Reltmax Implementation of Sba Eltc Briefing May 2012

8/12/2019 Reltmax Implementation of Sba Eltc Briefing May 2012

1/18

Implementation of the KSSRStandards-Based Assessment

Simone Evans, PhD

Training Fellow

ELTC Division

Ministry of Education

Malaysia

019 623 1519

[email protected]


2/18

RELTmax Implementation of the KSSR Standards-Based Assessment: Simone Evans, PhD: May 2012 2

Table of Contents

Rationale for the RELTmax Implementation of the KSSR English Language Standards-BasedAssessment (SBA) .......................................................................................................................... 3

Defining SBA ............................................................................................................................... 3SBA for Young Learners .............................................................................................................. 3What does SBA evaluate? ........................................................................................................... 4Implementing SBA: The Train or Provide Path? .......................................................................... 6

Unpacking the RELTmax Implementation of SBA ........................................................................... 7From KSSR to RELTmax Competencies ..................................................................................... 8RELTmax Competency Descriptors ............................................................................................. 9Example of a RELTmax Competency: SK Year 1 Competency D: Listen to Spoken Text ......... 10Competency Descriptor Development: What constitutes evidence? .......................................... 11Classroom Administration of SBA .............................................................................................. 12SK Y2 Sample A Child Assessment Template: Chant ............................................................... 13 SK Y2 Sample B Child Assessment Template: Write Description or Story ................................. 14SK Y2: Whole Class Record of Band Achievement by Child...................................................... 15

Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 17


3/18


Rationale for the RELTmax Implementation of the KSSR EnglishLanguage Standards-Based Assessment (SBA)

Defining SBA

Standards-Based Assessment is the term used for Malaysias school-based assessmentsystem being implemented in Years 1 and 2 to evaluate childrens ability to meet or achievethe standards specified by the KSSR syllabi (both SK and SJK).

School-based assessment generally refers to any evaluation of students conducted in aclassroom. It is also referred to as continuous assessment, assessment for learning andformative assessment in its many forms around the world (Rajput, Tewari & Kumar, 2005;Black & Wiliam, 2003). Whilst a test written and conducted within the school would fallwithin this definition, quizzes, tests and examinations are not usually included.

It is also the case that the emphasis of school-based assessment is on actual, everydayteaching and learning practices. Teachers teach; learners learn, and what occurs as part of

those processes is evaluated (Black & Wiliam, 2003; Webb & Jones, 2009). Althoughwashback, the impact of assessment on teaching practices and content, is inevitable,school-based assessment attempts to avoid this, or to ensure that the effect is in a positivedirection (Yu, 2007).

Finally, because of ELTCs role in enhancing English language teaching practices as theKSSR is implemented, it is worth noting that, as is the case in Malaysia, school-basedassessment is often introduced in conjunction with curricula change, or innovations intendedto improve teaching practices and learning outcomes (Koh, Lee, Gong & Wong, 2006; Yu,2007). Therefore, school-based assessment plays a role as a formative instrument inrealising these innovations, a summative one in evaluating them, and, in the case where it isused to focus teachers on the desired change, as a form of positive washback.

SBA for Young Learners

One feature of Malaysias SBA that differs from most others is that it evaluates younglearners rather than those undertaking secondary education, although it should be notedthat SBA is also being implemented in Malaysian secondary schools (Malakolunthu & Hoon,2010). There are two major implications of this difference.

First, the major cited benefit and aim of many school-based assessment programs is theirimpact on learning (Wiliam & Black, 1998). A type of formative assessment, these school-based programs target teaching practices and pedagogical decision-making in the

development of a classroom learning culture in which students ultimately have greaterresponsibility for and control over their learning strategies through a dialoguing orembeddingprocess (Sithamparam, 2011; Webb & Jones, 2009).

It is clearly unnecessary that school-based assessment intended for young languagelearners be formative in nature, as the feedback processes needed to engage youngchildren in learning, and motivate them to learn are well-documented (Crespo, 2002;Heyman, Dweck & Cain; 1992, Zentall & Morris, 2010).

It follows too that the requirements of this feedback to facilitate learning (that it be effort-based, behavior-specific, and not contain criticism) mean that the results achieved andevaluated by this summative SBA system should not be communicated to the learners

themselves who are particularly vulnerable to such feedback at this age, but only to otherstakeholders: school management, parents, district management, and the relevant divisionsof Ministry of Education (McKay, 2006).


4/18


What does SBA evaluate?

