Educationists and parents want UPSR, PMR to stay
UPDATED @ 03:21:48 PM 27-07-2010By Boo Su-Lyn July 27, 2010
PUTRAJAYA, July 27 — Political parties and educationists want the UPSR and PMR public examinations retained, an Education Ministry dialogue was told today.
Representatives from political parties like DAP and MIC and non-governmental organisations such as the Parent Action Group for Education Malaysia (PAGE) and the United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong) said that today’s meeting of about 40 representatives saw a chorus of reservation against abolishing the two public examinations.
“Majority do not agree to abolish both,” said Dong Zong representative Dr Lai Hoi Chaw today.
“Majority also thought this exam system has to be modified,” he added, saying that creative content should be increased in the examination system.
Lai, the deputy director of the Malaysian Independent Chinese Secondary School Unified Examination Committee under Dong Zong, said that Dong Zong rejected the UPSR move until the government proposed a detailed alternative student assessment system.
“We do not agree to abolish UPSR immediately until we know more about the alternative formula,” Lai said, adding that the group would also decide on the matter of PMR when an alternative assessment system was proposed.
Lai also demanded for the school-based assessment proposal by Malaysia Examination Board director Datuk Dr Salbiah Ismail at the discussion today to be made public.
Salbiah’s proposal included creating an internal school assessment system and a guided methodology on how to conduct assessments up to the Form 5 SPM level, as well as implementing “psychometric tests” on students’ emotions and character, said DAP national publicity secretary Tony Pua.
Pua said Salbiah’s proposal showed that the Education Ministry seemed to have decided to scrap the two public examinations even before talks were completed.
Education Director-General Tan Sri Alimuddin Mohd Dom said last week that a report on the roundtable discussions would be submitted to the Education Minister by the end of August.
The ministry’s first official roundtable discussion took place on July 19, and was attended by over 120 educators, district education officers and teachers’ unions representatives.
The National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP), the Sarawak Teachers’ Union, the West Malaysia Malay Teachers’ Union, and education academics reportedly favoured replacing the two public examinations with school-based assessments.
However, PAGE chairman Datin Noor Azimah Abdul Rahim said that her organisation favoured retaining the two public examinations because a school-based assessment system was open to abuse.
“If we were to rely on school-based assessment, it is subject to manipulation, leaks, favouritism. A national assessment is independent,” said Azimah.
“Most (in the discussion) were in favour of keeping both (examinations), but with the adjustments of making it better,” added Azimah, pointing out that the focus of the current examination system on rote should be replaced with more open-ended questions.
Academic Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Dr Abdul Rahman Arshad also called for the rigid examination system to be revised instead of abolishing UPSR and PMR.
“We must change the nature of the exam. You don’t demolish everything,” said the University-College Sedaya International chancellor.
“A good number are for adjustments to be made,” added Abdul Rahman.
MIC representative Tan Sri Professor T. Marimuthu said that his party was against scrapping the UPSR and PMR examinations, citing concerns of a school-based assessment system that is open to abuse.
“We are concerned about teacher load and teacher bias in a school-based assessment,” said the MIC education committee chairman.
Marimuthu added that the MIC wanted UPSR especially to be retained and for the government to address the pressure faced by UPSR students.
“Any change must be based on informed research. I am not sure what research has been done on this,” said Marimuthu, adding that majority in the discussion wanted to retain the two public examinations.
The DAP is also against scrapping the UPSR and PMR examinations and claimed yesterday that students performed better when subjected to public examinations as shown by international research.
“If the government is insistent in proceeding, as it appears to be, to scrap the exams, do a pilot project first,” said Pua, adding that the government should compare those who took public examinations and those who did not after several years.
“The consequence of scrapping exams for the whole country at one go is a highly risky move. We call for the (Education) Ministry not to repeat the mistake of PPSMI,” said Pua, pointing out that Putrajaya had proceeded with implementing the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English despite public reservation but was forced to abolish it a few years later.
Showing posts with label PMR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PMR. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Academic Studies Support Retaining Examinations
The call by Ministry of Education to abolish UPSR and PMR examinations must not be based on proper quantitative and qualitative studies and not based on unsubstantiated fads or whims of the day
The Ministry of Education is currently studying seriously on the proposal to abolish UPSR and PMR examinations in order to improve the standards of education and to create more “thinking” students rather than those relying purely on 'regurgitation' to pass examinations.
The response from the public and interested parties to date has been generally in favour of such abolition, with some expressing reservation.
I'll like to call upon the Ministry of Education to conduct a more scientific or quantitative study determine the effects of examinations on a student and his or her achievements before taking the hasty and drastic measure of abolishing examinations only to suffer irreversible damage to the quality of our education subsequently.
There are a lot of studies conducted by academics at top universities around the world on the impact of “central exams” and their effects on the educational achievements of the students. Most of these studies however almost always concludes that central examinations have substantial positive impact on the students. The following findings by eminent academics are as follow:
1. “How Central Exams Affect Educational Achievement: International Evidence from TIMSS and TIMSS-Repeat” by Ludger Woessmann (2002) of John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
The data used in the paper are sourced from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS; 1994-1995) and the TIMSS-Repeat (1998-1999) covering 40 nations. They include performance data in both math and science for about 450,000 students, as well as background data on families, school resources and institutional setting for individual students, teachers and schools.
This study showed that “students in countries with central exit-exam systems perform 35 to 47 percent of an international standard deviation in test scores better in their middle-school years in both mathematics and science than students in countries without central exams.”
2. “The Effect Of Central Exit Examinations On Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence From TIMSS Germany” by Hendrik Jürges & Kerstin Schneider & Felix Büchel, 2003.
This paper makes use of the regional variation in schooling legislation within the German secondary education system to estimate the effect of central exit examinations on student performance. The study concluded that “students in federal states with central exit examinations clearly outperform students in other federal states” although they did qualify that part of the difference could be attributable to other factors.
3. “Are National Exit Examinations Important for Educational Efficiency?” by John H. Bishop (1999), Cornell University
Students in countries with national exit exams exams tend to outperform students in other countries in science, math, reading, and geography, when national economic development levels are accounted for.
A study of the elimination of the Swedish exit examination system in the 1970s, in combination with changes in the way university applicants were selected, also “appears to have led to a decline in the number of upper secondary school students taking rigorous courses in mathematics and science.”
This study covered extensively data sourced from (i) TIMSS, (ii) the reading literacy of 14 year olds in the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement's (IEA) Reading Study, Science, (iii) math and geography scores of 13 year olds on the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) for 16 nations and (iv) Science and math scores of 13 year olds in nine Canadian provinces.
4. “The Effect of National Standard and Curriculum-Based Exams on Achievement” by John H. Bishop (1997)
In this study, Bishop concluded that “our review of the evidence suggests that the claims of the advocates of standards and examination based reform of American secondary education my be right. The countries and Canadian provinces with such system outperform other countries at comparable levels of development.
This study also looked at the (i) TIMSS data, (ii) the International Assessment of Educational Progress 1991 covering 15 nations including England, Switzerland, Taiwan and Korea and (iii) the Canada IAEP 1990-91 with data from more than 1,400 schools.
Studies which provides contrary conclusions are few and far in between and often focuses on the negative impact of excessive stress on a student while accepting that a moderate amount of stress for the students is beneficial in terms of student achievement.
Given the above studies, I'll like to reiterate my earlier assertion that it is the nature of examinations and teaching methods which will determine the quality of student achievements and not the fact as to whether examinations are abolished.
Even if the UPSR and PMR is abolished, but the nature of the Form 5 SPM examination as well as the teaching methods and quality remains unchanged, then the student output from our education system will remain little changed from what it is today. In fact, the removal of examinations may disincentivise students, particularly from the lower income groups as well as from families with lower educational qualifications to fare worse than before due to the lack of uniform achievement standards.
The Ministry of Education is currently studying seriously on the proposal to abolish UPSR and PMR examinations in order to improve the standards of education and to create more “thinking” students rather than those relying purely on 'regurgitation' to pass examinations.
The response from the public and interested parties to date has been generally in favour of such abolition, with some expressing reservation.
I'll like to call upon the Ministry of Education to conduct a more scientific or quantitative study determine the effects of examinations on a student and his or her achievements before taking the hasty and drastic measure of abolishing examinations only to suffer irreversible damage to the quality of our education subsequently.
There are a lot of studies conducted by academics at top universities around the world on the impact of “central exams” and their effects on the educational achievements of the students. Most of these studies however almost always concludes that central examinations have substantial positive impact on the students. The following findings by eminent academics are as follow:
1. “How Central Exams Affect Educational Achievement: International Evidence from TIMSS and TIMSS-Repeat” by Ludger Woessmann (2002) of John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
The data used in the paper are sourced from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS; 1994-1995) and the TIMSS-Repeat (1998-1999) covering 40 nations. They include performance data in both math and science for about 450,000 students, as well as background data on families, school resources and institutional setting for individual students, teachers and schools.
This study showed that “students in countries with central exit-exam systems perform 35 to 47 percent of an international standard deviation in test scores better in their middle-school years in both mathematics and science than students in countries without central exams.”
2. “The Effect Of Central Exit Examinations On Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence From TIMSS Germany” by Hendrik Jürges & Kerstin Schneider & Felix Büchel, 2003.
This paper makes use of the regional variation in schooling legislation within the German secondary education system to estimate the effect of central exit examinations on student performance. The study concluded that “students in federal states with central exit examinations clearly outperform students in other federal states” although they did qualify that part of the difference could be attributable to other factors.
3. “Are National Exit Examinations Important for Educational Efficiency?” by John H. Bishop (1999), Cornell University
Students in countries with national exit exams exams tend to outperform students in other countries in science, math, reading, and geography, when national economic development levels are accounted for.
A study of the elimination of the Swedish exit examination system in the 1970s, in combination with changes in the way university applicants were selected, also “appears to have led to a decline in the number of upper secondary school students taking rigorous courses in mathematics and science.”
This study covered extensively data sourced from (i) TIMSS, (ii) the reading literacy of 14 year olds in the International Association of the Evaluation of Educational Achievement's (IEA) Reading Study, Science, (iii) math and geography scores of 13 year olds on the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) for 16 nations and (iv) Science and math scores of 13 year olds in nine Canadian provinces.
4. “The Effect of National Standard and Curriculum-Based Exams on Achievement” by John H. Bishop (1997)
In this study, Bishop concluded that “our review of the evidence suggests that the claims of the advocates of standards and examination based reform of American secondary education my be right. The countries and Canadian provinces with such system outperform other countries at comparable levels of development.
This study also looked at the (i) TIMSS data, (ii) the International Assessment of Educational Progress 1991 covering 15 nations including England, Switzerland, Taiwan and Korea and (iii) the Canada IAEP 1990-91 with data from more than 1,400 schools.
Studies which provides contrary conclusions are few and far in between and often focuses on the negative impact of excessive stress on a student while accepting that a moderate amount of stress for the students is beneficial in terms of student achievement.
Given the above studies, I'll like to reiterate my earlier assertion that it is the nature of examinations and teaching methods which will determine the quality of student achievements and not the fact as to whether examinations are abolished.
Even if the UPSR and PMR is abolished, but the nature of the Form 5 SPM examination as well as the teaching methods and quality remains unchanged, then the student output from our education system will remain little changed from what it is today. In fact, the removal of examinations may disincentivise students, particularly from the lower income groups as well as from families with lower educational qualifications to fare worse than before due to the lack of uniform achievement standards.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Scrapping UPSR & PMR A Good Move?
The Ministry of Education must not be hasty in scrapping all examinations which will create far reaching consequences for our human capital development
Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had announced that the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) and Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) examinations may be abolished as “part of government efforts to restructure the learning system that as seen as too examination oriented and failed to provide a holistic education.”
I would like to express our thanks to the DPM for also stating that “the ministry would not act in haste and wanted the public to give feedback to help improve the public examination system.”
I would like to urge extreme caution from the Education Ministry on the potential move to scrap examination despite the noble objectives to “avoid producing machines” as explained by the Deputy Education Minister Wee Ka Siong.
I are in complete agreement that we should reform our education system to prevent it from “producing robots”. However, we need to first understand the cause of failure in our education system which isn't a result of having examinations per se.
Firstly, without first changing our teaching systems to encourage creativity, critical thinking and innovation, removing examinations will make little or no difference to the quality of education for our students. For example, if the quality and ability of the teachers remain unchanged, then quality of output will make little difference. Instead, because of the lack of a standardised assessment system, the outcome might actually deteriorate due to the lack of objective measures.
Secondly, the problem of studying for examinations and producing students who focus on memorising and regurgitating answers is in the nature of questions itself. Very simply, if the examination questions today are orientated towards memorised answers, then understandably, the students will be focused on memorising answers. However, if the questions are oriented towards challenging a students thinking skills, then certainly, the students will have little choice but to be more analytical.
For example, a question on history at PMR level may ask “What year did the Portugese conquer Melaka?”. In this case, the student has no choice but to memorise the year “1511”.
Alternatively, the question could ask “Why did Melaka lose to the Portugese?”. In this case, there's a greater element of subjectivity, but the students may still be able to a certain degree, memorise part of the answers.
However, if the question were to ask “Was it inevitable that Melaka would lose to the Portugese in 1511?”, then a student would have no choice but to evaluate the facts which he has in hand and provide measured answers as to whether the defeat was “inevitable”. Such questions would certainly encourage greater critical thinking for what we want isn't memorised facts but weighted opinions, for and against.
In addition, such subjective questions which demands critical thinking and analysis by the students will require equally trained teachers who understands the value of such analysis, with emphasis not just on whether the student got the facts right, but whether the student demonstrated their ability to think.
Therefore, we would like to emphasize to the Education Minister that the critical success factor to producing “thinking” students, as opposed to “regurgitating machines” likes with the teachers, the teaching system as well as the nature of examinations.
The proposal to scrap examinations is not the miracle cure to producing analytical students, and may actually produce negative and unintended outcomes on the average quality of Malaysian students.
Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had announced that the Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) and Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) examinations may be abolished as “part of government efforts to restructure the learning system that as seen as too examination oriented and failed to provide a holistic education.”
I would like to express our thanks to the DPM for also stating that “the ministry would not act in haste and wanted the public to give feedback to help improve the public examination system.”
I would like to urge extreme caution from the Education Ministry on the potential move to scrap examination despite the noble objectives to “avoid producing machines” as explained by the Deputy Education Minister Wee Ka Siong.
I are in complete agreement that we should reform our education system to prevent it from “producing robots”. However, we need to first understand the cause of failure in our education system which isn't a result of having examinations per se.
Firstly, without first changing our teaching systems to encourage creativity, critical thinking and innovation, removing examinations will make little or no difference to the quality of education for our students. For example, if the quality and ability of the teachers remain unchanged, then quality of output will make little difference. Instead, because of the lack of a standardised assessment system, the outcome might actually deteriorate due to the lack of objective measures.
Secondly, the problem of studying for examinations and producing students who focus on memorising and regurgitating answers is in the nature of questions itself. Very simply, if the examination questions today are orientated towards memorised answers, then understandably, the students will be focused on memorising answers. However, if the questions are oriented towards challenging a students thinking skills, then certainly, the students will have little choice but to be more analytical.
For example, a question on history at PMR level may ask “What year did the Portugese conquer Melaka?”. In this case, the student has no choice but to memorise the year “1511”.
Alternatively, the question could ask “Why did Melaka lose to the Portugese?”. In this case, there's a greater element of subjectivity, but the students may still be able to a certain degree, memorise part of the answers.
However, if the question were to ask “Was it inevitable that Melaka would lose to the Portugese in 1511?”, then a student would have no choice but to evaluate the facts which he has in hand and provide measured answers as to whether the defeat was “inevitable”. Such questions would certainly encourage greater critical thinking for what we want isn't memorised facts but weighted opinions, for and against.
In addition, such subjective questions which demands critical thinking and analysis by the students will require equally trained teachers who understands the value of such analysis, with emphasis not just on whether the student got the facts right, but whether the student demonstrated their ability to think.
Therefore, we would like to emphasize to the Education Minister that the critical success factor to producing “thinking” students, as opposed to “regurgitating machines” likes with the teachers, the teaching system as well as the nature of examinations.
The proposal to scrap examinations is not the miracle cure to producing analytical students, and may actually produce negative and unintended outcomes on the average quality of Malaysian students.
Monday, March 24, 2008
PMR dates changed again
Looks like the PMR dates are set to change again, this time to the end of October and early November instead of the middle of October and early November as reported earlier. I'm glad that they are announcing this now instead of a month before the actual PMR exams since this will give the Ministry ample time to prepare for the timely marking of papers. Hopefully, the dates won't be changed again!
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Splitting up the PMR dates - good or bad?
OK, a break from the GE now. Just saw this report on the Star stating that the PMR dates have been set for Oct 13th to 15th and Nov 4th and 5th. The ostensible reason is to decrease the level of truancy which happens at the end of the year. Does this proposal make sense?
According to this website, the school holidays in Malaysia starts on November 18th and goes to January 1st. Having the PMR in early October means that those who finish their PMR have one more month of holidays compared to their peers who don't have to take their PMR. The reason why the exams where not all postponed to Nov 4th and 5th is because the 'subjective' or 'non-objective' exams cannot be marked in time for the results to be released by the end of the year.
Frankly, I'm a bit perplexed by this decision. I've not experienced any 'major' exam in my primary and secondary school life where the paper exams are separated by a period of 2 weeks. I remember sitting for my A levels in Singapore where I had to take some of the 'lab' exams a couple of weeks early but the paper exams were taken in a span of about 2 weeks. I've always preferred taking exams in a relatively short period of time and getting it over as soon as possible. I find it difficult to keep up the momentum and adrenaline of studying and preparing for exams if they are spread out over a longer period of time, in this case, for almost 4 weeks.
But perhaps, some students will like this. They can cram hard for the first few exams in the middle of October, take a break and then use the remaining two weeks to study for the objective type exams.
Still, the rationale of delaying the exams is a little mystifying. Perhaps some parents complain that they don't know what to do with their kids because they finish school a month earlier than everyone else. But can't the Ministry ask the schools to use this time more productively, by, for example, organizing the students to do volunteer work, to learn a new skill, to play games, etc...? Isn't the Ministry running the risk of forcing the markers to mark the papers in a shorter period of time (the non-objective ones) and perhaps increase the chances of them making mistakes? Isn't the Ministry also running the risk of making mistakes in compiling the grades because of the smaller time window to release the results? Frankly, I would prefer the students to have more time off than to make mistakes in the preparation of the PMR grades.
I'm curious as to the effect splitting up these exams may have on different students. For example, are those who are low performers more likely to do worse under this 'split' system because they cannot sustain the necessary momentum to study and prepare for exams over the course of 3 to 4 weeks? Or are they more likely to do better because they have more time to prepare? I'm inclined to think the former.
My gut feeling tells me that the Ministry will try this out for 1 year, find that they have problems finish marking the papers and compiling the grades and perhaps find that there are some changes in the average grade of students and then go back to the former policy of having the exams in early October. Those who suffer will be the 'guinea pigs' this year.
What do our readers think of this? Especially those who have kids who are taking their PMR exams?
According to this website, the school holidays in Malaysia starts on November 18th and goes to January 1st. Having the PMR in early October means that those who finish their PMR have one more month of holidays compared to their peers who don't have to take their PMR. The reason why the exams where not all postponed to Nov 4th and 5th is because the 'subjective' or 'non-objective' exams cannot be marked in time for the results to be released by the end of the year.
Frankly, I'm a bit perplexed by this decision. I've not experienced any 'major' exam in my primary and secondary school life where the paper exams are separated by a period of 2 weeks. I remember sitting for my A levels in Singapore where I had to take some of the 'lab' exams a couple of weeks early but the paper exams were taken in a span of about 2 weeks. I've always preferred taking exams in a relatively short period of time and getting it over as soon as possible. I find it difficult to keep up the momentum and adrenaline of studying and preparing for exams if they are spread out over a longer period of time, in this case, for almost 4 weeks.
But perhaps, some students will like this. They can cram hard for the first few exams in the middle of October, take a break and then use the remaining two weeks to study for the objective type exams.
Still, the rationale of delaying the exams is a little mystifying. Perhaps some parents complain that they don't know what to do with their kids because they finish school a month earlier than everyone else. But can't the Ministry ask the schools to use this time more productively, by, for example, organizing the students to do volunteer work, to learn a new skill, to play games, etc...? Isn't the Ministry running the risk of forcing the markers to mark the papers in a shorter period of time (the non-objective ones) and perhaps increase the chances of them making mistakes? Isn't the Ministry also running the risk of making mistakes in compiling the grades because of the smaller time window to release the results? Frankly, I would prefer the students to have more time off than to make mistakes in the preparation of the PMR grades.
I'm curious as to the effect splitting up these exams may have on different students. For example, are those who are low performers more likely to do worse under this 'split' system because they cannot sustain the necessary momentum to study and prepare for exams over the course of 3 to 4 weeks? Or are they more likely to do better because they have more time to prepare? I'm inclined to think the former.
My gut feeling tells me that the Ministry will try this out for 1 year, find that they have problems finish marking the papers and compiling the grades and perhaps find that there are some changes in the average grade of students and then go back to the former policy of having the exams in early October. Those who suffer will be the 'guinea pigs' this year.
What do our readers think of this? Especially those who have kids who are taking their PMR exams?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)