The effectiveness of extensive assessment instruments on the psychomotor achievement levels for fielding category games in year 5 physical education subjects

Azali Rahmat

QR Code Link :
Type :	article
Subject :	GV Recreation Leisure
Main Author :	Azali Rahmat
Additional Authors :	Norkhalid Salimin Hanapiah Khamis Abd Rahim Mohd Shariff
Title :	The effectiveness of extensive assessment instruments on the psychomotor achievement levels for fielding category games in year 5 physical education subjects

Place of Production :	Tanjong Malim
Publisher :	Fakulti Sains Sukan dan Kejurulatihan
Year of Publication :	2019
Corporate Name :	Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

The purpose of this study was to identify the level of learning achievement in psychomotor domain by using Extensive Assessment Instruments (EAI) for fielding category games in Year 5 Physical Education subjects. One shot case study design was used in this study. This study was conducted at nine primary schools in Muar district of Johor with 8 Physical Education (PE) teachers and 570 Year 5 students in PE class involve as participant. The Extensive Assessment Instrument (r = 0.96) contained a rating rubric for the psychomotor domain. The percentage of teachers' agreement on the EAI use was 94.14%. The results of this study showed that the level of students achievement on psychomotor domain for fielding category games in PE subjects was (M = 68.33, SD = 0.87) at the mastery level. Based on these findings, EAI was ideally to used as a standardized measure for assessing student learning achievement in the fielding category games for Year 5 PE subject

References

1. Najib, M., Pembinaan & Analisis: Ujian Bilik Darjah. 2011, The Second. Skudai: Penerbit UTM Press.

2. Linn, R.L., Measurement and assessment in teaching. 2008: Pearson Education India.

3. Hensley, L.D., et al., Is evaluation worth the effort? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 1987. 58(6): p. 59-62.

4. Lund, J.L. and M.F. Kirk, Performance-based assessment for middle and high school physical education. 2019: Human Kinetics Publishers.

5. Ahmad, A., Pentaksiran pembelajaran. 2010: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

6. Wiggins, G., Teaching to the (authentic) test. Costa, A., Developing minds, a resource book for teaching thinking, Asociación para la supervisión del desarrollo del curriculum, ASCD, USA, 1991. 1: p. 344-350.

7. Dikli, S., Assessment at a Distance: Traditional vs. Alternative Assessments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 2003. 2(3): p. 13-19.

8. Law, B. and M. Eckes, Assessment and ESL: On the Yellow Big Road to the Withered of Oz. A Handbook for K-12 Teachers. 1995: ERIC.

9. Gronlund, N.E. and R.L. Linn, Measurement and evaluation in teaching. Vol. 4. 1965: Macmillan New York.

10. Mosston, M. and S. Ashworth, Teaching physical education. 2002.

11. Mercier, K. and S. Doolittle, Assessing student achievement in physical education for teacher evaluation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 2013. 84(3): p. 38-42.

12. Stiggins, R., New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 2004. 86(1): p. 22-27.

13. Othman, L., et al., Pembinaan standard pentaksiran berasaskan sekolah bagi sekolah rendah di Malaysia. Tanjong Malim, Malaysia, 2013.

14. Idris, N., Penilaian pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah dalam kalangan guru. 2016, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.

15. Talib, R., et al. School-based assessment: A study on teacher’s knowledge and practices. in Fifth International Graduate Conference on Engineering, Humanities and Social Science, University of Technology, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. Available from http://www. researchgate. net/publicatiom/277562401. 2014.

16. Abdullah, N., et al., Penilaian pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah (PBS) dalam kalangan guru sains. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains & Matematik Malaysia, 2015. 5(1): p. 89-102.

17. Salimin, N., Pentaksiran komprehensif berbanding penilaian kendalian sekolah menengah dalam mata pelajaran pendidikan jasmani tingkatan 2. 2012, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.

18. Ali, Z., Pelaksanaan pentaksiran kerja kursus Kemahiran Hidup Bersepadu di sekolah menengah luar bandar daerah Kuantan Pahang. 2008, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

19. Alessi, S.M. and S.R. Trollip, Computer-based instruction: Methods and development. 1984: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

20. Jansma, P. and R.W. French, Special physical education: Physical activity, sports, and recreation. 1994: Prentice Hall.

21. Dann, R., Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy and practice. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2014. 21(2): p. 149-166.

22. Young, J.E. and M.G.-A. Jackman, Formative assessment in the Grenadian lower secondary school: Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2014. 21(4): p. 398-411.

23. McLeod, S.H., The affective domain and the writing process: Working definitions. Journal of advanced composition, 1991: p. 95-105.

24. Peterson, M.W. and C.H. Augustine, External and internal influences on institutional approaches to student assessment: accountability or improvement? Research in higher education, 2000. 41(4): p. 443-479.

25. Ryan, J.M. and J.R. Miyasaka, Current Practices in Testing and Assessment: What Is Driving the Changes? NASSP Bulletin, 1995. 79(573): p. 1-10.

26. Idris, N., Pedagogi dalam pendidikan matematik. 2005: Utusan Publications.

27. Torrance, H., et al., The impact of different modes of assessment on achievement and progress in the learning and skills sector. 2005: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

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.

Back to previous page