Đổi mới kiểm tra đánh giá: Từ thực tế của các lớp bồi dưỡng tiếng Anh cho giáo viên tiểu học
Main Article Content
Abstract
Kiểm tra đánh giá có thể coi là một công cụ chính sách hữu hiệu nhất trong giáo dục. Khá nhiều nghiên cứu đã chỉ ra rằng kiểm tra đánh giá có những ảnh hưởng trực tiếp tới chương trình giảng dạy, chi phối hoạt động và phương pháp giảng dạy của người thầy và định hướng cách học của trò. BCH Trung ương Đảng khóa XI cũng coi đổi mới kiểm tra đánh giá là khâu đột phá trong quá trình đổi mới giáo dục ở Việt Nam, nhằm khắc phục dần văn hóa thi cử nặng nề, tốn kém và lạc hậu ở nước ta. Tuy nhiên, với việc duy trì các chuẩn đầu ra khá cao ở hầu hết các cấp học của hệ thống giáo dục nước nhà hiện nay, văn hóa thi cử, thói quen “học để thi”, tuy bị chỉ trích nhiều, vẫn khó có điều kiện thay đổi. Bài viết này muốn minh chứng cho nhận định trên thông qua việc đề cập tới vấn đề thi cử trong các khóa bồi dưỡng cho giáo viên tiểu học thuộc phạm vi Đề án Ngoại ngữ Quốc gia 2020.
Từ khóa: Kiểm tra đánh giá, tiếng Anh, giáo viên tiểu học, bồi dưỡng, đổi mới.
---------
Assessment Innovation: The Perspectives of Primary English Teachers Attending Training Courses under the 2020 National Foreign Language Project
Abstract: Assessment is one of the most powerful policy tools in education. Research has indicated that assessment has a direct impact on teaching curriculum, on the teacher’s teaching practice and student’s learning style. The 11thParty Central Committee has stipulated the resolution considering assessment as a breakthrough solution in the educational reform process in Vietnam. The aim is to help the educational system to gradually move away from the deep-rooted examination culture. Nonetheless, with high stakes testing remaining alive in almost every grade of the schooling, examination culture, the habit of learning for the exam, will be arguably rife despite all the criticism and efforts to change. This paper aims to illustrate the above tendency by discussing the issue of assessment implemented in the professional development courses designed for primary school English teachers in Vietnam under the 2020 National Foreign Language Project.Keywords: Assessment, English, primary school teacher, professional development, innovation.
Article Details
References
[1] MOET. Hỏi đáp về một số nội dung đổi mới căn bản toàn diện Giáo dục và Đào tạo. 2014 [cited 2014 26th June]; Available from: http://www.moet.gov.vn/?page=1.10&view=5570&opt=brpage.
[2] Broadfoot, P., Educational assessment: the myth of measurement. Contemporary issues in teaching and learning, 1996. 1: p. 203.
[3] Ewing, R.A., Curriculum and assessment: A narrative approach. 2013, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
[4] Hilton, M., Measuring standards in primary English: issues of validity and accountability with respect to PIRLS and National Curriculum test scores. British Educational Research Journal, 2006. 32(6): p. 817-837.
[5] Klenowski, V., Assessment for learning in the accountability era: Queensland, Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2011. 37(1): p. 78-83.
[6] Madaus, G.F., M.K. Russell, and J. Higgins, The paradoxes of high stakes testing: How they affect students, their parents, teachers, principals, schools, and society. 2009, Charlotte: IAP.
[7] Peters, S. and L.A. Oliver, Achieving quality and equity through inclusive education in an era of high-stakes testing. Prospects, 2009. 39(3): p. 265-279.
[8] Phelps, R.P., Characteristics of an Effective Student Testing System. educational HORIZONS, 2006. 85(1): p. 19-29.
[9] Wiliam, D., Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 2010. 45(2): p. 107-122.
[10] Birman, B.F., et al., Designing professional development that works. Educational leadership, 2000. 57(8): p. 28-33.
[11] Polesel, J., N. Dulfer, and M. Turnbull, The Experience of Education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families. Literature Review prepared for the Whitlam Institute, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, and the Foundation for Young Australians. Available online at: http://www. whitlam. org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/276191/High_Stakes_Testing_Literature_Review. pdf (accessed 20 september 2012), 2012.
[12] Jones, G.M., B.D. Jones, and T. Hargrove, The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. 2003: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
[13] Berry, R., Assessment reforms around the world, in Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and practice, R. Berry and B. Adamson, Editors. 2011, Springer. p. 89-102.
[14] Berry, R., Educational assessment in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, in Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and practice, R. Berry and B. Adamson, Editors. 2011, Springer. p. 49-61.
[15] Chang, X., A comparison between the outlines and the teaching guidelines. 2002, Sichuan: Chengdu Oriental Bilingual School.
