See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348355621

Implementing Classroom Assessment In Malaysia: An Investigation

Article · October 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 4,462

2 authors, including:

Ilhavenil Narinasamy
Ministry of Education, Malaysia
8 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Classroom Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ilhavenil Narinasamy on 09 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Implementing Classroom Assessment In Malaysia:
An Investigation

Ilhavenil Narinasamy, PhD1, Nor’Aidah Nordin2

1,2
Curriculum Development Division
1
ilhavenil@moe.gov.my, 2noraidah.nordin@moe.gov.my

Abstract
This article discusses the importance of classroom assessment that informs students’ learning.
Classroom assessment generally practices three types of assessment; assessment of learning,
assessment as learning and assessment for learning and Malaysia holds the same principles in
classroom assessment. Earliest document on classroom assessment in Malaysia was in 1983 and
subsequent guidelines were developed to guide teachers in performing classroom assessment
effectively. In implementing classroom assessment, professional judgement of teachers is deemed
important as it informs future instruction to enhance students’ learning. The challenges faced by
teachers in implementing classroom assessment and the way forward in enhancing classroom
assessment are also discussed.

Keywords: classroom assessment, formative assessment, summative assessment, professional

judgement

INTRODUCTION

Judging one based on the quality of one’s work in the name of assessment is nothing new as it has
been around for more than two centuries ago (DeLuca & Johnson, 2017; Pollitt, 2012). Summative
assessment has been the core business or literally said, marking students’ scripts has taken center
stage for more than 200 years old to compare and rank students. In the 21st century, classroom
assessment has been intensified and given attention in recent years to improve instructional
activities in classrooms (Barnes, Fives & Dacey, 2017; Black, 2014; Black & Wiliam, 2009). The
reason for this is too much emphasis has been given to tests and examinations that the process of
acquiring knowledge, skills and values has been overlooked. In many Asian countries,
implementing classroom assessment is still an on-going issue due to lack of basic school facilities
(Leong, 2014). Furthermore, countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea and China still
consider high stakes testing as inevitable as to maintain the high standards that they have achieved
by competing in the international measures of educational achievement. However, examination
and assessment landscape in Asian countries, especially in Singapore has been reviewed and
refined recently to support the use of classroom assessment to enhance teaching and learning in
the classrooms to equip students for global challenges (Lam, Alvier-Martin, Adler & Sim, 2012;
Leong, 2014).
Malaysia is of no exception. In 2011, the Ministry of Education has launched a
comprehensive review of the education system in Malaysia (Ministry of Education, 2013). The
review has resulted the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 where the main aim is to equip

1
students holistically to compete in the global economy and social in the 21st century. There are
six key attributes needed by every student to be globally competitive which are knowledge,
thinking skills, leaderships skills, bilingual proficiency, ethics and spirituality and national
identity where these are aligned with the National Education Philosophy. New curriculum for
preschools, primary schools and secondary schools has been invented to develop a child
holistically which is named Preschool Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document,
Primary School Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document and Secondary School
Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document where assessment is part of teaching and
learning in the classrooms, an inevitable part of curriculum. Teachers in all schools were
introduced to the classroom assessment they need to adhere although classroom assessment were
robustly done in more developed countries in 1990s. Holistic assessment includes not only
knowledge and skills, but also values which includes the social-emotional learning (SEL) of a
child (Stillman, Stillman, Martinez, Freedman, Jensen & Leet, 2017). This classroom assessment
includes the formative and summative assessment of the academic curriculum and using a holistic
approach to support student learning and development, to build their confidence and desire to
learn, and to better prepare them for the future.

