TITLE: UJIAN AKHIR SESI AKADEMIK (UASA) The End Of Academic Session Test:

Perspectives Of ESL Teachers in Malaysian Primary Schools

Catherine Franchis
P118621@siswa.ukm.edu.my
Faculty of Education
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Maslawati Mohamad
Faculty of Education

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Many countries worldwide are adopting assessment frameworks that promote assessment for learning in their
education systems. Malaysia has also made changes to its educational assessment, including introducing the End Of
Academic Session Test well known as “Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik (UASA)” to enhance School-based Assessments
(SBA). The UASA English exam format has changed significantly, causing confusion and chaos among primary
school teachers. Implementing these changes has resulted in mixed opinions, particularly regarding the English paper.
Therefore, this study will examine how English teachers in primary schools perceive the implementation of UASA
and identify how teachers’ teaching strategies in the classroom have changed. A qualitative multiple-case study
approach was used in this study. Twelve teachers were selected from three different types of schools, and semi-
structured interviews were conducted. The finding emphasizes that teachers view UASA English as both a summative
assessment tool for evaluating pupils' English proficiency and as a means of enhancing the current formative
assessment provided by school-based assessments (SBA).This study concluded that the majority of teachers welcomed
the introduction of UASA English.

Keywords: Assessment; Examination; Education System; Classroom-Based Assessment; Formative;

summative

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Education policymaking is a constantly changing process that is affected by a range of factors, including
societal changes, technology advancements, economic trends, and political priorities. Different stakeholders at
different levels often have different goals for education policy (Berkovich & Berkovich, 2021). Currently, Malaysia
is transitioning from a traditional school examination system to a competency-based education system. The End Of
Academic Session Test (UASA), also known as Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik, was implemented by the Ministry of
Education Malaysia in 2022.

The UASA test was introduced to enhance the (SBA) School-based Assessment system, which focuses on
continuous and formative assessment (Kementerian Pendidikan Lembaga Peperiksaan /lp.moe.gov.my, 2022). The
UASA aims to evaluate year 4 to year 6 pupils' academic performance in various subjects by assessing their
knowledge, skills, and values. Teachers have different opinions about changes in education. Some are in favor of
changes that improve education and help pupils learn better, while others worry about how these changes will affect
their well-being, teaching methods, and their pupils' well-being. In the past, numerous studies were conducted on
public examinations in Malaysia, with a major emphasis on the UPSR (Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah) examination
(Hughes 2007; Seman et al. 2017; Ibrahim et al. 2019; Anthony and Yamat, 2020); and (SBA)School Based
Assessment (Nair et al.,2014; Wilson & A/l Narasuman 2020; Mansora et al.,2019; Arumugham 2020; Misran et
al.,2020; Joachim & Hashim 2021; Eli & Yamat 2021).

Presently, there are very limited studies regarding UASA in Malaysia since it is a new assessment in
Malaysia’s Education system. As a result, it is necessary to conduct qualitative research that thoroughly investigates
the implementation of UASA from the viewpoint of English Language teachers in primary schools, considering
various types of schools. The current education system in Malaysia has its origins in the pre-independence era with
various types of schools (Liu et al., 2013). In Malaysia, National Schools are government-funded schools that follow
the national curriculum set by the Ministry of Education, with Malay as the main language of instruction. On the other
hand, Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools teach Mandarin and Tamil respectively as the main language of
instruction (Selvadurai et al., 2015). These schools also incorporate the national curriculum but emphasize Chinese or
Tamil language, culture, and heritage.

This research aims to investigate the perceptions of Primary School English teachers who teach in national
schools, convent schools and Chinese schools towards English UASA and to identify how teachers’ teaching strategies
in the classroom have changed after the implementation of UASA. The findings of this study could help to inform
policy decisions around English language education in Primary schools and also could be used to inform the
development of more effective assessment tools that better align with the needs of Primary school pupils and
accurately measure their language proficiency.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Assessment In (ESL) Classroom

The Ministry of Education in Malaysia has highlighted the importance of English language learning and the
success of pupils in it starting from their primary school years in the Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 to
ensure its recognition. Having a strong command of English in a second language setting is extremely important
because it opens up doors for continuous learning and ensures the ability to receive a quality education.(Ramalingam
et al., 2022). Over the past few decades, several studies have been conducted on the significance of assessment in
teaching ESL (Singh et al., 2022; Wilson & A/l Narasuman, 2020; Aziz et al., 2020; Arumugham, 2019; F Mudin,
2019; Jamrus & Razali, 2019; McKay &Brindley 2007; Law & Eckes 2007; Cheng et al., 2004; Davison, 2004).
These studies have established a strong correlation between language assessment and language instruction. It has been
observed that pupils’ perception of their exam results has a significant impact on their motivation to utilize the target
language in real-life situations (Torrance, 2012). Classroom assessment continues to be a major element in the
assessment of pupils’ progress.

ESL teachers faced challenges and felt the need to find effective methods of evaluating pupils’ abilities in order to
help them achieve their maximum potential (Torres 2019) (Suah, Ong and Shuki 2009); (Gopal and Singh 2020).
However, studying the impact of assessment on both teachers and learners is crucial in making necessary
improvements to enhance language acquisition. However, research has shown that ESL teachers lack expertise in
alternative assessment methods (Halali et al. 2017). Although classroom assessment has been implemented since 2016
in Malaysia, not all teachers can effectively utilize and incorporate it into their teaching practices (Rosli et al. 2022).

The research conducted by Singh et al. (2022) suggests that incorporating alternative assessment methods, such as
self-assessment, peer assessment, and performance-based assessment in ESL classrooms, can be a valuable addition
to teachers' instructional approaches to promoting pupils learning. These additional assessment strategies can
effectively complement the variety of pedagogical techniques employed by teachers to enhance pupils’ educational
experiences.

