COURSEWORK 1 Classroom Observation

For the purpose of this assignment, I conducted a progress test for my Year Three
class. This test measures the students improvement in relation to their syllabus (Ezekiel,
2012). I choose this type of test because this test only contains items which the pupils have
been taught in class. Therefore, it helps me to check how well the pupils have understood or
learned material covered in specific units or chapters. In my case, it test how well the pupils
learned about Unit 11: In School.
I assessed pupils listening and speaking skill as well as writing skill. As for the
listening skill, I assessed the pupils orally within the period of two weeks. I asked question
and jotted down their responses to the question. Besides that, their listening and speaking
skill was also assessed through their participation in the classroom activities such as group
presentations and performances. As for the writing skill, I assessed pupils by giving test
paper which contained supply-type item. According to Gronlund & Waugh (2009), supplytype item requires pupils to create and supply their own answer. I focussed on the writing
test which requires giving words only as the answer. I designed two sets of short-answer (or
completion) item test. The first set is where the pupils are required to write words which
answer to the questions given, while, the second set requires the pupils to write the words to
complete the paragraph (rebus writing).
In the next paragraphs, I am going to discuss my evaluation of the tests employed
with regards to the five basic principles in language assessment.
For both listening and speaking and writing assessment, I believe that it was
practical. According to Brown & Abeywickrama (2010), practicality is the issues involved
in making, giving and scoring an assessment instrument. This is further elaborated by
Mousavi (2009), who stated that practicality involves cost, the amount of time it takes to
construct and administer, ease of scoring and ease of interpreting/reporting the results..
Therefore, I am one hundred percent convinced that my assessment is practical. The
assessment was doable in my classroom setting. I managed to avoid using costly material
because I developed the test items on my own. The time and effort involved for both
designing and scoring the test are also relevant. I took less than an hour to design the
writing test questions, and same goes to the pupils in scoring the test. As for the listening
and speaking assessment, I just ask questions related to the topic at any stage of the lesson
randomly. When the pupils give their response, I just write it in my note book.
Besides that, both tests also can be considered as valid. Validity is inferences
made from assessment results are appropriate, meaningful and useful in terms of the

purpose of the assignment (Gronlund, 1998). To make it simpler, a valid test supposed to
measures exactly what it proposes to measure. This characteristic exists in my assessment
because I based the test question to the learning standards for that particular topic. The
questions item were developed to fulfil the learning standards as stated in the scheme of
work. Besides that, I believe the test was valid because it offers useful and meaningful
information about pupils ability as what had been suggested by Brown & Abeywickrama
(2010). The result of the test will be able to give information on whether the pupils have
understood the topic or not. The result of the test will also help teacher to determine whether
any particular pupils needs extra help in achieving the learning standards.
Other than that, the test conducted includes the application of the principle
authenticity. According to Mueller (2014), authenticity refers to real-world tasks that
demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills. The test for listening
and speaking is more than enough proof to say that the test is authentic. The pupils use
English to give information as well as perform during the lesson. Therefore, they are
applying it for real world task. However, I realised that the Test 1 for Writing do not really
reflect real use of language. The questions were out-of-context. In order to reflect real world
situations, I should put the question in the form of dialogue. Dialogues most likely happen in
real life thus help to expose the pupils to a more authentic assessment.
However, there are more shortcomings of my assessment. One of them was the lack
of reliability. According to Cohen & Spenciner (2007), reliability indicates the consistency or
stability of test performance. When I conduct the test, there are few pupils who were not
feeling very well because of sore-eyes and stomach-ache, causing them to score badly in
the test. However, based on my experience with them, I am sure they can do better if they
were well. Besides that, the test contains items that are ambiguous to the pupils. I only
realised it when I marked the writing test. Based on the pupils answer, I can conclude that a
number of them were having misconception about playing game (Refer Appendix: Writing
Test 1). They thought playing game involves only game in the computer. Considering their
low level in English, I could have made the item less ambiguous by giving example of the
game played in the playground.
Last but not least, my test do not really provides room for positive washback.
Washback is the effect of testing on teaching and learning (Hughes, 2003). I did not inform
the learners about the test beforehand, particularly, the writing test. Therefore, I indirectly
denied their right to be adequately prepared for the test. Besides that, I did not discuss or
give any feedback to the pupils after I conducted the test. Therefore, the pupils were denied
their chance to enhance their language development. In order to prompt positive washback

in the future, I should inform the pupils about it earlier so that they will be prepared for the
test. They need to have the right impression of a test to benefit from it (Henning,1987).
Besides that I should have a session where I discuss or gives feedbacks about the test as
what had been suggested by Brown & Abeywickrama (2010). By doing so, I will be able to
provide beneficial washback to the pupils.
All in all, the process of conducting the test has been a very good experience for me.
I develop my strengths in language testing by adhering to the principles of language
assessment. However, there are still some aspects which I failed to adhere making it as my
weakness. No matter what, I hope I will be able to use this experience in the future.