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT

Classroom assessment is considered as the duty of the teachers to inform teachers’ instructional
decision making and students’ learning (Black, 2014; Black & Wiliam, 2010; Zhao, Heuvel-
Panhuizen, Veldhuis, 2017). In 1970’s, classroom assessment has been a subject for debate
especially related to the functions of formative and summative assessment but in the late 1990’s,
formative assessment saw its place being important as it supported teachers in developing their
own professional practice and also raised standards in students’ achievement (Black, 2000; Black
& William, 2003; Tan & Towndrow, 2009). According to Wiliam and Leahy (2015), there is little
consensus to what is exactly the meaning of formative assessment as a same test can serve as
formative or summative assessment but what is important is whether learning has improved, and
enough evidences are collected by teachers to make sound decisions to improve students’ learning.
Leong (2014) and Harlen (2012) noted that the relationship between formative and summative
assessment is a continuum rather than a dichotomy, as teachers use these kinds of assessments a
combination in classes. Black (1998) argues that instructional learning and formative assessment
are inseparable as they are main components of a teaching plan. In addition, formative assessment
is akin to Vygostsky’s Zone of Proximal Development that allows teachers to assist students to
achieve greater heights than the actual level they are at (Black, 2014; Pattalitan Jr., 2016).
Classroom assessment is now reformed and is seen as an on-going process integrated in the
curriculum (Tee & Ahmed, 2014). On the other hand, summative assessment is ‘an accountability
measure that is generally used as part of the grading process’ (p.1) and also an evaluation whether
the students have achieved a certain level of learning process which can be assessed every end of
a unit or chapter, end of term or once a year (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2007; Pattalitan Jr., 2016).
Based on various modern learning theories, classroom assessment is generally divided into
three types: Assessment of Learning, Assessment as Learning and Assessment for Learning
(Pattalitan Jr., 2016). Classroom assessment in Malaysia holds the same principles.
‘Assessment of learning’ can be regarded as summative assessment where teachers make
judgements of students’ achievement on certain learning standards with the use of evidences. This
2
make way for future learning plans for the students. ‘Assessment as learning’ encourages the
students to reflect on their learning progress and monitor their progress and learning performance
to achieve higher standards. Empowerment is given to the students to enquire reflective questions
and plan for various strategies to enhance learning. ‘Assessment for learning’ occurs when
teachers give constructive feedback to students based on inferences of student progress through
observations, anecdotes, question-answer sessions, simple tests and so on. This motivates and
encourages students to improve on their learning.

Classroom Assessment in Malaysia

Earliest document found to be related to classroom assessment was in 1983 which was initiated
by the Curriculum Development Division (CDD), formerly known as Curriculum Development
Centre (CDC) at that time. The document was recognised as Panduan Penilaian Dalam Bilik
Darjah KBSR (Classroom Assessment Guide in KBSR Classroom) for primary level. Kurikulum
Baru Sekolah Rendah (KBSR) or New Primary School Curriculum was the first national
curriculum by the Ministry of Education in 1983 since independence. From the inception of
independence in 1957 until 1982, different types of schools in Malaysia had been using British,
Chinese and Tamil curriculum from origin countries. Malay schools had been using localized
curriculum. The assessment document for KBSR illustrated the aim, assessment activities, steps
in formal and non-formal assessment as well as steps in detecting the progress and level of
achievement of a child. Samples of instruments of assessment were also attached to the document.
A second document review of classroom assessment was done in 1996 and renamed as Buku
Panduan PKSR. Penilaian Kendalian Sekolah Rendah (PKSR Guidelines: Primary School
Operational Evaluation). This time, the contents have improved in terms of concept, aims, features
of assessment, ways of assessing, reporting on assessment and building of instruments in
assessment. A similar guideline was also done for secondary level. In 2001, a review of the school
curriculum was done, hence another review of assessment guideline was done and named as
Penilaian Kendalian Sekolah (School Operational Evaluation) where it served as single guideline
for the primary and secondary school teachers. However, at this point of time, classroom
assessment was not considered seriously and not given much thought by the educators throughout
the country. New pedagogical strategies were deemed imperative to inculcate new learning
experiences since the turn of the millennium. It was only in 2011 that the Pentaksiran Berasaskan
Sekolah (School-based Assessment) was officially started by the Malaysian Examinations
Syndicate based on Surat Siaran Lembaga Peperiksaan Bil. 3 tahun 2011 dated 29 July 2011
(Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2016). It consists of four components: Central Assessment,
Classroom Assessment, Physical Activity Assessment, Sports and Co-Curriculum and
Psychometric Assessment. School-based Assessment is considered a holistic assessment as it
assesses the cognitive, affective and psychomotor of a child in align with the National Philosophy
of Education. Teachers are required to adhere to the procedures by the Ministry of Education and
assess students continuously during the process of teaching and learning in the classroom.
Classroom Assessment is an important dimension to ensure the effectiveness of the
curriculum carried out in classrooms. It is done in formative and summative assessment using
various approaches and methods. Classroom assessment is part of an assessment approach to
gather information on the progress of a child in a formal or non-formal way to enable the teacher
to decide on the child’s level of mastery. Principles of inclusive, authentic and localized are
applied to classroom assessment in a holistic manner. Information gathered from classroom
3
assessment will be used by administrators, teachers, parents and pupils to plan out further action
to upgrade or to improve the development stage of the child (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015).
The implementation of classroom assessment in Malaysia follows the same dimension of
assessment stated in the subtopic above which is assessment for learning, assessment as learning
and assessment of learning.