2.2 Types Of Assessments

Assessment can be categorized into two types: formative and summative (Dunn & Mulvenon 2009). It is a process
that includes two commonly known evaluations called formative and summative assessments (Abduh, 2021).
Summative assessments are typically administered at the end of a teaching period to evaluate pupils' learning
outcomes. (Kibble, 2017). The summative assessment consists of various elements, including midterm exams, final
projects, papers, tests created by teachers, standardized tests, and high-stakes tests (States et al.2018). Its objective is
to present a summary of pupils' acquired knowledge for a course, usually administered after the semester (Brown,
2004). According to Searle et al (2018), summative assessment plays a vital role in education and has implications for
pupils' future opportunities. It is important to recognize that summative assessment evaluates past performance, but
unfortunately, it does not offer guidance for enhancing learners' future performance (Ahmed et al. 2019). Although
they are valuable in measuring a pupil's knowledge and progress thus far, they do not provide feedback on how to
improve future performance. According to (Lewy, 1990), there is no specific definition for formative assessment. It
occurs during the process of learning and its main goal is to support learning and teaching by giving relevant feedback.
Several studies (Kenyon et al., 1998; Rea-Dickins & Gardner 2000;) (Cheng et al., 2004) have shown that formative
assessment is a very effective method for improving both learning and teaching. As time has passed, various tools for
formative assessment have been created, such as journals, portfolios, surveys, oral interviews, and
presentations.Formative assessment is a highly effective method that is continuously carried out to support and
improve pupil learning. It entails giving timely feedback to both pupils and teachers throughout the learning process.
Teachers utilize formative assessments to evaluate pupils' comprehension, pinpoint areas for improvement, and
modify instructional approaches accordingly.

Educational institutions worldwide are implementing standardized testing for young learners(Mostafa, 2019). When
creating these tests, it is important to consider the cognitive development level of the pupils. (Garton & Copland,2019).
(Ellis et al., 2020) emphasize the need for appropriate tasks for young learners. In essence, formative assessment and
summative assessment have different purposes in the education system. Tsagari et al. (2018) explain that teachers
assess learners to achieve two main goals in their classes. The objective of formative is to improve learning by
monitoring pupils' progress. This helps teachers identify when pupils need extra help or more challenging tasks. The
summative objective is to assess how well pupils have mastered the course material and report this information to
parents, school administrators, or educational authorities. This involves giving grades or scores.

2.3 Public Examinations

2.3 Schooling and Assessments in Malaysia

The British implemented an educational policy in Malaysia that can be described as laissez-faire or divide-and-rule.
During colonial times, there were four types of schools: English schools, where English was the main language of
instruction, and three types of vernacular schools - Malay, Chinese, and Indian. Christian missionary groups also
established English schools in major towns, in addition to government schools (Loo 2007). In preparation for
independence in 1957, the government swiftly created Malaysia's first educational policy, known as the Razak
Report(Uslim et al., 2022). This report aimed to establish a national education system. There were two major
differences between the education ordinances of 1952 and 1957 (Uslim et al., 2022). Under the former, Chinese and
Tamil vernacular primary schools were separate from the national education system, but under the latter, they were
integrated as national-type primary schools (Naidu & Rajanthiran, 2021). The status of English also changed, going
from equal to Malay in 1952 to being taught as a second language in 1957.
The Rahman Talib Report and the Education Act of 1961 made some progress in implementing Malay as the main
medium of instruction. The Education Act of 1961 set a timetable to phase out English-medium schools and convert
government-aided Chinese-medium secondary schools to Malay-medium schools. However, Chinese and Tamil were
still used as mediums of instruction in their respective national-type primary schools. Currently, the Ministry of
Education oversees education. The primary education system in Malaysia is divided into national schools (SK) and
vernacular or national-type schools (SJK) (Salleh & Woollard, 2019). The language of instruction in national schools,
including ex-missionary schools, such as Convent schools, is Malay. Vernacular schools use Mandarin and Tamil as
their mediums of instruction.

Assessments in Malaysia are crucial for students' progression. Until the mid-nineties, the assessments in national
schools were managed by two central organizations, the Malaysian Examinations Syndicate and the Malaysian
Examinations Council (Baksh 2016). These organizations ensured the consistency and uniformity of national exams
across schools in Malaysia. The UPSR is an important exam taken by Year 6 pupils at the end of primary school,
evaluating their proficiency in various subjects. The Malaysian Examination Board conducts this standardized test
annually to assess pupils' academic skills and preparedness for high school.

Followed by the School-Based Assessment (SBA) syllabus and curriculum were altered to fit according to CEFR
descriptors along with (UPSR). A study by (Sidhu et al., 2018) analyzed how CEFR-aligned school-based assessments
were used in primary ESL classrooms in Malaysia. The study focused on teachers' opinions of the assessments and
the challenges they faced in implementing them. Later, the Primary School Achievement Test (UPSR), which used to
be an important performance indicator, was abolished (Jun 2021). As a result, the School-Based Assessment (SBA)
has become the main method of evaluating pupils' learning progress after six years of primary education. In 2022, the
government introduced the Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik (UASA) to replace the UPSR (Ministry of Education 2022).
The UASA was recently conducted in 2023 for pupils in Year 4 to 6.

2.4 Transformational Learning Theory

This study utilizes the theoretical framework of transformation theory to improve understanding of how Primary
School English teachers perceive English UASA when there is a transformation in the assessment system.
Transformative learning encompasses the exploration of one's own emotions, beliefs, assumptions, and purpose, to
expand one's consciousness (Mezirow 1994). According to this theory, individuals participate in this process to
become more self-motivated, rational, collaborative, and empathetic. In the late 1900s, Jack Mezirow developed
transformative learning theory, which elucidates the process by which individuals can examine their beliefs and
experiences, leading to a positive shift in their perspective. Mezirow's curiosity revolved around understanding how
individuals perceive the world and what influences prompt them to change their outlook. Grounded in critical self-
reflection, his theory offers a means for individuals to overcome maladaptive thought patterns (Christie et al., 2015).

According to Mezirow, transformative learning happens when individuals encounter a situation that challenges their
existing beliefs and worldview (Howie and Bagnall 2013). Perspective transformation is a process of learning that
starts with a confusing situation and ends with a new understanding of oneself that allows for reintegration into one's
life context based on a new perspective. This process is not a set of fixed steps, but rather a series of moments where
the meaning becomes clearer (Mezirow 1991, p. 193).
3.0 METHODS

This study used a qualitative multiple-case study approach and purposive sampling. Qualitative research is
a valuable approach to understanding how people understand and give meaning to social or human issues. In a multiple
case study, the researcher coordinates data from several different sources. The use of case study research is beneficial
in comprehending multifaceted issues as it enables a thorough and comprehensive analysis(Stake,1995). The purpose
of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of the integration of UASA in primary schools. The research process
involves asking questions, collecting data in the participant's environment, analyzing specific instances looking for
patterns, and then interpreting the meaning of the data.

3.2 RESEARCH POPULATION AND SAMPLE OF THE STUDY

The study conducted interviews with teachers from three different types of schools in the Hulu Langat district
of Selangor, Malaysia. The selected schools were Sekolah Kebangsaan Kajang, Sekolah Kebangsaan Convent Kajang,
and Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina) Sungai Chua. These schools were chosen from the same district to make the
interviews easier. The selection of schools was based on two criteria. The first criterion considered the type of schools,
which in Malaysia include national schools, Chinese primary schools, and Tamil primary schools. National schools
are open to all races, while Convent schools were established by Catholic religious orders and are known for their
academic achievements, particularly in English. The second criterion was based on the academic performance of
pupils in English UASA test papers. Figure 3.1 displays the recent UASA English academic achievements of the
pupils, with the schools being labeled as A, B, and C.

Figure 3.1

A total of 12 participants volunteered for interviews, with the majority being female teachers and only 3 male
teachers. Out of twelve participants, there were two heads of the English Department from their respective schools,
as well as one teacher who directly handled the UASA examination at the school level (exam coordinator).

3.3 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS AND DATA COLLECTION METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data for this study. Interviews are a common and important
way of gathering qualitative data, where individuals are asked to share their thoughts, emotions, and perspectives on
various topics (Kvale 1996). This approach was chosen because it gives participants ample time to express their views
and enables the researcher to ask additional questions and explore specific areas in more depth. The interview method
was selected as the primary data-gathering technique because it allows participants to provide detailed and nuanced
responses, facilitates clarification through follow-up questions, can be tailored to suit the study's requirements, and
enables a thorough investigation of the issue.
 The teachers who were interviewed had previously indicated their willingness to participate in a survey. To
ensure consistency among the interviewers from the three schools involved in the study, a semi-structured interview
guide was implemented, as suggested by Patton (2002). The interview questions were modified and incorporated from
the study conducted by Cheng and Wang (2007). There is a sequence of questions known as the funnel, which involves
moving from general and non-specific to more specific questions used in this interview.

The second instrument used was document analysis. The term "documents" in this specific situation includes
a wide range of written materials, as well as physical and visual objects. Document analysis involves an iterative
process of superficial examination (skimming), thorough examination (reading), and interpretation (Mackieson et al.,
2019). The research methodology employed document analysis which involved scrutinizing policy statements, school
documents, school textbooks, workbooks, worksheets used in the classroom, newspaper clippings, websites, and a
telegram group for teachers.

In this study, the third instrument which is field notes was taken to record participants’ verbal feedback. In
the field of qualitative research, scratch notes or field notes have been used since the early 1900s, starting in
ethnographic anthropology (Emerson et al. 2011). Originally, field notes consisted of researchers' thoughts, ideas, and
questions about their observations and interviews conducted during their research (Phillippi & Lauderdale, 2018).
The member check plays as one of the instruments in this study. After the transcription was completed, the
researcher utilized the process of Member Check. This involved sending the transcript and a summary of the interview
to the relevant teachers to ensure that the interpretations made by the researcher were agreed upon and validated.
Stakeholder and member checks are conducted to validate and review the data and findings, thereby ensuring
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Cohen et al., 2017).

3.4 Data Analysis Procedure

Qualitative data analysis involves examining detailed, specific, subjective data and interpretations provided by
participants, with the researcher serving as the main tool for conducting the research. (Khoa et al., 2023). In general,
the qualitative researcher will gather a substantial quantity of information from various sources such as conducting
interviews, making observations, and taking detailed field notes. The data analysis procedure for this research included
an inductive analysis of qualitative data. The process of qualitative data analysis is typically
inductive (Kyngäs, 2020).
The recorded interviews from twelve ESL teachers were recorded and transcribed using the inductive analysis
of qualitative data described by Kyngäs (2020). To analyze data inductively is to initiate the study with elements of
evidence and to create a whole from the parts. The purpose of the inductive analysis is to establish general statements
from meaningful patterns within the data. ough, comprehension of the gathered information. The raw data from the
interview transcripts were carefully examined and analyzed by reading and re-reading them, reflecting on their
meaning, making inferences, and interpreting the information. After conducting interviews and taking field notes,
nonverbal information was incorporated from the field notes into the transcript.

