Action Research MMMHS

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COMMON PRACTICES AND SKILLS IN CLASSROOM

ASSESSMENT EXPERIENCED BY SELECTED
ARALING PANLIPUNAN TEACHERS OF
MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL
S.Y. 2018-2019
by
PRINCESS ANGELIQUE BAIDO

ESTER BERSABAL
DAHN LIMUEL DOMINGO
JUBIE EXEQUIEL
JEREMIAH MOGOTE
TROI KREESTAN MUÑOZ
ROGELIO VELASCO JR.
2019
ABSTRACT
Title : Common Practices and Skills in Classroom Assessment

Experienced by Selected Araling Panlipunan Teachers of
Mariano Marcos Memorial High School S.Y. 2018-2019
Researchers : Princess Angelique Baido
Ester Bersabal
Dahn Limuel Domingo
Jubie Exequiel
Jeremiah Mogote
Troi Kreestan Muñoz
Rogelio Velasco Jr.
Degree : Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Social Studies
Institution : Polytechnic University of the University
Year : 2019
Adviser : Ms. Danilova Lorenzo
Keywords : Assessment, Practices and Skills

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
Assessment in education is considered vital for the students to learn. Whether the
teachers like it or not, assessment is a part of teaching process to monitor the student’s
development. Students may ignore teachers however if they want to get qualified they have
to participate in the assessment process designed and implemented by the teachers. As
cited by Routman’s Invitations: Changing as Teachers and Learners K-12 assessment
refers to data collection and the gathering of evidence. Very often assessment takes place
apart from testing, although it needs to be an integral part of instruction. “Assessment
should be constructed so good instruction is the best preparation”. (Karen Wixon, at
assessment preconvention institute, IRA 1990)
There is more to assessment than seeing if the requirements for achieving a
qualifications have been met. Formative assessment used by teachers on an ongoing basis
to help their students achieve to the best of their abilities and is very important part of the
learning process. In contrast, summative assessment takes place on completion of a topic
or unit and often contributes to the grading and assessment of a qualification. (Jones,
2005)
In this way assessment and learning is directly related with each other. However
relationship between education and assessment are describe in several ways depending
on the little words used to connect the relationship like ‘of’, ‘for’, and ‘as’. The main thrust of
the argument is that assessment needs to be congruent with one’s view of learning if they
are to be valid - a crucial condition for trust being placed upon that view. Some assessment
carried out in schools do not claim to assess learning but for the most part, the teachers are
concerned with assessment linked to learning and it is important to think carefully about
what this means. (James, 2008)
Teachers make professional judgements on learners’ performance in every
teaching and learning session undertaken, whether consciously or subconsciously. Using
these professional judgements and translating them into feedback on the quality of
individuals’ work is the focus of assessment of learning. Successful assessment of learning
strategies result in improved learner progress on a continual basis. The principal
characteristic of assessment for learning is effective feedback provided by teachers to
learners on their progress. The value of feedback is dependent on two factors: the quality
of the feedback and how learners receive and ultimately use it. Teachers, therefore, need
training and support to enable them make valuable assessment decisions, to provide
quality feedback to learners, and to teach learners receive feedback positively and use the
information contained within it effectively to improve their work. Assessment for learning
and quality feedback can and do promote increased learning progress. However,
assessment of learning rather than assessment for learning has preoccupied the minds of
the profession for many years in an effort to meet awarding body requirements.
Assessment of learning can detract from effective classroom practice and prevent feeding
back assessment decisions to earners on their performance with the view to improving their
work. (Jones, 2005)
While it is generally acknowledged increased use of formative assessment (or
assessment for learning) leads to higher quality learning, it is often claimed that the
pressure in schools to improve the results achieved by student in externally-set tests and
examinations precludes its use. (William et al. 2004)
This proves that it is important to check the authenticity of assessment in order to
reach to desired results. However as cited by Routman’s Invitations: Changing as Teachers
and Learners K-12 authentic assessment isn’t a single method. It includes performance
tests, such as conversations in a foreign language: observations, open-ended questions
where students tackle a problem but there’s a no single right answer; exhibitions in which
students choose their own ways to demonstrate what they have learned; interviews, giving
students a chance to reflect on their achievement; and portfolios, collections of student
work. The list is limited only by the criterion of authenticity, is this what we want students to
know and be able to do? (Ruth Mithchell, in Portfolio, The Newsletter of Arts Propel,
December 13, 1989)
In this matter the teachers’ mastery in the methods of assessment is highly
significant in order to achieve desired results in monitoring students’ development. In the
Philippines, according to DepEd order No. 8, s. 2015 classroom assessment is used to
track learners’ progress in relation to learning standards and development of 21st century
skills. It provides bases for the profiting of student performance on the learning
competencies and standards of the curriculum. It promotes self-reflection and personal
accountability among students about their own learning. Classroom assessment is a
process of identifying, gathering, organizing and interpreting quantitative and qualitative

information about what learners know and can do. Classroom assessment methods should
be consistent with curriculum standards. It measures achievement of competencies by the
learners. To align the assessment process with the K to 12 curriculum, the adapted
cognitive process dimensions may be used as a guide in the formulation of assessment
tasks and activities which includes remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing,
evaluating and creating.
Theoretical Framework
The study attempts to provide an overview of theories in learning from visuals and
encourages educators to consider theories of perception when designing instructional
materials.
1. Zone of Proximal Development
The distance between the actual development level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peer. The ZPD
was understood by Vygotsky to describe the current or actual level of development of the
learner and the next level attainable through the use of mediating semiotic and the
environmental tools and capable adult or peer facilitation. The idea is that individual learn
best when working together with others during joint collaboration, and it is through such
collaborative endeavors with more skilled persons that learners learn and internalize new
concepts, psychological tools, and skills. Roosevelt (2009) holds that the main goal of
education from Vygotskian perspective is to keep learners in their own ZPDs as often as
possible by giving them interesting and culturally meaningful learning and problem-solving
tasks that are slightly more difficult than what they do alone, such that they will need to
work together with another, more or adult ore competent peer or with a teacher or adult to
finish the task. (Shabani, et al., 2010)
2. Metacognitive Theory of Learning
Flavel postulated that metacognition consisted of both monitoring and regulation
aspects that can be regarded to the learner’s ability to manage the input, storage, search
and retrieval of the contents of his own memory. He further said that metacognition leads to
selection, evaluation, revision, or deletion of cognitive task, goals and strategies. It helps
the individual make meaning and discovers behavioral implications to one’s metacognitive
experiences. (Pattalitan, 2016)
3. Behaviorist Theories of Learning
Behaviorist theories emerged strongly in the 1930s and are most popularly
associated with the work of Pavlov, James Watson, B.F. Skinner and Thorndike.
Behaviorism remained a dominant theoretical perspective into the 1960s and 70s, when
some of today’s teachers were trained, and can still be seen in behavior modification
programmes as well as everyday practice. Bredo (1997), who is particularly interesting on
the subject of the philosophical and political movements that provide the background to
these developments, notes the association with the political conservatism that followed the
end of World War I and the growth of positivism, empiricism, technicism, and
managerialism.(Dwyer, 1998)
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of the study was depicted in the form of paradigm of
Input-Process-Output (IPO) style. The frames show the relationship and the actual pattern
that was used in this study.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Collect data to
determine:
1. The profile of
selected AP
teachers/
respondents of
Mariano Marcos
Memorial High Common Practices
School (Gender, and Skills in
Civil Status, Dissemination of Classroom
Highest Survey Assessment
Educational Questionnaires Experienced by
Attainment, Age, Gathering of Data Selected Araling
and Years in Analyzing of Data Panlipunan
Service, Current Interpreting of Data Teachers of
Grade Level they Mariano Marcos
are teaching) Memorial High
2. The frequent use School
of classroom
assessment
practices of the
selected AP
teachers
3. The mastery of
classroom
assessment skills
of the selected AP
teachers
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of the study. The researchers used the
Input-Process-Output (IPO) model in the study. The input of the study is the demographic
profile of the respondents, the frequent use of classroom assessment practices of the
selected AP Teachers and the mastery of classroom assessment skills of the selected AP
Teachers. The process involves the dissemination of survey questionnaires to the
respondents. After that, the researchers will gather, analyze and interpret the data. The
output will be the Common Practices and Skills experienced by the Selected AP Teachers
of Mariano Marcos Memorial High School.
Statement of the Problem
The main objective of this study is to determine the Common Practices and Skills in
Classroom Assessment Experienced by Selected Araling Panlipunan Teachers of Mariano
Marcos Memorial High School. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following:
1. What are the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 Gender
1.2 Highest Educational Attainment
1.3 Age
1.4 Years in Service
1.5 Current Grade Level they are Teaching
2. How frequent does the AP teachers of Mariano Marcos Memorial High School in
terms of their usage of assessment practices in terms of:
2.1 Paper-Pencil Test
2.2 Standardized Testing, Test Revision, and Instructional Improvement

2.3 Assessment Results, Ethics, and Grading
2.4 Communicating Assessment Results
2.5 Non-Achievement-Based Grading
2.6 Test Validity and Reliability
3. How skilled does the AP teachers of Mariano Marcos Memorial High School perceived
in using the assessment practices in terms of:
3.1 Using Paper-Pencil Tests
3.2 Standardized Testing, Test Revision, and Instructional Improvement
3.3 Performance Assessment
3.4 Communicating Assessment Results
3.5 Non-Achievement-Based Grading
3.6 Grading and Test Validity
3.7 Addressing Ethical Concerns

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Literature and Studies on Assessment
Assessment is one of the crucial components of instructions. It has been
interchangeable used with evaluation and/or measurement (Kizlik, 2012). Assessment is
a broad term defined as the process of gathering, synthesizing, interpreting, and using
qualitative and/or quantitative information to make educational decisions about the
learning of students (McMillan, 1997; Nitko, 2001; Brookhart, 2004).
Assessment, as part of the learning process, focuses on three individual domains:
cognitive, psychomotor and affective (Bloom 1984). The cognitive domain of an individual
contains intellectual activities such as problem solving, analyzing, comparing, evaluating,
memorizing, applying, and critical thinking (Bloom, 1984). Cognitive assessment is an
effective approach that analyses understanding of concepts, critical thinking, and
academic standards. The psychomotor domain comprises both students' physical and
operational activities. Laboratory experiments are a good example of assessment of the
psychomotor domain (Bloom, 1984).
There are many ways to categorize assessment methods. According to Brookhart
(2004) there are five types of assessments: Paper-pencil assessment, performance
assessment, oral assessment, portfolios and self-peer assessment. Paper–pencil
assessment is the most commonly used assessment method in higher education courses
(Brookhart, 2004), and it refers to multiple choice, true-false, matching, fill-in-the blank and
short answers. A paper-pencil test is usually given in one setting (sit in for an
examination). Each of these item formats has some advantages and disadvantages. The
advantages and disadvantages are related to instructional objective of cognitive levels,
time in a unit study, objectivity, subjectivity, wording and students’ belief in the adequacy
for assessing their real performance and skills (Yildirim, 2004).
Performance assessment is used to judge and observe a process (how a student
does something) or a product (student-created work) like term papers, academic or
technical projects, oral reports, and group presentation. Performance assessment is
evaluated using model answers, a rubric, a checklist or some type of scale. This type of
evaluation gives the reader more latitudes than the typical dichotomous (right-wrong)
answer in providing feedback for students. Performance assessment may involve students
in constructing the grading process. It gives the students latitude in how to respond to the
items, because there is no single correct answer or best answer (Crooks, 1988).
Oral/personal communication is the common use of formative assessment during
instruction. When the instructor asks the students the questions in class, Magin and
Helmore (2001) believed that it could be used in both formative and summative
assessments. The oral/personal communication assessment method uses the students’
verbal responses to the assessment task and it could be combined with written responses;
and in order to get higher benefits from oral assessment, it should be well organized
(Joughin, 1998). The oral and personal assessment methods have many forms: questions
and answers in the classroom, conferences with students, students’ contribution during the
instruction, oral tests, and journals (Brookhart, 2004).

Portfolios are a systematic collection of student work over time, often with
accompanying students’ reflections. Student portfolios may be used in any discipline,
fitting the needs of many different learning outcomes (White, 2004). They are learning
tools as well as assessment tools (Taylor, Thomas, & Sage, 1999). It is a type of
performance assessment that provides a picture or tells a story about students’ learning. It
depends on the idea that collecting information about student work throughout a long term
is a good way to show how students are progressing. It helps teachers, parents and
learners to know what students know and can do outside of paper-pencil tests, class
discussions, and other performance measures (White, 2004)
As cited by Zhang and Stock in their study, classroom assessment embraces a
broad spectrum of activities from constructing paper-pencil tests and performance
measures, to grading, interpreting standardized test scores, communicating test results,
and using assessment results in decision-making. When using paper-pencil tests and
performance measures, teachers should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of
various assessment methods, and choose appropriate formats to assess different
achievement targets (Stiggins, 1992). Test items should match with course objectives and
instruction to ensure content validity (Airasian, 1994), reflect adequate sampling of
instructional materials to improve test reliability, and tap higher-order thinking skills. In
performance assessment, validity and reliability can be improved by using observable and
clearly defined performance tasks (Airasian, 1994; Baron, 1991; Shavelson, Baxter, &
Pine, 1991; Stiggins, 1987), detailed scoring protocols, multiple samples of behaviors
evaluated by several judges (Dunbar, Koretz, & Hoover, 1991), and recording scoring
results during assessment (Stiggins & Bridgeford, 1985). Teachers should be able to
revise and improve teacher-made tests based on test statistics and item analysis (Carey,
1994; Gregory, 1996). Grading and standardized testing are two important components of
classroom assessment. Since grade-based decisions may have lasting academic and
social consequences (Messick, 1989; Popham, 1997), teachers should weigh assessment
components according to instructional emphasis (Airasian, 1994; Carey, 1994; Stiggins,
Frisbie, & Griswold, 1989) and base grades on achievement-related factors only. Grading
criteria should be communicated to students in advance and implemented systematically
to handle regular as well as borderline cases (Stiggins et al., 1989). Nonachievement
factors such as effort, ability, attitude, and motivation should not be incorporated into
subject-matter grades because they are hard to define and measure (Stiggins et al.,
1989). In terms of standardized testing, teachers should avoid teaching to the test
(Mehrens, 1989), interpreting test items, and giving hints or extra time during test
administration. Teachers should appropriately interpret test scores and identify diagnostic
information from test results about instruction and student learning (Airasian, 1994).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the methodology of the study. It covers the research method
used, population, sample size and sampling technique used; the respondents, the
research instruments used, the data gathering procedures and the statistical tools used in
the study.
Method of Research
The researchers sought to conduct an action research. According to Frost (2002),
Action research is a process of systematic reflection, enquiry, and action carried out by
individuals about their own professional practices.
The method applied in this study is a descriptive research design which according to
Dulock (1993), it is to provide an accurate portrayal or account of characteristics of a
particular individual, situation or group. This is a mean of discovering new meaning,
describing what exists, determining the frequency with which something occurs and/or
categorizing information.
Population, Sample Size, and Sampling Technique
The population of the study is comprised of 10 AP Teachers from Mariano Marcos
Memorial High School. The respondents of the study were determined by convenience
sampling technique. It is a non-probability sampling technique where respondents are
selected because of their availability and convenient accessibility.

Convenience sampling is a statistical method of drawing representative data by
selecting people because of the ease of their volunteering or selecting units because of
their availability or easy access. In this sampling technique, the respondents were
selected because they were the available individuals in the sampling area.
Description of the Respondents
The respondents in the study are composed of Araling Panlipunan Teachers in
different field of content matter under Social Studies. This include the Asian History,
World History, Economics and Contemporary Issues. They were all teachers from
Mariano Marcos Memorial High School
Research Instrument
The instrument used in the research was the survey questionnaires. The survey
questionnaire used by the researchers was provided by our professor. It contains items
that address issues in classroom assessment of student learning. It includes the
respondent’s personal data, as well as to use the following rating scales to indicate how
frequently they use the assessment practices described by the item and how skilled they
are in using the assessment that assessment practice.
To obtain the data requirements for the study, the instrument that was provided,
used a two rating scale which is a Likert Scale.
The options below include the respondents’ scale in practices and skill in classroom
assessment that was provided in the questionnaire and its corresponding equivalent.
The Five-Point Likert Scale

SCALE RANGE INTERPRETATION
4. 21 – 5.00
5 Highly Effective
3.41 – 4.20
4 Very Effective
2.61 – 3.40
3 Effective
1.81 – 2.60
2 Ineffective
1.0 – 1.80
1 Highly Ineffective
For Practices:
VERBAL INTERPRETATION
LEVEL RANGE
(PRACTICES)
5 4. 21 – 5.00 Used Very Often
4 3.41 – 4.20 Used Often
3 2.61 – 3.40 Used Occasionally
2 1.81 – 2.60 Seldom Used
1 1.0 – 1.80 Not At All Used
For Skills:
VERBAL INTERPRETATION
LEVEL RANGE
(SKILLS)
5 4. 21 – 5.00 Very Skilled
4 3.41 – 4.20 Skilled
3 2.61 – 3.40 Somewhat Skilled

2 1.81 – 2.60 A Little Skilled
1 1.0 – 1.80 Not at all Skilled
Data Gathering Procedure
To gather the data, the researchers used one school which is the Mariano Marcos
Memorial High School where they conducted their Practice Teaching.
The researchers made a formal request letter for the teachers who will answer the
survey questionnaire so that they will be informed about the purpose of this study. Below
the formal request letter is the respondent’s profile that they will answer about their
personal information. And on the next two following pages is where the survey
questionnaire is written.
The researchers conducted this study depends on the availability of the teachers
when they are not busy with their work.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The data collected in this study were subjected to certain statistical treatments. The
data were coded, tallied and tabulated for better presentation and interpretation of the
results. The statistical methods used were the following:
1. Frequency and Percentage. The frequency and percentage were used to
determine the quantitative relation to the whole response. The process of gathering the
percentage is dividing the frequency (sum of responses) by the total number of
responses. The formula for percentage is shown below:
𝑓
𝑃 = × 100
𝑁
Where:
P = percentage
f = frequency
N = number of respondents
100 - constant
2. Weighted Mean. It was used in assessing frequent usage of Assessment
Practices of Selected Araling Panlipunan Teachers of Mariano Marcos Memorial High
School and how skilled they are in using it. The weighted mean was obtained by
adding the product of the number of responses and the weight factor in each option
and dividing the sum by the total number of respondents. The formula is:
∑𝑤𝑥
𝑋𝑤 =
𝑁
Where:
Xw = weighted mean
w = weight of each option
x = number of responses in each option
N = total respondents
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter discusses the information that was collected from the respondents that
determines their profile of the respondents, the frequent use of classroom assessment
practices and the mastery of classroom assessment skills of the selected AP teacher
selected teachers of Mariano Marcos Memorial High School.
The data presented is divided into three parts: the demographic profile of the
respondents, the frequent use of classroom assessment practices and the mastery of
classroom assessment skills of the selected AP teachers of Mariano Marcos Memorial
High School.
Part I: The Demographic Profile of the Mariano Marcos Memorial High School AP
Teachers
The profile of the teacher-respondents is gathered determining the frequent usage of
the given instrument was imperative in establishing the study.
Table 1: Profile of the Respondents AP Teachers in Mariano Marcos Memorial High
School
School Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Mariano Marcos
10 100%
Memorial High School
Total 10 100%
Table 1 shows the profile of the respondents in the school. As presented, Mariano
Marcos Memorial High School has a frequeny of 10 or 100%.
Table 2: Profile of the Respondent’s Age

