Assessment Reform in Malaysia: Policy into Practice in Primary Schools Marcelina John University of Stirling Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2018 Copyright The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the United Kingdom Copyright Acts as qualified by the University of Stirling Regulation for Higher Degrees by Research. Due acknowledgement must always be made of the use of any material contained, or derived from, this thesis. Declaration I declare that I have composed this thesis myself and that it embodies the results of my own research. Where appropriate, I have acknowledged the nature and extent of work carried out in collaboration with others included in the thesis. Marcelina John i Acknowledgements I owe my deepest gratitude to the Malaysian Ministry of Education for trusting my capabilities and believing in my dreams of pursuing my PhD. Without the financial assistance of the scholarship they provided, my ‘big’ dreams might not have been fulfilled. My sincere appreciation is given to my dedicated supervisors, Professor Mark Priestley and Dr. Joseph Smith for their tremendous help and support in guiding me to complete this study. It would have been impossible to have completed this research without their guidance. I would also like to thank Professor Fiona Copland and Professor Louise Hayward for providing valuable guidance in writing this thesis. To my colleagues (Mook, Ream, Akpo, Tom, Seela, Steph, and Vive), thank you for your precious advice and help throughout this challenging PhD journey. To all of my PhD colleagues and the staff at the University of Stirling, thank you for your assistance and hospitality which made me feel at home. My utmost gratitude goes to Aileen Ireland, my journey would not have been easy without you. I am forever indebted to you. To my supportive parents (John Jinus Sibin and Cecelia Solinih), my wonderful siblings (Stephanie, Verus, Ernie, Rena, Linda and Doris), and my friends (you know who you are), thank you for your continuous support, presence and company in times when silence seemed to be my worst enemy. Monongkounsikou oku sontob di sambayang dikoyu montok do kinapanahan ku do minongoi pinsingilo hiti pomogunan suai. Abarakatan kou noh daa do Minamangun. These past four years have not been as easy for me as what some people might have thought. There were moments when all I could think about was giving up, but, praise the Lord, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13). Thank you to the members of the Stirling University Christian Catholic Society, and St. Mary’s Society Stirling, for providing spiritual support during my stay in Stirling. iii iv Abstract This qualitative case study draws upon the empirical data drawn from two case study schools conducted in Malaysian primary schools that have responded to the new assessment practices related to School-Based assessment (SBA) in the new curriculum (KSSR) policy. This study investigated how English language teachers make sense of and enact SBA in the new English curriculum in Malaysia. This study also examined the contextual and individual/teacher factors in schools that influence the changes, the external factors that are influencing the changes, and the alternative or further support that schools and teachers feel they need to effectively implement the new assessment practice. Using Priestley’s (2011) Social Interaction model, derived from Archer’s (1995) Morphogenesis/Morphostasis (M/M) model, this study focused on the cultural, structural, material and individual attributes which helped to understand how and why teachers were implementing the new policy around assessment. Semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, document analysis and field notes were used in collecting the data. The data were analysed in two stages. The first stage involved within-case analysis from the two primary schools. In the second stage of data analysis, the themes that emerged from the two case studies were analytically categorised into the four elements suggested in the Social Interaction model, by referring to the generic questions proposed by Priestley (2007). The striking findings of this study suggest that the accountability mechanism in the Malaysian education system was seen as being morphostasis in nature, in that it impeded the new assessment policy to penetrate the culture in schools. In addition, the material and individual factors had also influenced the SBA practices in being effectively implemented and enacted by teachers. v vi Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Brief background of SBA in Malaysian schools ..................................................... 1 1.2 Rationale for SBA in English KSSR ....................................................................... 2 1.3 The concept of SBA in the Malaysian education system ........................................ 4 1.3.1 SBA and English KSSR curriculum ................................................................ 5 1.3.2 How the MOE expected SBA to be conducted ................................................ 7 1.3.3 The ideal SBA classroom practices ................................................................. 7 1.4 The differences between SBA and the current practice .......................................... 8 1.5 The problem .......................................................................................................... 10 1.6 Rationale for the study .......................................................................................... 13 1.7 My own background ............................................................................................. 14 1.8 Thesis outline ........................................................................................................ 16 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................. 19 MALAYSIAN CONTEXT .................................................................................................. 19 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 19 2.2 The background ..................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1 A brief historical background ........................................................................ 21 2.3 The National Education System ............................................................................ 27 2.4 Overview of English Language teaching in the Malaysian education system ...... 29 2.4.1 Overview of the English language (KSSR) curriculum ................................. 31 2.4.2 Underlying pedagogical principles of the curriculum ................................... 32 2.5 School-Based Assessment (SBA) in the Malaysian education system ................. 34 2.5.1 The SBA test administration, recording and reporting .................................. 38 2.5.2 English SBA Curriculum content .................................................................. 39 2.5.3 Conceptual terms and references used in SBA .............................................. 41 2.5.3.1 Standard Curriculum and Assessment Document .................................. 41 vii 2.5.3.2 Performance Standard framework .......................................................... 42 2.5.4 SBA and classroom assessment ..................................................................... 43 2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 44 CHAPTER THREE.............................................................................................................. 47 KEY THEMES IN CURRICULUM REFORM .................................................................. 47 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 47 3.2 What is the curriculum? ........................................................................................ 47 3.3 The concept of educational change or reform ....................................................... 49 3.4 Factors influencing and/or challenging the implementation of educational reform or change .......................................................................................................................... 51 3.4.1 Supra (international level) .............................................................................. 52 3.4.2 Macro (national level) .................................................................................... 54 3.4.3 Meso (school level) ........................................................................................ 54 3.4.4 Micro (teacher level) ...................................................................................... 55 3.5 Assessment ............................................................................................................ 57 3.5.1 Purpose of Assessment................................................................................... 59 3.5.1.1 Formative assessment ............................................................................. 60 3.5.1.2 Summative assessment ..........................................................................