Page 66 - Jurnal Kurikulum BPK 2018

thinking skills, leaderships skills, bilingual proficiency, ethics and spirituality and national
identity where these are aligned with the National Education Philosophy. New curriculum for
preschools, primary schools and secondary schools has been invented to develop a child
holistically which is named Preschool Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document,
Primary School Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document and Secondary School
Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment Document where assessment is part of teaching and
learning in the classrooms, an inevitable part of curriculum. Teachers in all schools were
introduced to the classroom assessment they need to adhere although classroom assessment were
robustly done in more developed countries in 1990s. Holistic assessment includes not only
knowledge and skills, but also values which includes the social-emotional learning (SEL) of a
child (Stillman, Stillman, Martinez, Freedman, Jensen & Leet, 2017). This classroom assessment
includes the formative and summative assessment of the academic curriculum and using a holistic
approach to support student learning and development, to build their confidence and desire to
learn, and to better prepare them for the future.

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT

Classroom assessment is considered as the duty of the teachers to inform teachers’
instructional decision making and students’ learning (Black, 2014; Black & Wiliam, 2010; Zhao,
Heuvel-Panhuizen, Veldhuis, 2017). In 1970’s, classroom assessment has been a subject for
debate especially related to the functions of formative and summative assessment but in the late
1990’s, formative assessment saw its place being important as it supported teachers in developing
their own professional practice and also raised standards in students’ achievement (Black, 2000;
Black & William, 2003; Tan & Towndrow, 2009). According to Wiliam and Leahy (2015), there
is little consensus to what is exactly the meaning of formative assessment as a same test can serve
as formative or summative assessment but what is important is whether learning has improved,
and enough evidences are collected by teachers to make sound decisions to improve students’
learning. Leong (2014) and Harlen (2012) noted that the relationship between formative and
summative assessment is a continuum rather than a dichotomy, as teachers use these kinds of
assessments a combination in classes. Black (1998) argues that instructional learning and
formative assessment are inseparable as they are main components of a teaching plan. In addition,
formative assessment is akin to Vygostsky’s Zone of Proximal Development that allows teachers
to assist students to achieve greater heights than the actual level they are at (Black, 2014; Pattalitan
Jr., 2016). Classroom assessment is now reformed and is seen as an on-going process integrated
in the curriculum (Tee & Ahmed, 2014). On the other hand, summative assessment is ‘an
accountability measure that is generally used as part of the grading process’ (p.1) and also an
evaluation whether the students have achieved a certain level of learning process which can be
assessed every end of a unit or chapter, end of term or once a year (Garrison & Ehringhaus, 2007;
Pattalitan Jr., 2016).
Based on various modern learning theories, classroom assessment is generally divided into
three types: Assessment of Learning, Assessment as Learning and Assessment for Learning
(Pattalitan Jr., 2016). Classroom assessment in Malaysia holds the same principles.
‘Assessment of learning’ can be regarded as summative assessment where teachers make
judgements of students’ achievement on certain learning standards with the use of evidences. This
make way for future learning plans for the students. ‘Assessment as learning’ encourages the
students to reflect on their learning progress and monitor their progress and learning performance
to achieve higher standards. Empowerment is given to the students to enquire reflective questions

56