Age Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

21-30 years old 3 30%
31-40 years old 3 30%
41-50 years old 3 30%
51-60 years old 1 10%
61 years old and above 0 0%
Total 10 100%
Table 2 shows that the teachers aged between 21-30 years, 31-40 years old and 41-
50 years old have 3 or 30% each while the teacher aged between 51-60 years old have 1
or 10%. On the other hand, none of the respondents are on the aged between 61 years
old and above.
Table 3: Profile of the Respondent’s in Terms of Gender
Gender Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Male 2 20%
Female 8 80%
Total 10 100%
As presented, there are 2 male teachers which is 20% and 8 female teachers which
is 80%.
Table 4: Profile of the Respondents in terms of Highest Educational Attainment
Highest Educational Attainment Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Bachelor's Degree 6 60%
Master's Degree 4 40%
Doctorate Degree 0 0%
Total 10 100%
The teachers that have Bachelor’s Degree yields the highest percentage of 60%
which consists of 6 teachers; followed by other teachers who graduated with Master’s
Degree with a percentage of 40% which consists of 4 teachers. On the other hand, there
was zero respondent for the doctorate degree.
Table 5: Profile of the Respondents in terms of Years in Service
Years in Service Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

5 years below 2 20%
6-10 years 3 30%
11-15 years 1 10%
16-20 years 1 10%
21-25 years and above 3 30%
Total: 10 100%
As shown on Table 5, the teachers with 6-10 years and 21-25 years and above years
in service got the highest percentage of 30% each which consists of 3 AP Teachers each.
While respondents with 5 years below years in service got a percentage of 20% which
consists of 2 AP Teachers. On the other hand, 11-15 years and 16-20 years in service got
the lowest percentage of 10% each which consists of only 1 AP Teacher each.
Table 6: Profile of Respondents' In Terms of Current Grade Level They Teach
Grade Level Frequency (f) Percentage (%)

Grade 7 4 40%
Grade 8 2 20%
Grade 9 1 10%
Grade 10 3 30%
Total 10 100%
As shown in Table 6, the Grade 7 AP Teachers got the highest percentage of 40%,
followed by Grade 10 AP Teachers with 30%, Grade 8 AP Teachers with 20% and Grade
9 got the lowest percentage of 10%.
Part II: The Frequent Usage of Assessment Practices
The frequent usage of assessment practices of selected teachers of Mariano Marcos
Memorial High School was answered by the teacher-respondents as the following
variables.
Table 7: Using Paper-Pencil Test
Statements Mean Verbal Interpretation

1. Selecting textbook-provided test items for Used Often
classroom assessment
4.2
2. Revising previously produced teacher-made tests to Used Often
match current instructional emphasis
3.9
3. Administering announced quizzes Used Often
3.9
4. Administering unannounced quizzes Used Often
3.7
5. Writing paper-pencil tests Used Often
4.2
6. Writing multiple-choice questions Used Often
3.9
7. Writing matching questions Used Often
3.7
8. Writing true/false questions Used Often
3.9
9. Writing fill-in-the-blank or short answer questions Used Often
4.1
10. Writing essay questions Used Often
3.8
11. Writing test items for higher cognitive levels Used Often
3.8
12. Constructing a rubric for scoring essay questions Used Often
4.1
13. Following required procedures (time limit, no hints, 3.4 Used Occasionally
no interpretation) when administering standardized

test scores
14. Informing students in advance how grades are to be Used Often
assigned
3.9
15. Establishing student expectations for determining Used Often
grades for special education student 4
16. Weighing differently projects, exams, homework, Used Often
etc. when assigning semester grades
4.2
17. Incorporating extra credit activities in the calculation Used Often
of grades
4.2
18. Assigning grades. Used Often
4
19. Avoiding teaching to the test when preparing Used Often
students for tests
4
Overall Mean: Used Often
3.94
The Table 7 shows the frequent usage of using paper-pencil test as a classroom
assessment. The statements selecting textbook-provided test items for classroom
assessment, writing paper-pencil tests, weighing differently projects, exams, homework,
etc. when assigning semester grades and incorporating extra credit activities in the
calculation of grades got a highest mean of 4.2 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often”
each. The statements Writing fill-in-the-blank or short answer questions and constructing a
rubric for scoring essay questions got a mean of 4.1 with a verbal interpretation of “Used
Often”. The statements establishing student expectations for determining grades for
special education student, Assigning grades, Avoiding teaching to the test when preparing
students for tests got a mean of 4.0 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often”.
The statements Revising previously produced teacher-made tests to match current
instructional emphasis, Administering announced quizzes, Writing multiple-choice
questions, Writing true/false questions, Informing students in advance how grades are to
be assigned got a mean of 3.9 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often” each. The
statements writing essay questions, Writing test items for higher cognitive levels got a
mean of 3.8 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often”. The statements administering
unannounced quizzes and Writing matching questions got a mean of 3.7 with a verbal
interpretation of “Used Often”. Last, the statement Following required procedures (time
limit, no hints, no interpretation) when administering standardized test scores got a mean
of 3.4 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Occasionally”. Therefore, the result was that the
frequent usage of paper-pencil test is “Used Often” by selected AP Teachers of Mariano
Marcos Memorial High School.
Table 8: Standardized Testing, Test Revision, and Instructional Improvement

