TUMCSI high school teachers’ perception of the standards-based assessment
A research article submitted to
Prof. Irish Sioson
Philippine Normal University
Taft Avenue, Manila
Abstract
Standards-based assessment is used to track student progress in the attainment of standards. Construction of items and their classification to four levels, KPUP posed difficulties upon teachers who were appointed to teach students under K to 12 curriculum in TUMCSI. This paper aims to analyze the teachers’ perceptions of standards-based assessment so as to help the school administrators address the situation effectively. Results of the study suggest that K to 12 teachers in TUMCSI positively view standards-based assessment despite their incapacity to construct items which go with the standards.
INTRODUCTION
“To ensure that there is standardization in teaching and learning, assessment will be standard-based, will be done at four levels and will be weighed accordingly” (201209-K-to-12.Toolkit.pdf, p. 68).
The declaration came with the implementation of the K to 12 basic education curriculum, which brought major adjustments to the teachers’ lesson planning, strategies in teaching and above all, to the assessment of the student understanding.
To address the teachers’ need for guidance in unit planning and standards-based assessment construction a number of seminars and in-service trainings were provided by the Department of Education. Teachers have learned to comply with the requirements despite their objections. Lesson plans became unit plans. Every faculty member spoke of standards and Grade 7 level materialized. However, the means of assessing the student progress and understanding remained unaffected. This situation has been evident in Taytay United Methodist Christian School, Inc. high school department. Might this be due to the fact that most of these teachers test their students the way they were tested years ago?
Doing away with traditional ways of assessing student learning is difficult to most teachers. Some of these outdated practices are the following:
· Teachers construct True or False, Fill-in-the-blanks, Multiple Choice items whose content are directly copied from textbooks, an act which prohibits further reading, creativity and understanding on the part of teachers. As for the students, this inhibits the function of their critical and analytical thinking skills.
· Teachers give numerous items for enumeration, which requires memorization rather than understanding of the lessons by students.
· Multiple choice items usually give overlapping or very obvious options which confuse test takers and make them misunderstand the purpose of assessment.
· Some teachers give formative type items when they are supposed to give summative type of assessment. This is observed in periodic tests.
· Teachers, who are internet dependent, only copy and paste items from web sites of their choice without revising any of the items. These test items are basically presented based on the writer’s culture. Thus, the language, tone and some other elements in the items become incomprehensible to Filipino students that they fail the test.
· Projects as means of assessment do not measure student progress rather are basically given for the sake of fulfilling a requirement. Some teachers even give projects which are not derived from their unit plan’s performance standards.
· Teachers repeatedly use test items to different batch of students. Revision of items to suit the learners’ need is not observed.
· Essay part of the test is unsystematically and imprecisely graded as the teacher only directs the student to write an essay about a certain topic without giving the students idea as to what type of essay is to be written and how he/she will be graded.
These are just few of assessment mismanagements that cause disorientation and incomprehension among students. As for the teachers, these are examples of unprofessional conduct which must be attended to before the philosophy of K to 12 curriculum’s assessment gets nowhere.
“Assessment shall be used primarily as a quality assurance tool to track student progress in the attainment of standards, promote self-reflection and personal accountability for one’s learning and provide a basis for the profiling of student performance” (Enclosure No.1 to DepEd Order No. 73, s. 2012, p. 1).
Assessing the students’ learning is a teacher’s responsibility and it is his obligation to construct test questions which does not only measure their progress and understanding of the lesson/s taught for a quarter but also a kind of assessment which complies to the standards. How then can a teacher effectively respond to this duty considering his/her negative personal view of standards-based assessment?
The main objective of this study is to analyze the perceptions of the TUMCSI K to 12 teachers of the standards-based assessment and to identify the test construction skill they lack so as to help the school administrators in planning and approving in-service trainings on assessment construction.
KEY CONCEPTS
The key concepts in this study are standards, standards-based, summative assessment, knowledge, process or skills, understanding, and product or performance. These terminologies are introduced as Reforms in the Assessment System is presented in the K to 12 curriculum.
Standards
Standards – content and performance – were introduced with K to 12 curriculum.
“Content standards define what students are expected to know (knowledge, facts and information), what they should be able to do (process or skills) with what they know, and the meanings and understandings that they construct or make as they process the facts and information” (DepEd Order 31, p.1).
