INSTITUT PENDIDIKAN GURU

KAMPUS BAHASA ANTARABANGSA

PENTAKSIRAN ALTERNATIF DISEMBER 2020

PROGRAM
PISMP
(Programme)
AMBILAN
JUN 2018
(Intake)
SEM
5
(Sem)
ANGKA GILIRAN
--
(Index Number )
NO.K/
PENGENALAN --
(Identity Card No.)
KOD KURSUS
TSLB3113
(Course Code)
NAMA KURSUS
LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRIMARY ESL CLASSROOM
(Course Title)
TARIKH
PEPERIKSAAN 18 DESEMBER 2020
(Examination Date)

ARAHAN KEPADA CALON

1. Semua jawapan calon hendaklah ditaip dalam perisian Microsoft Words

menggunakan font Arial 12, serta langkau 1.5 baris. Setiap helaian jawapan
hendaklah dilabelkan dengan nombor angka giliran di sebelah kiri header dan kod
kertas peperiksaan di sebelah kanan header.

2. Calon diingatkan untuk tidak melakukan plagiarisme dan hendaklah mematuhi

peraturan penulisan akademik yang ditetapkan oleh IPG.

3. Calon hendaklah menjawab soalan secara individu dan diingatkan agar tidak
berbincang dan meniru jawapan calon-calon lain.

4. Calon yang GAGAL menghantar jawapan pada masa yang ditetapkan adalah
dikira telah gagal peperiksaan berkenaan.
KOD KURSUS : NO. AG:

Part 1

In constructing assessment, a test blueprint is considered important as it allows

teachers to carefully plan on the selection of contents that are suitable for their students.
In this regard, the test paper prepared implements this stage of planning quite clearly.

The test blueprint is formatted in the form of a table. This would allow teachers to
navigate through the overall test contents easily. Above the table, the level of proficiency
is clearly stated. This is to indicate the current level of linguistic competence the test
paper targets to assess. This is to ensure that the test is comprehensible enough for the
students to answer which would instigate more accuracy in assessing their performance.
Within this table, one of the aspects that were included is the objectives of the
assessment which specifically describes the targeted language contents. In the case of
this test blueprint, the descriptors used for detailing the objectives is referred from the
Content Standard listed in the DSKP This aspect is integral as it can assure the
alignment of the test items and the language contents that were covered by the teacher
previously. According to Clarke (2011), this form of alignment is known as domain
coverage in which it covers on how a test should relate the assessment content with the
curriculum in terms of knowledge, skills, and competencies.

Under the topic column shows the list of topics focused in the test. The selection
of the topics may be based on the contents that the teacher had already covered. This
may be suitable depending on how much the teacher had covered the topic in the
classroom as language content such as vocabularies can only be taught through a topic
that are directly correlated. This would ensure that the contents used in the assessment
is contextually understandable which would aid students to comprehend the
requirements of each questions.

Based on the assessment objectives listed under the topic column, the test
blueprint had covered a few learning standards that adhered to the DSKP. However, as a
whole, there are a few important learning standards that were not addressed. This can
clearly be seen from section A that mainly focuses on assessing reading skills. Despite
providing 10 questions to assess the particular skill, the blueprint only apply one learning
standard as a descriptor for the assessment objective of the questions. This redundancy
is unnecessary as it hinders the holistic approach of assessing the reading skills of
students.

In the objective and subjective column, the difficulty level of each question is
segmented based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Organizing question this way would help the
teachers to effectively create a test that are balanced in terms of assessing level of
achievement in learning outcomes. However, in the case of this test blueprint, there is a
clear disparity in the overall distribution of complexity level. This is reflected in the
description of the objective questions in which most of the questions only assess the
remembering level. As for the subjective section, all of the questions only focus on
assessing the applying stage and the other stages are completely ignored. This may
indicate that the test would not be able to assess students’ performance holistically in
terms of their overall achievement in learning outcomes. This is due to the hieratical
KOD KURSUS : NO. AG:
nature of the stages in Bloom’s Taxonomy. According to Dunham, Yapa, and Yu (2015),
higher level (1 to 4) cannot be achieved without applying the lower ones. For this test
blueprint, insufficient assessment in the understanding stage would lead to ambiguity in
identifying a students’ capability in fully reaching the applying stage.

Part 2

Constructing a test requires a detailed planning. This process of planning includes

designing a test blueprint. In this regard, a plan can only be implemented effectively if the
previously designed blueprint is followed thoroughly in designing the test questions.

In the case of this specific test paper, the format indicated in the blueprint is
represented accurately only on Section A. The blueprint had specified that there are two
sections in the test. According to the blueprint, the first 10 questions Section A consists
of multiple-choice questions involving reading comprehension. This is reflective on the
test paper as the first part of the paper integrates 2 reading texts that students are
required to read and understand to answer the first 10 questions. The remaining 6
questions in this section is also accurately represented in which the questions consist of
questions assessing grammar and vocabulary as stated in the blueprint. As for Section
B, the blueprint had stated that there would be 5 subjective questions however the test
only showed 4 subjective questions.

