Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT FOR BADMINTON IN
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
Norkhalid bin Salimin¹ and Julismah Jani²
¹Pendidikan Guru, Kampus Ipoh, Malaysia (alittsalimin@yahoo.com)
²Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia (julismah@fsskj.upsi.edu.my)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to identify the extent of student learning outcome within the cognitive, psychomotor
and affective domains through the use of the Comprehensive Assessment (CA) for badminton in Physical
Education. The study is based on a pre-experimental – the one shot case study design. The study was conducted
in secondary schools in the district of Larut, Matang and Selama in Perak. Samplings taken consisted of 15
teachers and 444 Form 2 students in Physical Education classes. The instruments used in the study comprised an
assessment scoring rubric in the cognitive domain (r=.75), psychomotor domain (r=.81) and affective domain
(r=.81), and teacher agreement questionnaire on the use of CA for badminton (r=.92), with inter-observer
agreement percentage for badminton of 70.03% (SD=0.68). The findings showed that the level of students'
cognitive achievement (N=432, M=30.35, 75.87%) was good. The learning outcome from psychomotor
assessment during training showed hierarchical at manipulation (N=441, M=2.17), and during game sessions
was at articulation (N=444, M=3.75). The learning outcome from affective assessment showed hierarchical at
characterize (N=444, M=4.29). The study also found that 90.53% of teachers agreed that the use of CA helps to
increase the academic performance of students, 88.00% of teachers agreed that it aids in teaching, 95.94% of
teachers agreed that the assessment helps to achieve teaching objectives, 79.46% of teachers agreed that the CA
meets the features of an assessment, and 58.67% of teachers agreed that the CA is easy to implement. Based on
the findings, the CA is suitable as a standard tool for assessing students’ achievement in badminton in the
subject of Physical Education.
KEYWORDS
Comprehensive Assessment, Cognitive, Psychomotor, Affective, hierarchical learning outcome
INTRODUCTION
Physical Education (PE) is a core and compulsory subject taught under the Integrated
Curriculum for Secondary Schools based on the Education Act through Professional Circular
No 25/1998 (Ministry of Education of Malaysia, 1998). PE plays an important role in the
growth and overall development of students through the learning outcomes in cognitive,
psychomotor and affective domains (Darst & Pangrazi, 2006).
This study introduces a Comprehensive Assessment (CA) to assess the students' hierarchical
in badminton. The CA is developed based on the taxonomies of learning by Bloom et al.
(1956) for the cognitive domain, Dave (1970) for the psychomotor domain and Krathwohl et
al. (1964) for the affective domain (Figure 1).
1
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Figure 1. Comprehensive Assessment Based on Learning Taxonomies
In Malaysia, a formal summative assessment of the PE subject was introduced for the first
time (Ministry of Education of Malaysia, 1988) and the assessment comprises two parts,
namely examination and national physical fitness standard test (SEGAK) in accordance with
Professional Circular No 4/2008 (Ministry of Education of Malaysia, 2008). However, this
assessment is not comprehensive enough as students are evaluated only by means of an
examination (cognitive) and the SEGAK test (psychomotor) focuses only on the aspect of
physical fitness. As such, the existing assessment method for PE subjects is neither complete
and holistic nor balanced and comprehensive owing to the unavailability of a standard
instrument for use by teachers to assess students, particularly those involving skills in sports
(Abdul Manan & Jumalanizon, 2009).
OBJECTIVES
a. To identify the cognitive, psychomotor and affective students' hierarchical learning
outcome based on the Comprehensive Assessment for badminton.
b. To identify the extent of teachers’ approval of the use of the Comprehensive
Assessment instrument for badminton in Physical Education.
METHODOLOGY
The study is based on a pre-experimental – the one shot case study design. The study was
conducted in secondary schools in the district of Larut, Matang and Selama in Perak. The
samples comprised 15 PE teachers and 444 Form 2 students who attended PE classes for
badminton. The selection of subject teachers was done using the purposive sampling method,
whereas the students were selected intact whereby the teachers would pick a Form 2 PE class
and all the students in that class would automatically be used as subjects for the study.
