I can recall my personal experienced throughout my college days the different approaches I have encountered as a student. We have quizzes, recitation, reporting, classroom debate on a certain proposition, Inviting resource person from outside, mid-term exam and final exam. All of these I would prepare on reporting in front of my classmates and classroom debate. I don’t like the kind of test requires memorization as sometimes I almost forgot during the exam although I got always an average score of this type. As future educator, I would prefer for my students using blooms taxonomy to much the objectives, my teaching and my testing.
I remembered during my college days if the students were giving report in front of the class, some students were busy sometimes noisy and unruly. Some students may miss some important facts of course due to teachers doesn’t convey instruction. If group reporting, sometimes became challenging because some of my classmates before they choose or prefer to work alone in reporting; some students doesn’t contribute ideas in group work just relying in specific students ideas.
My new insights emerged from this lesson is, I was able to equate the traditional and constructivist approach of assessment. That the traditional way approach has its good and bad effects, it is also highly criticized as inadequate. But it is designed to satisfy validity and reliability of good assessment. Moreover, constructivist approach to assessment is a formative type. Its purpose is to improve the quality of student learning, not to provide evidence for evaluating or grading students. In other words, it occurs during learning. Also I was able to consider the constructivist drive non-traditional assessment. I think both traditional and non-traditional assessment will improved the students learning if we utilize both as a combination.
High stake assessment learning also was new to me. It has advantage and disadvantage. For example it really helps teachers learn more about student needs. The tests are a great way for teachers to understand their students’ strengths and more importantly, their weaknesses. Increasing pressure does not always work. Pressure to do well on a high stakes exam is not always good pressure for a young student to experience. There are many academic experts who believe that these tests heap pressure onto a student for the sake of adding pressure, which does not help anyone to learn. In our government, licenses always one of the requirements to enter the department or agencies in the government. If you passed the civil service exam or LET exam (which consider as high-stake test) you can join the government or department but if you failed the exam then, little chance of entrance to the government entities. In some countries like Saudi Arabia there Engineers after graduating from universities can easily join some companies and government as long as they passed the interviews, there is no licenses needed. So, a greater chance for their citizens in career opportunities. But in our country, if you failed in the government exams, what next for your career? what about the the 14 to 16 years or more you spent in schools if you happened not to passed the government exams which is we consider it high stake test?. I think government also to re-consider those have not passed as long as they have good grades chances to enter the government in a permanent category of work if accepted from interview. It doesn’t mean also that those who passed the government exam are better than those who have not. Of course, some those failed have greater knowledge compared who those passed but maybe they are just unluckily not make it.
Mohammad Nur Jikiri Inggilan 