In its first iteration of SBA, the Exam Syndicate (ES) encountered negative washback in theform of the unintentional creation of an alternative syllabus as teachers moved their focusfrom addressing the requirements of the KSSR to addressing the SBA descriptorsthemselves (ES Representative, personal communication, January 9, 2012), an extremely

common occurrence with any form of assessment which appears to change the content ofwhat is taught long before it affects teaching practices themselves (Cheng, 1999; Yu, 2010).

To counter this, the SBA descriptors were re-released: the later version precisely mapping tothe KSSR syllabi (Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c & 2012d). Tounderstand the SBA, therefore, we must first briefly examine the KSSR in light of theliterature on and terms used within syllabus design and assessment.

As noted above, the KSSR is referred to as a standardsbased syllabus: a commonly usedterm. For the purposes of SBA, however, it is worth considering the syllabi in terms of theirbeing competency-based and text-based.

The hallmark of a competency-based syllabus is that it focuses on learners being able to dothings with language, rather than to know about it (Findley & Nathan, 1980). All thestandards within the KSSR are expressed in this language. [Pupils will be]Able to listen to,say aloud and recite rhymes or sing songs with guidance (Bahagian PembangunanKurikulum, 2011b, p. 14) is one such example.

Additionally, the KSSR can be said to be a text -based syllabus. A text is a whole piece oflanguage which is complete in itself, such as a story, a poem, a chant, a dialogue or adescription. A text can be heard, spoken, written or read (Feez & Joyce, 1998; MetropolitanEast Disadvantaged Schools Program, 1989), and the process of reading, saying, listening toor writing a text is known as negotiating (Savignon, 1991), constructing or deconstructing it.

The KSSR and KBSR syllabi require learners to negotiate a range of texts such as thosenoted above (BPK 2003, 2011a) as do the Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR)examinations conducted at the end of Year 6 (brochure, a dialogue, a story, and either aprocess description or a chart or graph).

Each competency statement or descriptor is then linked to a text or a part of a text as can beseen in Table 1 below. All Table descriptors 1-6 are taken directly from the KSSR SJK Tahun1 syllabus (BPK, 2011b). The right-hand column contains the KSSR Standard Number.

Table 1: Competency-Text Relationship within the KSSR (SJK Tahun 1, BPK, 2011b)

KSSR

1. Able to take part with guidance in a performancebased on nursery rhymes& songs 4.3.2 a.b.

2. Able to produce simple creative works with guidance based on nursery rhymes& songs 4.3.1 a.b.

3. Able to recite nursery rhymesand sing action songswith correct pronunciationandrhythm.

4.1.2

4. Able to listen to, say aloud and recite rhymesor sing songswith guidance 4.1.1

5. Able to listen and respond to stimulus given with guidance: (rhythm & rhyme, voicesounds, alliteration)

1.1.1.d-f

6. Able to enjoy nursery rhymesand sing action songsthrough non-verbal response:(environmental sounds, instrumental sounds, body percussion)

1.1.1.a-c

Key: CompetencyCompleteText

Part of Text (Textual Component)


5/18


Descriptors 1-4 relate to the learnersability to negotiate (perform, produce, recite, sing, listen,say aloud) the whole text (rhyme, song).

Descriptors 4-6 relate to the learners ability to negotiate (non-verbally respond to, listen to,say aloud, sing and recite with guidance, parts of the whole text (rhyme, song).

By teaching systematically from the phoneme level (Descriptor 6) to the whole text level

(Descriptor 1) the children gradually acquire the skills they need to be able to produce(perform, recite, sing) the whole text (performance-based on nursery rhymes and songs).

For this reason, the overarching descriptor (1: Able to take part with guidance in aperformance based on nursery rhymes & songs) is termed the competency and theskills/textual components that children need to be able to do to achieve that competency areknown as competency descriptors (2-6).

If we now return to the original question of what the KSSR Standards-Based Assessment isintended to evaluate, the answer is simple. Each competency within the KSSR syllabi ismapped to a corresponding Band Descriptor. The Band Descriptors require teacherstoprovide evidence, (teachers need to see and record) that each child is able to hear, say, reador write each competency or Band Descriptor (KPM, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c & 2012d).

Examining Table 2 below reveals that when a child provides evidence that they are able totake part with guidance in a performance based on nursery rhymes and songs (KSSR4.3.2ab: see BPK, 2012a, p. 25) by taking part in a performance before an audience whichis witnessed and recorded by the teacher, they will have achieved Band Descriptor B5 DL2:Perform nursery rhymes and sing songs to an audience (KPM, 2012a, p. 14).

