Home⇛International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research⇛vol. 5 no. 10 (2024)

Authentic Assessment in Flexible Learning Modality and the Learning Outcomes in Readings in the Philippine History Among First-Year College Students

John Bert A. Habagat | Jherwin P. Hermosa

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

The research utilized a descriptive-correlational design. Descriptive design was used to describe the perception of the students. In order to gather the information in the study, In order to determine if there is significant relationship between authentic assessment strategies and tools and learning outcome, correlational research was used. It utilized quantitative approach of research in gathering the necessary data. The survey questionnaire was used to gather data and later on the score of the student after using the authentic assessment. The respondents of this study are twenty-four (24) first year college students from Bachelor of Science in Fisheries and Aquatic Resources and another thirty-two (32) first year college students from Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology. A total of fifty (56) first year college students are the respondents of the study from Southern Luzon State University, Alabat Campus, Quezon. Each variable has seven statements describing respondents’ perceptions on the authentic assessment strategies and tools. The researcher used the weighted mean for the checklist questionnaire part I, II, and III. This study concluded the effectiveness of authentic assessment in flexible learning modality of readings in Philippine History for first year college students of SLSU Alabat, Quezon. Specifically, this study aimed to deter-mine the perception of the respondents on the effectiveness of the developed authentic assessment in terms of: paper and pencil assessment; assessment strategy in communication; performance assessment; observation assessment; and, self-assessment. Also, this study aimed to know the perception of the respondents on the effectiveness of authentic assessment tools such as: checklist; rating scale; learning log; and anecdotal records. The study posited four hypotheses, one of which states that there is no significant relationship between the perception of the respondent on the developed authentic assessment and their level of learning outcomes in Readings in Philippine History. The second hypothesis states that there is a significant relationship be-tween the perception of the respondent on the developed authentic assessment and their level of learning outcomes in Readings in Philippine History. While the third hypothesis states that there is no significant relationship between the perception of the teachers on authentic assessment tool and students’ level of learning outcomes in readings in the Philippine History. Finally, the fourth hypothesis states that that there is significant relationship between the perception of the teachers on authentic assessment tool and students’ level of learning outcomes in readings in the Philippine History.



References:

