Analysis of Students’ Attitudes on Performance-Based Assessment

Inhalt

Abstract

Related Literature

Assessment of Learning

Types of Performance-Based Assessment

Research Methods

Findings and Discussion

Conclusion

References

Analysis of Students’ Attitudes on Performance-Based Assessment

Dr. Ruben A. Sanchez

Department Head, Northern Quezon College Inc.

Part-time Professor, Philippine Christian University Graduate School

Abstract

Performance-based assessment is the thrust of Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines. Rural schools are faced with variety of pressures that are competing for attention within the community. This research assessed students’ attitudes towards performance-based assessment. It also aimed that instructional material will be developed. It utilized descriptive-quantitative research design and used weighted mean, t-test for two independent groups and Pearson r. Respondents of the study were 29 teachers and 238 students.

The assessment ratings of students towards their attitude on the four types of assessment is significantly different from the assessment ratings of the teachers. The assessment ratings of students towards their attitude on performance-based assessment is not significantly different from the assessment ratings of the teachers. The students’ attitude on the four types of assessment as assessed by the students have significant relationship with the students’ attitude on performance-based assessment. The students’ attitude on the four types of assessment as assessed by the teachers have no significant relationship with the students’ attitude on performance-based assessment. The school officials should encourage teachers to always exhibit positive teaching behavior to further learning of students. An instructional material can be developed emphasizing the usage of performance-based assessment tools.

Keywords: Higher education institution, assessment, performance-based assessment, students’ attitude and instructional material

Introduction

Performance-based assessment, such as portfolios, presentations, and participation is now the thrust of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) all over the country. Rural schools are faced with variety of pressures that are competing for attention within the community. The pressures come from a variety of sources and for variety of reasons. They occur when long examination scores become the indicators of success. Pressures may come from the school officials looking for a remarkable performance indicators wherever they can be found.

One of these pressures may be the performance in the Licensure Examinations for Teachers (LET) or it may come from peers or parents/relatives/teachers. It may even come in the form of professional inputs and Commission on Higher Education (CHED) directives. These are contributory to the teaching-learning process and this is related to the process by which students learn the lesson. Licensure Examination for Teachers – Elementary covers Professional Education (60%) and General Education (40%), while LET-Secondary covers Professional Education (40%), Major Field (40%) and General Education (20%). Either for these two, learning is imperative. Hence, this must be given emphasis by the management of NQCI and SLSU.

One of the initiatives was converting course syllabi from the old format to an Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) format that will suit the 21st Century teaching and learning for the attainment of the 21st learning skills. Both schools are committed in developing a competency-based learning standards that comply with existing CHED directives when applicable to achieve quality and perform well in the Licensure Examination for Teachers. One feature of an OBEdized syllabus is the performance-based assessment approach. While these schools adopt a performance-based approach to assessment as reflected in the syllabi, specific inputs like hiring of qualified teachers, acquisition of relevant school facilities and processes remain important, as they create the environment and shape the learning experience that is made available to students.

In general, a performance-based assessment approach measures students' ability to apply the skills and knowledge learned from a unit or units of study. Typically, the task challenges students to use their higher-order thinking skills to create a product or complete a process (Chun, 2010). On-going assessment of student learning is an essential aspect of effective teaching. Teachers can use a variety of assessment methods to diagnose student’s strengths and needs, plan and adjust instruction, and provide feedback to students and parents regarding progress and achievement. A wide variety of methods is available to teachers for assessing student learning (Airasian, 1991; Cross & Angelo, 1988; Ferrara & McTighe, 1992). Regardless of the particular methods employed, effective classroom assessment is guided by three fundamental principles. Classroom assessment should (1) promote learning, (2) use multiple sources of information, and (3) provide, fair, valid and reliable information.

Despite of this initiative, no study has been conducted in Infanta District to determine its effectivity. It was also observed by the researcher during classroom observations in his capacity as department head that there are still some teachers never employ performance-based assessment. Still, some teachers usually employ traditional approach in assessing students' performance. Further, even the syllabi are already OBEdized, still no locally-made instructional materials are made available to teachers in conformity with the OBEdized syllabi. Assessment policies and practices of NQCI & SLSU are in transition period. Call for performance-based assessment seems new to many, it has been a standard advice from the Commission on Higher Education for a long time (CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA, 2014).