1. Choosing appropriate assessment methods for Used Often
instructional decisions
4
2. Matching assessments with instruction Used Often
3.9
3. Using assessment results when making decisions Used Often
(e.g., placement, promotion) about individual
students
3.6
4. Developing systematic grading procedures Used Often
3.7
5. Providing oral feedback to students Used Often
4.1
6. Communicating classroom assessment results to Used Often
students
3.9
7. Communicating classroom assessment results to Used Often
parents
3.9
8. Recognizing unethical, illegal, or otherwise Used Often
inappropriate assessment methods
4
9. Recognizing unethical, illegal, or otherwise Used Often
inappropriate uses of assessment information
3.9
3.89
The Table 8 shows the frequent usage of Standard Testing, Test Revision, and
Instructional Improvement. The statement “providing oral feedback to students” got the
highest mean of 4.1 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often”. The statements
Choosing appropriate assessment methods for instructional decisions, and Recognizing
unethical, illegal, or otherwise inappropriate assessment methods got a mean of 4 with a
verbal interpretation of “Used Often”.
The statements “Matching assessments with instruction”, “Communicating classroom
assessment results to students”, “Communicating classroom assessment results to
parents”, “Recognizing unethical”, “Illegal, or otherwise inappropriate uses of assessment
information” got a mean of 3.9 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often”. The statement
Developing systematic grading procedures got a mean of 3.7 with a verbal interpretation
of “Used Often.” The statement “Using assessment results when making decisions (e.g.,
placement, promotion) about individual students” got the lowest mean of 3.6 with a verbal
interpretation of “Used Often.”
Table 9: Communicating Assessment Results, Ethics, and Grading

1. Using assessment results when evaluating Used Often
class improvement
3.9
2. Developing a grading philosophy Used Often
3.8
3. Using systematic procedures to determine Used Often
borderline grades
4.2
4. Providing written feedback to students Used Often
3.9
5. Communicating classroom assessment results Used Often
to other educators
3.9
6. Protecting students’ confidentiality with regard 4.1 Used Often
to test scores
Overall Mean: 3.97 Used Often
The Table 10 shows the frequent usage of communicating assessment results,
ethics and grading. The statement “Using systematic procedures to determine borderline
grades” got the highest mean of 4.2 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The
statement “Protecting students’ confidentiality with regard to test scores” got a mean of
4.1 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.”
The statements “Using assessment results when evaluating class improvement”,
“Providing written feedback to students”, and “Communicating classroom assessment
results to other educators” got a mean of 3.9 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.”
Lastly, the statement “Developing a grading philosophy” got the lowest mean of 3.8 with a
verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The overall mean of the respondents is 3.97 with a
verbal interpretation of “Used Often.”
Table 10: Perceived Skillfulness in Communicating Assessment Results

1. Evaluating oral quizzes from students Used Often
4.2
2. Assessing students through observation Used Very Often
4.3
3. Recording assessment result on the rating Used Often
scale/checklist while observing a student’s
performance
4
4. Assessing individual class participation Used Often
4.2
5. Assessing group class participation Used Very Often
4.3
6. Assessing individual hands-on activities Used Very Often
4.3
7. Assessing group hands-on activities Used Often
4.1
8. Assessing individual class participation Used Often
4.2
9. Using portfolios to assess student progress Used Often

3.9
The Table 10 shows the perceived skillfulness in communicating assessments
results. The statements “Assessing students through observation”, “Assessing group
class participation”, and “Assessing individual hands-on activities” got the highest mean
of 4.3 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Very Often.” The statements “Evaluating oral
quizzes from students”, “Assessing individual class participation”, and “Assessing
individual class participation” got a mean of 4.2 with a verbal interpretation of “Used
Often.” The statement “Assessing group hands-on activities” got a mean of 4.1 with a
verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The statement “Recording assessment result on the
rating scale/checklist while observing a student’s performance” got a mean of 4 with a
verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The statement “Using portfolios to assess student
progress” got the lowest mean of 3.9 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The
overall mean of the respondents is 4.17 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.”
Table 11: Non-Achievement-Based Grading

1. Incorporating ability in the calculation of grades Used Very Often
4.3
2. Incorporating classroom behavior in the Used Very Often
calculation of grades
4.3
3. Incorporating improvement in the calculation of Used Often
grades
4.1
4. Incorporating effort in the calculation of grades Used Often
4.2
5. Incorporating attendance in the calculation of Used Often
grades
4.1
4.2
The table 11 shows the Non-Achievement-Based Grading. The statements
“Incorporating ability in the calculation of grades” and “Incorporating classroom behavior
in the calculation of grades” got the highest mean of 4.3 with a verbal interpretation of
“Used Very Often.” The statement “Incorporating effort in the calculation of grades” got a
mean of 4.2 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The statements “Incorporating
improvement in the calculation of grades” and “Incorporating attendance in the calculation
of grades” got the lowest mean with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The overall
mean of the respondents is 4.2 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.”
Table 12: Ensuring Test Validity and Reliability

1. Developing assessments based on clearly Used Often
defined course objectives
3.9
2. Ensuring adequate content sampling for a test Used Often
3.9
3. Matching performance tasks to instruction and Used Often
course objectives
3.9
4. Defining a rating scale for performance criteria Used Often
in advance
3.8
5. Communicating performance assessment Used Often
criteria in advance
3.7
The table 12 shows the Ensuring Test Validity and Reliability. The statements
“Developing assessments based on clearly defined course objectives”, “Ensuring
adequate content sampling for a test”, and “Matching performance tasks to instruction
and course objectives” got the highest mean of 3.9 with a verbal interpretation of “Used
Often.” The statement “Defining a rating scale for performance criteria in advance” got a
mean of 3.8 with a verbal interpretation of “Used Often.” The statement “Communicating
performance assessment criteria in advance” got the lowest mean of 3.7 with a verbal
interpretation of “Used Often.” The overall mean of the respondents is 3.84 with a verbal
interpretation of “Used Often.”
Part III: The Mastery of Classroom Assessment Skills
The frequent usage of assessment practices of selected teachers of Mariano Marcos
Memorial High School was answered by the teacher-respondents as the following
variables.
Table 13: Perceived Skillfulness in Using Paper-Pencil Tests

1. Choosing appropriate assessment methods for Skilled
instructional decisions
4.1
2. Selecting textbook-provided test items for Skilled
classroom assessment
3.9
3. Revising previously produced teacher-made Skilled
tests to match current instructional emphasis
3.8
4. Administering announced quizzes Skilled
4.1
5. Administering unannounced quizzes Somewhat Skilled
3.4
6. Matching assessments with instruction Skilled
3.8
7. Writing paper-pencil tests Skilled
4
8. Writing multiple-choice questions Somewhat Skilled
3.4
9. Writing matching questions Skilled
3.6
10. Writing true/false questions Skilled
3.5
11. Writing fill-in-the-blank or short answer Somewhat Skilled
questions
3.4
12. Writing essay questions Skilled
3.8
13. Writing test items for higher cognitive levels Skilled

