You are on page 1of 3

General Orientation Paper and Pencil Examination

of the 52nd Batch LGOO Trainees

The examination was given to 191 trainees of the 52nd Batch from the different regions of the
country. It is composed of 5 cases composed of topics covered under the General Orientation.
An Answer Key had been provided as guide in the checking of the papers.

The assessors/checkers decided at the start that the major points in the evaluation of responses
should be based on the content (90%) and the remaining 10% for organization of ideas and
communication. Assessing the content or strategic knowledge of the test taker was based on
the answers in the Answer Key where points are allocated on the important elements of the
case’s keyed answer. Good organization and paragraphing; clear transition between ideas;
completeness of response with a clear, unambiguous explanation had been allotted 10% of the
total points per case.

From the overall ratings, the examinees were ranked and the top 100 performers were
considered as passers.

Region No. of Passers Region No. of Passers


I 7 NCR 2
CAR 3 V 9
II 15 VI 12
III 7 VII 7
IV-A 5 IX 4
MIMAROPA 4 X 2
BLGS 1 XII 5
NBOO 4 CARAGA 10
BLGD 3

Observations on the Performance of Examinees:

Region II has the most percentage of examinees with 15 and above scores for Case 1. The
examinees showed misconceptions in the interpretation of Section 46(a) of LGC. They also
showed difficulty in identifying the implication/s of the automatic assumption of the Vice
Governor. Furthermore, they also showed the lack of understanding as to who should certify
the veracity of the resolutions and the one to sign the transmittal letter.
Region XII has the most percentage of examinees getting scores of 15 points and above for case
number 2. The examinees’ weaknesses involved the identification of the priorities in the
utilization of IRA allocation and other requirements in the preparation of annual budgets.

Region VII has the most percentage of examinees getting scores of 15 points and above. This is
also the case where many of the examinees scored low. The examinees tend to focus on the
budget cycle alone or primarily on it. Many failed to identify the various plans to be
formulated/updated, and failed to explain the activities, tools and synchronization procedure
for LGU harmonization of planning and budgeting

On the other hand, it is case 4 where most examinees got high scores. It is Region XIII
registering the highest percentage of examinees of 15 points and above. The examinees
showed satisfactory discussion on the multi-dimensionality of DILG’s general supervision
functions.

Much like case 3, a good number of examinees got lower scores in case 5. The highest
percentage of those getting 15 points and above is from Region V. Many examinees fail to cite
benefits such as tourism opportunities and internationalization of health care. The absence of
these two benefits already means that the examinee cannot get a score higher than 14. Most
responses deal on the free flow of goods, services and investment.

Observations on the Factors Related to Examinees Scores:

Alongside the review of performance of the examinees which can be attributed to the kind of
general orientation experience provided them in their respective training centers, is a review of
the instrument used in assessing the knowledge of the examinees. To review the assessment
instrument is to gain additional important insight into the examinee’s thinking, understanding,
and test-taking behaviour. This is aimed towards the improvement not only in the quality and,
fairness of the assessment but also in the technical quality of successive examinations.

In addition to relevance, the two characteristics usually desired for an assessment tool are
discrimination and difficulty. These characteristics show how hard the item is for the group
tested and how well they distinguish between the more knowledgeable and the less
knowledgeable.

The computed values show that except for case 4, all the other cases have discrimination values
below .19, which indicates these are to be considered for improvement. Among others, this
may be influenced by factors such as ambiguity in the framing of the case or the case questions,
some extraneous or intervening variables during the checking of papers such as fatigue and
inter-rater differences. It is also observed that the questions raised in some cases are
independent of the situation/context of the case. These questions can be raised even without
the stated case context.

Based on Ebel’s “rules of thumb” for interpreting item-discrimination index, a value of .4 or


more is considered a very good item. This is the characteristic of case 4. This shows the ability
of case 4 as a test item to measure individual differences of the examinees or the difference
between those who are more knowledgeable and those who are less.

Furthermore, the cases are found to be very difficult by the examinees. Case 4 is considered
just right for the group.

Prepared by:

Alma A. Eleazar