  1. Academ. (2022). The importance of student self-assessment. Retrieved from: https://academ.com.au/importancestudenAcadem. (2022). The importance of student self-assessment. Retrieved from: https://academ.com.au/importancestudentselfassess-ment/#:~:text=Student%20self%2Dassessment%20occurs%20when,for%20their%20own%20learning%20process.
  2. Adams, T. & Hsu, J.(2018). Classroom assess-ments: Teachers' conceptions and prac-tices in mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 174-180.
  3. Ali, R., Ghazi, S. R., Khan, M. S., Hussain, S., & Faitma, Z. T. (2010). Effectiveness of mod-ular teaching in biology at the secondary level. Asian Social Science, 6(9). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n9p49.
  4. Aman, M. (2015). The correlation of student achievement at basic education in math-ematics by applying authentic assessment tools: Performance-based strategy, Un-published Master Thesis, University of Bahrain.
  5. Ayer, A. J. (1968). The origins of pragmatism: Studies in the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.
  6. Azim, S., & Khan, M. (2012). Authentic assess-ment: An instructional tool to enhance students learning. Academic Research In-ternational, 2(3), 314–320. https://ecommons.aku.edu/pakistan_ied_pdcc/11/.
  7. Bagood, J. B. (2020). Teaching-learning modal-ity under the new normal. Philippine In-formation Agency. https://pia.gov.ph/features/articles/1055584.
  8. Bell, B. and Cowie, B. (2012). The characteris-tics of formative assessment in science ed-ucation. Science Education, 85(5): 536–553.
  9. Bhamani, S., Makhdoom, A. Z., Bharuci, V., Ali, N., Kaleem, S., & Ahmed, D. (2020). Home learning in times of COVID: Experiences of parents. Journal of Education and Ed-ucational Development, 9-26. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Home+learning+in+times+of+COVID%3a+Experiences+of+parets&ft=on&id=EJ1259928.
  10. Blomeke, S., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Shavelson, R. (2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie, 223(1), 3–13.
  11. Boud, D. (2015). Implementing Student Self-Assessment, 2nd Edn. Australian Capital Territory: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.
  12. Brown, G. T., and Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment, in Sage Handbook of Re-search on Classroom Assessment, ed J. H. McMillan (Los Angeles, CA: Sage), 367–393. doi: 10.4135/9781452218649.n21
  13. Butler, Y. G. (2019). How do teachers observe and evaluate elementary school students’ foreign language performance? A case study from South Korea. TESOL Quarter-ly, 43, 417-444.
  14. Candra, O., Islami, S., Syamsuarnis, S., Elfizon, E., Hastuti, H., Habibullah, H., & Eliza, F. (2019). Validity of development on au-thentic assessment tool of curriculum 2013 based in information technology. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 8(12), 265-267. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/SyaifulIsla-mi/publication/341600583_Validity_Of_Development_On_Authentic_Assesment_Tool_Of_Curriculum_2013_Based_In_Information_Technology/links/5ec99335299bf1c09ad97f33/.
  15. Carrillo, C., & Flores,M. A. (2020). COVID-19 and teacher education: A litera-ture review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education, 466-487. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02619768.2020.1821184.
  16. Cizek, G. (2009). Reliability and validity of in-formation about student achievement: Comparing large-scale and classroom testing contexts. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 63-71.
  17. Colliver, J., Verhulst, S, and Barrows, H. (2015). Self-assessment in medical practice: a fur-ther concern about the conventional re-search paradigm. Teach. Learn. Med. 17, 200–201. doi: 10.1207/s15328015tlm1703_1.
  18. Cos, F.L., Duero, M.C., & Paguia, R.S. (2021). The viability of DepEd textbooks as the primary material for the modular dis-tance learning modality of carrascal na-tional high school. Journal of Innovations in Teaching and Learning, 2021, Vol. 1, No. 2, 69-75. Published by Science and Education Publishing. DOI:10.12691/jitl-1-2-2 https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matt-Paguia/publication/352256345.
  19. Cullinane, C., & Montacute, R. (2020). COVID-19 and social mobility impact brief #1: school shutdown. Sutton Trust. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/35356/1/COVID-19-Impact-Brief-School-Shutdown.pdf.
  20. Dame, B., & Lea, K. (2020, May 29). Using uni-versal design to create better assess-ments. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/using-universal-designcreate-better-assessments.
  21. Dangle, Y. R. P., & Sumaoang J. D. (2020). The implementation of modular distance learning in the Philippine secondary pub-lic schools. 3rd International Conference on Advanced Research in Teaching and Education https://www.dpublication.com/abstract-of-3rd-icate/27-427/.
  22. Elwood, J. & Klenowski, V. (2012) Creating communities of shared practice: assess-ment use in learning and teaching, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Ed-ucation, 27(3), 243–256.
  23. Fritz, C. A. (2014). The level of teacher in-volvement in the Vermont mathematics portfolio assessment process and in-structional practices in Grade 4 Class-rooms. Dissertation abstracts, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire, USA. UMI 3006136.
  24. Frank, J. (2012). The roles of assessment in lan-guage teaching. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/.
  25. Gao, X., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2011). The use of authentic assessment to report ac-countability data on young children’s language, literacy and pre-math compe-tency. International Education Studies, 4(2), 41–53. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=).+The+use+of+authentic+assessment+to+report+accountability+data+on+young+children%e2%80%99s+language%2c+literacy+and+pre-math+competency&ft=on&id=EJ1066453.
  26. Goodman. Y. (2015). Kid watching. In a Jaggar and M.T.Smith Burke (Eds.), Observing the language learner. Newark, DE: Inter-national Reading Association.
  27. Grounlund, N. (2015). Measurement and eval-uation in teaching, 5th ed. New York: Macmillan.
  28. Guido, R. M. D. (2014). Evaluation of a modu-lar teaching approach in materials sci-ence and engineering. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(11), 1126-1130. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-11-20.
  29. Karthikeyan, K., & Kumar, A. (2014). Integrat-ed modular teaching in dermatology for undergraduate students: a novel ap-proach. Indian Dermatology Online Jour-nal, 5(3), 266. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5178.137774.
  30. Lanting, A. Y. (2015). An empirical study of dis-trict-wide k-2 performance assessment program: Teacher practices, Information Gained, and use of Assessment Results. Dissertation Abstracts. Ph.D., the Univer-sity of Illinois At Urbana Champaign, USA.
