4C Standadizing Student
-
Upload
ahli-sarjana -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of 4C Standadizing Student
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
1/9
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
2/9
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
3/9
Persidangan Pembangunan Pelajar Peringkat Kebangsaan 2008
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 22-23 Oktober 2008
3
33 SEMESTER 2 STUDENTS OF A HIGHER LEARNING
INSTITUTION WITH LOW ACHIEVEMENT IN ENGLISHLANGUAGE AT POINT OF ENTRY INTO INSTITUTION
No of Students
0
5
10
15
20
A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- E
Grades Awarded
2. CLASS BX - . SUBJECT: ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Overall achievement in progressive evaluation
No of Students
0
2
4
6
8
10
A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- E
Grades AwardedAs it is seen in graphs 1 and 2 above, students with similar
achievements (low) in English Language at the point of entry into the
institution are in two different classes, handled by two different tutors .Their
final achievement in progressive evaluation shows such a vast difference in
grades that have been awarded.
Graphs 3 and 4 below shows the number students, having almost
similar achievement in Pendidikan Islam at the point of entry into the
institution are in different classes, handled by different tutors. Again, their
final achievement in progressive evaluation shows such a notable difference
in grades that have been awarded.
3. CLASS CX - SUBJECT: PENDIDIKAN ISLAMOverall achievement in progressive evaluation
40 SEMESTER 1 STUDENTS OF A HIGHER LEARNINGINSTITUTION WITH AVERAGE ACHIEVEMENT IN PENDIDIKAN
ISLAM AT POINT OF ENTRY INTO INSTITUTION
No of Students
0
5
10
15
20
30 40 50 70 80 90 100
Grades Awarded
4. CLASS DX - SUBJECT: PENDIDIKAN ISLAMOverall achievement in progressive evaluation
No of Students
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
4/9
Persidangan Pembangunan Pelajar Peringkat Kebangsaan 2008
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 22-23 Oktober 2008
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30 40 50 70 80 90 100
Grades Awarded
B. RATER MISS-CONCEPTIONA QUESTION OF RELIABILITY!
1. IN TEACHING PRACTICEEachrater observes 6 students. Each student undergoes 6 - 8 observations.Grade A takes second opinion for confirmation by selected panel
FINAL SCORE
Student No ofobservation
Finalgrade
2nd
opinionGrade
Remarks
A (Boy) 8 A A Sustained
B (Girl) 8 A C +
Unacceptable
degrading
C Girl) 6 B + --- Maintained
D (Girl) 6 B+ --- Maintained
E (Boy) 6 B --- Maintained
F (Boy) 6 C+ --- Maintained
A small portion of discussion in a teaching practice process looks at the
second opinion by a selected panel. The task of the panel is to confirm if it
is a clear-cut A. However, as seen in table B1, the panel member
proposed a C+ for Student B, instead of A that had been awarded by the
supervisor. If that is the case, what would be the status of Student A, and
what will happen to the grades awarded for Students C, D, E and F?
2. SUPERVISOR VS MENTOR
Student Supervisor Mentor
1 Grade A - Score 80 Grade A - Score 85
2 Grade A Score 82 Grade B + - Score 77
3 Grade A Score 83 Grade A Score 95
4 Grade B Score 71 Grade C- Score 58
5 Grade B Score 73 Grade A Score 82
Key:
80 - A; 75 - B+; 70 = B; 65 - C+; 60 - C; 55 - D+; 50 - D;
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
5/9
Persidangan Pembangunan Pelajar Peringkat Kebangsaan 2008
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 22-23 Oktober 2008
5
Evaluer Lang
8 marks
Content
8 marks
Organzn
4 marks
Total
20 marks
1 5 5 3 13
2 5 5 3 13
3 5 4 2 11
4 5 5 2 12
5 4 4 3 11
6 5 4 3 12
7 6 6 4 16
8 4 5 2 11
Difference of 5 / 20 or 25 % 5 grads excluding A
The table above represents a session on testing a student from a higher
learning institution on his English Language speaking skills. Based on a
simple 3-criteria scheme of marking, the marks awarded differ between 11
and 16 upon 20. If the mark is converted into a percentage of 100, it runsalong a range of 5 grades.
