Authors : Glenn R. Gravador

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 11 - November

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4as2mwxu

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/rcyfu5vv

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14353321

Abstract : The primary goal of this study is to explore performance-based assessment in distance learning of Technology and Livelihood Education. The study employed a phenomenological research design which aims to determine the experiences and perceptions of the seven (7) teacher participants. Three themes emerged on the experiences of TLE teachers as they conduct performance-based assessment in distance learning. These are acquiring assessment knowledge and skills on distance learning, involving students in the making, and extending time for at-risks students. Meanwhile, three themes also emerged on the coping mechanisms of TLE teachers to the challenges in conducting performance- based assessment in distance learning, three themes also emerged. The themes are adjusting to students’ socioeconomic status, employing different methods in monitoring the quality of students’ work, and scheduling time for assessment design and feedback. Furthermore, three themes were also noted in the education management insights drawn from the experiences of teachers. These are lifelong learning and being open to change, escalating students’ engagement and being sensitive and responsive. The results implied that TLE teachers conduct performance-based assessments in a student-centered approach. Varied methodologies were applied by them to reach out both online and offline students. The results generated provided comprehensive data in conducting future research with similar or relevant scope.

Keywords : Performance-Based Assessment, Technology and Livelihood Education, Experiences, Challenges, Insights, Davao City.

References :