“Performance standards define the expected proficiency level which is expressed in two ways: students should be able to use their learning or understanding in real-life situations; and they should be able to do this on their own. Students are expected to produce products and/or performances as evidence that they can transfer or use their learning in real-life situations” (DepEd Order 31, p.1).
Standards-based Assessment
This is a process of obtaining information or evidence of a student’s effort to demonstrate acquisition, meaning-making, understanding and transfer as derived from the K to 12 content and performance standards (Gloria L. Cruz, personal communication, March 5, 2014).
Levels of Assessment
As standards (content and performance) in the unit plan are unpacked the knowledge as to what will be assessed comes in. Based on K to 12 curriculum guide, items in assessment must reflect knowledge, process or skills, understanding and product or performance levels of assessment. These levels of assessment are put together as KPUP. The K level must contain items that measures students’ knowledge of facts and information covered by competencies. The P level will compose items which will assess students’ demonstration of skills and processes covered by competencies. On the other hand, the U level should have items to evaluate students’ ability to make meaning, generate the big idea, establish connections, draw inferences and conclusions covered by the standards. The other P level is for assessment of the learners’ ability to transfer their understanding to real-life situations and produce or perform original work according to the standards (Gloria L. Cruz, personal communication, March 5, 2014). Each of these levels is given percentage weight as the following:
| Level of Assessment | Percentage Weight |
| Knowledge | 15% |
| Process/skills | 25% |
| Understanding | 30% |
| Product/Performance | 30% |
| Total | 100% |
Three Types of Assessment
Assessment is classified into two depending upon its purpose. Diagnostic assessment is used to check students’ prior knowledge, experience, misconceptions, interests and learning style preferences. Formative assessment is given to monitor student progress. This provides opportunity for giving feedback and making adjustments to both the teacher and the student. Hence, diagnostic and formative are categorized as assessment for learning. Summative assessment, on the other hand, is conducted at the end of the unit or grade level so as to determine the extent of the students’ mastery
or proficiency in regard to identified achievement targets. Thus, summative assessment is labelled assessment of learning.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
To look for effective ways of preparing teachers, especially those who teach students under K to 12 curriculum for an efficient construction of a standards-based assessment is a real challenge to TUMCSI administrators. In answer to this challenge, this study on the teachers’ perceptions of the standards-based assessment was considered and completed.
Specifically, this paper sought answers to the following questions:
1. How do teachers assigned to teach students under K to 12 view standards-based assessment?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the teachers’ test construction skill in terms of:
a. Language use
b. Content coverage
c. Item Organization
d. Test guidance
METHODOLOGY
Participants of the Study
All teachers, who handle classes under K to 12 for A.Y. 2013-14 were the respondents.
Table 1- Respondents
| Sex | Subject Taught | Years of Teaching Service |
| Female | Math | 2 |
| Female | T.L.E. | 1 |
| Female | Math | 3 |
| Female | Filipino | 7 |
| Male | Science | 10 months |
| Male | English | 2 |
| Female | Values | 2 |
| Female | Araling Panlipunan | 1 |
| Male | P.E. and Music | 9 |
| Female | Science | 2 |
Instrument/s Used
In this descriptive research study, instruments such as interview and questionnaire developed by the researcher based on the lecture presented via hand-outs by Dr. Cynthia C. Arcadio – Executive Director, PPH Educational Foundation, Inc. and DepEd Order No. 73, s. 2012 were utilized. These references were obtained during the in-service training on Standards-based Assessment and Grading in the K to 12 Program for academic coordinators and principals on October 1-2, 2012 at the Hyatt Hotel, Manila. The items used to check the test construction skill of the teachers, on the other hand, were based on the test construction skill inventory developed by Agu, Onyekuba and Anyichie which was presented in their study entitled “Measuring teachers’ competencies in constructing classroom-based tests in Nigerian secondary schools: Need for a test construction skill inventory.
Data Gathering Procedure
For data collection and analysis the following steps were observed:
- A test was administered to check the teachers’
· perception of the standards-based assessment,
· understanding of each assessment type such as diagnostic, formative and summative, and
· knowledge on each level of assessment such as knowledge, process/skills, understanding and product/performance.
The teachers took the test at the same time in the same room. They were instructed to not copy each other’s answer. Also, they were given time to check their test construction skill through a test construction skill inventory.
- The answers were checked and scores were tallied.
- Samples of summative tests constructed and administered by each of the respondents for A.Y. 2013-14 were then collected as these would aid in the analysis of data.
- Results were then analyzed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The instrument – questionnaire – contained the items based on the following purposes:
1. To check the K to 12 teachers’ own understanding of standards-based assessment
2. To check the teachers’ understanding of the assessment types – diagnostic, formative and summative
3. To determine the extent of the teacher’s knowledge on the levels of assessment labelled as KPUP
4. To identify the test construction skill that teachers lack
As answers to the first item were checked, the researcher got the following responses:
Table 2- Teachers’ Understanding of Standards-based Assessment
| What is your understanding of standards-based assessment? Standards-based assessment is ______________. | |
| Respondent | Answer |
| 1 | of learning and for learning. This is an assessment to enhance the students’ knowledge, skills and performance through formative and summative assessments. |
| 2 | an assessment with the use of summative and formative to monitor student progress and to make judgment on the level of proficiency the learner has attained. |
| 3 | an assessment of the knowledge and skills of the students in terms of/ in form of summative and formative exam. |
| 4 | an assessment used to measure learners’ prior knowledge and knowledge gained after the lesson. It can either be summative or formative in nature. |
| 5 | to assess and measure the capacity of an individual regarding in evaluation through lesson/topic. |
| 6 | an evaluation of student’s learning based on either formative or summative |
| 7 | an evaluation of the student’s performance through formative and summative assessments. |
| 8 | a performance based learning in which we aim to produce students that fits the standards of the society. |
| 9 | No answer |
| 10 | No answer |
Based on the definition of standards-based assessment given by Mrs. Cruz, SIBS lecturer on Standards-Based Assessment and Grading in the K-12 Program, nobody got the exact answer but respondents’ 1, 2, 3 and 4 answers are considerable. Answers by respondents 6 and 7 used the word evaluation instead of assessment. This suggests their misunderstanding of the words assessment and evaluation. The answer by respondent 8 indicates his misinterpretation of the concept whereas respondent’s 5 answer does not make sense at all. Respondents 9 and 10 did not respond to the item, an act which may indicate their inability to understand the matter. The results for item 1 therefore, suggests that out of ten K to 12 teachers, only 4 or 40% understand what they are dealing with as they fulfil their duties.
The items checking the respondents’ understanding of assessment types based on meaning and purpose consisted of 7 items in dichotomous responses, Agree or Disagree. Item no.2 falls under diagnostic type. Numbers 1, 4 and 6 fall under formative type whereas numbers 3, 5 and 7 are under summative type. Based on the references respondents were expected to:
- agree with item no. 1 as it is the purpose of formative assessment.
- agree with no.2 as it is correct.
- disagree with no.3 for the description given is the function of a summative
assessment.
- agree with no.4 since it is correct.
- agree with no. 5.
- disagree with no. 6 for the given description is of formative.
- agree with no. 7.
Table 3 – Teachers’ Understanding of Assessment Types
| | Agree | Disagree |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| | 10 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 10 | |
| 8 | 2 |
| 10 | |
Table 3 reflects the teacher’s understanding of each assessment type. Numbers in Agree column are the respondents who agreed with what is stated in the item and numbers in Disagree column are the respondents who disagreed with the idea.
The responses are tallied as follows:
Table 3.1- K-12 Teachers who understand Diagnostic Assessment
| Diagnostic | No. of Respondents | Percentage |
| Correct Answer | 10 | 100% |
| Incorrect Answer | 0 | 0% |
| Total | 10 | 100% |
Table 3.1 indicates the number of teachers who know the meaning of diagnostic assessment which is in contrast to their understanding of its purpose as indicated in their answer to item no. 6.
Table 3.2 – K to 12 Teachers who understand Formative Assessment
| Formative | No. of Respondents | Total Percentage | |||||
| No. 1 | Percentage | No. 4 | Percentage | No. 6 | Percentage | ||
| Correct Answer | 10 | 100% | 9 | 90% | 2 | 20% | 70% |
| Incorrect Answer | 0 | | 1 | 10% | 8 | 80% | 30% |
| Total | 10 | 100% | 10 | 100% | 10 | 100% | 100% |
Table 3.2 suggests that 70% of the teachers know the meaning and purpose of formative assessment whereas 30% do not.