Darling-Hammond (1994) argues instead for policies that ensure “top-down support for bottom-up reform”, where assessment is used to give teachers practical information on student learning and provide opportunities for school communities to engage in “a recursive process of self-reflection, self-critique, self-correction, and self-renewal”. He further explains that the equitable use of performance assessments depends not only on the design of the assessments themselves, but also on how well the assessment practices are interwoven with the goals of authentic school reform and effective teaching.

It is for this reason that the researcher is motivated to conduct this study to assess students’ attitudes towards performance-based assessment among Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSEd) and Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEED) students as assessed by the teachers and students themselves.

It is also aimed that instructional interventions suited to the learning needs of the respondents will be developed. Moreover, this paper aimed to provide a snapshot of effective ways in the teaching-learning process in higher education and develop an instructional material appropriate for elementary and secondary education students that can be utilized by teachers at any Higher Education Institutions across the country.

Related Literature

Outcomes-Based Education

The change in educational perspectives is called Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) which has three characteristics (Navarro & Santos, 2012). These characteristics are 1) it is student centered; that is, it places the students at the center of the process by focusing on Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) (2) it is faculty driven, that is, it encourages faculty responsibility for teaching, assessing program outcomes and motivating participation from the students and 3) it is meaningful, that is, it provides data to guide the teacher in making valid continuing improvement in instruction and assessment activities. Furthermore, Navarro and Santos (2012) added that to implement outcomes-based education on the subject or course level, the following procedure(s) is/are recommended: 1. Identification of the educational objectives of the subject/course, 2. Listing of learning outcomes specified for each subject/course objective which can be categorized as: Cognitive, Psychomotor and Affective and, 3. Drafting outcomes assessment procedure.

They also mentioned that outcomes-based education focuses classroom instruction on the skills and competencies that students must demonstrate when they exit. There are two (2) types of outcomes: immediate and deferred. Immediate outcomes are competencies/skills acquired upon completion of a subject, a grade level, a segment of the program, or of the program itself. While deferred outcomes refer to the ability to apply cognitive, psychomotor and affective skills/competencies in various situations many years after completion of a subject; grade level or degree program.

CHED defines outcomes-based education (OBE) as an approach that focuses and organizes the educational system around what is essential for all learners to know, value, and be able to do to achieve a desired level of competence. OBE is “open to incorporating discipline-based learning areas that currently structure Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) curricula (CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE & ISA, 2014). For the HEIs, this means describing the attributes of their ideal graduates based on their visions and missions as part of their institutional goals or outcomes, and using these as bases for developing specific program outcomes. Program outcomes are the sets of competencies (related knowledge, skills, and attitudes) that all learners are expected to demonstrate. Institutional or program outcomes may also emphasize lifelong learning. For instance, HEIs could describe the attributes of their ideal graduates which they expect to see five years after graduation. It is also important to note that assessment plays a very important role in OBE. Assessment drives OBE, and conventional methods are usually not sufficient to assess the achievement of desired outcomes (CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA, 2014). OBE assumes a certain approach to delivering and assessing learning. There is a shift from the teacher being at the center of the learning process to the student being at the center of the learning process. This approach is also known as the Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning (OBTL) (Biggs & Tang, as cited in CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE & ISA, 2014).

Further, Biggs and Tang (as cited in CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE & ISA, 2014) reiterated that in this paradigm shift, the teachers are not just experts giving inputs, they are facilitators of learning, allowing the students to play their part in constructing knowledge through experience, discussions, reflections, and other processes that promote analytical and critical thinking. Because the focus is now on the student’s attainment of competencies, there is a need to observe and/or measure the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that have been achieved. By its very nature, OBE is holistic in its outcomes focus. Attaining the learning outcomes is not an end in itself but it provides building blocks for achieving higher-level outcomes, such as applying learning, analyzing ideas, evaluating options, or creating new solution methods. This new paradigm requires a new approach to assessment as well. Assessment tools have to reflect the attainment of desired competencies, which are stated in terms of something observable and/or measurable (CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE & ISA, 2014).

Assessment of Learning

Assessment involves one or more processes that identify, collect, analyze, and report data that can be used to evaluate achievement of learning outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures appropriate to the learning outcome (CMO No. 37, Series 2012). This implies that there is no single best type of assessment. The basic consideration is that the assessment reflects the learning outcomes, that is, the assessment should be aligned with learning outcomes and not the other way around. Very often, teachers and students alike give more importance to the content and the corresponding assessment than the learning outcomes because the result of assessment translates into the grades students will get. Learning outcomes stated in the syllabus become formalities that have to be formulated as an essential part of the syllabus and not used to determine methodology and assessment. Alignment of learning outcomes, content, methodology and assessment cannot be overemphasized. Whether assessment is direct, indirect, quantitative, qualitative, formative, or summative, it is important to remember that it should be appropriate to the learning outcomes.