Perhaps, it is pertinent to mention that there was a session for
marking an essay under the same marking scheme which ended up having a
range of difference from 11 to 17.
2. RECITAL OF SHORT VERSES (Pendidikan Islam)
Penilai Tajwid Kelancaran Fasohah Jumlah
10 mrkh 10 markah 5 markah 25 marksh
1 6 7 2 15
2 7 8 4 19
3 7 8 3 18
4 7 9 3 19
5 8 8 4 20
6 6 7 2 15
7 7 8 3 18
8 6 6 3 15
9 7 7 3 17
10 6 6 3 15
Difference of 5 / 25 or 20 % 4 grads excluding A
Table 2 below shows a similar outcome to table 1 above, for a test on
reciting a short verse from the Quran.
3 Results and Discussion
The graphs and tables in chapter 2 have, to a certain extent,
provided basic facts about the existence of problems in rater-reliability.
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
6/9
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
7/9
Persidangan Pembangunan Pelajar Peringkat Kebangsaan 2008
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 22-23 Oktober 2008
7
existence of such differences that kill client-centered in and educational
system, must be deeply explored. The educationists and the professionals
with similar responsibilities should not leave this issue unturned. The
possible reasons should be identified and viable measures should be
proposed, at least to narrow the gap of such differences.
Nevertheless some of the factors that have led to rater differences
and some possible measures to reduce rater disparity are proposed. It is
believed that this would be another beginning to produce true quality human
capital among students of higher learning institution.
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE RATER DIFFERENCES
(INTER-RATER FACTORS)
1. INTERPRETATION OF THE MARKING SHEME
2. INTERPRETATION OF STUDENTS ANSWER
3. CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
4. EXPERIENCE
5. ATTITUDE TOWARDS EXAMINATION
6. ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE CANDIDATES
7. PRECONCIEVED IDEA
8. STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE SUBJECT TESTED
9. STUDENT ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE EXAMINER
10. STUDENT GENDER
11. STUDENTS RACE (with non-prejudiced sensitivity)
12. STUDENT-EXAMINER RELATION
13. STUDENT REAL ABILITY VS CURRENT PERFORMANCE
14. OTHERS
INTER-RATER-DIFFERENCES THAT REDUCE
RATER - RELIABILITY
No. RATER X RATER Y
1. RIGIT WITH THE MARKINGSCHEME
FLEXIBLE WITH MARKING
SCHEME
2. FIRM WITH EVEN MINORSTUDENT MISTAKES
FLEXIBLE WITH MINORSTUDENT MISTAKES
3. WELL-VERSED WITH SUBJECTMATTER (CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE)
SHAKY / WEAK IN SUBJECTMATTER
4. WIDE EXPERIENCE IN MARKING NEW TO THE FIELD OFMARKING
5. SERIOUS IN/WITH EVALUATION RELAXED WITH EVALUATION
6. CONSIDERS TESTING /EVALUATION TO PICK ONSTUDENT WEAKNESS
CONSIDERS TESTING /EVALUATION TO PICK ONSTUDENT STRENGTH
7. TAKES THE TEST TO BE
DIFFICULT
TAKES THE TEST TO BE EASY
8. TAKES STUDENT TO BE HARD-WORKING AND CLEVER
TAKES STUDENT TO BE LAZYMISCHIEVIOUS
9. TAKES STUDENT TO BE WELLMANNERED AND RESPECTFUL
TAKES STUDENT TO BE ILLMANNERED ANDDISRESPECTFUL
10. STUDENT CLEVER BUT ERRED IN
THE CURRENT TEST HELP
STUDENT CLEVER BUT ERRED
