed: 3 November 2014). 9. Hogan, R. L. (2007). The Historical Development of Program Evaluation: Exploring the past and present, Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development, 11(4). 10. Lembaga Peperiksaan (2010). Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah. Available at: http:// buletinkpm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/pentaksiran-berasaskan-sekolah-pbs.html (Accessed: 7 November 2011). 11. Lembaga Peperiksaan Malaysia (2011). Panduan dan Peraturan PBS. Putrajaya. Available at: http://www .scribd.com/faridooi/d/81532201-Panduan-Dan- Peraturan-Pbs-2011. (Accessed: 22 November 2011). 12. MOE (2013). Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah, Soalan-soalan Lazim. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.my/lp/files/faq/FAQ%20PBS%202013.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2013). 13. Othman, I., Md Saleh, N. and Md Norani, N. A. (2013) ‘The Implementation of School Based Assessment In Primary School Standard Curriculum’, International Journal of Education and Research, 1(7), 1-10. 14. Salmiah, J. (2013). Acceptance towards SBA among agricultural integrated living skills teachers: challenges in implementing a holistic assessment, Journal of Technical Education and Training (JTET), 5(1), 44-51. 15. Stiggins, R. (2005). From Formative Assessment to Assessment for Learning: A Path to Success in Standards-Based Schools, Phi Delta Kappan. 87(4), 324-328. 16. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). ‘The relevance of the CIPP Evaluation Model for Educational Accountability’, Annual Meeting of the American Association of School Administrators. Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED062385 .pdf (Accessed: 3 September 2012). 17. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Evaluation Models: New Directions for Evaluation, 7-98, John Wiley and Sons. 18. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). ‘The CIPP Model for Evaluation’ in Kellaghan, T and Stufflebeam, D. L., International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, pp. 31-62, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 19. Wiliam, D. (2001). What is wrong with our educational assessments and what can be done about it, Education Review, 15(1). 20. Young, S. & Giebelhaus, C. (2005). Formative Assessment and Its Uses for Improving Student Achievement. Education Data Management Solutions, STI. Available at: www.cbohm.com/news/STI/STI_White_Paper.pdf (Accessed Nov 2011). 21. Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C. & Misulis, K. (2011). Using the context, input, process and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation and assessment of service-learning programs’, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(4), 57-84.
|This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.|
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.