4
14. Constructing a rubric for scoring essay Skilled
questions
4
15. Following required procedures (time limit, no Somewhat Skilled
hints, no interpretation) when administering
standardized test scores
3.2
16. Incorporating extra credit activities in the Skilled
calculation of grades
4.1
Overall Mean: 3.76 Skilled
The table 13 shows the Perceived Skillfulness in Using Paper-Pencil Tests. The
statements “Choosing appropriate assessment methods for instructional decisions”,
“Administering announced quizzes”, and “Incorporating extra credit activities in the
calculation of grades” got the highest mean of 4.1 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
The statements “Writing paper-pencil tests”, “Writing test items for higher cognitive
levels”,and “Constructing a rubric for scoring essay questions” got a mean of 4 with a
verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
The statement “Selecting textbook-provided test items for classroom assessment”
got a mean of 3.9 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statement “Revising
previously produced teacher-made tests to match current instructional emphasis”,
“Matching assessments with instruction”, and “Writing essay questions” got a mean of 3.8
with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statements “Writing matching questions” and
“Writing true/false questions” got a mean of 3.6 and 3.5 respectively with a verbal
interpretation of “Skilled.” The statements “Administering unannounced quizzes”, “Writing
multiple-choice questions”, and “Writing fill-in-the-blank or short answer questions” got a
mean of 3.4 with a verbal interpretation of “Somewhat Skilled.” The statement “Following
required procedures (time limit, no hints, no interpretation) when administering

standardized test scores” got the lowest mean of 3.2 with a verbal interpretation with a
verbal interpretation of “Somewhat Skilled.” The overall mean of the respondents is 3.76
with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
Table 14: Perceived Skillfulness in Standardized Testing, Test Revision, and

Instructional Improvement
Statement Mean Verbal Interpretation

1. Determining if a standardized achievement test Skilled
is valid for classroom assessment
3.8
2. Using a table of specifications to plan Skilled
assessments
4
3. Using concept mapping to assess student Skilled
learning
4
4. Interpreting standardized test scores (e.g., Somewhat Skilled
Stanine, Percentile Rank) to students and
parents
3.1
5. Interpreting Percentile Band to students and Somewhat Skilled
parents
3.2
6. Calculating and interpreting central tendency Skilled
and variability for teacher-made test
3.8
7. Conducting item analysis (i.e., difficulty and Skilled
discrimination indices) for teacher-made tests
3.7
8. Revising a test based on item analysis Skilled
3.9
9. Obtaining diagnostic information from Skilled
standardized tests
3.8
10. Using assessment results when planning Skilled
teaching 3.8
11. Using assessment results when developing Skilled
curriculum
3.7
12. Using assessment results when evaluating Very Skilled
school improvement
4.4
13. Using norm-referenced grading model Skilled
3.9
14. Using criteria-referenced grading model Skilled
3.7
The table shows the Perceived Skillfulness in Standardized Testing, Test Revision,
and Instructional Improvement. The statement “Using assessment results when
evaluating school improvement” got the highest mean of 4.4 with a verbal interpretation of
“Very Skilled.” The statements “Using a table of specifications to plan assessments”,
“Using concept mapping to assess student learning” got a mean of 4 with a verbal
interpretation of “Skilled.”
The statements “Revising a test based on item analysis” and “Using norm-
referenced grading model” got a mean of 3.9 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The
statements “Determining if a standardized achievement test is valid for classroom
assessment”, “Calculating and interpreting central tendency and variability for teacher-
made test”, “Obtaining diagnostic information from standardized tests”, “Using
assessment results when planning teaching” got a mean of 3.8 with a verbal interpretation
of “Skilled.” The statement of “Conducting item analysis (i.e., difficulty and discrimination
indices) for teacher-made tests”, “Using assessment results when developing curriculum”,
“Using criteria-referenced grading model” got a mean of 3.7 with a verbal interpretation of
“Skilled.” The statements Interpreting Percentile Band to students and parents and
Interpreting standardized test scores (e.g., Stanine, Percentile Rank) to students and
parents got a mean of 3.2 and 3.1 respectively with a both verbal interpretation of
“Somewhat Skilled.” The overall mean of the respondents is 3.77 with a verbal
interpretation of “Skilled.”
Table 15: Perceived Skillfulness in Using Performance Assessment

1. Skilled
4
2. Evaluating oral quizzes from students Assessing Very Skilled

students through observation
4.5
3. Developing assessments based on clearly Skilled
defined course objectives
3.9
4. Recording assessment result on the rating Skilled
scale/checklist while observing a student’s
performance
4.2
5. Assessing individual class participation Very Skilled
4.4
6. Assessing group class participation Very Skilled
4.3
7. Assessing individual hands-on activities Very Skilled
4.3
8. Assessing group hands-on activities Very Skilled
4.4
9. Assessing individual class participation Skilled
3.8
10. Using portfolios to assess student progress Skilled
4
The table 15 shows the Perceived Skillfulness in Using Performance Assessment.
As shown above, the statement “Assessing students through observation” got the highest
mean of 4.5 with a verbal interpretation of “Very Skilled.” The statement “Assessing
individual class participation” and “Assessing group hands-on activities” got a mean of 4.4
with a verbal interpretation of “Very Skilled.” The statements “Assessing group class
participation” and “Assessing individual hands-on activities” got a mean of 4.3 with a
verbal interpretation of “Very Skilled.” The statement “Recording assessment result on the
rating scale/checklist while observing a student’s performance” got a mean of 4.2 with a
verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statements “Evaluating oral quizzes from students”
and “Using portfolios to assess student progress” got a mean of 4 with a verbal
interpretation of “Skilled.” The statement “Developing assessments based on clearly
defined course objectives” and “Assessing individual class participation” got a mean of
3.9 and 3.8 respectively with a both verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The overall mean of
the respondents is 4.18 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
Table 16: Perceived Skillfulness in Communicating Assessment Results
Statements Mean Verbal Interpretations

