|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : |
| Purpose – The study was aimed at exploring and analysing the current assessment practices of lecturers in selected Malaysian higher learning institution classrooms. The focus was the different modes of assessment used in the classroom and to make recommendations on using a variety of assessment modes that would be well-aligned with the intended learning outcomes. Methodology – A qualitative approach using a descriptive case study design was employed in developing the study. Subjects of the study were selected based on a voluntary basis and 15 lecturers teaching in eight programmes from two higher learning institutions participated in the study. Classroom observation was the main method of data collection, while data analysis employed thematic analysis. Each lecturer was observed twice. Three instruments were used in data collection, namely: pre-observation form, observation form and video recordings. The data was analysed through the opencoding process. The notes in the observation forms were compiled and reviewed to identify themes. Findings – The fndings revealed that the current assessment practices of the lecturers included several modes of assessment,with oral questioning and peer assessment modes being used more frequently than others. The feedback modes employed were also varied with giving comments and correcting student answers or errors as the most common modes. The results provided evidence that besides teacher assessment, peer assessment was found to be another form of assessment favoured by the lecturers during the teaching and learning process. It was used to assess student presentations, to correct peer errors, and to give feedback. Signifcance – The fndings were used to guide decisions on the need for assessment training for lecturers, educators and curriculum developers regarding the types of assessment modes for incorporation in teaching and learning, and also the need for assessment training that would provide lecturers with the knowledge and confdence to use a variety of assessment modes. |
| References |
1. Abbasnasab-Sardareh, S., & Saad, M. R. M. (2013). Malaysian Primary School ESL teachers. Questions during Assessment for Learning. English Language Teaching, 6(8), 1-9. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n8p1 2. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Research-based practices to guide classroom practice. London, UK: Author. 3. ASLI-CPPS, PROHAM, & KITA-UKM. (2012). Education reform and process of consultation. In Education Reform in Malaysia Report (pp. 1-35). Bangi, Malaysia: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Institute of Ethnic Studies. 4. Bartek, M. M. (2002). Paving the road to critical thinking. Understanding Our Gifted, 14(4), 10-12. Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy. College Teaching, 38(4), 128-133. 5. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (1999). Researching formative assessment. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 198-214). London,UK: Falmer Press. 6. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. 7. Brookfeld, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Challenging adults to explore ways of thinking and acting. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. 8. Brown, G. A., & Edmondson, R. (1985). Asking questions. In E. C. Wragg (Ed.), Classroom teaching skills (pp. 97-120).London, UK: Croom Helm. 9. Chan Yuen Fook, & Gurnam Kaur Sidhu. (2010). Authentic assessment and pedagogical strategies in Higher Education.Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 153-161. 10. Chan, Yuen Fook., Gurnam Kaur Sidhu, & Md. Rizal Md. Yunus.(2009). School-Based Assessment Enhancing knowledge and best practices. Shah Alam, Malaysia: UPENA, UITM. 11. Cohen, L., Marion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Reserch methods in education. (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. 12. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35. doi: 10.3102/00346543064001001 13. Charanjit Kaur Swaran Singh, & Arshad Abdul Samad. (2013).The use of portfolio as an assessment tool in the Malaysian L2 classrooms. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(1), 94-108. 14. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. The Wingspread Journal, 9(2). 15. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. (2008). Instructor modeling and online guidance for peer questioning during online discussion. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(3), 255-275. doi: 10.2190/ET.36.3.c 16. Craddock, D., & Mathias, H. (2009). Assessment options in higher education. Assess Evaluate Higher Education, 3(4), 127-140.doi: 10.1080/02602930801956026 17. Davies, A. (2000). Making classroom assessment work. Courtenay,BC: Connections Publishing. Retrieved from www.connection spublishing.ca 18. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K, A., Marsh, J, M., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. doi: 10.1177/ 1529100612453266 19. Egan, O., & Archer, P. (1985). The accuracy of teachers’ ratings of ability: A regression model. American Educational Research Journal, 2(2), 25–34. 20. Fisher, R. P., Milne, B. A., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 16-19. doi:10.1177/096372141039682 21. Gan Siew Ling, & Hong Kian Sam. (2010). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in the teaching of Mathematics. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, (7). 22. Golding, P., Facey-Shaw, L., & Tennant, V. (2006, October).Effects of peer tutoring, attitude and personality on academic performance of frst year introductory programming students.Paper presented at The 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Diego. 23. Green, J. L., & Nixon, C. N. (2002). Exploring differences in perspectives on microanalysis of classroom discourse: Contributions and concerns. Applied Linguistics, 23, 393-406. 24. Hake, R. (2006) Measuring teaching and learning performance: Interconnected issues. The Third International Conference on Measurement and Evaluation in Education (ICMEE). Penang, Malaysia, 13-15 February. Retrieved from http:// www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/ICMEEk-2006.pdf 25. Huitt, W., & Lutz, S. (2004). Connecting cognitive development and constructivism: Implications from theory for instruction and assessment. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 9(1),67-90. 26. Ismail, H., & Alexander, J. (2005). Learning within scripted and non-scripted peer-tutoring session: The Malaysian context. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 67-77. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.2.67-77 27. James, R., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Tutoring and demonstrating: A guide for the University of Melbourne. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Australia. 28. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington,DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. 29. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368. doi: 10.3102/00028312031002338 30. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127-148. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1993.9943857 31. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P., & Horowitz, D.(2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 1201-1231. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021 32. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies,contradictions, and emerging confuences. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 33. Lizzio, A. J., & Wilson, K. L. (2007). Enhancing the effectiveness of self-managed learning groups: Understanding students? Choices and concerns. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 689-703. 34. Lorsch, N., & Ronkowski, S. (1982). Teaching tips for TA’s:Effective questioning enhances student learning. InstructionalDevelopment, University of California, Santa Barbara. 35. Llosa, L. (2008). Building and supporting a validity argument for a standards-based classroom assessment of English profciency based on teacher judgments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 32–42. 36. Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015-2025. (2015). Higher Education.Retrieved from https://www.mohe.gov.my/en/download/public/ penerbitan/pppm-2015-2025-pt/5-malaysia-educationblueprint-2015-2025-higher-education/fle 37. Malaysian Ministry of Education. (1998). Huraian sukatan pelajaran matematik KBSM. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Author. 38. Martinez, J. F., Stecher, B., & Borko, H. (2009). Classroom assessment practices, teacher judgments, and student achievement in Mathematics: Evidence from the ECLS. Educational Assessment, 14, 78–102. doi: 10.1080/10627190903039429 39. Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2011). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020518 40. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 41. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Interrating diversity with quantitative & qualitative approaches. 42. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca:Sage. 43. Milne, R., Poyser, S., Williamson, T., & Savage, S. (2010).Miscarriages of justice: What can we learn? In J. Adler & J. Gray (Eds.), Forensic psychology: Concepts, debates and practice (17-37). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing. 44. Myrick, F., & Yonge, O. (2002). Preceptor questioning and student critical thinking. Journal of Professional Learning, 18(3), 176-181. doi: 10.1053/jpnu.2002.124485 National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2007-2020. Retrieved from: www. hu.ac.th/english/academic/ documents/psptn2-eng.pdf 45. Nor Shidrah Mat Daud, Gilmore, A., & Mayo, H. E. (2013).Exploring the potency of peer evaluation to develop critical thinking for tertiary academic writing. World Applied Sciences Journal 21 (Special Issue of Studies in Language Teaching and Learning), 109-116. 46.Noraini, Idris. (2007). The effect of Geometers’ Sketchpad on the performance in Geometry of Malaysian students’ achievement and van Hiele geometric thinking. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences,1(2),169 - 180. 47. Ng, L.Y., Bakar, K. A., Roslan , S., Wong, S. L., & Rahman, P.Z. M. A. (2005). Predictors of self-regulated learning in Malaysian smart schools. International Educational Journal, 6(3), 343-353. 48. Otieno, V. R., Aloka, P. J. O, & Odongo, B. C. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions on oral questioning as a method of assessment of holistic development among Kenyan lower primary schools learners. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3). 49. Othman, Nik Suryani Abd Rahman, Zainurin Abd Rahman, Zainab Mohd Nor. (2014). Assessment for learning practices and competency among Malaysian university lecturers: A national study. Practitioner Research In Higher Education,8(1), 14-31. 50. Sellappah, S., Hussey, T., Blackmore, A. M., & McMurray, A. (1998). The use of questioning strategies by clinical teachers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1), 142-148. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00776.x 51. Silverman, D. (2001). Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction: Interpreting qualitative data (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. 52. Singha, K. G., Goswami, M., & Bharali, R. K. (2012). Study of various problems faced by the students and teachers in learning & teaching Mathematics and their suggestive measures. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences. 53. Spiller, D. (2012). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and PeerAssessment. The University of Waikato. 54. Stiggins, R. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 55. Tong, S. Y. (2011). Exploring Students’ Perception of and Reaction to Feedback in School–based Assessment. Malaysian Journal Of ELT Research, 7(2). 56. Topping, K. J., Campbell, J., Douglas, W., & Smith, A. (2003).Cross--age peer tutoring in mathematics with seven and eeven years olds: Infuence on mathematical vocabulary strategic dialogue and self concept. Education Research, 45, 287-308. 57. Topping, K. J., Kearney, m.m McGee, E., & Pugh, J. (2004).Tutoring in mathematics: A generic method. Mentoring and Tutoring, 12 (3), 351-368. 58. Topping, K. J. (1996). The effectiveness of peer tutoring in further and higher education: A typology and review of the literature. Higher Education, 32, 321-345. 59. Tunku Ahmad, T. B., Ainol Madziah Zubairi, Mohd Burhan Ibrahim, Joharry Othman, Nik Suryani Abd Rahman, Zainurin Abd Rahman, ...Zainab Mohd Nor. (2014). Assessment for learning practices and competency among Malaysian university lecturers: A national study. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 8(1), 14-31. 60. Tunku Mohani Tunku Mohtar. (2010). The use of alternative assessment to sustain Teaching and learning. Tanjung Malim,Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. 61. Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perception of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394. 62. Yin, R. K. (20033b). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 63. Zubairi, A. M., Sarudin, I., & Nordin, M. S. (2008). Faculty competency in assessment. The Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA), 7-12 September, Cambridge, UK |
| 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. |