Republic of the Philippines

Cebu Normal University

Osmeña Blvd. Cebu City, 6000 Philippines

College of Teacher Education

Center of Training (COT) | Center of Excellence (COE) | Level IV Accredited (AACCUP)
Telephone No.: (032) 231 8044
Email: cte@cnu.edu.ph
Website: www.cnu.edu.ph

EDUC 8: ASSESSMENT IN LEARNING 1

EDUC 8: ASSESSMENT TOOL AND ANALYSIS CREATION

GOAL:
Students engage oneself in developing assessment tools for educational purposes .
ROLE:
Students will be an assessment tool developer which assures to measure skills and knowledge of students required in
accordance to the mentioned competencies.
AUDIENCE:
College students specifically enrolled under Bachelor of Secondary Education.
SITUATION:
With the span of time, changes took place in all sectors as effect of the global pandemic. Education is one of those
sectors greatly affected with this paradigm shifting. To be able to prepare oneself to the future ahead of us, we need to
understand how assessment tools development create an impact towards the teaching-learning process.
PRODUCT:
A 30-item test which will assess a high level thinking skills and understanding of lesson content.
STANDARDS:
• One needs to make sure that each group drive provides complete entries as suggested below:

Group Assessment Tool Gdrive Folder MUST ONLY include the following:

1.Table of Specification for a 30-item test below the suggested tabular format indicate the names of
student assigned per item,
2. 30-item multiple choice type of test,
3. readability test results (if any),
4. google form 1 reflecting the 30-item test for pilot testing,
5. reliability test result,
6. google form 2 reflecting the 30-item test (original item to revise if needed) for re-testing,
7. and validity test result.

Individual Submission during indicated midterm week schedule in pdf format file through Google
Classroom: Classwork MUST ONLY include the following:
1. Items Created and Categorization
2. Item Difficulty Index and Discriminatory Index
If item is required to revise, include newly revised question
3. Additional at least 1 or 2 samples of each test types: Matching type, T/F, Completion type, Essay
4. Reflection on Assessment Creation
5. Member’s Rating (0-10) & Short Justification (1-2 sentences per name)
Individual requirement nos. 1 to 3 shall be basis of midterm assessment (50/50 pts)

*Note concerning rubrics This task is accompanied by two rubrics: a group rubric and an individual rubric. The group rubric
is designed to measure how well the group as educational assessment tool contributor have carefully chained all item parts
to be able to accumulate a good standing for all assessment tool analysis. The second rubric focuses on the individual
efforts. It is suppose to identify how well a student can use the concepts in assessment required to demonstrate the enduring
understanding(s). This is where students are scored on items involving quality, result interpretation, etc.

GROUP RUBRIC: 60pts

Scale Excellent Satisfactorily Fair Poor Score

Criteria 5 4 3-2 1-0 x2 per
criterion
Completeness of All required files can Almost all files is Some 2-3 files are Many files cannot
Data be seen in the present in group’s not visible within be seen within the
group’s allotted folder. The group the folder. Other agreed deadline.
google drive folder added files which files not required
are not part of the add confusion to
suppose group’s outputs.
requirement
Readability (if any) Outstanding on Deliver a rightful Somehow execute Inaccurate item
& Reliability Results delivery of the process for the testing but testing and poor
accurate process on readability and poorly applies result
readability and reliability testing. recommendation of interpretation
reliability testing. Needs a minimal suggested results.
Results of the test revision for first set
showcases of items for pilot
consistency and testing based upon
quality of test items the interpretation of
created for testing. analysis.
Validity Results Magnificently Convey just Although the Inaccurate item
manifested the process of doing results entails need testing and poor
accurate process of the validity testing. to improvement, result
the testing. Results Results emphasizes did successfully interpretation
showcase suggested good assessment delivered a validity
of a quality tool. testing of results.
assessment tool
after the test-
retesting process.
Table of Follows the “30-40- Applies the required Did not followed No submission
Specifications 30” rule distribution distribution and the suggested rule
throughout the format and format
assessment tool
development while
considering the
degree of learning
competencies
chosen.
Punctuality All required files are Completely Some files are Submission of
seen on or before submitted all need submitted 2-3 days filles happen 4 or
the suggested group requirements after the deadline. more days after
deadline. All in google drive Some members the deadline. No
members of the folder on time. caused delays to paired group
group answered on However, 1-2 paired group engagement to
time as required by members of the testing. majority of the
the paired group for team were reported members of the
data testing analysis. not answering the group
 paired group
assessment tool via
google form during
suggested date.
Leader’s Members
Rating
*Will be given to the instructor in a
separate document file. Wait for
further announcement to this part.
60/60