Assessment data inform the teachers of what, how, how much, and how well the students are learning what they are teaching, based on mutually agreed explicit criteria. It is, therefore, an interactive process between the students and the teachers and mutually beneficial to both. Being interactive focuses on assessment being student-centered since its primary aim is to improve learning. It also focuses on its being teacher-directed, because the teacher initially plans what and how to assess. As such, the criteria for assessment are mutually agreed upon by the student and the teacher. Meaning, as assessment improves the student’s learning, it likewise improves the teacher’s teaching (CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE & ISA, 2014). The purposes of assessment have been categorized into three: 1) assessment for learning; 2) assessment as learning; and 3) assessment of learning. The order or sequence (for, as, of) is intentional, indicating the importance of assessment for learning and assessment as learning in enhancing student learning. Assessment of learning is used in making summative decisions (Western and Northern Canadian Protocol, 2006). The purposes are distinct, but interrelated. Assessment as learning focuses on the role of the student as the critical connector between assessment and learning. The students actively monitor and critically assess their own learning and use the feedback from this monitoring to make adjustments, adaptations, and even major changes in what they understand and how they are learning. According to Chun (2010), performance-based assessment is defined as a tool to measure students' ability to apply the skills and knowledge learned from a unit or units of study.

Types of Performance-Based Assessment

The goal for assessment is to accurately determine whether students have learned the materials or information taught and reveal whether they have complete mastery of the content with no misunderstandings. Just as researchers use multiple data sources to determine the truthfulness of the results, teachers can use multiple types of assessment to evaluate the level of student learning. Because assessments involve the gathering of data or information, some type of product, performance, or recording sheet must be generated. The following are some examples of various types of performance-based assessments. 1) Using Observation in the Assessment Process, 2) Individual or Group Projects, 3) Portfolios, 4) Performances, 5) Student Logs and 6) Journals. CHED defines outcomes-based education (OBE) as an approach that focuses and organizes the educational system around what is essential for all learners to know, value, and be able to do to achieve a desired level of competence. OBE is “open to incorporating discipline-based learning areas that currently structure HEI curricula.” For the HEIs, this means describing the attributes of their ideal graduates based on their visions and missions as part of their institutional goals or outcomes, and using these as bases for developing specific program outcomes (CHED, 2014). Hence, these super four (4) C’s are imperative, to wit: 1) 1.Critical Thinking and Problem Solving, 2) Communication, 3) Collaboration, 4) Creating and Innovating.

Research Methods

This study made use of descriptive – quantitative research. This method attempted to assess students’ attitudes on performance-based assessment to education students to some schools offering education program. Distribution of the validated survey questionnaire was conducted to assess the attitude of students on performance-based assessment. Interviews and FGDs were undertaken with the selected teachers and students who have direct bearing to the study using the interview schedule. Data were treated using weighted mean, mean, t-test for two independent groups, p-value and Pearson r. Statistical Software (SPSS) Version 16 was used for data computation and further confirmed by the MINITAB V.14, a statistical software intended to analyze numerical data.

Findings and Discussion

The following specific problems were asked in the study with their corresponding findings.

First: To what extent is the attitude of students towards the four types of assessment and performance-based assessment practices as assessed by teachers and the students themselves?

Extent on Students’ Attitude on the Four Types of Assessment as Assessed by the Teachers and the Students Themselves Relative to Tests

For students, the top three highest ranked items were: “I would prefer to be marked on tests”, “Getting marked on test helps me learn”, Getting marked on test is good because I have opportunity to show my ability” and “I know what I must do to get a good mark on test” with weighted means of 4.32, 4.28 and 4.28, respectively, all were rated as “Strongly Agree”. The lowest item was “Test takes too much time” which was rated as “Agree”. The over-all mean was 4.08 which means “Agree”.

For teachers, the top three highest ranked items were: “I know what I must do to get a good mark on test”, “I would prefer to be marked on tests” and “Getting marked on test helps me learn” with weighted means of 4.68, 4.58 and 4.38, respectively. The lowest items were “Test takes too much time” and “Test(s) is (are) good for showing my ability in English” with the same weighted mean of 3.69 which was rated as “Agree”. The over-all mean was 4.16 which means “Agree”.