The research instrument used was by means of an assessment using a scoring rubric based on
the learning hierarchical in the cognitive (r=.75), psychomotor (r=.81) and affective (r=.81)
domains. The questionnaire on teacher agreement on the use of CA for badminton was
(r=.92) while the percentage of inter-observer agreement for badminton was 70.03%
(SD=0.68).
The assessment on cognitive learning for badminton consisted of 40 questions arranged
according to taxonomic, namely 10 questions on knowledge (25%), 4 questions on
2
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
comprehension (10%), 14 questions on application (35%), 8 questions on analysis (20 %), 2
questions on synthesis (5%) and 2 questions on evaluation (5%). This assessment was based
on Bloom’s taxonomy (1956) using the written test method and cognitive achievement rating
scale as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Cognitive Assessment Rating Scale for Badminton
Scale
80 and above
60 to 79
40 to 59
20 to 39
19 and below
Rating
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
The psychomotor learning assessment for badminton was divided into 15 sub-skills during
training and game sessions. The training session skills included high serves, low serves,
backhand serves, forehand stroke, backhand stroke, lob stroke, smashes, basic footwork,
backward footwork, forward footwork, and side footwork. While the game session skills
included serves, strokes, smashes, and foot works. This assessment was based on Dave’s
taxonomy (1970) through the teacher observation method using the rating scale with the
rubric classification as shown in Table 2.
The affective learning assessment for badminton involved sportsmanship comprising two
sub-values, namely accept defeat and respect for opponents. The teacher observation method
based on the taxonomy of Krathwohl et al. (1964) was used with scoring rubric as shown in
Table 2.
TABLE 2. Psychomotor and Affective Assessment Scoring Rubric for Badminton
Hierarchical Scale
5
Naturalization
4
Articulation
3
Develop Precision
2
Manipulation
1
Imitation
Psychomotor Assessment
Evaluation Criteria
Unconscious mastery and related basic skills
Adapt and integrate basic skill
Develop precision basic skill
Manipulation basic skill
Imitation basic skill
Adapt and integrate basic skill
Develop precision basic skill
Manipulation basic skill
Imitation basic skill
Develop precision basic skill
Manipulation basic skill
Imitation basic skill
Manipulation basic skill
Imitation basic skill
Imitation basic skill
Affective Assessment
hierarchical Scale
Evaluation Criteria
Adopt belief value system
Organize value system
5
Attach values
Characterize
Participate with value
Receive value
4
Organize
3
Value
2
Respond
1
Receive
Organize value system
Attach values
Participate with value
Receive value
Attach values
Participate with value
Receive value
Participate with value
Receive value
Receive value
The duration of this study comprised four teaching sessions involving two periods (80
minutes) in one school semester. The cognitive assessment consisted of four sets of tests
carried out in four teaching sessions. The psychomotor assessment was divided into two
3
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
sessions, namely training and game sessions, while affective assessment was conducted
throughout the teaching process. A teacher agreement questionnaire on the use of the CA for
badminton was distributed to 15 PE teachers upon completion of the teaching process on
badminton skills.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
TABLE 3. Achievement Levels of Learning using Comprehensive Assessment for Badminton
Domains
N
M
SD % Achievement
Level
Cognitive
Psychomotor
432
30.35
5.20
75.87
Good
Training Session
441
2.17
0.40
72.33
Good
Game Session
444
3.75
0.82
75.00
Good
444
4.29
0.70
85.80
Excellent
Affective
The study showed that the use of CA can help teachers identify the level of achievement
based on cognitive, psychomotor and affective domain in teaching and learning. CA became
an instrument of assessment to help teachers assess student performance, identify
weaknesses, achieve the goals and objectives and assist in teaching and learning process. This
study also found out that by using CA, teachers can facilitate the process of student
assessment and it is user friendly, time-saving, while the rubric complies with the scoring and
the procedure is easy to follow.