1. Using assessment results when making Somewhat Skilled
decisions (e.g., placement, promotion) about
individual students
3.3
2. Using assessment results when evaluating class Skilled
improvement
3.5
3. Providing oral feedback to students Skilled
3.7
4. Providing written feedback to students Skilled
4.1
5. Communicating classroom assessment results Skilled
to students
4
to parents
3.5
to other educators
3.9
8. Avoiding teaching to the test when preparing Skilled
students for tests
3.9
9. Protecting students’ confidentiality with regard to Skilled
test scores
3.5
The table 16 shows the Perceived Skillfulness in Communicating Assessment
Results. The statement “Providing written feedback to students” got the highest mean of
4.1 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statement “Communicating classroom
assessment results to students” got a mean of 4 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
The statements “Communicating classroom assessment results to other educators”
and “Avoiding teaching to the test when preparing students for tests” got a mean of 3.9
with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statement “Providing oral feedback to
students” got a mean of 3.7 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statements
“Using assessment results when evaluating class improvement”, “Communicating
classroom assessment results to parents”, and “Protecting students’ confidentiality with
regard to test scores” got a mean of 3.5 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” Lastly, the
statement “Using assessment results when making decisions (e.g., placement,
promotion) about individual students” got the lowest mean of 3.3 with a verbal
interpretation of “Somewhat Skilled.” The overall mean of the respondents is 3.71 with a
verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
Table 17
Perceived Skillfulness in Non-Achievement-Based Grading
Statement Mean Verbal Interpretation

1. Establishing student expectations for Skilled
determining grades for special education 4.1
student
2. Incorporating ability in the calculation of grades 4.2 Skilled
3. Incorporating classroom behavior in the Skilled
calculation of grades 4.2
4. Incorporating improvement in the calculation of Skilled

grades 4.1
5. Incorporating effort in the calculation of grades 4.2 Skilled

6. Incorporating attendance in the calculation of Skilled
grades 4.1
The table 17 shows the Perceived Skillfulness in Non-Achievement-Based Grading.
As shown above the statements who got the highest mean of 4.2 with a verbal
interpretation of “Skilled” are “Incorporating ability in the calculation of grades”,

“Incorporating classroom behavior in the calculation of grades” and “Incorporating effort in
the calculation of grades”. On the other hand, the statements who got the lowest mean of
4.1 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled” are “Establishing student expectations for
determining grades for special education student”, “Incorporating improvement in the
calculation of grades” and “Incorporating attendance in the calculation of grades.”
Table 18
Perceived Skillfulness in Grading and Test Validity
Statements Mean Verbal Interpretations

1. Ensuring adequate content sampling for a test Skilled
3.8
2. Matching performance tasks to instruction and Skilled
course objectives
3.9
3. Defining a rating scale for performance criteria Somewhat Skilled
in advance
3.4
4. Communicating performance assessment Skilled
criteria in advance
3.7
5. Developing systematic grading procedures Skilled
3.6
6. Developing a grading philosophy Skilled
3.5
7. Using systematic procedures to determine Very Skilled
borderline grades 4.4
8. Informing students in advance how grades are Skilled
to be assigned
3.9
9. Weighing differently projects, exams, homework, Very Skilled
etc. when assigning semester grades
4.3
10. Assigning grades Skilled
4
The table 18 shows the Perceived Skillfulness in Grading and Test Validity. As
shown above, the statement “Using systematic procedures to determine borderline
grades” got the highest mean of 4.4 with a verbal interpretation of “Very Skilled.” The
statement “Weighing differently projects, exams, homework, etc. when assigning
semester grades” got a mean of 4.3 with a verbal interpretation of “Very Skilled.” The
statement “Assigning grades” got a mean of 4 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
The statements “Matching performance tasks to instruction and course objectives”,
and “Informing students in advance how grades are to be assigned” got a mean of 3.9
with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statement "Ensuring adequate content
sampling for a test” got a mean of 3.8 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The
statement “Communicating performance assessment criteria in advance” got a mean of
3.7 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.” The statements “Developing systematic
grading procedures”, “Developing a grading philosophy”, and “Defining a rating scale for
performance criteria in advance” got a mean of 3.6, 3.5 and 3.4 respectively with both
verbal interpretation of “Skilled” for the first and second mentioned statement and a verbal
interpretation of “Somewhat Skilled” for the last mentioned statement. The overall mean is
3.85 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
Table 19: Perceived Skillfulness in Addressing Ethical Concerns

1. Recognizing unethical, illegal, or otherwise Skilled
inappropriate assessment methods
3.5
2. Recognizing unethical, illegal, or otherwise Skilled
inappropriate uses of assessment information
3.7
The table 19 shows the Perceived Skillfulness in Addressing Ethical Concerns. As
shown above, the statement “Recognizing unethical, illegal, or otherwise inappropriate
uses of assessment information got the highest mean of 3.7 with a verbal interpretation of
“Skilled” while the statement ‘Recognizing unethical, illegal, or otherwise inappropriate
assessment methods” got the lowest mean of 3.5 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
The overall mean of the respondents is 3.6 with a verbal interpretation of “Skilled.”
Conclusions
Based on the data gathered, the researchers came up with the following conclusions:
The results were the frequency of the Araling Panlipunan teachers of Mariano Marcos
Memorial High School in using different assessment practices and skills
In terms of Paper-Pencil Test, the results showed that the statements selecting
textbook-provided test items for classroom assessment, writing paper-pencil tests,
weighing differently projects, exams, homework, etc. when assigning semester grades and
incorporating extra credit activities in the calculation of grades got a highest mean with a
verbal interpretation of “Used Often” each, while the statement “Following required
procedures (time limit, no hints, no interpretation) when administering standardized test
scores” obtained the lowest mean with a verbal interpretation of “Used Occasionally”. By
interpretation, the teachers frequently applied to their class selecting textbook-provided
test items, writing paper-pencil tests, weighing differently projects when assigning
semester grades and incorporating extra credit activities in the calculation of grades, while
following required procedures such as time limit, no hints, and no interpretation when
administering standardized test scores to the grades of their students is a less frequent
activity of the teacher.