In terms of content, the blueprint had stated that the questions are based on 3
topics that were listed on the KSSR textbook. Each topic will be separated based on the
language content of the questions. However, this is not an accurate representation as the
test clearly integrates different topics within the questions. In the blueprint, the first 10
questions were stated to be integrate with the topic “Appreciating Others” which is a topic
that focuses on the value of being considerate with others. This is not the case for the
test paper as only the first 5 questions centre on the topic. The additional 5 questions are
comprehension questions based on a text about fictional tales revolving talking animals.
The integration of the topic “Healthy and Wise” is also inexact as question 11 to 16
explores different themes. Other than that, the description of the content standard for
certain questions were also incorrect. This can be clearly be seen in the grammar and
vocabulary part in Section A in which the blueprint stated that the content standard for
question 11 is focused on adverbs while the test paper for the question is focused on
assessing idiom retention. This pattern of inaccuracy is also apparent in question 15 and
16 in which the blueprint stated that the questions assess the use of adverbs while the
actual questions in the test paper centres on assessing the correct use of adjectives.

In segmenting the questions based on difficulty, the blueprint implements Bloom’s

taxonomy to identify the level of complexity for each question. Despite implementing
accurate descriptors, there are some questions that were misrepresented. For instance,
question 5 and 10 requires the students to draw conclusions based on their
comprehension of the text but in the blueprint, both of these questions are stated to
assess at only the understanding level. Question 15 and 16 are also inaccurate as the
actual questions only require the students to understand the semantics used to correctly
answer the question while the blueprint stated that the questions assess the analysing
stage.
KOD KURSUS : NO. AG:

Part 3

To ensure teachers would be able to mark a test correctly, an accurate marking

scheme should be prepared. In the case of this test paper, the marking scheme that was
prepared lacks a few key aspects.

One of the aspects that were not featured in the marking scheme is the indication
of marks for each question. This would complicate the process of evaluation as the
evaluators are not provided with an accurate value for each correct answer.

Other than that, the sample answer provided for question 18 is also quite vague.
This may confuse the evaluators in identifying the correct criteria of a correct answer. As
there are multiple variation for subjective questions, the marking scheme should also
indicate other possible answer for the question rather than just 1

Part 4

To accurately gauge students’ level of linguistic competence, implementing

various different sources to gather information is the foundation on evaluate students’
language progress holistically. In the context of Malaysian curriculum, the DSKP stated
that the mastery of the 4 skills is required for a student to achieve language mastery
holistically. In this regard, the 4 language includes reading, writing, listening and
speaking. Based on the test paper, the skills that were directly assessed are only reading
and writing. To plan a more holistic approach in assessment, the school is required to
take alternative form of assessment that can assess listening and speaking skills.

In the context of evaluating listening skills, one of the alternative assessments the
school can adopt is authentic assessment. Authentic assessment can be defined as a
form of assessment that evaluates learners’ performance in executing meaningful tasks
that are reflective to the “real world” (Sevilla Morales, and Chaves Fernández, 2019). In
this context, the content of the assessment is presented in a way that can be applicable
in a real-life context. This requires learners to contextualize their understanding in an
authentic setting. This is integral in assessing listening skills as the skills require more
than just understanding. This component of language is a communicative based skill in
which learners need to adapt to different context. To apply this method of assessment,
the school can integrate oral interview in the classroom. According to Fuller (2012), there
are 3 types of interview assessment. One of them include simulated negotiation in which
the negotiation scenario is given before starting the interview. This will provide time for
them to construct questions that are relevant to the negotiation scenario. The usage of
listening skills is assessed when the students are required to listen for information from
the teacher. Their performance will be measured based on how accurate the information
that they had collected from the teacher. To apply this a classroom context, the teacher
may administer the interview as a group in which 5 students will interview the teacher for
each session.

Other than listening skills, the school also needs to integrate another alternative
assessment to compensate for the inability for the conventional assessment method to
evaluate speaking skills. One of the alternative assessments that can measure speaking
KOD KURSUS : NO. AG:
skills is performance-based assessment (PBA). According to Richards and Schmidt
(2002), performance-based assessment refers to an approach in assessment that aims
to measure students’ performance in learning using a practical real task based on the
focused learning content. Rather than implementing the conventional pen and paper
method of assessment, PBA encompasses a wide range of activity that are considered
practical in the context of applying the focused language skill. In the case of addressing
speaking skills, the school can integrate role playing as a form of assessment. According
to Alabsi (2015, as cited in Rojas, 2018), role-playing can be defined as a method that
focuses on engaging learners to an unacquainted context that requires communication.
This method of assessment centres on providing communicational opportunities by
taking part in roles of specific situations. In this regard, this assessment method requires
the learners to apply the usage of vocabulary, expressions, and phrases that are
appropriate to the given context of the role play (Rojas, 2018). To adopt this method in a
classroom setting, the teacher can arrange students into pair. Each pair will be given a
situation in which they are required to act out their role. The teacher can provide the roles
and assess on how well they can communicate in the given context.

References

Clarke, M. (2011). Framework for Building an Effective Student Assessment System: READ/SABER Working
Paper. World Bank.

Dunham, B., Yapa, G., & Yu, E. (2015). Calibrating the difficulty of an assessment tool: the blooming of a
statistics examination. Journal of statistics education, 23(3).

Rojas, M. (2018). Role-plays as an assessment tool in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) class. Beyond
Paper and Pencil Test: Good Assessment Practices for EFL Classes. Machala: Editorial UTMACH, 49-73.

Richards, J., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistic.

Fuller, B. (2012). Interviews as an assessment tool. Rethinking negotiation teaching, 3, 125-138.