Table 2: Mapping the KSSR (BPK, 2011b) to the SBA Band Descriptors (KPM, 2012a)

KSSR BANDS1. Able to take part with guidance in a performance based on nursery rhymes

& songs4.3.2 a.b. B5 DL2

2. Able to produce simple creative works with guidance based on nurseryrhymes & songs

4.3.1 a.b.B5 DL1

3. Able to recite nursery rhymes and sing action songs with correctpronunciationand rhythm.

4.1.2

4. Able to listen to, say aloud and recite rhymes or sing songs with guidance 4.1.1B1 DL15. Able to listen and respond to stimulus given with guidance: (rhythm &

rhyme, voice sounds, alliteration)1.1.1.d-f

6. Able to enjoy nursery rhymes and sing action songs through non-verbalresponse: (environmental sounds, instrumental sounds, body percussion)

1.1.1.a-c B4 DL1

Key to the Band Descriptors or Bands(KPM, 2012a):

B5 DL2: Perform nursery rhymes and sing songs to an audience.B5 DL1: Recite rhymes or sing songs.B4 DL1: Listen to and demonstrate understanding of the oral texts.B1 DL1: Say aloud rhymes or sing songs with guidance.

While the Band Descriptors may not be changed in any way, teachers have considerablefreedom in the form the evidence they use to evaluate the children takes. This is becausethe Exam Syndicate provides suggestions as to what the evidence may be, both in the BandDescriptor documents themselves and on the website that Year 1 and 2 teachers havepassword access to (seehttp://apps.moe.gov.my/sppbs/index.cfm).

For example, in Table 2 above, Band Descriptor B1 DL1 Say aloud rhymes or sing songswith guidance may be evidenced by children demonstrating that they are able to do any ofthe following:
http://apps.moe.gov.my/sppbs/index.cfmhttp://apps.moe.gov.my/sppbs/index.cfmhttp://apps.moe.gov.my/sppbs/index.cfmhttp://apps.moe.gov.my/sppbs/index.cfm


6/18


repeat rhymes after the teacher,

sing along with the teacher, [or]

sing in groups(KPM, 2012a, p.9).

Implementing SBA: The Train or Provide Path?

We now come to the question that goes to the heart of the RELTmax implementation ofSBA. How do we implement SBA so that this assessment system produces the desiredoutcomes: improved teaching practice, the implementation of the new innovative curricula,and ultimately, better learning outcomes for children?

There are two major ways in which school-based assessment is implemented across theworld. The first approach is to train teachers to write their own assessment materials whichwill produce the necessary evidence of learning. The second approach is to provideteachers with a bank of assessment materials to achieve the same results and teach themto implement and interpret these materials (Sishi & Poliah, 2006).

Despite repeated and continued attempts to pursue the former strategy of training teachersto become assessors and evaluators (see, for example, Fok, Kennedy, Chan & Yu 2006,Sithamparam, 2011), this approach consistently fails. Even with extensive and targetedtraining, teachers consistently prove to be poor assessment designers, regardless ofwhether they are designing traditional tests (Coniam , 2009) or school-based assessmentmaterials. The reasons for this failure relate to knowledge and culture.

Designing assessment tasks requires an extraordinary amount of knowledge about testingand assessment, language acquisition, how language is structured, the skills involved innegotiating a range of texts and task design itself (Hamp-Lyons, 2009; Koh, Lee, Gong &Wong, 2006, Scott, 2009).

Understandably, acquiring and applying this knowledge is difficult for teachers, even shouldthey be motivated to do so. Research has shown us that teachers have difficulty aligningtheir assessments to the instructional goals, thereby ensuring the validity of the assessment(Koh, Lee, Gong & Wong, 2006; Yu, 2007). There are issues designing tasks that focus onwhat children cando rather than on their mistakes (Lee, 2007; Lo, 2006), that produce thekind of interaction required by the assessment (Hamp-Lyons, 2009), that are not pencil andpaper based, or based on childrens being able to regurgitate rote-learned knowledge, thatassess a range of skills in a fun waythat does not engender stress (Goh & Mohamed,2006) and that assess childrens higher-order thinking (Koh, Lee, Gong & Wong, 2006; Yu,2007). Additionally, integrating assessment tasks and task types across class levels (e.g.Year 1 and 2) has been found to be problematic (Lo, 2006).

In interpreting the assessment, teachers vary in their understanding and evaluation of bothverbal and non-verbal learner performance (Butler, 2009; Lo, 2006), and are found toevaluate children on the basis of ethnicity, communication style, or on perceived behaviouralproblems unrelated to the assessment task (Lo, 2006).

These issues are exacerbated by uneven affective-cognitive and proficiency developmentthat characterises young language learners, (McKay, 2006; Scott, 2009), a particularlyproblematic area for Malaysias SBA, as there appears to an expectation that childrensdemonstrated competencies will fall under one of the 6 Band levels ,brought about by someof the training on SBA done during 2011.