Table 3.3 – Teachers who understand Summative Assessment
| Summative | No. of Respondents | Total Percentage | |||||||
| No. 3 | Percentage | No. 5 | Percentage | No. 7 | Percentage | ||||
| Correct Answer | 0 | 0% | 10 | 100% | 10 | 100% | 67% | ||
| Incorrect Answer | 10 | 100% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 33% | ||
| Total | 10 | 100% | 10 | 100% | 10 | 100% | 100% | ||
Table 3.3 suggests that 67% of the respondents understand summative assessment whereas, 33% of them do not.
Table 4 – To check Teachers’ Understanding of Levels of Assessment
| | K | P | U | P |
a. Interest in the company b. Knowledge about the company c. Personal qualities needed for the job d. Strongest job qualification | | | | |
a. Cardstacking b. Namecalling c. Plain folks d. Soft soap | | | | |
| | | | |
I have excellent communication skills and an aptitude for test construction. a. her appeal b. her arrogance c. her determination d. her qualification | | | | |
a. 89 c. 91 b. 90 d. 92 | | | | |
| | | | |
| 7. Ikaw ay isang alagad ng sining/litratista na ang adbokasiya ay hubugin ang mabubuting pag-uugali na dapat taglayin ng isang anak. Layon mo na mai-exhibit ang iyong mga larawan sa mga kabataan/mag-aaral, mga magulang, mga guro, mga administrador at iba pang empleyado ng paaralan upang makatulong na magkaroon ng pagbabago sa iyong komunidad hinggil sa pag-uugali ng mga kabataan sa kasalukuyan. Ipapaskil ang mga larawan sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng paaralan. Ang mga larawan ay kinakailangang nagpapakita ng isang mabuting katangian at nakapanghihikayat na ito ay maipalaganap. Lagyan ng pamagat ang larawan at ipaliwanag sa loob ng 2-3 pangungusap. | | | | |
a. Presentation of SSS numbers b. Interpretation of the students’ performance in a summative test for the 4th quarter c. Naming the instruments in music d. Determining the section of each enrolee for the school year | | | | |
| | | | |
a. Car b. Chair c. Stove d. Steel cabinet | | | | |
Items 1,2 and 8 are under the K level. 3 and 5 fall under the first P category. Items 4,6 and 10 are for U level whereas 7and 9 are under the last P.
Table 4.1- Scores Obtained by the Respondents.
| Scores | Frequency | Relative Frequency |
| 9 | 1 | 10% |
| 8 | 1 | 10% |
| 7 | 2 | 20% |
| 6 | 4 | 40% |
| 5 | 2 | 20% |
| | 10 | 100% |
As computed the mean of 6.5 has been obtained which can be interpreted as the group has correctly answered about 70% of the items given, a fairly good result.
To check the teachers’ opinion of KPUP construction they were asked to check a 4-item on a 5-point scale with the following options : very easy, somewhat easy, neither easy nor difficult, somewhat difficult, and very difficult.
Table 5- Teachers’ Opinion of KPUP construction
| In the actual construction of standard-based assessment, I find the construction of … | Very easy | Somewhat easy | Neither easy nor difficult | Somewhat difficult | Very difficult |
| Knowledge level | (6) | (4) | | | |
| Process/skills level | | (2) | (7) | | (1) |
| Understanding level | | (3) | (5) | (2) | |
| Product/perfor-mance level | (2) | (2) | (4) | (1) | (1) |
Based on their responses, it can be concluded that most of the teachers, 60% indicated that construction of the items for knowledge level is very easy, the rest found it somewhat easy. Those who checked the column very easy are teachers in English, Math, P.E., and Science. The following shows their summative test samples:
| Grade 8 English Prepositions and Conjunctions Skill Tested: Ability to recognize errors in sentences Directions: Choose the letter of the underlined word that makes the sentence wrong. If there is no error, simply write letter D.
A B C D Skill: Ability to distinguish an affirmative from a negative question Directions: Identify the type of each question based from the selection. Write AQ if it is an affirmative question and NQ if it is a negative one. 61. Did the six friends find what they are looking for? |
The first item may require students to think analytically before they give the answer but then considering that the part is labelled prepositions and conjunctions, the word put would not have been underlined since it is a verb. The affirmative-negative question item is appropriate for formative assessment rather than for summative plus the fact that inconsistency in verb tense – Did find and are – is evident. This test would not have been submitted for vetting.
| Grade 8 Math I. Knowledge Directions: Refer to the figure at the right to answer each of the following.
|
The items are for knowledge level yet the last two items ask for answers which require process or skill. The items suggest the teacher’s confusion between knowledge and process level.
| Science 8 Skill Tested : Ability to identify important terms and basic facts Direction: Write only the letter of the correct answer.
a. Tornado b. typhoon c. hurricane d. cyclone
a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4
a. Series of small tremors occurring after a major earthquake b. Seismic waves that cannot travel through liquids c. Areas along a fault where slippage and fracturing first occur d. Giant ocean waves that originate at a fault zone |
Items are apparently copied from the textbook and since they have been copied the teacher forgot to indicate the question to be answered for no.2.
