Report Writing

A test was conducted for the year three pupils in SK Bagan Tuan Kechil during
our practicum session. It was an achievement test to measure the pupils ability and
knowledge within the units taught (Brown, 2010), which were Technology At Home and
I See Numbers. The test was administered as a one-hour test in 3A and 3B classrooms.
In selecting the test items, our main considerations were the pupils proficiency
level, the selected content and learning standards and the topics taught. In assessing
listening skills, a selective listening task was given. As for speaking skills, a picture-cued
task was selected so that the picture can guide the weaker pupils. Referring to the
rubrics, the pupils were not only assessed on the content, but also on grammar,
pronunciation, fluency and vocabulary. This was to increase the test reliability as oral
production does not only focus on describing, but also on larger component such as
fluency (Brown, 2010). An interactive reading task, rational cloze test was given as the
blanks provided were from a specific category (Chitravelu, Sithamparam, & Teh, 2005),
which was numbers in word form. Moreover, controlled-writing task was given in which
the pupils constructed sentences to display their competence in grammar, vocabulary
and sentence formation (Brown, 2010). The focus was reflected in the rubric whereby the
pupils were assessed on the usage of key words and also writing conventions such as
capitalization, punctuation and grammar.
This test is considered as a norm-referenced test as the pupils results are to be
compared with peers (Chitravelu, Sithamparam, & Teh, 2005). The data obtained will
then be interpreted in terms of mean, mode, median and standard deviation (S.D.)
(Brown, 2010). Looking into the pupils average performance, the mean score of 24.3
and the mode score of 24 indicate that most of the pupils are able to score almost half of
the total marks. Based on the median score of 23, 16 out of 31 pupils, who score 23
marks and higher, have higher language ability. The S.D. score of 11.996, which is a
relatively high score, indicates that the pupils are of mixed-ability. The score distributes
widely around the mean score, as shown in figure 1.

Year 3 Pupils' English Test Result Distribution

0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
Frequency

0.02
0.01
mean

0.01
0
-20
-3 S.D.

-10
-2 S.D.

Pupils

10

20

30

40

Pupils' Score1 S.D.

-1 S.D.

60 score

50

2 S.D.

3 S.D.

Figure 1: Year 3 Pupils English Test Result Distribution

Mean
Median
Mode
Standard
Deviation
Total marks for
each section

Listening
8.129
8
10

Speaking
4.145
4
6 and 1

2.473

2.292

10

Reading
6.258
6
12 and 8

Writing
5.532
4
0

Total
24.3
23
24

4.313

6.250

11.996

12

20

50

Figure 2: Data Analysis of the Pupils Result

Looking into each skill separately as shown in figure 2, the pupils score better in
listening skills as the mean score of 8.129 is rather nearer to the total score. This can be
supported by the mode score of 10. This may reflect that the test item is easier as
compared to the other items. Among the four language skills assessed, the S.D. score
for speaking skill is the smallest, which means that the pupils oral performance are of
similar level. For reading skill, though the mode scores are 12 and 8, which reaches or is
near to the total marks, the mean score of 6.258 and the S.D. score of 4.313 indicate
that there are pupils who find the questions to be too challenging that cause the average
marks to drop. Furthermore, the score distribution for writing is even wider, as shown in
the S.D. score of 6.25. With the shocking mode score of 0 and the mean score of 5.532,
it is apparent that vast majority of the pupils are having difficulties in constructing simple
sentences.

Through the mean, median and S.D. score, teachers are able to identify the more
proficient and less proficient pupil groups for each class. Teachers then can establish a
buddy system whereby the proficient ones assist the weaker ones. Teachers can also
have more effective grouping. For instance, if the group activity aims to challenge the
pupils to a higher level, homogenous grouping will be more effective (Johnson, 2011). As
the class size is small, both teachers can combine their classes and group the pupils
based on their level. They can give the more proficient pupils some enrichment or
independent works while they can focus on remedial activities such as reteach the
content through different approaches (Chitravelu, Sithamparam, & Teh, 2005). Writing
skill which is the problem area should be given more emphasis.
To sum up, this is indeed a meaningful and fruitful learning experience for me as
a future teacher as I have acquired more in-depth knowledge on designing,
administering and marking the test papers with rubrics. I have also learnt the importance
of interpreting the pupils performance for future improvement in teaching and also in
pupils learning process.
(700 words)
Bibliography
Brown, H. (2010). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices. New York:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Chitravelu, N., Sithamparam, S., & Teh, S. (2005). ELT Methodology: Principles and
Practice. Shah Alam: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd.
Johnson, B. (2011, August 2). Student Learning Groups: Homogeneous or
Heterogeneous? Retrieved September 15, 2016, from Edutopia:
http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-grouping-homogeneous-heterogeneousben-johnson