The results coincided with the assessment criteria of Ryan & Miyasaka (1995) in that the
assessment should be designed based on the actual situation and according to the students’
ability, thus encouraging the students to be more interested, motivated, to strive harder and
improve on their achievements.
TABLE 4. Results Based on Highest Level of Taxonomies using Comprehensive Assessment for Badminton
Domains
Skills
Cognitive
Psychomotor
Affective
N
% Achievement
Level of Taxonomy
437
88.45
Evaluation
Serves
Stroke
Smashes
Foot Works
285
271
209
241
Training Session
64.30
61.30
47.30
54.30
Precision
Precision
Manipulation
Precision
Serves
Stroke
Smashes
Foot Works
170
203
195
216
Game Session
38.30
45.70
43.90
48.60
Articulation
Articulation
Precision
Precision
215
48.40
Organize
Based on the finding, the CA was related with Fitts and Posner (1967) in the three-stage
model of skill acquisition (cognitive stage, associative stage and autonomous stage), which
suggested that the novice individual uses the cognitive processes in the early stages of
4
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
learning. In this study, students' cognitive learning achievement was at an evaluation
hierarchical level. While students' psychomotor learning achievement on training session was
at precision and on game session was at articulation and precision hierarchical level, the
results showed that individual differences influenced the level of student achievement on
learning skills in PE, in line with the Arnold Gesell theoretical developments (Sultan Idris
Teachers' Institute, 1994).
In relation to affective domains, students' learning achievement was at organize hierarchical
level. This shows that students' create value system in sportsmanship during the PE lesson.
Brett & James (2006) stated that the teacher decides which affective behaviors he/she wants
students to exhibit and learn. Ladda et al. (1999) suggested that the following 17 behaviors be
taught and assessed: 1) altruism, 2) communication, 3) risk-taking, 4) respect, 5) cooperation,
6) effort, 7) followership, 8) goal setting, 9) honesty, 10) initiative, 11) leadership, 12)
participation, 13) reflection, 14) commitment-contract, 15) compassion-sympathy, 16) safety,
and 17) trust. Most educators often ignore the affective domain owing to the difficulty in
making an assessment (McLeod, 1991). However, studies showed that students tend to be
more appreciative of teaching strategies that emphasize affective learning outcomes (McTeer
& Blanton, 1978).
The researcher also analyzed the level of agreement of teachers on the use of the CA
instrument in terms of five aspects. The result analysis in Table 5 showed that 90.53% of
teachers agreed that CA is able to improve student performance and that students are more
attentive and motivated. The findings also showed that 88.00% of teachers agreed that the use
of CA can help teachers assess student performance and identify weaknesses, assist in
teaching and learning as well as facilitate the management of teaching. About 95.94% of
teachers agreed that the use of CA helps achieve the goals and objectives of PE and that it
provides simple, clear and appropriate scoring criteria according to the topic in accordance
with the learning outcomes. A total of 79.46% of teachers agreed that the use of CA is able to
facilitate the process of student assessment, is user friendly, time-saving, while the rubric
complies with the evaluation scoring and the procedure is easy to follow. From the aspect of
accountability, 58.67% of teachers agreed that the cognitive, affective and psychomotor
assessments can be easily implemented, the contents not too heavy, and teaching time will
not restrict the assessment process.
TABLE 5. Teacher Agreement on the Use of Comprehensive Assessment
Agreement Scale
Item
f
Agree
Quite Agree
Improves student performance
74
90.53%
9.46%
Aids in teaching
75
88.00%
4.00%
Attains teaching objectives
74
95.94%
2.70%
Conforms with the features of an assessment
73
79.46%
15.09%
Accountability aspects
75
58.67%
22.67%
Disagree
8.00%
1.35%
2.74%
18.67%
The results of this study coincided with the assessment criteria of Ryan & Miyasaka (1995) in
that the assessment should be designed based on the actual situation and according to the
students’ ability, thus encouraging the students to be more interested, motivated, to strive
harder and improve on their achievements. In addition, the finding also showed that the
problem of the lack of students’ interest in PE (School Inspectorate and Quality Assurance,
5
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
2009) can be resolved. Accordingly, the CA can provide a systematic way to assess the
thinking and reasoning skills of students and assess the results which cannot otherwise be
measured through objective tests and essays (Bhasah, 2007). Thus, the CA can help teachers
assess and identify students' strengths and weaknesses as well as explain students’ efficiency
in performing a skill or activity.