Cultural factors play an even greater role in teachers failure to become assessmentdesigners. In many Asian countries, there is a long tradition of norm-referenced, summative,high stakes examinations from primary through to the end of secondary education. This


7/18


tradition has an enormous influence on teacherswillingness and ability to develop school-based assessment tasks. Teachers often see school-based assessment as irrelevant to theirjob and student learning outcomes, as unreliable or compared to the summative assessmentthey are used to, or merely as additional bureaucratic paperwork imposed from above to holdthem accountable (Yu, 2010). They may also see it as another exam paper for which theymust drill students. When these perceptions are mirrored by the public, who may, in addition,not trust teachers, there is little incentive to acquire the extensive knowledge needed to

implement the change (Fok, Kennedy, Chan & Yu 2006; Lo, 2006; Luyten & Dolkar, 2010).

As a result of these experiences, many countries have moved to the second strategy of SBAimplementation which is to supply a bank of assessment materials, prototypes or templatesand provide extensive training in their use (Davison & Leung, 2009; Hamp-Lyons, 2009;Koh, Lee, Gong & Wong, 2006; Sishi & Poliah, 2006).

This is also the approach taken by RELTmax in the implementation of SBA, a description ofwhich follows.

Unpacking the RELTmax Implementation of SBA

In implementing SBA, it is important to remember that the assessment is not there for itsown sake. The goal of SBA is to improve learning outcomes through curriculum innovationwhich develops and enhances teaching practices. SBA can contribute to this in meaningfulways, but it cannot of itself bring about the change and it can also have a negative impact.

Given the effect of washback and teachers tendency to teach to the test, it was thoughtbetter to focus training efforts on teaching rather than on testing, since ideally SBAmeasures what is actually happening in the classroom and the assessment is opaque to thechildren.

As noted above, the KSSR is text-based. However, this does not imply that teachers walkinto the classroom and begin the teaching process with the whole text, be it a story, song orother text. To do so would test rather than teach. Learning takes place in a scaffolded, stepby step, systematic manner. The steps are achieved through individual teaching taskssupported (scaffolded) by the learners peers or the teacher.

Whilst a text may be approached from the top down with more proficient learners of English(such as advanced Upper Primary or Secondary learners), for younger, less proficientlearners, tasks that guide learners towards the construction of a text are sequenced from thebottom up, in the following way. Reaching the top of the table means the teacher has taughtone of the texts required by the KSSR syllabus.

Table 3: Task Sequencing in Scaffolded Text-Based Teaching

Whole Text Level8. Text Pattern/Organisation (Discourse Structure)7. Context

Sentence Level6. Form & Function (formulaic or chunk language)

Word Level5. Write (include spelling)4. Read3. Say (pronounce the word2. Hear (understand aurally)

1. Meaning (of word)


8/18


From KSSR to RELTmax Competencies

That being the case, and given the text and competency-based nature of the KSSR syllabi,why not simply take the KSSR Competencies and Descriptors (sub-competencies) and mapthem to the Band Descriptors as in Table 4 below? Teachers could then be sure ofachieving the Band Descriptors, and implementing the KSSR.

Table 4: Teaching the KSSR as a Competency/Band Descriptor Checklist (BPK, 2011a) to the SBA BandDescriptors (KPM, 2012c)

Able to read simple texts with guidance: a) fiction b) non-fictionKSSR2.3.1.a

BANDSB5 DB1b

Able to read a paragraph of 3-4 sentences.2.2.41.1.4

B6 DL1

Able to read & understand sentences in linear and non-linear texts with guidance.2.2.3 B3 DB2

B4 DB1

Able to read & understand phrases in linear and non-linear texts. 2.2.2

Able to read and apply word recognition & attack skills by matching words withgraphics

2.2.1.aB2 DB1B3 DB1

Able to segment words into phonemes to spell.Able to spell common sight words.

2.1.43.2.4

B1 DB1B1 DB2B1 DB4B2 DB2

Able to recognise & articulate initial, medial & final sounds in single syllable wordswithin a given context.Able to read and apply word recognition & attack skills by matching words withspoken words.

2.1.22.2.1.b

B2DB2

Able to listen to and enjoy simple storiesAble to talk about a stimulus with guidance

1.1.44.2.2

B5 DL1

Able to listen and respond to stimulus with guidance: oral blending & segmenting 1.1.1.g B1 DB3

There are a number of reasons why implementing the SBA in this way is unlikely to succeed

and these are discussed below.

1. Lack of Knowledge:To ask the teachers to follow the descriptors above is to requirethe same knowledge they would need to become assessment designers. A brief look atTable 4 above assumes a knowledge of Phonics (word attack skills, segment words intophonemes to spell, articulate initial medial and final sounds), language and its structure(linear and non-linear texts), scaffolding techniques (with guidance), task design (talkabout a stimulus with guidance) and a very detailed knowledge of what it means to reada paragraph in terms of both skills and teaching methodologies that do not involvesimply translating it, or children guessing at the meaning.

2. Modular Structure:The KSSR syllabus describes its modular structure as organisingthe curriculum standards under five modules (BPK, 2011a, p.5), which means that skillsrelated to reading are grouped together. In order to read simple texts with guidance(BPK, 2011a, p.18), however, learners need to speak, listen, talk, and respond, whichare categorised under the Listening & Speaking and Language Arts Modules (see Table4s KSSR column). This also applies to reading skills when undertaking competencieswithin the writing module, as skills integration is exploited strategically to enhancepupils development of specific language skills (BPK, 2011a, p.5).

To go through the KSSR and reorganise it would also require knowledge of languageand teaching methodologies that many teachers would not have, even if they had thetime required to do this.

3. Missing Descriptors:Finally, and partially because of its modular structure, some textsare very fully described by their competency descriptors while others are less so. Forexample, the KSSR syllabi make repeated references to reading and writing non-linear


9/18


texts. As such texts are read non-sequentially, a key competency or skill in being able todo so is to identify the discourse markers in the text which tell you where you will find theinformation you require. If you want to know what class you must attend on Wednesdayafternoon in a classroom timetable, you need to know that one column will containWednesdays information, and another row, the afternoons time and class. Otherwiseyou would need to read the timetable in a linear, sequential fashion (starting Monday8am) in order to find the information you required).

RELTmax Competency Descriptors

To address these issues, the RELTmax development team rewrote the KSSR TextCompetencies, text by text, rewording each descriptor so that the linguistic, methodological,and task design knowledge is built into the overall competency.

If you examine Table 5 below, for example, you will see that we have defined reading andunderstanding a story as being able to demonstrate understanding of its characters, setting,and sequence of events.

Table 5: From KSSR to RELTmax Competency (SK Tahun 1, BPK, 2011a; KPM, 2012c)

Can read and respond to a short picture story.KSSR2.3.1.a

BANDSB5 DB1b

Can demonstrate understanding of the moral values in the story by responding tosimple questions about its characters.

1.1.4 B6 DL1

Can demonstrate understanding of read sentences by matching them to realia (orpictures of realia).

2.2.1.a B4 DB1

Can demonstrate understanding of storys sequence of events and sentences bysequencing them correctly.

2.2.32.2.4

B3 DB2

Can demonstrate understanding of the characters and setting of the story.2.2.32.2.4

Can demonstrate understanding of written words/phrases via non-verbal response

(actions or pictures).

2.2.1.a B3 DB1

Can decode (read) short, familiar, single-syllable words in the story using Phonicssegmenting techniques.

1.1.1.g2.1.2

2.2.1.bB2DB2

Can use Phonics segmenting techniques to spell familiar words they hear (in thetext).

1.1.1.g2.1.43.2.4

B1 DB1B1 DB2B1 DB4B2 DB2

Can demonstrate understanding of word/phrase meaning via non-verbal response(actions or pictures).

2.2.1.a B2 DB1

Can make predictions about the characters, setting and sequence of events in thestory by using the storys pictures (pictorial cues).

1.1.44.2.2

B5 DL1

Can blend individual phonemes in short, familiar, single-syllable words. 1.1.1.g B1 DB3

There are between ten and twelve competencies for each class (depending on the Yearlevel and school type), with each competency representing a KSSR text or text type. Forexample, chant and song are classed as one competency, but there are separatecompetencies for a short story (non-fiction, linear text) and description fiction, linear text).

Any teacher who takes the RELTmax or RELTnote program is taught to teach from wordlevel to sentence level sequentially (see Table 3 above), and are given tasks to do teachthese skills as well as the experience of developing and delivering their own. If they carryout these tasks in the way we model them, they will not have to write any assessments oftheir own (unless they chose to do so), but can focus on teaching the KSSR in a creative,fun, engaging, systematic, learner-centred way.

To aid that process, RELTmax and RELTnote tasks are mapped against each competency(such as that in Table 5 above), as can be seen over the page.


10/18


Example of a RELTmax Competency: SK Year 1 Competency D: Listen to Spoken Text

A. Can listen to, demonstrate understanding of and respond to spoken texts.[directions, story]

BANDS KSSRRELTmaxtask/Evidence

Can demonstrate understanding of simple directions through physical, pictorial, verbal orwritten response.

B3 DL2b1 1.2.2.b 4.16 K Map *

Can demonstrate understanding through physical, pictorial, verbal or written response. B4 DL1 1.1.2

4.10 Listening: Which

Building*4.17 Wheres Sarascat? *6.2 Simon Says *6.3 Listening: Hare &Tortoise*

Can demonstrate understanding of chronological sequence and place. [story only]

B6 DL1

1.1.2

4.17 Wheres Sarascat? *6.3 Listening: Hare &Tortoise*6.7 Puppet Dialogue*

Can demonstrate understanding of the moral values in the story by responding to simplequestions about its characters. [story only]

1.1.21.1.41.3.1

1To achieve Band B3 DL2, children need to demonstrate understanding of spoken directions (see Competency D B3 DL2b), in addition to demonstrating

understanding of teachers instructions (See Competency K, B3 DL2a).

* As with all RELTmax tasks, this task provides evidence of this competency. However, this task must be taught AFTER completing preceding tasks(e.g. 4.16 is taught after tasks 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 etc to 4.15)


11/18


Competency Descriptor Development: What constitutes evidence?

Having focused on the teachers ability to teach to the best of their abilities and to world bestpractice standards, we were now able to determine what kind of evidence within theseteaching practices and tasks could be used to meet the requirements of the ExamSyndicates Band Descriptors.

As noted above, teachers (and assessment designers) have some freedom in determiningthe what evidence is used to demonstrate completion of each Band Descriptor. They haveNO freedom whatsoever to change the Band Descriptors themselves.

In determining the type of evidence that would be necessary to meet audit requirements,and as part of the process of building linguistic and teaching knowledge into the assessmentinstruments, a number of assumptions and interpretations were made, and these aredescribed below. Since English language teaching is ELTCs core business, it should benoted that these assumptions are based on current, evidence-based research into school-based assessment, language, teaching, learning and language acquisition.

1. Cautious Interpretation:We are very concerned that each teacher can evidentiallydemonstrate to all stakeholders that they have fully met each Band Descriptor, and in sopreparing the evidential requirements, we have erred on the side of caution.

2. Formal and Informal Talk: Unlike the KSSR, the ES Band Descriptors differentiatebetween casual and formal conversation. In the literature, casual conversation isrepresented by many text types (e.g. anecdotes, gossip, jokes see Eggins & Slade,1997) and talk is not typically divided into casual and formal categories, but by domain,function and text (genre) e.g. transactional dialogue.

There is a considerable body of literature on the differences between formal and informaltalk and how they are structured. We have drawn on the seminal work by Sacks,

Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) amongst others in our definition of formal and informaltalk, and these explanations are contained and cited in the footnotes of the RELTmaxCompetency Descriptors themselves.

3. Real life classroom practice: As far as possible, evidence should mirror actualclassroom practice. When interpreting SK Tahun 1 Band Descriptor B6 DL1, Talk abouta short story with guidance, (KPM, 2012c) for example, we sought advice on what thatwould mean in a Year 1 classroom, what questions would be asked and about whataspects of the story (Kalminderjit Kaur, 2009).

4. Competencies: Less is more! To make teachers lives easier, we have tried tominimise the number of RELTmax Competencies teachers need to use.

5. Band Descriptors Interpretation: To better understand the descriptors, we made useof the evidence provided, and the overall Band Descriptor (e.g. SK Tahun 1 Band 6Overall Descriptor reads: Appreciating literary works by performing and presentingideas using exemplary manners. If Band Descriptors appeared similar but belonged towidely differing Overall Bands (eg B3 and B6, KPM, 2012c), we understood that theDescriptors were to be achieved by evidence at a substantially different proficiency leveland we altered the textual descriptors and/or Competency as a result.

6. Socio-Linguistic Competence: We understood the good admirable andexemplary manners specified in Bands 4, 5, and 6 to refer to socio-linguisticcompetence (Canale, 1983) in the construction of spoken and written texts.


12/18


Classroom Administration of SBA

Many teachers see SBA as time-consuming additional paperwork in their busy, committedlives. One of the goals of the RELTmax implementation of SBA was to make documentationand record-keeping, so necessary for government, parental and school stakeholder auditingas transparent and easy as possible.

Again, teachers teach; learners learn, and what occurs as part of those processes isevaluated. There is no need to allocate additional classroom time for assessing. Thechildren will not even know they are being assessed. Once teachers are nearing completionof a text, they make copies of the relevant template, one for each student, and take theminto class (see over page).