4.0 FINDINGS

In this section, the findings obtained from the data collected from the research instruments on the perception of English
teachers regarding the End-of-Academic session test (Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik) UASA implementation in primary
schools are discussed. The data is presented according to research questions.
4.1 Teachers’Perception of UASA English
The first research question (RQ1) examines teachers' perspectives on the introduction of UASA, their thoughts on the
government's reasons for implementing it, their views on the format and content of the English UASA test, the
difficulty level, and the use of the test results. Data from interviews (SSI), field notes (FN), and documents were
analyzed (DA) to answer RQ1. The documents analyzed include newspaper clippings, textbooks, and worksheets.
Twelve TESL teachers from three primary schools were interviewed, and their responses were categorized into three
themes. The first theme is English Teachers’ Perception of UASA as a Summative and Formative Assessment.
Followed by Perspectives on the Content of UASA English and finally Avoidance of an Exam-Focused Approach.

4.1.1 Perception as a Summative and Formative Assessment Tool

During the interview conducted with ESL teachers, it was found that some of them viewed UASA as an additional
assessment tool that could enhance School-Based Assessment(SBA). They believed that UASA serves as a summative
assessment tool to measure pupils' achievements or marks quantitatively. The grading for UASA is numbered as TP1-
TP6 where TP means pupils’ achievement (DA).

“It is a summative assessment under one of the SBA tools. I do assess my pupils in class during
my lesson under SBA but this helps me to see my pupil's marks in summative test” (P3)

“I see UASA functions to measure pupils' achievement quantitatively”.(P4)

“Not sure why the introduction of UASA but I don’t agree that UASA is to replace UPSR. I think it
is just another summative test. During my ‘pdpc’, I test my pupils' speaking, listening and reading
skills mainly as my SBA”. (P2)

4.1.1.1 As a Replacement of UPSR

Teachers believe that the introduction of UASA is meant to replace UPSR. They believed the government introduced
this because many teachers were concerned because there was no other exam to evaluate pupils' academic
performance. Many parents too were not happy as they worried about what would happen to their children now that
UPSR has been abolished and they demanded a form of assessment.

“I think the main reason is the gap left by the abolishment of UPSR. Although the School-Based
Assessment (SBA) was introduced, the parents and teachers demand a form of assessment that is
more 'tangible' and objective at the end of the schooling terms.” (P9,INT)

“I know UASA is not a centralized exam but I think the UASA is replacing UPSR and functions as
a summative assessment. (P1)

I personally think UASA is introduced to get year 6 pupils some kind of summative assessment to
replace UPSR. I can say that some parents are not happy because they think the UPSR test was
important and they wanted it to stay. (P7)

This document (Figure 4.1) provides evidence that 50% of parents surveyed by a local newspaper wanted to know
what would happen to their children's future after UPSR was abolished (The Star Online 2021). In response to this
concern, the government introduced UASA in 2022 as an improvement to the current SBA. Similar to the teachers in
the interview, parents also had concerns about whether there would be a replacement assessment for UPSR.

Figure 4.1 Newspaper clippings (DA)

4.1.1.2 As a Benchmark for Intervention

4 out of 12 participants believe that the outcomes achieved through the utilization of UASA are incredibly
advantageous when it comes to implementing necessary interventions. The results obtained from the UASA, as stated
by participants, will be utilized for focused intervention programs in the upcoming school academic session. The
participants perceived UASA as a measurement to check pupils' language proficiency.

“I use the results of UASA to help enhance my SBA. Sometimes it is difficult to assess every pupil during
SBA as most Malaysian classrooms have a large number of pupils in one classroom. So this makes me easy
to identify the weak or low proficiency pupils and give them some extra remedial activities”. (P11)

“The outcome as a benchmark to helps us see how well pupils are doing in a fair way. Just watching them
in classroom isn't enough. I think it depends on what the teacher thinks of their performance. Observing
alone is more from the teacher’s view only”(P9)

“For me, it is a type of measurement that can be used for next academic session to get knows the low-
proficiency pupils. At the same time, for teachers who going to teach the class for next academic session
can use the results for their intervention program”(P12)

4.1.2 Perspective on the Content of UASA English

Questions 4 and 5 in the Semi-Structured interview aimed to gather participants' opinions and perspectives on various
aspects of UASA English including its format, content, skills covered, and level of difficulty. Out of the 12 participants
in the interview, 8 discussed the content in terms of the skills tested in UASA English.

4.1.2.1 Format
4 out of 12 participants expressed their satisfaction with the format of the English UASA. They felt the paper is
appropriate and suitable which tests the pupil's comprehension, grammar and vocabulary. They don’t agree with the
writing sections which come in two parts. According to P2 and P1, the number of words in the writing part has limited
the skill of pupils writing ability. From the field notes, the researcher viewed the writing part tested in UASA as more
on communicative written genres such as email but in the current CEFR textbooks, there are other types of writing
genres such as diary writing, descriptive writing, biography writing, etc(FN).

“Comprehension is depends to the set we received, sometimes too easy. Grammar is suitable for
their level as what they have learnt. But when comes to writing parts seems number of words has
been reduced 30-50 for part 1 and 50-80 for part 2. Seems to limit the ability of pupils who can
write more. The question in writing part is mainly on communicative writing only. For example for
year 6 the pupils need to write an email in part 1 and again another email in part 2” P2(SSI)

“No narrative writing. Overall not appropriate their level to evaluate as it is not ‘menyeluruh” I
use the textbook to teach and it has narrative and other types of writing styles. But UASA not testing
on these. Only communicative writing. Other sections of the paper is ok. ”P1(SSI)

Document Analysis (DA) is used to triangulate the data to support the interview responses. Figure 4.3 is taken from
Get Smart Plus 4 which is CEFR books that are currently used in all primary schools in Malaysia. These CEFR books
introduce pupils to diverse writing styles such as narrative, biographical, descriptive, and communicative writing. This
evidence corroborates the participants' statements during the interview regarding the presence of various writing styles
in the textbooks, which are not assessed in UASA.
Figure 4.3 Writing tip.