  31. Lapada, A. A., Miguel, F.F., Robledo, D. A. R., & Alam, Z. F. (2020). Teachers’ covid-19 awareness, distance learning education experiences and perceptions towards in-stitutional readiness and challenges. In-ternational Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6). https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.6.8.
  32. Malipot, M. H. (2020, August 4). Teachers air problems on modular learning system. Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2020/08/04/teachers-air-problems-on-modular-learning-system/.
  33. Martineau, M. D., Charland, P., Arvisais, O., & Vinuesa, V. (2020). Education and COVID-19: Challenges and opportuni-ties. Canadian Commission for UNESCO. https://en.ccunesco.ca/idealab/education-and-covid-19-challenges-and-opportunities.
  34. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2018). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205–220.
  35. Mataac, J. (2021). Impact of modular distance learning and the reading development of the beginning readers. International Journal of Research Publication. IJRP 2021, 75(1), 90-104; doi:.10.47119/IJRP100751420211869 file:///C:/Users/John%20Bert/Downloads/100751420211869.pdf.
  36. Menand, L. (2001). The metaphysical club: A story of ideas in America. New York: Far-rar, Straus, and Giroux.
  37. Mikre, F. (2010). The roles of assessment in curriculum practice and enhancement of learning. Ethiop Journal of Education & Science. 5(2) 101-114. Retrieved from: https://www.ju.edu.et/.
  38. Miller, A. (2020, April 7). Formative assess-ment in distance learning. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/formative-assessment-distance-learning.
  39. Moon, T., Brighton, C., Callahan, C. & Robinson, A. (2015). Development of authentic as-sessments for the middle school classroom. XVI,2/3, 119-133.
  40. Moore, E. (1961). American pragmatism: Peirce, James, and Dewey. New York: Co-lumbia University Press.
  41. Nardo, M. T. B. (2017). Modular instruction enhances learner autonomy. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(10), 1024-1034. http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/5/10/3/index.html.
  42. Nasab.G., F. (2015). Alternative versus tradi-tional assessment. Journal of Applied Lin-guistics and Language Research.2(6) 165-178. Retrieved from http://www.jallr.ir.
  43. Panadero, E., Brown, G. L., and Strijbos, J.-W. (2016). The future of student self- assessment: A review of known un-knowns and potential directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28, 803–830. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2.
  44. Phongsirikul, M. (2018). Traditional and alter-native assessment in ELT: Student’s and teachers’ perceptions. Vol 25, No.1. re-flections. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Traditional+and+alterna-tive+assessment+in+ELT%3a+Student%e2%80%99s+and+teachers%e2%80%99+perceptions&ft=on&id=EJ12716 3
  45. Sabri, M., Retnawati, H., & Fitriatunisyah. (2019). The implementation of authentic assessment in mathematics learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1200(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1200/1/012006 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1200/1/012006/meta.
  46. Sadiq, S., & Zamir, S. (2014). Effectiveness of modular approach in teaching at the uni-versity level. Journal of Education and Practice, 5, 103-109 https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/13916.
  47. Sax, G. (2018). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evalua-tion, 2nd ed. California: Wadsworth.
  48. Sejpal, K. (2013). Modular method of teaching. International Journal for Research in Ed-ucation. Vol. 2,(2), Feb. 2013 (IJRE) ISSN: 2320-091X. https://raijmronlineresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/29_169-171-dr-kandarp-sejpal.pdf.
  49. Syaifuddin, M. (2020). Implementation of au-thentic assessment on mathematics teaching: Study on junior high school teachers. European Journal of Education-al Research, 9(4), 1491-1502. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.4.149  https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Implementation+of+authentic+assessment+on+mathematics+teaching%3a+Study+on+junior+high+school+teachers&ft=on&id=EJ1272387.
  50. Tortor, E. (2016). Aspects of the written Eng-lish of University of Ghana students. Unpublished Masters Dissertation.
  51. Quine, W. V. (1992). Pursuit of truth (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rogers, R. R. (2001). Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. In-novative Higher Education, 26(1), 37-57.
  52. Richards, J. & Renandya, W. (2014). Methodol-ogy in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universi-ty Press.
  54. Rowan, B. & Correnti, R. (2009). Studying reading instruction with teacher logs: Lessons from the Study of Instructional Improvement. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 120-131. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/120.
  55. Thayer, H. S. (1968). Meaning and action: A critical history of pragmatism. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
  56. Troia, G.A. (2013). Effective writing instruction across the grades: What every education-al consultant should know. Journal of Ed-ucational and Psychological Consultation, 14 (1), 75-89.
  57. Tuscano, J. (2017). Design for authenticity: Au-thentic assessments in online distance learning. Retrieved from: https://francisjimtuscano.com/2020/04/19/design-for-authenticityauthenticassessmen-tsinonlinedistancelearn-ing/#:~:text=In%20an%20authentic%20assessment%2C%20teachers,improve%20their%20performances%20and%20products.
  58. Valencia, M. R. (2020, April). Modular ap-proach in teaching science 10. Interna-tional Journal of Trend in Scientific Re-search and Development (IJTSRD). https://www.ijtsrd.com/other-scientific-research-area/other/30318/modularapproach-in-teaching-science-10/marsha-r-valencia.
  59. World Education. (2013). Drivers of persis-tence: Competence. World Education. https://edtechbooks.org/-QFC.
  60. Zaim, M., Refnaldi, & Arsyad, S. (2020). Au-thentic assessment for speaking skills: Problem and solution for english sec-ondary school teachers in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 587-604 https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1259521.
  61. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Jitomirski, J., Happ, R., Molerov, D., Schlax, J., Ku¨hling-Thees, C., Forster, M., & Bruckner, S. (2019). Validating a test for measuring knowledge and understanding of economics among university students. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychological , 33(2), 119–133. tselfassessment/#:~:text=Student%20self %2Dassessment%20occurs%20when,for%20their%20own%20learning%20proce ss. 

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic