HOW FAIR IS FAIR?

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF

SCHOOL-BASED ORAL
ASSESSMENT(EOT)
IRI DAYANIE SHAFEE
2013795727
 INTRODUCTION

 Fauziah Hassan and Nita Fauzee Selamat (2002) in their study on the
reasons for students‟ lack of proficiency in ESL from the teachers‟
perspectives concluded that the weakest skill of the English learners in
Malaysia was speaking.
 The OET is part of the national level Malaysian Certificate of Education
or SPM examination which has a strong influence on the future of
students in Malaysia.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF OET

 A new standardized national scale school-based Oral English Test (OET) was
introduced to Malaysian schools in 2002 and the results were first announced
nationwide in 2003.
 Develop students’ oral competence in line with the learning objectives stated in the
English Language Syllabus for Malaysian Secondary Schools (Malaysian Examination
Syndicate, 2002).
 Encourages authenticity in order to assess a candidate’s real speaking ability.
 Encourages teaching and learning processes in the classroom.
 The test provides a continuous assessment of a student for two years from Form 4
until Form 5, as the student is assessed twice in Form 4 and once again in Form 5.
CONT…

 The teacher is the examiner and as the person closest to the

student, is able to assess the candidate’s actual speaking skills
more accurately.
 From 2004 teachers were required to assess students in the
classroom as part of the teaching and learning process.
 CHARACTER PROFILE

 Miss Y is new to the system. She has 5 years of teaching experience. The youngest teacher
in the English Unit and having problem understanding the requirements of EOT and how to
evaluate it. She questioned that the assessment of the EOT is not reliable and not valid.
She claimed that the district level assessors are often not happy with marks that she has
allocated, deeming her too strict and the marks given too low. Some of the complaints
received from the district level assessors are that she should be fair in grading and that the
students deserve higher marks. But according to her:
 How fair is fair? She was not given training, briefing yes, but no training, so how can they
criticize her? The assessor did not do any inter-rater exercise with the teacher, only the
marks given were analyzed.
 Among the English teachers in our college, they have a consensus as to the marks given.
FLOWCHART OF ORAL ENGLISH TEST
PROCEDURE
TRIGGER

 District Education Office (PPD) set a minimum standard

which 26 marks for the MJSC students, whereas they
did not deserve it.
 Teachers are unsure of the criteria and how the School-
based Oral English should be carried out.
ISSUES OR CONSTRAINT OF EOT
 The discrepancy between the district level assessor and the teachers.
 Inadequate description and guidelines of the grading criteria - not explained in
depth.
 The understanding of the criteria differs from colleagues who are teaching the
other classes.
 the teacher must redo the test model if students did not obtain the minimum
marks of 26. Due to time constraint teacher will just award them 26.
 The amount of the time needed to carry out the test. The large number of students
in each class and assessing students during lesson is very time consuming but also
at the cost of students’ learning in class.
QUESTIONS

 How would the teachers’ experience affect the grading of EOT?

 How reliable is the marks given that is based on teachers’ impression and
interpretation of the assessment?
 How reliable is the assessment conducted by the teachers due to time constraint
and lesson taught?
 How reliable is the result given when different schools are moderated by different
PPDs who have contradictory standard?
 How the teachers and students been briefed of this difference?