Source: Get Smart Plus 4 Pupils’Textbook (pp.99)

4.1.2.3 Difficulty Level of UASA English

All participants from the interview expressed that UASA English is too easy, comparing it to the previous UPSR paper
which consisted of two separate exam papers: one for comprehension and vocabulary, and another for writing. They
also compared the length of words in each comprehension text in UASA, noting that the number of words has been
significantly reduced, making it easier for pupils to read and understand. Additionally, most participants found the
questions to be very straightforward, similar to the writing portion of UASA where the number of words has been
reduced from 80-100 to 30-50. Field notes indicate that each school receives different sets of questions from the
Ministry of Education, with some schools receiving easier sets compared to others.

“Too easy! My pupils can easily answer the paper. But sometimes it depends to the set the school is getting.”
(P10) (SSI)

“The paper was relatively easy as compared to our school's standard. The comprehension text is quite easy
and not lengthy” P9(SSI)

Easy compared to UPSR -easy to pass -doesn’t indicate the actual capability of the pupils (P1) (SSI)

“Comprehension part easy,grammar appropriate,writing too easy as very few words to write…easy to
achieve” (P8) (SSI)

Figure 4.6 Screenshot of Section C (UPSR 2017)

4.1.3 Avoidance of Exam-Focused Approach

There is a mixed reaction when it comes to preferences for English UASA and English UPSR. From the interview,
fifty percent of the participants favored English UASA because it is not focused on exams. They believed that this
reduces or eliminates stress for pupils, teachers, and parents since there are no grades to strive for. Additionally, P5
felt that it saves parents money as there is no need for additional classes or tuition. P3 and P5 believe that teachers
have more freedom in their teaching methods, particularly in listening and speaking activities.
 I prefer UASA compared previous assessment style. This is not exam-oriented. Less stress for pupils,
teachers and parents too. (P8) SSI

I think reduced tuition fees for extra classes as parents chase for excellent grades for their pupils. So, it
gives more autonomy for teachers to guide pupils in listening and speaking activities in class. I prefer UASA
as it is not exam oriented (P3) SSI

Enhance current SBA and to stop exam-oriented teaching and learning. Teachers have more space to teach
all the skills in English Language. The present assessment is appropriate since we are inculcating fun
learning and no longer exams (P5) SSI

Meanwhile, another 50% of participants preferred English UPSR because they believed that UASA does not assess
writing skills as compared to UPSR. They also think that UPSR exposed pupils to a real examination setting. By P10,
UASA is not deemed suitable for them, and they prefer the previous examination format. On the other hand, P9
believes that the quality and level of preparation for UPSR were superior to that of UASA.

“I prefer UPSR compared to UASA. Pupils need to expose on actual exam format. UPSR was very
detailed as there were 2 papers comprised Comprehension,vocabulary and grammar in 1 paper.
The other paper was purely to test writing skills. But UASA only introduced with 1 paper and it not
really testing the knwlogdge and the skills of pupils wholly”. (P1)

“I like UPSR. I think it is the right way to assess pupils” (P4)SSI

“Prefer UPSR because the level of UASA assessment doesn’t match the level of the
students”.(P10)SSI

“UPSR was better in term of the quality and preparation”.(P9)SSI

“UPSR covers more English learning skills to equip them for secondary SPM and for future
careers”. (P7)SSI

4.2 UASA Assessment Influences Teachers’ Teaching Approaches In ESL Classrooms

This section provides an in-depth analysis of the findings related to the second research question (RQ2). To effectively
address RQ2, the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews (SSI), document analysis (DA), and classroom
observations (CO) were thoroughly examined and interpreted. The findings derived from the interviews are further
categorized into two distinct themes, focusing on teaching materials and teaching methods respectively. By delving
into these themes, a comprehensive understanding of the research question can be achieved.

4.2.1 Teaching Materials

As stated by P2 and P11, they adapt their teaching materials to align with the UASA format. This means that they
make necessary adjustments and changes to their teaching materials to ensure they are compatible with the UASA
format. Furthermore, they also make use of existing English workbooks available in the market that are specifically
designed to meet the requirements of the UASA format. Moreover, P10 focuses less attention on the exam and instead
reproduces the teaching materials on her own to cater to Part 5 word completion.
 “I prefer giving more exercise on UASA format at the same time using worksheets and workbook
follow the format” P2

“I modify some teaching materials like worksheets to accommodate the UASA format and I use
some workbooks too” P11

“Focus less on exam and reproducing teaching material based on UASA format especially Part
5”P10

During the observation conducted in the ESL classroom, it was evident that the participants were utilizing
workbooks that adhered to the UASA format. In the classroom, the pupils were using two different books.
One book was dedicated to the SBA aspect, while the other book focused on the UASA approach, as
illustrated in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3

4.2.2 Teaching Method

3 of the participants have changed their teaching methods. The results from the previous UASA helped P9 to conduct
a self-evaluation of the teaching methods. This evaluation made her realize that she needs to teach them how to write
good sentences, as many of them struggle with sentence construction. Meanwhile, p7 is adjusting the learning content
and focusing on vocabulary. On the other hand, for P1, more emphasis is placed on writing skills by guiding pupils to
remember the format of email, blog, and message writing. P1 also places less emphasis on descriptive writing.