Competency Descriptors, provided they are specific (another example of expert knowledgebeing applied), avoid the need for teachers to make judgements about proficiency andcircumvent inter-rater reliability issues (Hamp-Lyons, 2009). Children either can or cannotdo each of the descriptors. If the teacher sees it, they tick the box/es, and move onto thenext child. Children may complete all, none of some of the descriptors in each competency.Some Band Descriptors are achieved by the childs providing evidence of having met oneRELTmax Band Descriptort. Others must be achieved by completing all the RELTmaxCompetency Descriptors.

On their return to the staffroom, teachers 1) transfer records of Band Description completiononto the Class Record (see pages 15-16), 2) cut up individual child records and place thesein each childs file for Parent Teacher Meetings and audit purposes, and 3) upload therelevant evidential information onto the Ministry of Education website designed for thatpurpose.

These individual child and overall class achievement records provide stakeholders with the

following information:

1. How many times the teacher has assessed the Competency

2. What texts they used to do so (e.g. Text = Story. The Tasik Cini Dragon.

3. If the child was absent on the day of the assessment, and if this is a regularoccurrence for that child

4. How the child rates in terms of Band Achievement against other children in the class.

It is the teachers choice of how many times, when, what and how they will evaluate the

children in the class. They can choose to write their own assessment materials or not. Wehope they choose to do what they do best: teach.


13/18


SK Y2 Sample A Child Assessment Template: Chant

Name: Hisham B. Anuar Class: 2 Arif Date: 3/9/12

Name of the text used: May I borrow Chant Absent

Can demonstrate an understanding of and sing or recite a song, chant or rhyme. BANDS

Can demonstrate understanding of a song, chant or rhyme through non-verbal response.

B1 DL1Can pronounce individual words clearly (sounds and word stress).

Can use sentence stress (beat and rhythm) to clearly and accurately recite chant or sing a song, chant or rhyme.

Can match the rhythm of a song, chant or rhyme to physical actions (clapping or stamping).B1 DL2

Name: Anwar Bin Suhaimi Class: 2 Arif Date: 3/9/12







Name: Nasrul B Daud Class: 2 Arif Date: 3/9/12







Name: Walid B Rashid Class: 2 Arif Date: 3/9/12








14/18


SK Y2 Sample B Child Assessment Template: Write Description or Story

Name: Hisham B. Anuar Class: 2 Arif Date: 3/9/12

Name of the text used: Animal Description Absent

Can write a simple linear text with guidance. [description, story] BANDS

Can form letters legibly and space them correctly to form words. B1 DT1

Can use Phonics segmenting techniques to spell simple familiar words.B1 DB3B2 DT1

Can copy, adapt and personalize model sentences legibly and correctly.B3 DT2B4 DT1

Can spell simple words, phrases and simple sentences correctly.

Can punctuate simple phrases and simple sentences correctly. B3 DT1

Can demonstrate understanding of words, phrases and sentences by unscrambling (rearranging wordsto form) sentences.

B3 DB2

Can demonstrate understanding of sentences by sequencing them correctly. B3 DB2

Name: Anwar Bin Suhaimi Class: 2 Arif Date: 3/9/12








Can demonstrate understanding of words, phrases and sentences by unscrambling (rearranging wordsto form) sentences.

B3 DB2


Name: Nasrul B Daud Class: 2 Arif Date: 3/9/12








Can demonstrate understanding of words, phrases and sentences by unscrambling (rearranging words

to form) sentences.

B3 DB2



15/18


SK Y2: Whole Class Record of Band Achievement by Child

Year 2Arif

B1DL1

B1DL2

B1DB1

B1DB2

B1DB3

B1DT1

B2DL1

B2DB1

B2DB2

B2DT1

B3DL1

B3DL2a

B3DL2b

B3DL3

B3DB1

B3DB1

B3DB2

B3DB3

B3DT1

B3DT2

B4DL1

B4DB1

B4DB2

B4DT1

B5DL1

B5DL2

B5DB1

B5DT1

B5DT2

B6DL1

B6DL2

B6DB1

B6DB2

B6DT1

AbuBakar B.Ahmad

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

A

AnitaWong

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

5/4

5/4

Anwar BSuhaimi

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

Azidah BtAziz

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

Azizah BtHasshim

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

Azmira BtAmran

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

2/3

5/4

ChinChuanNgok

2

/3

2

/3

5

/4

A A A A

Hisham BAnuar

2/3

2/3

A 5/4

5/4

2/3

5/4

Hazrul B.Haris

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

2/3

5/4

JayaPushaniPonnudurai 2

/32/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4


16/18


Year 2Arif

B1DL1

B1DL2

B1DB1

B1DB2

B1DB3

B1DT1

B2DL1

B2DB1

B2DB2

B2DT1

B3DL1

B3DL2a

B3DL2b

B3DL3

B3DB1

B3DB1

B3DB2

B3DB3

B3DT1

B3DT2

B4DL1

B4DB1

B4DB2

B4DT1

B5DL1

B5DL2

B5DB1

B5DT1

B5DT2

B6DL1

B6DL2

B6DB1

B6DB2

B6DT1

Kalminderjit Kaur

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

Logeswaria/pArumugam 2

/32/3

A 5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

Nasrul B

Daud2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

RichardTeoh

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

2/3

Rosdi B.Harun

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

2/3

SelvanayagiShanmugham 2

/32/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

A 2/3

5/4

SheilaAdelina

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

SyalianaJamaludin

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

5/4

Walid BRashid

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

A 2/3

5/4

WongLindsay

2/3

2/3

5/4

5/4

5/4

4/7

2/3

A


17/18


Works Cited

Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2003) Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran: Kurikulum Bersepadu SekolahRendah. Malaysia: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.

Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, (2011a). Dokumen standard kurikulum sekolah rendah: Modul terasasas: Bahasa inggeris SK: Tahun & Dua. Putrajaya: Malaysia: Kementerian PendidikanMalaysia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83

Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, (2011b). Dokumen standard kurikulum sekolah rendah: Bahasa

inggeris SJK: Tahun, Dua & Tiga. Putrajaya: Malaysia: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.Retrieved fromhttp://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2003). In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. BritishEducational Research Journal, 29(5), 623-637.

Butler, Y.G. (2009). How do teachers observe and evaluate elementary school students foreign languageperformance? A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 417-444.

Cheng, L. (1999). Changing assessment: Washback on teacher perceptions and actions. Teaching andTeacher Education, 15I, 253-271.

Coniam, D. (2009). Investigating the quality of teacher-produced tests for EFL students and the effects oftraining in test development principles and practices on improving test quality. System, 37, 226242.

Crespo, S. (2002). Praising and correcting: Prospective teachers investigate their teacherly talk.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18,739-758.

Davison, C. & Leung, C. (2009). Current issues in English language teacher-based assessment. TESOLQuarterly, 43(3), 393-415.

Eggins, S. & Slade, D (1997)Analysing casual conversation. London & New York: CassellFeez, S. & Joyce, H. (1998) Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Centre for English

Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.Findley, C.A. & Nathan, L.A. (1980). Functional language objectives in a competency based ESL

curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2), 221-231.

Fok, P-K, Kennedy, K.J., Chan, J.K-S. & Yu, F.W-M. (2006). Integrating assessment of learning andassessment for learning in Hong Kong public examinations: Rationales and realities ofintroducing school-based assessment. Paper presented atAssessment in an Era of RapidChange: Innovations and Best Practices,International Association of Educational AssessmentConference, Singapore, 2006. Retrieved from:http://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.html

Goh, D & Mohamed, S. (2006). Engaging the learner through assessment: A study conducted with lowerprimary students in Singapore. Paper presented atAssessment in an Era of Rapid Change:Innovations and Best Practices,International Association of Educational Assessment Conference,Singapore, 2006. Retrieved from:http://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.html

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009) Principles for large-scaled classroom-based assessment of English learnerslanguage: An initial framework for school-based assessment in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterley,

43(3), 524-529.Heyman, G.D., Dweck, C.S. & Cain, K.M. (1992). Young childens vulnerability to self-blame and

helplessness: Relationship to beliefs about goodness. Child Development, 63, 401-415.Hui, S.K.F. & Brown, G.T.L. (2010). Contrasting teachers espoused and enacted classroom

assessment: Exploring Hong Kong Chinese teachers conceptions of assessment. Paperpresented atAssessment for Future Generations,International Association of EducationalAssessment Conference, Thailand, 2010. Retrieved from:

Kalminderjit Kaur, (2009). Negotiating critical literacies in Malaysian classrooms. Unpublished PhDthesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi Selangor, Malaysia.

Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2012a). Dokumen standard prestasi: Bahasa Inggeris: Untukkegunaan Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tahun 1. Retrieved fromhttp://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0

Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2012b). Dokumen standard prestasi: Bahasa Inggeris: Untukkegunaan Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tahun 2. Retrieved fromhttp://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0
http://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83http://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83http://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83http://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83http://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.htmlhttp://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.htmlhttp://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.htmlhttp://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.htmlhttp://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.htmlhttp://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0http://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0http://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0http://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0http://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0http://syazalina83.blogspot.com/search?q=prestasi&x=0&y=0http://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.htmlhttp://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/programme.htmlhttp://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83http://www.moe.gov.my/bpk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=227&Itemid=83


18/18

Reltmax Implementation of Sba Eltc Briefing May 2012

Documents

Transcript of Reltmax Implementation of Sba Eltc Briefing May 2012