INDIVIDUAL RUBRICS:

I. On additional works: 40 pts

A. Type of Tests. Refer to checklist below as basis to sample item/s for each type of test. (20pts)
True/false type
0 1
Directions are clear
Items do not give a hint in the body of the question
Words like “always”, “never”, “often are avoided (except in math)
Sentences are not long
No misleading word or misspelled word, or misplaced phrases
0= observable/somewhat observable, 1=observable
Matching Type (at least 2 item samples)
0 1
Directions are clear and indicate the basis for matching
The test items and format corresponds to the competencies
The stem and the choices are clustered in the same column
The number of options is greater than the stems
The response set is arranged alphabetically
0= observable/somewhat observable, 1=observable
Completion type
0 1
Directions are clear
If paragraph type, the sentences are not overly mutilated
If it is a single sentence, the blank is at the end or near the end
There is only one answer
Questions are significant
The length of the blank is not suggestive to the answer
0= observable/somewhat observable, 1=observable
Essay Type
0 1
Directions are clear
The test item/s corresponds to the competencies
students are guided on the key concepts to be included
 Inform the students on the criteria to be used for grading their essay
Put a time limit.
0= observable/somewhat observable, 1=observable

B. Short Reflection. Using 5-10 sentences, briefly describe the positive; the learning and negative; as to challenges
and points to improve in group/individual assessment tool creation. (Organization of Ideas- 5pts/ Relevance-5pts =10pts)
C.Member’s Rating. List down the names of group members within the group including the leader and your self-rating.
Grade them according to quality of work and responsiveness of submission. Use the format below.
Name Quality of Work Punctuality Justification Score
(5pts) (5pts) (1-2 sentences)

1. (Yourself)

2.

3.

II. Midterm Assessment: Assessment Tool Development and Analysis- 50pts

Scale Excellent Satisfactorily Fair Poor Score

Criteria 5 4 3-2 1-0
Quality of Items Majority of Items are easy to Comprehensible Difficult to x2
designated items understand but but with the understand and
created excellently with the misspelled unfamiliar word or not clear at all
embodies word/s. Some misspelled word.
comprehensible items requires a Minimal items
and clear direction degree of requires an in-
to high-level of rationalization. depth thoughts
thinking
Categorization Plurality items are Some items are More than five Majority of the x2
matched with the not match as items are items are
competency asked mentioned in the inappropriate. No inappropriate
and alignment to taxonomy alignment to and no context at
degree of taxonomy assigned. Minimal competency all.
is manifested. items can be seen required.
as aligned in
chosen
competency
Result Outstanding on Deliver a rightful Somehow execute Inaccurate item
Interpretation on delivery of the process for difficulty the testing testing
Item Difficulty accurate process on index.
Index item difficulty.
Degree of Difficulty Results of the test Needs a minimal Poorly applies Poor result
showcases quality of revision for first set recommendation of interpretation and
test items created for of items for pilot suggested results no action taken
testing. testing based upon
the interpretation of
analysis.
 Result Magnificently Convey just Although the Inaccurate item
Interpretation on manifested the process of doing results entails need testing
Discrimination accurate process of the discrimination to improvement,
Index the testing. index. did successfully
delivered the
discrimination
index testing of
results.
Degree of Results showcase Results emphasizes Poorly applies Poor result
Discrimination suggested of a good assessment recommendation of interpretation and
quality assessment tool. Manage to suggested results no action taken
tool work with some
items with minimal
recommendation on
revision.
Punctuality Individual pdf file File submission Turn in Files received 6 x2
submission happens happens 2-3 days submissions 4-5 days and more
on or before the after the deadline days after the after the deadline
given deadline. deadline
50/50

Schedule:

MW

1. TOS Creation & Item Creation – Sept 15, 2021

2. Readability Testing & Transfer to Gform- Sept 20, 2021
3. Pilot Testing- Sept 23, 2021
4. Individual Test Analysis- Sept 27, 2021
5. Reliability Testing- Sept 29, 2021
6. Re-testing- Midterm Wek Oct 4-8, 2021
7. Validity Testing- Oct 11, 2021
8. Individual Requirement Submission- Oct 14, 2021