“Through UASA, the I checked how well the students could read and write. This also helped me to do a self-
evaluation on my teaching ways. When I checked the UASA test, I realized that many of my students had
trouble making sentences that were long and with less mistakes. So, I decided to pay more attention to
teaching them how to make better sentences”P9 SSI

“We need to adjust the learning content to focus on vocabulary and meaning in English”P7 SSI

“I ask pupils to remember the writing format of email, blog, and messages. Less teaching on descriptive
writing” P1SSI
5.0 Discussion

The finding highlights that overall teachers perceived UASA English as an additional assessment tool for evaluating
pupils' English proficiency as a summative assessment. The majority of teachers viewed UASA as enhancing current
formative assessment provided by school-based assessments (SBA) which helps them gain a better understanding of
and evaluate their pupils. The findings of the current study align with the findings of previous studies (Tsagari 2018),
which stated that teachers evaluate learners for two main purposes in their classrooms. The first purpose is to monitor
pupils' progress within the classroom, while the second purpose is to assess the level of proficiency that learners have
attained in the subject or language.

The following finding is the majority of teachers expressed their appreciation for the introduction of UASA English.
This is parallel with the past studies conducted earlier that teachers need effective methods to evaluate their
pupils(Torres 2019) (Suah, Ong and Shuki 2009); (Gopal and Singh 2020). Assessing language proficiency is crucial
for understanding pupils' skills and progress in areas such as reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension. The
teachers also perceived that the results collected from UASA could be used to develop targeted intervention programs
for the next year. However, this contradicts the past studies of statements made by Ahmed et al. (2019), who
unfortunately pointed out that it does not offer any guidance for improving the future performance of pupils.

During the interview, it was also mentioned that some teachers viewed UASA English as a possible substitute for
UPSR. This indicates that they see UASA as a form of summative assessment. The findings of data from the interview
responses echoed Ong's (2010) research. Both the data from the interview and past studies stated that the Malaysian
education system previously emphasized high-stakes exams that mainly evaluate cognitive skills. This implies that
the main objective was to attain academic excellence rather than fostering pupils' overall potential.

Further findings revealed, that there is a has uncovered a discrepancy in opinions regarding preferences for English
UASA and English UPSR. On one hand, some are satisfied with the approach of conducting UASA as it does not
place a heavy emphasis on exams. This approach has the benefit of alleviating stress for pupils, teachers, and parents,
as there is no pressure to attain certain grades. Non-exam assessments enable a more thorough assessment of a pupil's
comprehension and abilities. High-stakes exams can induce significant pressure on pupils, resulting in stress and
anxiety. On the other hand, some teachers preferred an exam-oriented approach as it provides a more tangible measure
of pupils' achievements through numerical data. From this study, all four teachers from the Chinese Vernacular school
preferred an exam-oriented approach. Standardized exams are given a lot of importance to differentiate between
pupils. Doing well in these exams is often necessary to get into prestigious universities or receive scholarships. As a
result, many teachers focus on teaching to the exam to help their pupils succeed in higher education and future careers.
As stated by Searle et al (2018), summative assessment such as examinations holds significant implications for pupils'
life chances and is a fundamental element of education.

With regards to teachers’ teaching approaches in ESL classrooms, another significant discovery is the noticeable shift
in their teaching approaches, which are specifically tailored to meet the needs of their pupils or adequately prepare
them for UASA English. This alteration in teaching practices encompasses various aspects, such as the utilization of
instructional materials. In this regard, teachers have taken the initiative to create personalized worksheets that aim to
familiarize their pupils with the types of questions commonly found in UASA. Additionally, teachers have also
incorporated the use of workbooks that serve the dual purpose of evaluating the pupils’' performance in the School-
Based Assessment as well as their preparedness for the UASA test. This transformation in teaching approaches can
be related to the Transformational Learning Theory (Mezirow 1994). Jack Mezirow created transformative learning
theory in the late 1900s, which explains how people can reflect on their beliefs and experiences, and eventually change
their perspective for the better. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the teachers not only engaged in self-
evaluation but also took proactive measures to adapt their teaching methods. In some instances, they even went as far
as modifying the content of their lessons to better cater to their pupils' needs. These actions align with the findings of
Singh et al. (2022), who conducted research suggesting that incorporating alternative assessment methods, such as
self-assessment, can greatly benefit teachers in their quest to enhance pupil learning. Overall of findings in this study
revealed that there is not much difference in perspectives between teachers from different types of schools, whether
they are from national, vernacular, or convent schools. It is just that the difficulty level seems to vary for each school.
Most of them agreed that UASA English is superior to UPSR.

6.0 Conclusion
The purpose of the current study was to explore the perceptions of Primary School English teachers who teach in
Malaysian primary schools towards English UASA and to identify how teachers’ teaching strategies in the classroom
have changed after the implementation of UASA. This study concluded that the majority of teachers welcomed the
introduction of UASA English. The fact that UASA English is not considered a high-stakes exam might have
contributed to teachers' positive perceptions. A less pressure-filled assessment environment can encourage both
teachers and pupils to focus on learning and skill development rather than solely on achieving high scores. Teachers'
positive reception of UASA also suggests that they viewed it as a step towards a more holistic assessment system.
The study highlighting teachers' adaptations and adjustments in their teaching approaches indicates their willingness
to accommodate and support the new assessment system. It's encouraging to see that this shift in assessment practices
is seen as beneficial for both teachers and pupils, promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive evaluation process
that encourages diverse skill development among pupils of varying proficiency levels. The findings obtained from this
study could pave the way for further exploration and understanding of teachers' perceptions of UASA English. This
study also signifies the importance of government efforts in the implementation of UASA as many parents still urging
the Education Ministry to bring back UPSR. Future researchers should delve deeper into this topic, considering the
limited number of participants in this study and the need to include a larger sample size that represents the majority
of teachers in Malaysia. By doing so, a more comprehensive understanding of teachers' perspectives can be achieved.
Furthermore, the UASA was recently introduced and effectively put into practice in the year 2023. Given its novelty,
there is a potential for further discoveries and insights if researchers continue to delve into this subject matter in the
upcoming years.

