UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : |
| During the teaching practice, assessment of pre-service teachers’ performance by the institution supervisors and school mentors are the key elements during their placement. The goal of this paper focuses on the assessment methods used nowadays to evaluate the preservice teachers during teaching practice. This article adopted the narrative overviews’ method which also known as a unsystematic narrative review that comprehensively syntheses previously published article journal on teaching practice assessment method. From the literature that has been studied, the were two categories of assessment methods and eight type of assessment methods that can be used to evaluate pre-service teacher during teaching practice. Discussion of the strengths and limitations of each assessment methods for teaching practice during will be discussed in the final part of this paper. This article has the potential to contribute to the field of education. Specifically, this research will contribute to the assessment of teaching practice’s field because there is less literature available locally on assessment for teaching practice. |
| References |
1. Al-malki, M. A., & Weir, K. (2014). A Comparative Analysis between the Assessment Criteria Used to Assess Graduating Teachers at Rustaq College (Oman) and Griffith University (Australia) During The Teaching Practicum. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 28–42. 2. Bell, C. A., Qi, Y., Croft, A. J., Leusner, D., McCaffrey, D. F., Gitomer, D. H., & Pianta, R. C. (2014). Improving Observational Score Quality. In T. Kane, K. A. Kerr, & R. C. Pianta (Eds.),Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems (First Edit, pp. 50–81). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. 3. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18(5), 529–549.http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138746 4. Boulton, H. (2014). ePortfolios beyond pre-service teacher education: a new dawn? European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 374–389. http://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.870994 5. Chung, R. R. (2008). Beyond assessment: Performance assessments in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 7–28. 6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014a). One Piece of the Whole: Teacher Evaluation as Part of a Comprehensive System for Teaching and Learning. American Educator, 38(1), 4–13. 7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2014b). Strengthening Clinical Preparation: The Holy Grail of Teacher Education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561. http://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2014.939009 8. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 523–545. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0742- 051X(00)00015-9 9. Dutt, K. M., Tallerico, M., & Kayler, M. A. (1997). Assessing student teachers: The promise of developmental portfolios. The Teacher Educator, 32(4), 201–215. http://doi.org/10.1080/08878739709555147 10. Gallant, A., & Mayer, D. (2012). Teacher performance assessment in teacher education: An example in Malaysia. Journal of Education for Teaching, 38(July 2015), 295–307. http://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2012.668330 11. Glatthorn, A. A. (1984). Differentiated Supervision. (R. S. Brandt & J. A. Trick, Eds.). Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 12. Goos, M., & Moni, K. (2001). Modelling Professional Practice: A collaborative approach to developing criteria and standards-based assessment in pre-service teacher education courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 73–88. http://doi.org/10.1080/02602930020022291a 13. Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peerreviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6 14. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009). Teaching Practice: A Cross-Professional Perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9),2055–2100. 15. Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A Practical Guide to Alternative Assessment. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 16. Hung, S.-T. A. (2012). A washback study on e-portfolio assessment in an English as a Foreign Language teacher preparation program. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 21–36. http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.551756 17. Kulik, J. A. (2001). Student Ratings: Validity, Utility, and Controversy. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(109), 9–25. http://doi.org/10.1002/ir.1 18. Kusut, R. (2015). Amalan Dan Pendekatan Pencerapan Klinikal Dalam Praktikum Serta Impaknya Terhadap Kualiti Guru Pelatih. Jurnal Tinta Artikulasi Membina Ummah, 1(1), 41–51. 19. Lydia Wen, M., Tsai, C., & Chang, C. (2006). Attitudes towards peer assessment: a comparison of the perspectives of pre‐service and in‐service teachers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 83–92. http://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467640 20. Mattsson, M., Eilertsen, T. V., & Rorrison, D. (2011). What is Practice in Teacher Education? In M. Mattsson, T. V. Eilertsen, & D. Rorrison (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education (pp. 1–18). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 21. Maxwell, G. S. (2001). Teacher Observation in Student Assessment. Queensland, Australia. 22. Oakley, G., Pegrum, M., & Johnston, S. (2014). Introducing e-portfolios to pre-service teachers as tools for reflection and growth: lessons learnt. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(1), 36–50. http://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.854860 23. Queensland College of Teachers. (2012). An investigation of best practice in evidence-based assessment within preservice teacher education programs and other professions. 24. Rusznyak, L., & Bertram, C. (2015). Knowledge and judgement for assessing student teaching : a cross-institutional analysis of teaching practicum assessment instruments. Journal of Education, 60(SEPTEMBER), 31–62. 25. Scriven, M. (1981). Summative teacher evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (First Edit, pp. 244–271). SAGE Publications. 26. Shukery, M. (1994). Beberapa Model Pencerapan Pengajaran-Pemelajaran: Huraian Konsep, Andaian-Andaian Teoretikal, Serta Masalah-Masalah Berbangkit. Pendidik Dan Pendidikan,13, 63–71. 27. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching : Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1007/SpringerReference_17273 28. Ssentamu-Namubiru, P. (2010). Teaching practicum supervisors’ identity and student assessment on the practicum: An assorted mind-set? Africa Education Review, 7(2), 305–322. http://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2010.515423 29. Sullivan, C. G. (1980). CLINICAL SUPERVISION A STATE OF THE ART REVIEW. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 30. Tillema, H. H., & Smith, K. (2009). Assessment orientation in formative assessment of learning to teach. Teachers and Teaching, 15(3), 391–405. http://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903056726 31. Topping, K. (1998). Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249 32. Topping, K. (2003). Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability, Validity and Utility. In Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards (pp.55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4 33. Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. book, Jossey-Bass. 34. Zailani, J. (2013). Teaching Practicum : Student Teachers ’ Perspectives. In 3rd International Conference On Foreign Language Language And Teaching (pp. 865–874). Bangkok:Language Institute, Thammasat University. |
| 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. |