1. Abedi (2010). Performance assessments for English language teachers. Stanford, CA: Standford University, Standford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
2. Abrami et al. (2011). Consideration for teaching and assessing young learners learning English as a foreign language. Retrieved December 28, 2009 from http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-4/young.htm.
3. Adamson (2010). Implementing performance assessment in the classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 6 (2). Retrieved July 19, 2013 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=2.
4. Airasian (1994). The relationship between communication skills of geography teachers and students’ level of motivation towards geography lesson. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 4 (5
5. Arda (2020). The structure of academic achievement and the concept of basic academic ability [Gakuryoku mondai no kozu to kiso gakuryoku no gainen], in basic academic ability matters: Perspectives for 21st century Japanese education [Kiso gakuryoku wo tou: 21 Seiki Nippon no kyouiku heno tenbo]. Tokyo: Center for Excellence in School Education, the University of Tokyo.
6. Aschbacher, P.R (1991). Performance assessment: State activity, interest, and concems. Applied Measurement in Education, 4 (4), 275-288.
7. Ashraf (2020). Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 19 (3), 19-23.
8. Aslam (2014). The role of teachers in teacher assessment in England 1996-1998. Evaluation and Research in Education 14, 38-52.
9. Bachman & Palmer (1996). Creating a Warm and Inclusive Classroom Environment: Planning for All Children to Feel Welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 4 [2009], Art. 4
10. Baker, N. W. (1993). The effect of portfolio-based instruction on composition students’ final examination scores, course grades, and attitudes toward writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(2), 155-174.
11. Banna et al. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education. U.S.A.: McGraw Hill
12. Bellon et al. (1991). Authentic assessment as an integration of learning, teaching, evaluation and the teacher’s professional growth. In A. Huhta, V. Cohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio and S. Luoma (Eds.), Current developments and alternatives in language assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 1996 (pp. 7-22). University of Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskyla
13. Billmord (1998). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
14. Blanca (2014). Assessing young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Borrich (2005). Creating a Warm and Inclusive Classroom Environment: Planning for All Children to Feel Welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 4 [2009], Art. 4
16. Boyle (1993). Assessment in early years learning contexts. Language Testing 17, 115–22
17. Brewer & Kallick (2000). The challenges of assessing children appropriately. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/pss/20405297
18. Brich (2020). Cultural perspectives on classroom assessment: A path toward the “Japanese Assessment for Learning Network”. Annual Bulletin, Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University, 1(1), 41−62.
19. Brooks, L.A (1999). Adult ESL Student Attitudes towards Performance-based Assessment. Dissertation. Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/14654
20. Brown (1978). Meta-analysis of gender differences in test scores vs. grades using HLM. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Council of Educational Measurement.
21. Chun (2010). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15–21. doi:10.3102/0013189X020008015
22. Chu, Man-Wai & Babenko, Oksana & Cui, Ying & Leighton, Jacqueline. (2014). Using HLM to Explore the Effects of Perceptions of Learning Environments and Assessments on Students’ Test Performance. International Journal of Testing. 14. 10.1080/15305058.2013.841702.
23. Cizek (1991). Examining increased flexibility in assessment formats. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/6529/ 1/Irwin%20Flexible_assessment_ formats_FINAL.pdf
24. Collins (1982). Assessing and testing learners: Can we? Should we? In entry points: Papers from a symposium of the research, testing, and young learners special interest groups, ed. D. Allen. Kent, England: IATEFL.
25. Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2001). Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. Internet and Higher Education, 3, 41-61. Has e-learning truly arrived in Europe. Learning Zone. Retrieved from http://e- learningzone.co.uk/feature3.html.
26. Dalton, Morocco, Tivnan, & Rawson (1997). Creating a Warm and Inclusive Classroom Environment: Planning for All Children to Feel Welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 4 [2009], Art. 4
27. Darling-Hammond (2000). Performance-based assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(1), 5–8. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1994.tb00778.x
28. Dillon (2020). Life beyond language testing: An Introduction to Alternative language assessment. Centre for research in language education. CRILE Working Paper, No 58. Available at: http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile58tsagari.pdf.
29. Dixson (2010). A teacher's guide to performance-based learning and assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
30. Dougherty & Schantz (2020). How to design and evaluate research in education. U.S.A.: McGraw Hill.
31. EDU (2018). Testing as a catalyst for progress and development. The International TEYL Journal. Retrieved from http://www.teyl.org/article7.html.
32. Finnochiaro and Sako (1983). The relationship between communication skills of geography teachers and students’ level of motivation towards geography lesson. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 4 (5
33. Fischer (2018). Implementing performance assessment in the classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 6 (2). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=2.
34. Fitzpatrick, R., & Morrison, E.J. (1971). Performance and product evaluation. ln R-L. Thomdike (Ed.), Educational measurement. (2nd ed., pp. 237-270). American Council on Education, Washington, D.C.
35. Frechtling, J.A. ( 1991). Performance assessment: Moonstnick or the real thing? Educational Measurernent: Issues and Practice, 10 (4), 23-25.
36. Fredericksen & Collins, 1989. Creating a Warm and Inclusive Classroom Environment: Planning for All Children to Feel Welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 4 [2009], Art. 4
37. Freed, 2000. Creating a Warm and Inclusive Classroom Environment: Planning for All Children to Feel Welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 4 [2009], Art. 4
38. Galuszka (2007). Consideration for teaching and assessing young learners learning English as a foreign language. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-4/young.htm.
39. Gama and Fernández (2009). Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority students. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 14 (9)
40. Gipps, C.V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: The Falmer Press.
41. Goldfinch and Raeside (1990). Creating a Warm and Inclusive Classroom Environment: Planning for All Children to Feel Welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, Vol. 2, No. 4 [2009], Art. 4
42. Haertel, E. (1992). Performance measurement. In The Encyclopedia of educational research. (Vol. 3, pp. 984-989). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
43. Hancock, D. (2003). Performance and portfolio assessment for language minority students. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 14 (9
44. Hankov (2018). Staying connected: Exploring new functions for assessment. Contemporary Education, 62(4), 307-312.
45. Hanover Research (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
46. Hayat (2020). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception of experienced instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 12(3-4), 152- 155. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.08.002
47. Herrick (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Inc.
48. Irabagiza, J. (2007). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment. New Directions For Teaching And Learning, 74, 5-16. doi: 10.1002/tl.7401
49. Huba (2000). Knowledge representation, content specification, and the development of skill in situation-specific knowledge assembly. Educational Technology, 31(9), 22–25
50. Jones (1985). Assessment for excellence. New York: American Council on Education. Macmillan Publishing Company.
51. Jorgensen (1993). Five key ingredients for improving student motivation. Reseacrh in Higher Education Journal. Retrieved from http://www.aabri. com/manuscripts/11834.pdf
52. Juillerat (1995). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 463-479. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005
53. Jules (2003). CRESST performance assessment models: assessing content area explanations. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
54. Jun (2018). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
55. Kane, Khattri, Reeve, and Adamson (1997). Do and understand: The effectiveness of experiential education. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 5(3), 74–89.
56. Kember (1993). The effect of web-based portfolio assessment strategies on the attitudes and self-perceived growth in music learning of non-music elementary general classroom educators in a basics of music course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ball State University.
57. Khattri, Reeve, & Kane (1998). Performance-based assessment and educational equity. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 5–31. doi:10.17763/haer.64.1.j57n353226536276
58. Kolb, David (1984). Studies of Education Reform: Assesment of Student Performance.” Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
59. Linn & Baker (1996). Cornplex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20 (8), 15-21.
60. Linn & Gronlund (1995). Performance testing. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds,), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 7. iunguage testing and assessment (pp. 1 3 1 - 139)- Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kiuwer Acadernic Publishers.
61. Logan (1996). A teacher’s guide to performance-based learning and assessment. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books /196021/chapters/What_is_Performance Based_ Learning_and_Assessment,_and_Why_is_it_Important%C2%A2.aspx
62. Madaus (1994). Performance-based learning and assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2020, from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/performance-based-learning-and-assessment
63. Madison (2016). Teacher development and use of performance assessment strategies and the impact on instruction in mathematics. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, School of Education, Stanford, CA.
64. Magone & Glaser (2002). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 1 3-23.
65. Marzano, (1994). The effects of outcomes-driven authentic assessment on classroom quality. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 9(2). Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA178716829&v=2.1&u=ccpshigh&it=r &p=GPS&sw=w