Extent on Students’ Attitude on the Four Types of Assessment as Assessed by the Teachers and the Students Themselves Relative to Presentations

For students, the top three highest ranked items were “Getting marked on presentation helps me learn”, “Getting marked on presentation makes me to put in more effort in class” and “Getting marked on presentation is good because I have opportunity to show my ability” with weighted means of 4.44, 4.39 and 4.38, respectively, which were rated as “Strongly Agree”. The over-all mean was 4.22 which means “Strongly Agree”.

For teachers, the top three highest ranked items were “I know what I must do to get a good mark on presentations”, “Getting marked on presentation makes me to put in more effort in class” and “Getting marked on presentation is good because I have opportunity to show my ability” with weighted means of 4.62, 4.51 and 4.48 which were rated as “Strongly Agree. The over-all mean was 4.36 which means “Strongly Agree”.

Extent on Students’ Attitude on the Four Types of Assessment as Assessed by the Students and the Teachers Themselves Relative to Participation

For students, the top three highest ranked items were “I would prefer to be marked on participation”, “Getting marked on participation is good because I have opportunity to show my ability” and “Getting marked on participation helps me learn” with uniform weighted means of 4.36 which can be rated as “Strongly Agree”. The lowest ranked item was “Participation takes too much time” with weighted mean of 3.65 which can be rated as “Agree”. The over-all mean is 4.15 which was rated as “Agree”.

For teachers, the top three ranked items were “Getting marked on participation is good because I have opportunity to show my ability”, “Getting marked on participation helps me learn” and “I know what I must do to get a good mark on participation” with weighted means of 4.51, 4.48 and 4.44 which were rated as “Strongly Agree”. The over-all mean was 4.31 which was rated as “Strongly Agree”.

Extent on Students’ Attitude on the Four Types of Assessment as Assessed by the Teachers and the Students Themselves Relative to Portfolio

For students, the top three ranked items were “Getting marked on portfolio helps me learn”, “I would prefer to be marked on portfolio” and “Getting marked on portfolio is good because I have opportunity to show my ability” with weighted means of 4.22, 4.19 and 4.17, respectively which were rated as “Strongly Agree” and the other two are rated as “Agree”, respectively. The lowest ranked item was “Portfolio (s) is (are) good for showing my ability in English” with weighted mean of 3.82 which can be rated “Agree”. The over-all mean is 4.02 which can be rated as “Agree”.

For teachers, the top three ranked items were “Getting marked on portfolio is good because I have opportunity to show my ability”, “Getting marked on portfolio makes me to put in more effort in class” and “I would prefer to be marked on portfolio”, I think getting marked on portfolio is fair to me” and I know what I must do to get a good mark on portfolio” with weighted means of 4.48, 4.44 and 4.34 which can be all rated as “Strongly Agree”. The over-all mean is 4.23 which can be rated as Strongly Agree”.

Extent on Students’ Attitude on Performance-Based Assessment Practices as Assessed by the Teachers and the Students Themselves

For students, the top three ranked items were “Students are asked to apply their learning to real life situations”, “The department assessment tasks are useful for everyday life” and “Students can show others that their learning has helped them do things” with weighted means of 4.52, 4.25, 4.25, respectively, which can be all rated as “Strongly Agree”. The lowest ranked item was “The assessment in the department tests what students’ memorize” with weighted mean of 3.65 which can be rated as “Agree”. The lowest ranked item was “The assessment in the department tests what students’ memorize” with weighted mean of 3.01 which can be rated as “Agree”. The over-all mean is 4.12 which can be rated as “Agree”.

For teachers, the top three ranked item were “Students are asked to apply their learning to real life situations”, (4.62) “Students are aware how their assessment will be marked” and “Students can show others that their learning has helped them do things” with weighted means of 4.62, 4.62 and 4.58 respectively, which can be all rated as “Strongly Agree”. The over-all mean was 4.21 which can be rated as “Strongly Agree”.

Second: Significant Difference on the Assessment Ratings between the Teachers and the Students on Students’ Attitude on the Four Types of Assessment

The data reveal that the test statistics value is –3.10 at an α of 5%, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the assessment ratings of students and teachers is hereby rejected. This clearly shows that there is significant difference between the assessment ratings of students and teachers. They do not have similar views on their assessment ratings.

Significant Difference on the Assessment Ratings between the Teachers and the Students on Students’ Attitude on the Performance-Based Assessment

The data reveal that the test statistics value is -1.03 at an α of 5%, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference between the assessment ratings of students and teachers is hereby accepted. This clearly shows that there is no significant difference between the assessment ratings of students and teachers. They have similar views on their assessment ratings.

[...]