Reference

1. Abduh, M.Y.M. 2021. Full-time online assessment during COVID-19 lockdown: EFL teachers’ perceptions.

Asian EFL Journal Research Article 28.

2. Ahmed, A., Ahmed, F., Ali, S. & Shah, R.A. 2019. Exploring Variation in Summative Assessment: Language

Teachers’ Knowledge of Pupils’ Formative Assessment and Its Effect on Their Summative Assessment.

Bulletin of Education and Research 41(2): 109–119.

3. Anthony, E.-L.A. & Yamat, H. 2020. Correlation between teachers’ teaching styles and pupils’ ujian

pencapaian sekolah rendah (UPSR) results. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and

Social Sciences 10(3).

4. Arumugham, K.S. 2020. School based assessment or centralized examination: Voice of account’s teachers.

International Journal of Research Culture Society 4(4): 228–233.

5. Aziz, M. N. A., Mohd Yusoff, N., & Mohd Yaakob, M. F. (2020). Challenges in using authentic assessment

in 21st century ESL classrooms. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE),

9(3), 759. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20546

6. Baksh, A. 2016. Washback effect of school-based English language assessment: A case-study on students’

perceptions. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities 24: 1087–1104.

7. Bowen, G.A. 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal 9(2):

27–40.

8. Berkovich, I., & Berkovich, I. (2021). The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy. Education

Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century: International and Israeli Perspectives. 21–39.

9. Cheng, L., Rogers, T. & Hu, H. 2004. ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom assessment practices: purposes,

methods, and procedures. Language testing 21(3): 360–389.

10. Cheng, L. & Wang, X. 2007. Grading, feedback, and reporting in ESL/EFL classrooms. Language

assessment quarterly 4(1): 85–107.

11. Chin, C. 2019. Malaysia on course to break into PISA’s top 30%. Toronto star.

12. Christie, M., Carey, M., Robertson, A. & Grainger, P. 2015. Putting transformative learning theory into

practice. Australian Journal of Adult Learning 55(1): 10–30.

13. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. 2017. Research methods in education. Edisi ke-8. Routledge: Eighth

edition. | New York: Routledge, 2018.

14. Creswell, J.W. 2013. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage

Publications: Los Angeles, CA.

15. Davison, C. 2004. The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices

in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language testing 21(3): 305–334.

16. Dunn, K.E. & Mulvenon, S.W. 2009. A critical review of research on formative assessments: The limited

scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessments in education. Practical Assessment 14(1).
17. Eli, A. & Yamat, H. 2021. A Preliminary Study on Classroom Based Assessment for English Speaking

Performance Among Year 5 Pupils in An Urban School. International Journal of Advanced Research in

Education and Society 3(4): 45–51.

18. Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and

practice. Cambridge University Press.

19. Emerson, R., Fretz, R. & Shaw, L. 2011. Writing ethnographic field notes. University of Chicago Press:

Chicago.

20. F Mudin, V. (2019). An Investigation into English Teachers’ Understandings and Practices of Formative

Assessment in the Malaysian Primary ESL Classroom: Three Case Studies (Doctoral dissertation).

21. Gags Teacher. 2022. NUTP bimbang Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik tambah beban guru, murid.

https://www.gagsteacher.com/2022/12/nutp-bimbang-ujian-akhir-sesi-akademik.html [15 Jun 2023].

22. Gopal, R. & Singh, C.K.S. 2020. Arising reading patterns in understanding literary texts. Studies in English

language and education 7(2): 407–420.

23. Halali, A.A.S. & Singh, H. 2017. Teachers’ perception towards the use of classroom-based assessment in

English reading. International Journal of Education and Research 5(11): 153–168.

24. Howie, P. & Bagnall, R. 2013. A beautiful metaphor: Transformative learning theory. International Journal

of Lifelong Education 32(6): 816–836.

25. Hughes, M.J. 2007. The end justifies the means”. The Second Biennial International Conference on Teaching

and Learning of English in Asia : Exploring New Frontiers (TELiA2), hlm. 14–16.

26. Ibrahim, N.N., Ayub, A.F.M., Yunus, A.S.M. & Mahmud, R. 2019. Effects of higher order thinking module

approach on pupils’ performance at primary rural school. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences 13(2):

211–229.

27. Jamrus, M. H. M., & Razali, A. B. (2019). Using self-assessment as a tool for English language learning.

English Language Teaching, 12(11), 64–73.

28. Kementerian Pendidikan Lembaga Peperiksaan /lp.moe.gov.my. (2022). GARIS PANDUAN PENTADBIRAN

UJIAN AKHIR SESI AKADEMIK. http://lp.moe.gov.my/index.php/pbs/ujian-akhir-sesi-akademik/garis-

panduan-uasa
29. Joachim, A. & Hashim, H. 2021. Esl teacher’s knowledge and readiness on the implementation of school-

based assessment (SBA) in Malaysian primary school. Creative education 12(05): 1066–1078.

30. Jun, S.W. (pnyt.). 2021. UPSR Abolished Effective This Year, Says Education Minister. Malay Mail.:

31. Kenyon, D.M., Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. 1998. Language testing in practice. Modern Language Journal

82(1): 143.

32. Khoa, B. T., Hung, B. P., & Hejsalem-Brahmi, M. (2023). Qualitative research in social sciences: data

collection, data analysis and report writing. International Journal of Public Sector Performance

Management, 12(1–2), 187–209.

33. Kibble, J.D. 2017. Best practices in summative assessment. Advances in physiology education 41(1): 110–

119.

34. Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications:

London.

35. Kyngäs, H. (2020). Inductive content analysis. The application of content analysis in nursing science

research. 13–21.

36. Law, B. & Eckes, M. 2007. Assessment and ESL: An alternative approach. Portage & Main Press.:

37. Lewy, A. 1990. Formative and summative evaluation. Dlm. Walberg, H. & Haertel, G. (pnyt.). The

International Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, hlm. 26–28.

38. Liu, O. P., Selvadurai, S., Saibeh, B., Radzi, M. M., Hamzah, S. A., & Hoon, O. P. (2013). Tracking the

pathways of education in Malaysia: Roots and routes. Asian Social Science, 9(10).

https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n10p93

39. Loo, S. 2007. Schooling in Malaysia. Going to school in East Asia: 201–232.

40. Mackieson, P., Shlonsky, A., & Connolly, M. (2019). Increasing rigor and reducing bias in qualitative

research: A document analysis of parliamentary debates using applied thematic analysis. Qualitative Social

Work, 18(6), 965–980.

41. Mansor, A.N., Leng, O.H., Rasul, M.S., Raof, R.A. & Yusoff, N. 2013. The benefits of school-based

assessment. Asian social science 9(8).

42. Mansora, A.N., Vikaramanb, S.S. & Medinac, N.I. 2019. Managing school-based assessment: Challenges

and solutions for educational practice. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change 7(7): 63–

84.

43. McKay, P. & Brindley, G. 2007. Educational reform and ESL assessment in Australia: New roles and new

tensions. Language assessment quarterly 4(1): 69–84.

44. Mezirow, J. 1994. Understanding transformation theory. Adult education quarterly (American Association

for Adult and Continuing Education) 44(4): 222–232.

45. Misran, S., Mohd Ahyan, N., Jambari, H., Noh Seth, N. & Pairan, M. 2020. Perception of secondary high

school teacher in conducting the classroom-based assessment (PBD). Proceedings of the Proceedings of the

1st International Conference on Applied Social Sciences, Business, and Humanity, ICo-ASCNITY, 2

November 2019, Padang, West

46. Mostafa, R. (2019). Standardized testing for young learners: An overview. Education Sciences, 9(2).

47. Mulhall, A. (2003). In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research: Observation in qualitative

research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(3), 306–313.

48. Naidu, S. N. M. N., & Rajanthiran, S. (2021). Education in Malaysia: Educating for inclusive-holistic growth,

political needs…?—the transformation of vernacular and particularised education towards integration into

“Malaysian education.” Open Journal of Social Sciences, 09(03), 471–490.

https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.93031

49. Nair, G.K.S., Setia, R., Samad, N.Z.A., Zahri, R.N.H.B.R., Luqman, A., Vadeveloo, T. & Ngah, H.C. 2014.

Teachers’ knowledge and issues in the implementation of school-based assessment: A case of schools in

Terengganu. Asian Social Science 10(3).

50. Ong, L.S. 2010. Assessment profile of Malaysia: High-stakes external examinations dominate. Assessment

in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 17(1): 91–103.

51. Phillippi, J., & Lauderdale, J. (2018). A guide to field notes for qualitative research: Context and

conversation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(3), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102

52. Ramalingam, S., Yunus, M. M., & Hashim, H. (2022). Blended learning strategies for sustainable English as

a Second Language education: A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(13), 8051.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138051
53. Rea-Dickins, P. & Gardner, S. 2000. Snares and silver bullets: disentangling the construct of formative

assessment. Language testing 17(2): 215–243.

54. Rosli, R., Mokhsein, S.E. & Suppian, Z. 2022. Classroom assessment practices in Malaysian primary schools:

A meta-analysis. International journal of academic research in progressive education and development

11(1).

55. Salleh, R., & Woollard, J. (2019). Inclusive education: Equality and equity (Teachers’ views about inclusive

education in Malaysia’s primary schools). Jurnal Pendidikan Bitara UPSI, 12, 72–83.

56. Selvadurai, S., Liu, O. P., Radzi, M. M., Ong, P. H., Tee, O. P., & Saibeh, B. (2015). Debating education for

nation building in Malaysia: National school persistence or vernacular school resistance? Geografia, 13.

57. Seman, S.C., Yusoff, W.M.W. & Embong, R. 2017. Teachers challenges in teaching and learning for higher

order thinking skills (HOTS) in primary school. International journal of Asian social science 7(7): 534–545.

58. Sidhu, G.K., Kaur, S. & Lee, J.C. 2018. CEFR-aligned school-based assessment in theMalaysian primary

ESL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(2): 452–463.

59. Singh, C.K.S., Muhammad, M.M., Mostafa, N.A., Yunus, M.M., Noordin, N. & Darm, R. 2022. Exploring

ESL teachers’ alternative assessment strategies and practices in the classroom. Journal of Language and

Linguistic Studies 18(1): 411–426.

60. States, J., Detrich, R. & Keyworth, R. 2018. Summative assessment (wing institute original paper). States,

Detrich & Keyworth.

61. Stevens, G. G., & Debord, K. (2001). Issues of assessment in testing children under age eight. The Forum

for Family and Consumer Issues, 6(2).

62. Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (2022). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an

explanation. In The New Immigrants and American Schools (pp. 297–304).

63. The Star Online. 2021. UPSR scrapped: What now, parents ask. Toronto star.

64. Torres, J.O. 2019. Positive impact of utilizing more formative assessment over summative assessment in the

EFL/ESL classroom. Open journal of modern linguistics 09(01): 1–11.

65. Tsagari, D. 2018. Handbook of assessment for language teachers. July 14.
66. Uslim, N. M., Aris, H., & Abdul Hamid, H. (2022). Analysis of ethnic unity in the school level education

system in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(5).

https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i5/13891

67. Wilson, D.M. & A/l Narasuman, S. 2020. Investigating teachers’ implementation and strategies on Higher

Order Thinking Skills in School Based Assessment instruments. Asian journal of university education 16(1):

70.