2b : Assessment Critique

I will now critique an End of Term Test for Form 1 Integrated Science, looking to

determine how well the assessment aligns with the Principles of Validity as well as the

Principle of Reliability and Consistency.

The test will be considered Valid if it assesses the objectives that have been taught of the

teacher can define the achievement he or she is measuring. So, we need to compare the

objectives defined by the scheme of work to the objectives addressed in the assessment.

The general objectives were as follows:

1. Differentiate between Science and Technology.

2. Demonstrate the use of the scientific method.

3. Recognize a scientific report as a means of communicating information from scientific

investigations.

4. Discuss the importance of the International System (SI) of units.

5. Identification of the International System of Units (SI)

6. Demonstrate the correct procedures for use of common measuring instruments: length

mass volume, temperature, time

7. Demonstrate safe practices when conducting investigations.

8. Describe the characteristics of living things (GRIMER)

9. Compare plant and animal cells according to their structure and function

10. Recognize the relationships between specialized cells, tissues, organs and organ systems.

11. Describe how substances move into and out of cells

12. Describe the process of photosynthesis

The assessment consisted of two (2) sections: Section A had 30 multiple choice questions

contributing 30 marks to the final score, and Section B with 7 short answer questions

contributing 55 marks to the final score.

The questions in Section A addressed the all objectives at the level of Lower Order

Thinking. The questions in Section B also addressed all the objectives highlighted in the

scheme of work. There was a mix of Lower order and Higher order questions appropriate

for the level of the children being assessed. The Higher order required students to

explain, compare and contrast, as well as describe or make illustrations. Since all

objectives identified in the scheme of work were addressed in the assessment, we can

conclude that the assessment had a high level of Validity.

When considering the reliability/consistency of an assessment, we need to determine

whether or not the assessment would yield similar results if administered to students on

different occasions. Factors that can affect reliability/consistency are:

1. number of items

2. variability

3. conditions under which the test was administered

As this was an end of term test, this assessment was administered under exam conditions

which ensure the greatest possible uniformity of conditions for students to ensure

fairness. All students were assessed using the same questions, same number of questions

and allowed the same amount of time (unless they arrived extremely late), as a result,

variability was reduced in those aspects. The convention for time considerations per
question resulting in a determination for the amount of time given to complete the

assessment will now be analysed.

Simple multiple choice questions that involve simple recall are usually allotted 30-60

seconds per question. There were 30 such questions so a maximum of 30 minutes can be

allotted to the multiple choice section. The short answer questions are usually allotted 1-4

minutes each question. There were 21 such questions which amounts to 48 minutes for

the second section. The total time given to complete this assessment was 90 minutes

which is 12 minutes more than calculated. The extra time can be accredited to any extra

time needed to complete questions that required drawing of apparatus and the cell. As a

result I consider this assessment to have fulfilled the requirements of

reliability/consistency.

However, given the considerations, the assessment can improved. There are quite a few

questions that have been assigned 1 mark in Section B, these questions can be

consolidated and replaced with Higher Order thinking questions to assess levels of

analysis and creativity in Bloom’s Taxonomy.