Implementation of Classroom Assessment in Malaysia

Implementation of classroom assessment is carried out in two ways: formative and summative. In
carrying out classroom assessment, teachers plan, construct items, administer, monitor, record and
report student’s mastery level in any subject taught based on Standards-Based Curriculum and
Assessment Document provided (Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, 2017).
In formative assessment which is on-going during instructional activities in classrooms,
teachers first decide which content and learning standard that need to be mastered by the students
based on the standard curriculum and assessment document by subject. Then, appropriate
assessment method will be prepared to ensure students master the content and learning standards,
followed by instructional activities in the classroom. As instructional activities are carried out,
teachers refer to the performance level based on content and learning standard clusters related, to
decide on the mastery level of the student. As the teacher decides on the mastery level of the
student based on the description of rubrics given, he or she would record in a template assessment
provided and later analysed the student’s mastery level to decide on the course of action needed
to improve the development stage of the student. This on-going assessment or known as
‘assessment for learning’ is essential as it gives appropriate and timely feedback to students, and
how it can improve their work (Pattalitan Jr., 2016; Zhao, Huevel-Panhuizen, Velduis, 2017; Tee
& Ahmed, 2014). Research has shown that feedback which is a critical feature can improve
learning as every student is given specific guidance on their strengths and weaknesses, without
comparing students to one another (Black, 1998). ‘Assessment as learning’ is also encouraged on
the students to reflect on and discover their learning strengths and weaknesses. Above average or
excellent students are lauded to aid the average and below average students in the classrooms.
Various strategies, methods and techniques could be adopted in carrying formative assessment
(Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall & Wiliam, 2004; Wiliam & Leahy, 2015). Students can be
assessed through observations, oral presentations such as role plays and dramas, quizzes, projects,
practical work, worksheets, question and answer sessions, tests, written assignments and various
exercises through appropriate assessment instruments developed by teachers.
Summative assessment or ‘assessment of learning’ is carried out by the end of a learning
unit, end of a semester or end of a year (Lembaga Peperiksaan, 2012). Teachers construct
assessment items based on content and learning standards of the Standards-Based Curriculum and
Assessment Document. Then, summative assessment in the form of mid-year exam or end-of-the
year exam is administered to the students. Teachers mark students’ exam scripts, record their
achievement and report their performance level in terms of marks and grades to the respective
stakeholders namely, Ministry of Education and parents.
In assessing students, professional judgment of teachers is needed to ascertain the level of
mastery that the students have acquired.

4
 Enhancement of Professional Judgement

In deciding the level of mastery of students, teacher’s professional judgement is of paramount

importance. How do teachers acquire professional judgment? According to Allal and Lopez
(2014), teachers form professional judgement when it takes account resources and constraint of
work setting and work knowledge is further enhanced by experiences. Teacher collaboration or
‘socially moderated activities’ is one of the dynamics in enhancing teachers’ professional
judgement in deciding the grades of students’ work. The aim of collaboration is to ensure
coherence in assessment practice among the teachers and students. Teachers discuss with one
another to assure consistency and comparability of judgements about students’ learning outcome.
However, fairness in grading is always being questioned as it was never identical in the
judgements of teachers but the interactions among teachers allow professionalism to take place
(Cobb et al., 1997, cited in Alla & Lopez, 2014). Teachers build up their professional judgement
through informal interactions with students to determine consistent and inconsistent student
profiles based on cognitive and socio-emotional characteristics of students (Südkamp, Praetorius
& Spinath, 2017).
Teacher’s judgement accuracy can also be enhanced through inferences that one draws
from available cues such as a student’s correct response to a question asked and also a student’s
facial expression on whether he or she understood a learning material, as long as the assessment
is aligned with the learning objective and diagnostic in nature (Thiede, Brendefur, Osguthorpe,
Carney, Bremner, Strother, Oswalt, Snow, Sutton & Jesse, 2015)
However, researchers have shown that teachers’ judgement on students can be biased
based on students’ characteristics as well as classroom and school contexts where there were
teachers who overestimated students’ literacy achievements in higher achieving and higher social
economic status classrooms and underestimated students’ skills in lower achieving and lower
social economic status classrooms (Meissel, Meyer, Yao, Rubie-Davies, 2017; Ready & Wright,
2011).
This gives every reason that professional development is needed to improve teachers’
professional judgement accuracy. Professional development on detecting the cues of students can
help to enhance teachers’ judgement accuracy in developing students’ learning although more
research is needed to identify cues for conceptual understanding (Thiede et. al., 2015). Teachers’
professional judgement on students’ learning is considered important as these judgements would
guide subsequent instructions, thus enhancing students’ learning further. Inaccuracy of teacher’s
professional judgment may lead to many challenges when implementing classroom assessment.

Challenges in Classroom Assessment

Black and Wiliam (1998a, 2003) and Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall and Wiliam (2004) have
asserted that classroom assessment especially formative assessment has not been favourable to
educators based on researches done. Why? Many educators felt it is difficult to break away from
normal routine as it requires time and effort. Normal routine includes ‘encourage superficial and
rote learning’ (p.8) among students and overemphasis on grading functions (Black, 1998a).
Furthermore, when classroom culture focusses on grades or any teaching strategy is weak
such as in a question-and-answer session where a teacher does not give enough time for students
to answer or is looking for a particular respond, students especially the low attainment ones will

5
avoid thinking as it is not favourable to the teacher (Black, 1998). This inevitably lowers students’
self-esteem. They become demoralized and believe that they are not good enough.
Despite global movements towards the importance of assessment, whether formative or
summative, DeLuca and Johnson (2017) assert that educators lack adequate knowledge and skills
in assessments, especially pre-service educators who acquire assessment knowledge from short
and fragmented teacher education programmes where some of the trainers’ or instructors’
knowledge on assessment is questionable.
Besides, educators do not discuss among themselves or critically review about the types
of questions they post to students either in oral or written form and also other types of methods or
learning strategies in order for accountability of assessment takes place (Black, 1998; DeLuca &
Johnson, 2017). Furthermore, low-levels question items seemed to be teachers’ everyday’s work
as it is easier to do (Sardareh & Mohd Rashid, 2013). Many educators also resort to grading
functions as it seems the only easiest thing to do, thus leading to the failure of self-assessment by
students as they do not a comprehensive idea on how to assess themselves.
The challenges stated above is also seen in the local context. Although not many researches
on assessment have been done in Malaysian schools as assessment is only seen important in recent
years, Malaysian teachers are generally unaware of the importance of feedback and effective
questioning techniques to enhance learner’s autonomy. Studies done by Sardareh (2016) and
Sardareh, Abdul Rashid, Abdul Jalil & Rosalam (2014) showed that Malaysian teachers lacked
pedagogical skills such as giving appropriate feedback and questioning techniques to enhance
students’ learning.

Enhancing Classroom Assessment in Malaysian Context

In Malaysian schools, the emphasis is on formative assessment, although summative assessment

is inevitable as less emphasized is given to avoid high-stakes testing. The main purpose is to
improve students’ learning and teachers’ instructional approach and strategies (Black 1998,
William & Leahy, 2015). Classroom assessment is the key towards developing a child holistically
in terms of cognitive, affective and psychomotor as mentioned in the Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013 – 2025 (MOE 2013) in tandem with the Malaysian Philosophy of Education.
Therefore, exam-oriented education is less emphasized. The focus is more fun, deep and
meaningful learning, together with rigorous classroom assessment where the focal point is on the
students’ cognitive and character development. This is related to the six attributes needed by
students to be globally competitive as mentioned in the Malaysia Blueprint, i.e. leadership skills,
bilingual proficiency, thinking skills, knowledge, ethics and spirituality, and national identity (see
Figure 1 for the six key attributes).

6
 Figure 1. Six key attributes needed by students to be globally competitive
(MOE 2013)

In order to generate holistic student outcome, changes must be done in teaching approaches,
strategies and types of assessment. In implementing these changes, it is suggested:
▪ Educators including school administrators must willingly learn to accept changes despite
encountering obstacles and challenges. Educators should adopt teaching methods such as
inquiry-oriented teaching and learning. In order to assess students effectively, educators
must acquire substantial knowledge on types of assessments and decide on a suitable
assessment related to their students and learning objectives. As Hall & Hord (2011)
reiterated, “Change is learning. Learning enabled teacher to change her practices and to
use the improved and more effective program with students” (p. 7).
▪ Educators and all members in the education fraternity must realize that change is a
process, it is not an event which will be accomplished by a one-time announcement or by
a series of curriculum dissemination. A process needs time, where people and the
organization move as they gradually learn, understand, be skillful and competent in the
new ways. The time needed varies for individuals and schools as teachers need time to
change their fixed mind set on classroom practices, especially on assessment (Wiliam &
Leahy, 2015).
▪ Administrator leadership is essential to long-term change success (Hall & Hord 2011).
Principals play a vital role in reducing resistance to change among educators and provide
assistance to them to see positive side of changes although bound to time. Facilitating
change is a team effort, which requires mandates and influences the process of learning
and change (Coetzee, Visagie & Ukpere, 2012).
▪ Numerous educational organizations, i.e. the district and state education department, and
the ministry, as well as from the parents and public facilitate support to educators by
awarding freedom, flexibility and choice to educators who know more about their own
classrooms and students than anyone else. It is appropriate to hold educators accountable
for planning and developing various teaching approaches to enhance students’ learning
and trust be given to teachers that will make them learn and change faster in their
contented ways (Wiliam & Leahy, 2015). Besides, educators gain a wealth of
understanding of formative assessment from monthly meetings of teacher learning
communities.

7
 CONCLUSION

Although Malaysia is more than two decades late in implementing classroom assessment formally,
nevertheless we are in the right direction. Teachers need to change their mindset on classroom
assessment and have a positive outlook on classroom assessment as it informs a child’s learning
on a whole. As Black (1998) puts it, ‘… the improvement of formative assessment cannot be a
simple matter. There is no ‘quick fix’ that can be added to existing practice with promise of rapid
reward’ (p.46). Every teacher needs to incorporate formative assessment into their lessons, and
this will surely be successful in years to come with the support of various parties, and especially
with the right professional development from school administrators, teacher trainers and education
officers. Assessment has become a fundamental competency for educators in the 21 st century
(DeLuca & Johnson, 2017).

REFERENCES

Allal, L. & Lopez, L. M. (2014). Teachers’ professional judgement in the context of

collaborative assessment practice. In C. Wyatt-Smith, V. Klenowski, & P. Colbert
(Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 155-165). Heidelberg: Springer.
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2016). Panduan Pelaksanaan Pentaksiran Sekolah.
Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2017). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran.
Pendidikan Moral Tingkatan Dua. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum,
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Black, P. (1998). Formative assessment: raising standards inside the classroom. School Science
Review, 80(291), 39-49.
Black, P. (2014). Assessment and the aims of the curriculum. An explorer’s journey. Prospects,
44, 487-501.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education,
5(1), 7-71.
Black, P. (2000). Research and the development of educational assessment. Oxford Review of
Education, 26(3&4), 407-419.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2003). ‘In praise of educational research’: formative assessment. British
Educational Research Journal, 29 (5), 623-637.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Education
Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2010). A pleasant surprise. Kappan, 92, 47-48.
Coetzee, R., Visagie, J. & Ukpere, W. (2012). Leading a successful change intervention in a
modern organization: Key elements to consider. African Journal of Business
Management, 6(51), 12068-12075.
DeLuca, C. & Johnson, S. (2017). Developing assessment capable teachers in this age of
accountability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 24(2), 121-126.
Harlen, W. (2012). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative
purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.). Assessment and learning (2nd ed.) London. Sage.

8
 Herppich, S. (2017). Teachers' assessment competence: integrating knowledge-,process-,and
product-oriented approaches into a competence-oriented conceptual model,
Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.12.001
Leong, W. S. (2014). Knowing the intentions, meaning and context of classroom assessment: a
case study of Singaporean teacher’s conception and practice. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 43, 70-78.
Garrison, C., & Ehringhaus, M. (2007). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom.
Retrieved from
http://www.amle.org/Publications/WebExclusive/Assessment/tabid/1120/ Default.aspx
Lembaga Peperiksaan. (2012). Panduan Pengurusan Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah.
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
Meissel, K., Meyer, F., Yao, E. S. & Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2017). Subjectivity of teacher
judgments: Exploring student characteristics that influence teacher judgements of student
ability. Teacher and Teacher Education, 65, 48-60.
Ministry of Education, Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025. Putrajaya:
Ministry of Education, Malaysia.
Pattalitan Jr, A. P. (2016). The implications of learning theories to assessment and instructional
scaffolding techniques. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 696-700.
Pollitt, A. (2012). Comparative judgement for assessment. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 22, 157-170.
Südkamp, A., Praetorius, A-K. & Spinath, B. (2017). Teachers’ judgment accuracy concerning
consistent and inconsistent student profiles. Teaching and Teacher Education, in press,
1-10.
Tan, A. L. & Towndrow, P. A. (2009). Catalyzing student-teacher interactions and teacher
learning in science practical formative assessment with digital video technology.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 61-67
Tee, D. D. & Ahmed, P. K. (2014). 360 degress feedback. an integrative framework for learning
and aseessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), 571-591.
Thiede, K. W., Brendefur, J. L., Osguthorpe, R. D., Carney, M. B., Bremner, A., Strother, S.,
Oswalt, S., Snow, J. L., Sutton, J., & Jesse, D. (2015). Can teachers accurately predict
student performance? Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 37-44.
Wiliam, D. & Leahy, S. (2015). Embedding formative assessment. FL: Learning Sciences
International.
Zhao, X., Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. V. D. & Veldhuis, M. (2017). Classroom assessment in the
eyes of Chinese primary mathematics teachers: a review of teacher-written papers.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 52, 42-54.

View publication stats