Those who view knowledge level construction somewhat easy are teachers in Araling Panlipunan, Filipino, TLE and Values. The following items are sample items from their summative tests.
| Aral. Pan. 8 Knowledge Identification : Suriin ang bawat pangungusap at tukuyin sa bawat sitwasyon ang anyo ng bawat kalagayang pampamilya na inilalarawan nito. Pumili ng sagot sa ibaba. monogamy patriarkal polygyny matriarkal
|
Content-wise items presented in the Araling Panlipunan test are good examples of assessment items for knowledge level considering that students are given the opportunity to think analytically before they could provide the correct answers. The use of language is indicative of the teachers’ incompetence in her very own language.
| TLE 8 Test I (Mutiple Choice Letters Only)
a. It is done to locate a particular information easier and faster. b. It helps the student learn the information well. c. Both a and b d. None of the above
a. complete b. reasonableness c. support d. well-written |
These items in TLE 8 appear to be poorly constructed due to the very limited alternatives. The second item may confuse test takers for the clause modifier is misplaced and alternatives are inconsiderable. The teacher who constructed these might have run out of alternatives for both items and seem to have problems with English grammar.
For the construction of the items for process/skills level, 70% claimed that it is neither easy nor difficult and 10% indicated the construct to be very difficult. The 70% comprises of teachers in Filipino, P.E., Science, English, TLE and Math. Examples of their work are the following:
| TLE 8 Process – Enumeration 1-5 Note Taking Software 6-8 Productivity Tools that supports Note Taking 9-11 Common Types of Research Paper according to purpose 12-15 Steps in making Research Paper (in order) |
Again, the items are poorly constructed plus grammatical error is evident. The claim that construct of items for process/skills is neither easy nor difficult appears to be untrue here.
| Science 8 Identification Direction : Arrange the following rumbled letters to find the answer in each given description. YRCMURE 41. Closest planet to the sun TUSNRA 42. Second biggest planet in our solar system NEVSU 43. Hottest planet in our solar system PUTEJIR 44. A planet that is famous for its big red spot on it RASM 45. It is known as the red planet |
The items are inappropriate for the assessment level and Grade level intended. These items were written for Grade 8 students who by now are very much familiar with the planets. Thus, assessing their knowledge with the use of these items would only defeat the purpose of summative assessment. They can be used in diagnostic assessment instead.
| Math 8 Process Concept Analysis : Perform the indicated operations. (3 pts. each)
|
The items are appropriate for the level of assessment intended but the label – Concept Analysis is inappropriate. This incorrect label suggests the teacher’s incapacity to properly use the English language.
The teacher who indicated that construct of items for process/skills level is very difficult performed otherwise as shown by the following example:
| Process
41. Upang malaman ang kabuuang halaga ng produkto ng mamamayan (GNI), hinahati ito sa dami ng populasyon.Kung mas Malaki ang kita ng mamamayan ibig sabihin nito ay ________________________________. 42. Kapag mas malaki ang produktong iniluluwas kaysa inaangkat, ang bansa ay magkakaroon ng ___________________________. |
The items given suggests the teacher’s good understanding of the assessment level. Again, it is just her use of the Filipino language which hinders her fluid expression of ideas.
The construct of items for understanding level is neither easy nor difficult to 50% of the teachers. 30% indicated that the construct is somewhat easy whereas 20% checked the column somewhat difficult. The 50% comprises of Math, English (2), Science (2). The following are their sample items for understanding level.
| Math 8 Understanding : Solve the following. In the triangle shown below, find the value of x and y, accurate to three decimal places. (39-40) A ladder leaning against a wall forms an angle of 63◦ with the ground. How far up the wall will the ladder reach if the foot of the ladder is 2m from the wall? (43-45). |
The first item is more of a process than understanding. The second item is appropriate for understanding level. Again, the teacher seemed to have confused process with understanding.
| Science 8 91-100 Explain the differences between heliocentric theory and geocentric theory. |
The item is appropriate for the level intended but the test taker is not given the idea as to how he/she would express her/his answer. Number of sentences or the paragraph length and the manner as to how the student would be graded should have been indicated.
| English 8 Skill Tested : Ability to express one’s ideas in written English Direction : Write a meaningful paragraph consisting of 4-5 sentences answering the questions below.
|
These items are clearly presented and are suitable for the level intended. They reflect the teacher’s good understanding of the assessment level.
