Quality, validity important in exam<\/p>\n
Simon Marcus Gower, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The national tests for schools in Indonesia seem to be a
\nperennial source of concern and even conflict. Debate swings
\nbetween the ideas that the government here wants to enter into a
\nprocess of recentralization, and the rights of teachers and
\nschools to exercise greater autonomy in assessing their students'
\nefforts. All of this leaves an unhappy predicament with students
\nstranded in the middle.<\/p>\n
The grim reality, most likely, is that students and the
\neducation system of Indonesia are not being best served if there
\nis effectively a power struggle going on for control. Also, it
\nsimply must be realized that quality is not a product of the
\nprocess of 'standardization'. Standardization without sufficient
\nand appropriate reference to standards ends up being fairly
\nworthless and is, effectively, a vicious circle of no progress.<\/p>\n
The apparent process or claim towards standardization is
\npartly predicated on the notion that across Indonesia schools
\nought to be achieving some degree of parity of educational
\noutcomes and achievement but this whole argument is almost
\ninevitably rendered fallacious with even the merest and most
\nbasic of assessments of what is actually happening across
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
For example, the idea of having a degree of standardization
\nfor the learning of the English language can hardly stand up to
\nscrutiny of the range and diversity of learning experiences that
\nIndonesian students can have. A student in a high school in
\nJakarta can conceivably benefit from exposure to native speaker
\nteachers of the language and access to quite a range of
\nliterature and media in the English language.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, it is possible to meet students in more
\ndistant provinces of the nation that actually complain that they
\ncan rarely have direct contact with native speakers and the
\nliterature or paper-based material available to them is far more
\nlimited. For these students any exposure to native speakers can
\noften be limited to chance meetings with tourists visiting their
\npart of the country.<\/p>\n
Inevitably this immediately and directly creates something of
\nan 'unfair advantage' for those students that benefit from big
\ncity residence. Indeed students in high schools in Jakarta can be
\nmet who have a sufficient degree of English language competence
\nto allow them to offer critiques of the quality of English that
\nthey are required to respond to in 'standardized' tests.<\/p>\n
A lack of parity does, then, immediately challenge or even
\nundermine any notion of standardization leading to improving
\nquality and standards. But it is also of value to consider what
\nkinds of tests are actually being prepared for and so implemented
\nin Indonesian schools. Consistently the tests which students are
\nbeing prepared for are multiple-choice in nature and this too can
\nleave the whole process looking weak.<\/p>\n
Multiple-choice testing can be convenient and time saving for
\nteachers and examiners but does it really determine the academic
\nstrengths and\/ or weaknesses of the students? Such testing cannot
\npossibly create opportunities for students to demonstrate their
\nunderstanding. Multiple-choice questioning does create a
\ncondition in which the answer is actually before the students and
\nthey simply must find it.<\/p>\n
Far more challenging and even enriching testing can and does
\nexist in which the students are required to show and\/ or
\ndemonstrate their own thinking and understanding of the subjects
\nbefore them. With this kind of testing in place a better standard
\nof teaching is also likely to emerge because teachers have to
\nencourage and guide their students towards thinking skills.<\/p>\n
Originality and independence of thought are then being
\ntargeted and this kind of objective is far more valid and
\nlegitimate in the pursuit of standards. Standards cannot really
\neffectively be imposed, rather they need to be nurtured and
\nsupported in a way that encourages the students to take
\ninitiative and responsibility into their own hands. This should
\nbe at the core of what the education system is aiming to do.<\/p>\n
This simultaneously highlights the essential ingredient of
\nhaving educational objectives that are valid and worthwhile for
\neducation professionals too. The practically blind and
\ndictatorial imposition of standardized tests does little to
\nencourage the development of teachers; they are simply required
\nto follow what is handed down to them and any degree of autonomy
\nand freedom to develop is either totally precluded or, at best,
\nsignificantly marginalized.<\/p>\n
Certainly the setting of standards and identifying criteria
\nfor graduation of students is appropriate but these things need
\nto be part of a larger and more detailed educational package. For
\nany education system to target and hopefully attain targets it
\nmust work within the context of the community in which it is
\napplied and significantly this must reference the local context
\nin which it is active.<\/p>\n
But any system of education, if it is to attain sophistication
\nand quality, has to work to an agenda of not merely preparing
\nstudents to robotically pass tests. A good system of education is
\npreparing students to be participants in the wider world of both
\ntheir society and their future careers.<\/p>\n
In this sense, then, the debates, the doubts and the perennial
\nquestions that exist about national tests really should be placed
\nin the context of more thoughtful considerations of what schools
\nin Indonesia really ought to be achieving. Mundane, uninspired
\nand uninspiring tests that impose requirements of conformity and
\noffer little scope to show true understanding have to be
\nconsidered as questionable in their value and indeed validity.<\/p>\n
It is far more constructive for educators to think about the
\nthings that they would wish for students to be able to achieve
\nand do having attended so many years of formal education and
\nlearning. Rote memorization and quite naively following the
\nknowledge handed down from either centralized examiners or
\nteachers seems unlikely to achieve the kinds of graduates that
\nare desirable.<\/p>\n
Educators and examiners ought to be seeking to encourage
\nstudents that have the capacity to enquire, show initiative, be
\ninventive, problem-solve, make predictions and proposals based on
\ntheir thinking and be critical and active thinkers. These kinds
\nof learning objectives and outcomes can be engendered by
\nappropriate vehicles for testing; but testing alone cannot create
\nstandards. The teaching that leads into testing is where real
\nstandards are achieved and therefore any \"struggle\" or
\n\"development\" in testing must closely relate to what and how
\nstudents are taught and learn; then true standards may emerge.<\/p>\n
The writer is an education consultant.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/quality-validity-important-in-exam-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }