The Practice of Classroom Assessments during Curriculum Change: A Study of Inservice Teachers
Abstract
The education ministry has refreshed the past school curriculum to the Freedom Curriculum or Kurikulum Merdeka. Ideally, the change of curriculum is alignment with the methods of assessment. In terms of assessments, there are three types highlighted in the new curriculum: diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments. The question arises whether the teachers can really cope with the current issues in assessment. This research aimed to survey the teachers’ perceived skills in assessment and to examine the practices of classroom assessments dealing with the latest issues, including the assessment they used most. A questionnaire was used to collect the data. The respondents were 276 teachers from various backgrounds. They were in-service teachers who joined the Teacher Certification Program managed by Universitas PGRI Semarang in the year 2022. Descriptive statistics was used to calculate the data. The results revealed that teachers reported being fairly skilled in doing assessments. However, several subskills in assessment need improvement. Among the three types of assessment, summative was mostly practised by teachers while teachers least frequently conducted the diagnostic. Based on the function, assessment of learning was mostly practised by teachers, while assessment as learning was the least frequently used. The in-service teacher training program curriculum must cover course materials in assessment to better equip teachers with the ability to execute various assessments.
Keywords: Kurikulum Merdeka; classroom assessment; diagnostic; formative; summative
References
[1] Purwanti E. Preparing the implementation of merdeka belajar–kampus merdeka policy in higher education institutions. 4th International Conference on Sustainable Innovation 2020–Social, Humanity, and Education (ICoSIHESS 2020) 2021 Jan 21 (pp. 384–391). Atlantis Press; 2021.
[2] Danaye Tous M. A review and analysis of language curriculum design. Critical Studies in Texts & Programs of Human Sciences and Council for the Study of Humanities Texts and Books. 2021;21:61–85.
[3] Huth T. Classroom-based Conversation Analytic Research 2021. Cham: Springer; 2021. Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language curriculum. p. 359–381.
[4] Hidayah SN, Martani W, Supartono W. Accommodating stakeholders’ voices in the curriculum development in an Indonesian higher education institution. Jurnal Educative: Journal of Educational Studies. 2021;6:18–31.
[5] Generoso JC, Arbon AM. Language needs analysis: An EAP curriculum design to develop foreign students’ English skills. Journal of Asia TEFL. 2020;17:428.
[6] Khamying P, Chano J, Boonla W, Nithideechaiwarachok B. Thai language curriculum to enhance creativity thinking skills for primary school students. Journal of Education and Learning. 2022;11.
[7] Prastikawati EF. Technology-based formative assessments implemented by secondary school english teachers during remote learning. KnE Social Sciences. 2022:180–190.
[8] Krishnapatria K. Merdeka Belajar-Kampus Merdeka (MBKM) curriculum in English studies program: Challenges and opportunities. ELT in Focus. 2021;4:12–19.
[9] Pattalitan AP. The implications of learning theories to assessment and instructional scaffolding techniques. American Journal of Educational Research. 2016;4:695–700.
[10] Mahshanian A, Shoghi R, Bahrami M. Investigating the differential effects of formative and summative assessment on EFL learners’ end-of-term achievement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2019;10:1055–1066.
[11] Meletiadou E. Exploring the impact of peer assessment on EFL students’ writing performance. IAFOR Journal of Education. 2021;9:77–95.
[12] Brown GT. Is assessment for learning really assessment? Frontiers in Education. 2019;4:64. Lausanne, Switzerland: Frontiers Media.
[13] Wilson DM, Narasuman S. Investigating teachers’ implementation and strategies on higher order thinking skills in school based assessment instruments. Asian Journal of University Education. 2020;16:70–84.
[14] Azim DF. Learning promoted by classroom assessment in higher education of Bangladesh: A case study. International Journal of Social Sciences. 2014;26:165– 171.
[15] Acar-Erdol T, Yildizli HÜ. Classroom assessment practices of teachers in Turkey. International Journal of Instruction. 2018;11.
[16] Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, Wohlgenannt I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education. 2020;147:103778.
[17] Zhang Z, Burry-Stock JA. Classroom assessment practices and teachers’ selfperceived assessment skills. Applied Measurement in Education. 2003;16:323–342.
[18] Wiggins G, McTighe J. Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Soc Stud Grade. 2005;6:31.
[19] Afrianto A. Challenges of using portfolio assessment as an alternative assessment method for teaching English in Indonesian schools. International Journal of Educational Best Practices. 2017;1:106–114.
[20] Black P, Wiliam D. Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 2018;25:551–575.
[21] Prastikawati EF, Wiyaka W, Lestari MY. Secondary school students’ perception on Edmodo as online learning platform in English learning. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature. 2022;16:296–307.
[22] Firdaus MS, Prastikawati EF, Wiyaka W. Online formative assessments in English Teaching and Learning. SALEE: Study of Applied Linguistics and English Education. 2022;3:23–34.
[23] Qu W, Zhang C. The analysis of summative assessment and formative assessment and their roles in college English assessment system. Journal of Language Teaching & Research. 2013;4.
[24] Ishaq K, Rana AM, Zin NA. Exploring summative assessment and effects: Primary to higher education. Bulletin of Education and Research. 2020;42:23–50.
[25] Gan Z, Leung C. Illustrating formative assessment in task-based language teaching. ELT Journal. 2020;74:10–19.