The features of the CA are based on performance, greater focus, complex skills, application
of specific strategies, problem solving, individual-based, freedom to choose and standards
(Marzano et al. 1993). The contents of the evaluation items in the CA are in line with the
goals and objectives outlined in the Form 2 syllabus for PE. The scoring criterion was simple
and consistent with the taxonomies of Bloom (1956), Dave (1970) and Krathwohl (1964).
The scoring rubric used in this study can be used as an evaluation reference based on skills
and checklist for describing the performance of each level and as a guide or format (Bhasah,
2007). The construction of the scoring rubric contains features as outlined by Popham (1997),
namely selection criteria, quality description and scoring strategy, as well as specific
descriptions on what needs to be measured. Thus, the CA is considered user-friendly,
facilitates the teachers and has an implementation procedure that is easy to follow.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the study, the Comprehensive Assessment (CA) is suitable for
teachers as a standard tool for assessing student performance in the PE subject of badminton.
The use of CA is more realistic, holistic and able to assess students in a comprehensive
manner in terms of cognitive, psychomotor and affective domains in line with the National
Philosophy of Education. The CA is also compatible with school-based assessment and its
use indicates the power of knowledge and restores the status quo of PE subjects in schools
throughout Malaysia.
REFERENCES
Abdul Manan Yahi & Jumalanizon Mohamad Rasid (2009). Personal communication. 30 July.
Bhasah Abu Bakar (2007). Testing, measurement and evaluation educational. Kuala Lumpur:
Prospecta Printers Sdn. Bhd.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives the classification of educational goals handbook I: cognitive
domain.New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
Brett, J.H. & James, C.H. (2006). Teaching in the affective domain. Strategies, Sept/Oct 2006, 20, 1113.
Darst, P. W. & Pangrazi, R. P. (2006). Dynamic Physical Education for Secondary School Student 5th
ed. Massachusetts : Allyn & Bacon.
Dave, RH. (1970). Psychomotor levels developing and writing behavioral objectives. Tuscon,
Educational Innovators Press.
AZ:
Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole.
6
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives the
classification of educational goals, handbook II: affective domain. New York: David McKay
Ladda, S., Demas, K., & Adams, D. (1999). Standard-based, affective assessment for a project
adventure unit. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 10, 18-21.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McLeod, S. H. (1991). The affective domain and the writing process: Working definitions. JAC,
11(1).
McTeer, J. H,&Blanton, F. L. (1978). Comparing views of students, parents, teachers, and
administrators on objectives for the secondary school. Education, 96, 259–263.
Ministry of Education of Malaysia. (1988). Education act through professional circular No 17/1988:
syllabus and allocation of time for subjects ICSS. Kuala Lumpur: School Department.
Ministry of Education of Malaysia. (1998). Education Act through Professional Circular No 25/1998.
Kuala Lumpur: School Department.
Ministry of Education of Malaysia. (2008). Education act through professional circular No 4/2008:
examination and national physical fitness standard test (SEGAK). Kuala Lumpur: School Department.
Popham, W. J. (1997). What’s wrong and what’s right with rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2),
72-75.
Ryan, J. M., & Miyasaka, J. R. (1995). Current practice in testing and measurement: What is driving
the changes? NASSP Bulletin, 79(537), 1-10.
School Inspectorate and Quality Assurance (2009). Annual Report in meeting department heads of
physical education IPG Malaysia.Mac 2009. Kuala Lumpur.
Sultan Idris Teachers’ Institute, (1994). Theories of teaching and the implications. Kuala Lumpur:
Academe Art & Printing .
7