The next item is the work of the teacher who claimed that constructing items for understanding level is somewhat easy.
| TLE 8 Test III – Choose 1 topic
|
Items presented are incomprehensible not only because of the directions but also due to their faulty construction and use of words. Through the examples, it is apparent that the teacher’s problem is not her knowledge of the level but her inefficiency in the English language.
What follows is the work of the Math teacher who said that constructing items for understanding level is somewhat difficult.
| II. Consider the raw data below. GROUPED DATA. 1. Find the RANGE. 2. Find the MEAN. 3. Find the MEDIAN. 4. Find the MODE. 5. Find the STANDARD DEVIATION |
These items are good for the process level. Again, it is evident that the teacher mistook process/skills for understanding.
40% of them indicated that construct of items for product/performance level is neither easy nor difficult. 20% checked the very easy column whereas 10% checked the very difficult column. Product and performance level of assessment are usually the projects that teachers require from students and these are presented in the unit plan, not in the questionnaire. Based on the researcher’s experience as the academic coordinator, who basically collects and validates the teachers’ unit plans, only the teachers for Araling Panlipunan and Filipino have been capable of composing items for this level. All the others have not submitted any unit plan since the school year began. Thus, claims by other teachers about the product/performance level cannot be verified.
As the teachers were asked on the steps that they take before, during and after their assessment construction, most of them answered “YES” to the items presented in Table 6.
Table 6 - Determining Teachers’ Test Construction Skill
| As a teacher, I … | Yes | No |
| 10 | |
| 8 | 2 |
| 6 | 4 |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 8 | 1 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 7 | 2 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 8 | 2 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 10 | |
| 8 | 2 |
| 6 | 3 |
| 10 | |
| 9 | 1 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 10 | |
| 9 | 1 |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
The teachers’ responses were categorized based on the factor to which each item belong. Items 6,10,15,17, and 21 are under Language Use factor. Items 1, 8, 11,13, 14, 16, 18, and 24 belong to Content Coverage. Under the Item Organization factor are items 3, 5, 10, 19, 22, 23 1nd 25. The last factor Test Guidance covers item 2, 4, 7, 9, 12 and 20.
Table 6.1- Summary of the Teachers’ Construction Skill.
| | Yes | No |
| Language Use | 86 % | 14% |
| Content Coverage | 88% | 12% |
| Item Organization | 89% | 11% |
| Test Guidance | 88% | 12% |
Based on their answers, teachers got the highest percentage, 89% in the test construction skill, item organization whereas their lowest is in language use, 86%. Considering these data, it can be concluded that the strength of the teachers lies in item organization and their weakness is in language use. Weakness in language use is evident in the summative test items of Math and Filipino teachers. The following items from a summative test by Math teachers prove such.
| According to the study, there are more students purchasing a ball ball pens than any other color of ball pens. Which numerical measure will you use? a. Mean b. median c. mode d. variance |
| For number 5-7: A sample of 10 students was asked by their instructor to record the number of hours they spent studying on a given exam from time the exam was announced. The following were the recorded number of hours: 12, 15, 8, 9, 14, 8, 17, 14, 8 and 15. |
SUMMARY
This study aimed to analyze the K to 12 teachers’ perceptions of the standards-based assessment. Further, it attempted to identify the test construction that the teachers lack.
Descriptive research method is employed in this study and data gathered through comprehensive reading, the use of questionnaire and interview were utilized to answer the research questions posed. The following are the research findings:
1. Not all K to 12 teachers understand standards-based assessment. Based on their answers, only 4 out of ten has a considerable idea of the concept. These teachers have been sent to in-service trainings by FAPE.
2. Most of them can differentiate one assessment type from the other – diagnostic, formative and summative as they were given items to answer but as they themselves present their constructed items, confusion about assessment types among them became evident.
3. They know item placement where level of assessment, KPUP, is concerned. Their knowledge on KPUP was demonstrated when they were given items to categorize but as their very own constructed tests were checked, the teacher who got the highest score,9/10 was the only one who had been consistent in terms of performance. The teacher who got 8/10 had demonstrated otherwise. The same was observed about the rest of the respondents.