[16] (CDC), C.D.C., Senior secondary curriculum guide (Secondary 4-6). 2009, Hong Kong.
[17] Tan, S. and S. Conway, Singapore’s educational reforms: The case for un-standardizing curriculum and reducing testing. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 2010. 6(4): p. 50-58.
[18] Wu, W.D., An analysis of Taiwan educational reforms, in The first Hong Kong Principal's conference 2004. 2004: Hong Kong.
[19] Kitamura, K., Policy issue in Japanese higher education. Higher Education, 1997. 34(2): p. 141-150.
[20] Tan, K., Assessment for Learning Reform in Singapore–Quality, Sustainable or Threshold?, in Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and practice, R. Berry and B. Adamson, Editors. 2011, Springer. p. 75-87.
[21] Wang, H., Reflection on classroom assessment. Journal of Agricultural University of Hebei, 2008. 10(2): p. 142-145.
[22] Li, K., Teaching evaluation. 2006, Taipei: Psychological Publishing Company.
[23] Qiu, S., The research of multiple entrance program. Ming Chan Education Electronic Journal, 2009. 1: p. 83-93.
[24] Kushimoto, T., Outcomes assessment and its role in self-reviews of undergraduate education: in the context of Japanese higher education reforms since the 1990s. Higher Education, 2010. 59(5): p. 589-598.
[2] Broadfoot, P., Educational assessment: the myth of measurement. Contemporary issues in teaching and learning, 1996. 1: p. 203.
[3] Ewing, R.A., Curriculum and assessment: A narrative approach. 2013, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
[4] Hilton, M., Measuring standards in primary English: issues of validity and accountability with respect to PIRLS and National Curriculum test scores. British Educational Research Journal, 2006. 32(6): p. 817-837.
[5] Klenowski, V., Assessment for learning in the accountability era: Queensland, Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 2011. 37(1): p. 78-83.
[6] Madaus, G.F., M.K. Russell, and J. Higgins, The paradoxes of high stakes testing: How they affect students, their parents, teachers, principals, schools, and society. 2009, Charlotte: IAP.
[7] Peters, S. and L.A. Oliver, Achieving quality and equity through inclusive education in an era of high-stakes testing. Prospects, 2009. 39(3): p. 265-279.
[8] Phelps, R.P., Characteristics of an Effective Student Testing System. educational HORIZONS, 2006. 85(1): p. 19-29.
[9] Wiliam, D., Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational Psychologist, 2010. 45(2): p. 107-122.
[10] Birman, B.F., et al., Designing professional development that works. Educational leadership, 2000. 57(8): p. 28-33.
[11] Polesel, J., N. Dulfer, and M. Turnbull, The Experience of Education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families. Literature Review prepared for the Whitlam Institute, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, and the Foundation for Young Australians. Available online at: http://www. whitlam. org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/276191/High_Stakes_Testing_Literature_Review. pdf (accessed 20 september 2012), 2012.
[12] Jones, G.M., B.D. Jones, and T. Hargrove, The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. 2003: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
[13] Berry, R., Assessment reforms around the world, in Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and practice, R. Berry and B. Adamson, Editors. 2011, Springer. p. 89-102.
[14] Berry, R., Educational assessment in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, in Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and practice, R. Berry and B. Adamson, Editors. 2011, Springer. p. 49-61.
[15] Chang, X., A comparison between the outlines and the teaching guidelines. 2002, Sichuan: Chengdu Oriental Bilingual School.
[16] (CDC), C.D.C., Senior secondary curriculum guide (Secondary 4-6). 2009, Hong Kong.
[17] Tan, S. and S. Conway, Singapore’s educational reforms: The case for un-standardizing curriculum and reducing testing. AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 2010. 6(4): p. 50-58.
[18] Wu, W.D., An analysis of Taiwan educational reforms, in The first Hong Kong Principal's conference 2004. 2004: Hong Kong.
[19] Kitamura, K., Policy issue in Japanese higher education. Higher Education, 1997. 34(2): p. 141-150.
[20] Tan, K., Assessment for Learning Reform in Singapore–Quality, Sustainable or Threshold?, in Assessment Reform in Education: Policy and practice, R. Berry and B. Adamson, Editors. 2011, Springer. p. 75-87.
[21] Wang, H., Reflection on classroom assessment. Journal of Agricultural University of Hebei, 2008. 10(2): p. 142-145.
[22] Li, K., Teaching evaluation. 2006, Taipei: Psychological Publishing Company.
[23] Qiu, S., The research of multiple entrance program. Ming Chan Education Electronic Journal, 2009. 1: p. 83-93.
[24] Kushimoto, T., Outcomes assessment and its role in self-reviews of undergraduate education: in the context of Japanese higher education reforms since the 1990s. Higher Education, 2010. 59(5): p. 589-598.