Elephant Training: School-based Assessment

School-based Assessment Outline

Dr Masnah Ali Muda of the Malaysian Examinations Syndicate recently said that the new School-based Assessment just introduced would shift the focus from “Assessment of learning” to “Assessment of and for learning.”

What does this mean?

Well the key shift is away from 'learning the subject' and towards 'skills and learning development'. Learning the subject is still relevant but not in itself enough. There needs to be a move towards actually using the knowledge taught: a shift, therefore, towards performance.

The current, or 'traditional' focus is as follows:

Teachers focus on form and word lists

Teachers 'feed' language (e.g. by rote and memory exercises)

Teachers have in their mind what they want to hear and read

Teachers therefore teach to the test

Teachers therefore teach towards short-term goals and not long-term learning needs

Teachers therefore test what has been 'taught' and not what has been 'learnt' and 'how'

Let's return to 'of' and 'for' for a moment.

What does that mean in practice?

Well, assessment 'of' learning is summative; it tests the knowledge that has been taught, the content of the curriculum. It is usually done through formal paper-based, reading and writing tests.

Whereas, assessment 'for' learning is formative; it implies not just testing knowledge absorption but also how well the learners have done this. Additionally, it implies that assessment is ongoing and therefore should be systematically supporting learning through corrective decision making in regard to classroom practice. It therefore, should improve teaching too.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the more traditional summative assessment and testing?

+  Easy to write (though not always, well)

+  Quantifiable (1 out of 6, Grade B, etc)

+  Easy to teach towards

+  Good for external PR (parents understand it)

-  Tests what has been taught rather than what has been learnt

-  The transitions of learning are not assessed

-  Non-diagnostic

-  The focus is on production (writing) but not speaking

-  Knowledge-based not use- or skills-based

-  Adversely affects teaching standards (teach to the test)

-  Demotivation to learners (notion of right/wrong, only one answer possible, etc.)

All of the negatives stated above are turned into positives in formative assessment:

+  Focuses on what has been learnt as well as what has been taught

+  The developmental stages of learning can be identified and recorded

+  Can be used diagnostically – this is where you are now / this is where you can be in the future

+  Can help support learning

+  Can help to focus on traditionally neglected skills (listening and speaking)

+  Child-friendly

The above would then lead on to new processes and perspectives: Criterion-referenced assessment (so non-comparitive – this child is better than this child, etc); multiple ways of assessing (not just summative paper tests); ariety of assessment tools and environments; portfolio assessment; internal moderation; it can be used to assess the teaching programme me.

The Ministry of Education has adopted and adapted a model widely used throughout the world whereby every child's learning is assessed through national examinations and is also assessed on school-based performance.

The proposal is that after 6 years of primary school each child will take a summative national examination (watch out for a proposal to revamp UPSR in the not too distant future) which will account for 60% of their primary school 'grade' and the remaining 40% will be accounted for by formative assessment throughout their primary school life. 60/40 is the most often quoted division between summative and formative assessments in the published literature, but it could also have been 50/50, 70/30, or 40/60 too.

This throws up a lot of questions not only for the policy makers but also for the practitioners on the ground who will have to carry out the new policy. (There may be more than this list too!)

Will there be good governance in the system?

Will there be effective and informed processes (standards referencing)?

What is the link between school-based assessment and the National Curriculum?

Will non-academic development be assessed? How?

Will the teaching profession be trained in assessment & evaluation to empower it?

Will the teaching profession be trained in differentiating between teaching for understanding and learning for understanding? How? When? By whom?

How will the teachers' ability and integrity be developed and promoted?

Who decides on the types of assessment?

Who decides on the criteria for assessment?

Who decides on the assessment tools?

What's the range of abilities in the class? How will that be fairly reflected?

Will there be monitoring and standardization? How? When?

At this moment in time it is not clear whether any or all of these questions have been asked, and/or will be addressed. SBA has been rolled out without consultation (within and without the education system), mid-year to surprise and confusion. An elephant has been unleashed and it is far from clear what colour it is.

For policy changes to become firmly entrenched, the changes must be supported in the standard practices of the system. There is no evidence of this as yet. For example, no mention of proposed changes to the school testing regime that would be essential for SBA to take root. The old adage 'School should be a test of life, not a life of tests' comes to mind.

If teachers don't want to get involved, assessment of and for learning won't happen. Or it may happen in a way that ticks the boxes, but not much more than that. Teachers, in common with many people, tend to be resistant to change unless they feel in control of it or that it is beneficial to them (and their work). There is a risk that THE NEW is simply (mis)used to re-inforce current perceptions and practice rather than as a tool to transform.

I do think, though, that this offers up opportunity to help our Project schools and colleagues to focus more on performance and learning behaviours and also in the process to help policy makers as well as practitioners to start asking and answering those questions above. It may be possible, and only from the ground up, to assist the elephant to tread a purposeful path.

Soon more come.