ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM

Task 2: Report Writing

An efficient teacher showcases magnificent and spectacular teaching strategies and
also a space to promote herself and the pupils. The pathway of advancement only occurs
when the teacher evaluates. According to Lorna M.Earl (2013) to measure or to learn, that
is assessment. During our second phase of teaching practice we were required to design
and conduct a test for the pupils as a segment of the Language Assessment coursework.
Hence, this initiated my partner Dahrshini and me to construct, conduct and assess the
pupils knowledge via a formative test. Terrry Overton stated that a test is a method to
determine a student's ability to complete certain tasks or demonstrate mastery of a skill or
knowledge of content. The formative test was carried out on 30 th August 2016 for Year 4
Thamarai pupils which comprises three topics; Lets Celebrate, Amazing Malaysia and Doing
What Is Right. We assessed the pupils via listening, reading and writing skills. The test was
devised based on appropriate learning standards based on teaching and learning process.
The test paper was developed based on Blooms Revised Taxonomy. Pupils need to
listen to an audio twice and complete a cloze text. According to Blooms Revised Taxonomy
(2001) this section enhances the knowledge dimension of factual knowledge where the
pupils need to remember and recall the words from the audio and fill in the blanks. Besides,
reading comprehension which consists of Multiple Choice Questions and subjective
questions were based on understanding, applying, analysing and evaluating domains from
the taxonomy. The various domains helped us to assess factual, conceptual, procedural and
meta-cognitive knowledge of the pupils. On the other hand, this section also helped us to
evaluate pupils Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) where they need to give own ideas
based on the reading text. In Section B, pupils were required to build a specific meaningful
text structure from various elements. Creating domain was the key for both of the questions
in Section B; writing an email and short essay. Nevertheless, the section also gives a room
for pupils to analyse the brochure.

ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM

Consequently, the test papers were marked and the score obtained by the pupils has
been tabulated. The results are shown in the table below:
4 Thamarai Formative Assessment Results
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Name
Aarthi D/O Manivannan
Daarnitha D/O Ravichandran
Davechelvan S/O Thanimalai
Divaagar S/O Gunasegaran
Elavarasi D/O Peter Collin
Gajeswaran S/O Pathmanathan
Gurudeva S/O Gobalan
Harun Bin Abdullah
Kadtirvel S/O Muthoovell
Keerthana D/O Sarveswaren
Komathi D/O Parani Kumaran
Laesyashini D/O Guru Nathan
Liwasssini D/O Tanabala Singam
Neevashan S/O Sathiaseelan
Paavendhran S/O Kasivisvanathan
Resuvan S/O Manickavasagam
Shangkari D/O Sasi Kumar
Sharvin S/O Muthu Krishnan
Sumathi D/O Cristopher Krishnan
Tharvin Raj S/O M.Rajan
Vimalan S/O Ramesh
Vishvanath S/O Ramasamy@Ramu
Yuvathi D/O Sugumaran

Marks
51%
20%
16%
36%
16%
78%
49%
20%
26%
29%
20%
27%
20%
44%
78%
27%
18%
44%
35%
42%
15%
40%
46%

Thereupon, the mode, mean, median and standard deviation were calculated as follow:

ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM

Mode=

The
data

above

displays

the

mode, mean,
median

and

standard
deviation

Mean=

of

23
=797

performance
the

Mode= 20

=51+20+16+36+16+78+49+20+26+29+20+27+20+44+78+27+18+44+35+42+15+40+46

the
of

15, 16,16, 18, 20, 20, 20, 20, 26, 27, 27, 29, 35, 36, 40, 42, 44, 44, 46, 49, 51, 78, 78

23
=34.65

Thamarai
pupils in the
test.

The

mode
indicates the
highest
frequency
the

of

scores

received is 20
since 4 pupils
out

of

23

obtained

the

pupils
same

score.

This group is

heterogeneous as the number of pupils obtained identical scores is small. The mean
generated which is 34.65 from the analysis indicates that the group of pupils performance is
not satisfying. This shows that the average of mean is below 50 percentile of the group. The
median shows 28. The difference between mean and the median again highlights that the

ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM
achievement of the pupils is unsatisfactory level. The standard implies the pupils in this
group are heterogeneous as it is showcasing a wide range of competency level on the test.