IN THE CURRENT TEST DONTHELP
11. FEELS - ACHIEVEMENTPERCENTAGE MUST BE PRE-SET
FEELS - ACHIEVEMENTPERCENTAGE MUST BECONCURRENT WITH TEST
PROBABLE APPROACH TO STANDADIZATION
TO NARROW THE GAP IN RATER DIFFERENCE
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
8/9
Persidangan Pembangunan Pelajar Peringkat Kebangsaan 2008
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 22-23 Oktober 2008
8
No. PROBLEM SOLUTION
1. INTERPRETATION OF THEMARKING SHEME ANDSTUDENT ANSWER
DISCUSS, FINALIZE ANDEVERYONE ABIDES BY THEDECISSION MADE
2. TESTER KNOWLEDGE ANDEXPERIENCE
UPDATE CURRENTKNOWLEDGE
(3 R APPROACH)read, research and react
3. ATTITUDE TOWARDS
TESTING
DISCUSS AND FINALIZE
(ABIDE)
4. ATTITUDE TOWARDSSTUDENTS
DO NOT BE BIAS OR INCLINED
5. PRE-SET IDEA / MIND DO NOT HAVE PRE-CONCIEVED IDEAS /
NEGATIVE MIND-SET
6. STUDENT ATTITUDE AND
ABILITY TOWARDS THESUBJECT
EVALUATE ON THE CURRENT
PERFORMANCE(NOT THE GENERAL ATTITUDE
/ ABILITY)
7. RACE AND GENDERBIASNESS
DO NOT HAVE RACIAL ORGENDER BIASNESS /INFLUENCE
8. TUTOR STUDENTRELATIONSHIP
NO INFLUENCE FROM T-SRELATION
9. VETERAN FRESHIE
ATTITUDE
I KNOW WHAT IM
DOING
MIND YOUR OWN
BUSINESS
I BOSS OR YOU BOSS?
OVERCOME NEGATIVE. USE
OF
VETERAN FRESHIE
ATTITUDE
BE PROFESSIONAL &
TELERANT IN SOLVINGPROBLEMS
10. THE BUSINESS OFSEGREGATION MY
STUDENT YOUR
STUDENTS ARECOLLECTIVELY
THE CLIENTS OF ONE
STUDENT ORGANIZATIONTHINK POSSITIVE ABOUTCOLLECTIVE WELL-BEING
11. STUDENT STANDARD IN THESUBJECT AT WHAT
LEVEL?
DECIDE THE SUBJECT AS
THE CORE OR SUPPORT
12. HIDDEN GOVERNMENTPOLICY
FOLLOW YOU ARE THESERVANTS
Acknowledgement
The paper has been developed with high academic sensitivity and
sincerity. Data has been collected and compiled over a long period of time,
grabbing opportunities to dwell into the root of the problems related to
evaluations. Data collected and provided is authentic. It is a true reflection
of the existing situation. Relevance of sources in relation to data may be
sensitive and it may lead to a certain level of disgust disgrace to some
institutions. Therefore, it is very much regretted that none of the identical
sources would be revealed to the readers / audience. Many of these
suggestions may sound to be an approach to solution within (intra-raters) aninstitution. Thus, the ball has been laid to be rolled by the most respected
educationists in their own field of professional tasks, in an attempt to
provide solutions for inter-raters (between institutions). Thank you.
References
-
8/3/2019 4C Standadizing Student
9/9
Persidangan Pembangunan Pelajar Peringkat Kebangsaan 2008
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 22-23 Oktober 2008
9
1. R.C. Bogdan and S.K. Biklen. Qualitative Research for Education.
Boston. Allwyn and Bacon. 1982
2. K. Hodgkinson. Student Perception of the Personal Relationship Involved
in Teaching Practice. Louhborough University of Technology. 1993
3. K. Zeichner and J. Gore. Using Action Research as a Vehicle for Student
Teacher Reflection. Oxford, Pergamon. 1995.
E. Saunders and C. Sauders. The Assessment of Teaching Practice. Ulster
polytechnic, Faculty of Educatiuon. A report of Work Carried Out Between
1975 - 1987