In terms of Standardized Testing, Test Revision, and Instructional Improvement, the
results showed that the teachers were more frequently provide oral feedback to their
students as this statement obtained the highest mean, while using assessment when
making decisions about individual students as this statement obtained the lowest mean.
In terms of Communicating Assessment Results, Ethics, and Grading, the results showed
that the teachers were more frequently use systematic procedures to determine borderline
as this statement obtained the highest score, while developing a grading philosophy is
infrequently a method of teachers.
In terms of Perceived Skilfulness in Communicating Assessment Results, the results
showed that the teachers were more frequently assess students through evaluation,
assess group class participation and assess individual hands-on activities than the use of
portfolios to assess student progress.
In terms of Non-Achievement-Based Grading, the results showed that the teachers
were more frequently incorporate ability and classroom behavior in the calculation of
grades than incorporate attendance and improvement in the calculation of grades.
In terms of Ensuring Test Validity and Reliability, the results showed that the
teachers were more frequently develop assessments based on clearly defined course
objectives , ensure adequate content sampling for a test and match performance tasks to
instruction and course objectives than communicate performance assessment criteria in
advance.
In terms of Perceived Skillfulness in Using Paper-Pencil Tests, the results showed
that the teachers were more skilled in choosing appropriate assessment methods for
instructional decisions and incorporating extra credit activities in the calculation of grades
than following required procedures when administering standardized test scores.
In terms of Perceived Skillfulness in Standardized Testing, Test Revision, and
Instructional Improvement, the results showed that the teachers were more skilled in using
assessment results when evaluating school improvement than interpreting standardized
test scores to students and parents.
In terms of Perceived Skillfulness in Using Performance Assessment, the results
showed that the teachers were more skilled in evaluating oral quizzes from students
assessing students through observation than developing assessments based on clearly
defined course objectives.
In terms of Perceived Skillfulness in Communicating Assessment Results, the results
showed that the teachers were more skilled in providing written feedback to students
which happened to be in report cards than using assessment result when making
decisions about individual students.
In terms of Perceived Skillfulness in Non-Achievement-Based Grading, the results
showed that the teachers were more skilled in incorporating ability, classroom behavior,
and effort in calculation of grades than establishing student expectations for determining
grades for special education and incorporating improvement and attendance in calculation
of grades.
In terms of Perceived Skillfulness in Grading and Test Validity, the results showed
that the teachers were more skilled in weighing differently projects, exams, homework, etc.
when assigning semester grades than defining a rating scale for performance criteria in
advance.
In terms of Perceived Skillfulness in Addressing Ethical Concerns, the results
showed that the teachers were more skilled in recognizing unethical, illegal, or otherwise
inappropriate uses of assessment information than recognizing unethical, illegal, or
otherwise inappropriate uses of assessment methods.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusion drawn by the researchers, the following are the suggestions
for the readers and future researchers.
1. Teachers are encouraged to balance classroom assessment tools in every lesson.
2. Teachers must equally inculcate lower order thinking skills and higher order thinking
skills in creating performance task by individual and group.
3. Subject coordinators and Principal must always evaluate educators to monitor
teachers whole performance and help teachers disseminate learning befittingly and to alter
what is wrong.
4. Department of Education must conduct free lectures, seminars and workshops to all
educators so that they will improve their pedagogical skills and techniques and widen their
horizon in teaching.
5. Government must offer scholarship to those teachers who are still in Bachelor’s
Degree to pursue higher degree of education which is Master in Arts and/or Master in
Science Degree.
REFERENCES
Books:
Carol Anne Dwyer (1998) Assessment and Classroom Learning: theory and practice,
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5:1, 131-137, DOI:
10.1080/0969595980050109
Crooks, T.J. (1988). The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students. Review
of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The Relation Between Assessment
Practices and Outcomes of Studies: The Case of Research on Prior Knowledge.”,
69(2), 145-186
James, M. (2008). Assessment and learning. In Unlocking Assessment. David Fulton

Publishers.
Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J.A. (2003). Classroom Assessment Skills. Applied
Measurement in Education, 16(4), 323-342
Internet:
Assessment, Teaching and Theories of Learning

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/271964452_Assessment_Teaching_and_Th
eories_of_Learning
Chapter II: Review of the Related Literature

shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in>bitstream
The Implications of Learning Theories to Assessment and Instructional Scaffolding

Techniques
pubs.sciepub.com/education/4/9/9/

Action Research MMMHS

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Action Research MMMHS

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COMMON PRACTICES AND SKILLS IN CLASSROOM

PRINCESS ANGELIQUE BAIDO

Title : Common Practices and Skills in Classroom Assessment

Researchers : Princess Angelique Baido

Dahn Limuel Domingo

Troi Kreestan Muñoz

Rogelio Velasco Jr.

Degree : Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in Social Studies

Institution : Polytechnic University of the University

Adviser : Ms. Danilova Lorenzo

Keywords : Assessment, Practices and Skills

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

to participate in the assessment process designed and implemented by the teachers. As

cited by Routman’s Invitations: Changing as Teachers and Learners K-12 assessment

apart from testing, although it needs to be an integral part of instruction. “Assessment

should be constructed so good instruction is the best preparation”. (Karen Wixon, at

assessment preconvention institute, IRA 1990)

There is more to assessment than seeing if the requirements for achieving a

learning process. In contrast, summative assessment takes place on completion of a topic

what this means. (James, 2008)

Teachers make professional judgements on learners’ performance in every

teaching and learning session undertaken, whether consciously or subconsciously. Using

individuals’ work is the focus of assessment of learning. Successful assessment of learning

strategies result in improved learner progress on a continual basis. The principal

characteristic of assessment for learning is effective feedback provided by teachers to

work. (Jones, 2005)

While it is generally acknowledged increased use of formative assessment (or

examinations precludes its use. (William et al. 2004)

This proves that it is important to check the authenticity of assessment in order to

reach to desired results. However as cited by Routman’s Invitations: Changing as Teachers

tests, such as conversations in a foreign language: observations, open-ended questions

students a chance to reflect on their achievement; and portfolios, collections of student

December 13, 1989)

In this matter the teachers’ mastery in the methods of assessment is highly

significant in order to achieve desired results in monitoring students’ development. In the

Philippines, according to DepEd order No. 8, s. 2015 classroom assessment is used to

competencies and standards of the curriculum. It promotes self-reflection and personal

accountability among students about their own learning. Classroom assessment is a

process of identifying, gathering, organizing and interpreting quantitative and qualitative

be consistent with curriculum standards. It measures achievement of competencies by the

cognitive process dimensions may be used as a guide in the formulation of assessment

tasks and activities which includes remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing,

evaluating and creating.

encourages educators to consider theories of perception when designing instructional

1. Zone of Proximal Development

The distance between the actual development level as determined by

finish the task. (Shabani, et al., 2010)

2. Metacognitive Theory of Learning

Flavel postulated that metacognition consisted of both monitoring and regulation

experiences. (Pattalitan, 2016)

3. Behaviorist Theories of Learning

programmes as well as everyday practice. Bredo (1997), who is particularly interesting on

that was used in this study.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Teachers. The process involves the dissemination of survey questionnaires to the

of Mariano Marcos Memorial High School.

Statement of the Problem

Classroom Assessment Experienced by Selected Araling Panlipunan Teachers of Mariano

1. What are the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.2 Highest Educational Attainment

1.4 Years in Service

1.5 Current Grade Level they are Teaching