Standard Score=Z score

Standard score

: Score-mean / Standard Deviation= Z score

10(Z score)+50= T score
= T score

No
1.

Name
Aarthi D/O Manivannan

Marks
51%

Formula
51-

Z Score
0.93

T Score
59.3

ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Daarnitha D/O Ravichandran

Davechelvan S/O Thanimalai
Divaagar S/O Gunasegaran
Elavarasi D/O Peter Collin
Gajeswaran S/O Pathmanathan
Gurudeva S/O Gobalan
Harun Bin Abdullah
Kadtirvel S/O Muthoovell
Keerthana D/O Sarveswaren
Komathi D/O Parani Kumaran
Laesyashini D/O Guru Nathan

20%

34.65/17.53
20-

-0.84

41.6

16%

34.65/17.53
16-

-1.06

39.4

36%

34.65/17.53
36-

0.08

50.8

16%

34.65/17.53
16-

-1.06

39.4

78%

34.65/17.53
78-

2.47

74.7

49%

34.65/17.53
49-

0.82

58.2

20%

34.65/17.53
20-

-0.84

41.6

26%

34.65/17.53
26-

-0.49

45.1

29%

34.65/17.53
29-

-0.32

46.8

20%

34.65/17.53
20-

-0.84

41.6

27%

34.65/17.53
27-

-0.44

45.6

-0.84

41.6

13.

Liwasssini D/O Tanabala Singam

20%

34.65/17.53
20-

14.

Neevashan S/O Sathiaseelan

44%

34.65/17.53
44-

0.53

55.3

15.

Paavendhran S/O Kasivisvanathan

78%

34.65/17.53
78-

2.47

74.7

16.

Resuvan S/O Manickavasagam

27%

34.65/17.53
27-

-0.44

45.6

17.

Shangkari D/O Sasi Kumar

18%

34.65/17.53
18-

-0.95

40.5

18.

Sharvin S/O Muthu Krishnan

44%

34.65/17.53
44-

0.53

55.3

19.

Sumathi D/O Cristopher Krishnan

35%

34.65/17.53
35-

0.02

50.2

20.

Tharvin Raj S/O M.Rajan

42%

34.65/17.53
42-

0.42

54.2

21.

Vimalan S/O Ramesh

15%

34.65/17.53
15-

-1.12

38.8

22.

Vishvanath S/O Ramasamy@Ramu

40%

34.65/17.53
40-

0.31

53.1

34.65/17.53

ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM
23.

Yuvathi D/O Sugumaran

46%

46-

0.65

56.5

34.65/17.53

Based on my observation, I could see that Gajeswaran and Paavendhran have a

standard T- score of 74.7 and therefore we can conclude that, both of them proved their
excellence in this formative test.

Graph and analysis:

Score obtained by pupils (x-axis)

Number of pupils (y-axis)

0-10
11-20

0
8

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-80

81-90

91-100

ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM

TEST RESULTS
4.5

Mean:

4
3.5
3
2.5

Frequency

Median :

2
1.5

Mode:

0.5
0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Score

Based on the graph plotted, positively skewed distribution has been obtained. This
indicates that the performance of the pupils is not satisfying. Meanwhile, the test is
challenging for the level of the pupils. According to Rachard Antonius (2003) if the mean is
larger than median, the distribution is positively skewed.

Furthermore, the whole process of assessment strengthen the fundamental skill as a

teacher where it equipped the knowledge of designing, assessing and analysing the overall
performance of the pupils towards the teaching and learning process. It also generates a
room for improvement for both teacher and the pupils. From personal experience, the items
tested has been taught to the pupils, however the outcome is not productive and reasonable.
This indicates there is a slight complication either in the teaching and learning process or the
designed test paper. Anyway, I would like rectify these predicaments in the future to produce
well organised and valuable evaluation.

ASSHADWI PANEERSELVAM