4. Almost all of them indicated a positive view of standards-based assessment construction, although their opinions greatly vary where construction of items for product/performance level is involved. On this part of the study, two teachers claimed that construct of product/performance level is very easy. Nevertheless, none of them has proven such a claim for no document would verify it.
5. As for the test construction skill, almost all of them claimed that they possess all the characteristics needed for test construction. Based on the result, 89% of the teachers have item organization as their strength whereas 86% of these individuals have language use as their weakness. This part stirred the researcher’s interest as most of the claims have not been evident in the teachers’ work. For example, the result of the TLE teacher’s evaluation of her own test construction skill suggested her weakness in content coverage whereas her very own test items displayed her weakness in language use. Further, Science teachers answered YES to all the items in test construction skill but their self-constructed summative assessments exhibited the weakness that they never admitted they have.
CONCLUSIONS
In light of the stated findings, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. K to 12 teachers understand standards-based assessment and all other terminologies connected to it. Further, they have a positive view of it. However, understanding of the concept and having a positive perception of it do not guarantee teachers ease where construction of the assessment is concerned.
2. The teacher’s self-evaluation of his/her test construction skill would only be a reliable basis of judgment if its result goes with his/her very own performance.
3. Teachers who are capable of constructing unit plans are also the ones capable of constructing substantial standards-based assessment.
4. Seminars do not guarantee comprehensive knowledge of standards-based assessment. In-service trainings do.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As conclusions were made, the researcher hereby presents the following recommendations:
1. The administrator or principal must set criteria on appointing teachers who will handle classes under K to 12 curriculum. Should this be done, only efficient teachers would be given the opportunity to teach K to 12 students. Thus, standards would be met and learning for students would be greater.
2. Should the principal decide on appointing fresh graduate teachers, in-service trainings, not seminars must be provided for their holistic proficiency. As it was pointed out in the K to 12 toolkit “Teachers are the key to achieving the vision of K to 12 education program.”
3. K to 12 teachers must be self-propelled individuals. The job demands great exertion of efforts for the accomplishment of unit plans, assessment tools and learning materials. All these will not materialize as the teacher only depends on others.
4. Teachers and administrators must work hand-in-hand in learning conceptual and technical assessment concepts, methods and procedures and apply these fundamentals to instruction considering that K to 12 students are technology-oriented. Should teachers take the challenge of teaching with technology, ease on the teachers’ part comes as greater learning opportunity would be provided to students.
5. Length of teaching service does not guarantee efficiency in assessment construction. Diligence and dedication do.
6. Separate classes in English language should be given to teachers to address their problems in language use or they could be advised to enrol in English classes for college students so as to improve their knowledge and skills in English.
References
Printed Sources:
Arcadio, Cynthia (2012, October 1-2). Standards-based assessment and grading
system in the K to 12 program for subject coordinators and principals. Mimeo, Phoenix Publishing.
Department of Education. (2012, September 5). Guidelines on the assessment and
rating of learning outcomes under the K to 12 basic education curriculum. Mimeo, DepEd Order No. 73, s. 2012. Philippines.
Gutierrez, M.R.M. (2008, December 1). College freshmen as readers: matching
perception and performance. In V.L. Mendiola (Ed.), Bukal Research Journal, 2 (1), (pp. 118-139). Manila: Philippine Normal University.
Peñaflorida, A. H. (2000). Exploration and exposition:Research in the assessment of
writing. Points of Departure:Essays on Language Pedagogy. Manila:De La Salle University Press.
Electronic Sources:
Agu, N.N., Onyekuba, C., & Anyichie, A.C. (2013, April 23). Measuring teachers’
competencies in constructing classroom-based tests in Nigerian secondary schools: Need for a test construction skill inventory. Academic Journals, 8 (8), 431-439. doi:10.5897/ERR12.219.
K to 12: Refrence for Teacher Educators, School Administrators and Teachers. (2012).
Philippines:SEAMEO & INNOTECH. Retrieved March 15, 2014 from http://www.seameo-innotech.org.
McMillan, James H. (2000). Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and
school administrators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8). Retrieved March 20, 2014 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=8.
Timpany, G. (2011, January 19). Likert Scales in Global Research: One Size Does Not
Fill All. Retrieved March 21, 2014 from
No comments:
Post a Comment