“Ethical Standards in Tests: Test Preparation and Administration in Philippine Education, A study in Zamboanga del Sur” Wendell Glenn P. Cagape Student, PhD in Educational Management La Salle University Burgos Street, Ozamis City, Philippines [email protected]Abstract Ethical standards in tests in its preparation as well as in its administration denotes highest level of educational quality, something that truly represents the capacity, skills competencies and ability of pupils and students in the Philippine educational sector. Absence of these standards results in poor academic performance among students primarily because they were assessed wrongly by teachers prior to their present educational level or status. The study aims to find out, in spite of the fact that there is an obvious absence of ethical standards in tests ( at all stages) that is being adhered to and subscribed by teachers in the basic and higher education sectors respectively. It focuses on the basic education primarily because the pupils are the most vulnerable academic sector and secondly, with the tertiary sector because this is the sector wherein all products of basic education usually go. Further, it seek to respond to the clamor for a unified, reflective and codified ethical standards that governs the tests preparations and administrations among education stakeholders in the Philippine context, albeit situated in Zamboanga del Sur which is situated in Western Mindanao.
Transcript
“Ethical Standards in Tests: Test Preparation and Administration in Philippine Education,
A study in Zamboanga del Sur”
Wendell Glenn P. CagapeStudent, PhD in Educational Management
Ethical standards in tests in its preparation as well as in its administration denotes highest level of educational quality, something that truly represents the capacity, skills competencies and ability of pupils and students in the Philippine educational sector. Absence of these standards results in poor academic performance among students primarily because they were assessed wrongly by teachers prior to their present educational level or status.
The study aims to find out, in spite of the fact that there is an obvious absence of ethical standards in tests ( at all stages) that is being adhered to and subscribed by teachers in the basic and higher education sectors respectively. It focuses on the basic education primarily because the pupils are the most vulnerable academic sector and secondly, with the tertiary sector because this is the sector wherein all products of basic education usually go. Further, it seek to respond to the clamor for a unified, reflective and codified ethical standards that governs the tests preparations and administrations among education stakeholders in the Philippine context, albeit situated in Zamboanga del Sur which is situated in Western Mindanao.
In this area where the inclination towards codified ethical standards is high, it is prudently essential that research outputs/results are widely disseminated for replication and its further enhancement that greatly benefits the students in the Philippine educational sector. In this, the study proposes for the adoption of a Filipino-styled Ethical Standards on tests.
The ethical requirement for the administration of measurement and evaluation in any school setting far precedes the personal convenience of the faculty or teacher administering the tests to verify student or pupil competencies and skills in a given area. Institutions around the world have
institutionalized the ethical standards pertaining to the administration of tests as a component of measurement and evaluation on student or pupil’s academic performance.
Several institutions of basic education, higher learning institutions have intensified the adaptability of a Code of Ethics that governs action and decision of faculty members and teachers in administering tests in classroom setting. Among those who successfully institutionalized ethical standards for teachers is the Association of American Educators in which they have adopted Code of Ethics which is openly and commonly observed among American educators. The professional educator acts with conscientious effort to exemplify the highest ethical standards (Code of Ethics for Teachers, 2007). A similar code is presently being adopted by the teachers teaching in New Zealand wherein they are exhorted to be committed to the attainment of the highest standards of professional service in the promotion of learning by those they teach, mindful of the learner's ability, cultural background, gender, age or stage of development (Code of Ethics for Registered Teachers, 2007). Further, the New Zealand Education Council promotes the Commitment towards Learners as a component of the Code of Ethics which highlights key ethical standards as follows: a) develop and maintain professional relationships with learners based upon the best interests of those learners, b) base their professional practice on continuous professional learning, the best knowledge available about curriculum content and pedagogy, together with their knowledge about those they teach, c) present subject matter from an informed and balanced viewpoint, d) encourage learners to think critically about significant social issues, e) cater for the varied learning needs of diverse learners, f) promote the physical, emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual wellbeing of learners, g) protect the confidentiality of information about learners obtained in the course of professional service, consistent with legal requirements (Ibid, 2007).
The emphasis on these ethical standards among educational institutions in most advanced countries prompted a seeming validation study on checking on the ethical standards as observed among teachers and faculty in the Philippines. In a nutshell, the contextualization of ethical standards in measurement and evaluation becomes relevant and significant in the search for the appropriate and ethical methodologies to improve the state of Philippine education within the country.
Further, the study cuts through all sectors of Philippine educational sectors. The study of ethical standards cuts across all sectors of education, from elementary, secondary and tertiary levels of education, both private and public.
As a result, the study aims to pursue queries in the area of ethical standards in tests, from test preparation to administration and evaluation. Specifically, it seeks to be enlightened by the following questions:
Are teachers in both the public and private schools in the Philippine education sector observes appropriate and ethical standards in tests preparation, and its administration in the following phases;
o Before the Tests; o During the Tests; o After the Tests.
Are these ethical standards adopted by teachers in both public and private schools in Zamboanga del Sur conforms to the widely adopted Ethical Standards by the Washington Educational Research Association (WERA).
What are the implications derived from the results of the study.
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES:
Because of the nature of this undertaking, it uses qualitative-descriptive approaches employing the use of a questionnaire being distributed to teachers as respondents. It selects respondents through random sampling although the selections of schools to be covered are determined through purposive sampling technique.
The study is conducted in schools situated within the province of Zamboanga del Sur although; most of the concentrations of schools are based in the City of Pagadian, primarily because of its strategic contribution as a center of education of the province, it is considered to be representative of the entire province.
Further, the respondents in the study are classroom teachers from both the private and public schools covering elementary, secondary and tertiary levels of education. The study also involves middle management personnel of the Department of Education as surveyed by the researcher during their year-end division-level Training for Trainors on the School Improvement Plan (SIP) in Hotel Guillermo on November 29, 2007.
The researcher wrote a letter of request for study locale to the Principals of the schools and obtains prior approval for the conduct of the survey involving their teachers. Upon receipt of the positive approval, the researcher then proceeded to conduct the survey by distributing the questionnaire. By the nature of the questionnaire, the research makes use of simple descriptive statistical treatment like the mean and percentages.
Ethical Standards in tests in the Philippines
In the Philippines, much more in the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, teachers in the basic education sector follows the 2000 Department of Education Service Manual. The manual highlights the preparation and administration of tests to pupils and students in the basic education sector. Among Higher Education Institutions and the SUCs, mostly, the ethical standards are deeply reliant on the policy pronouncements of the centralized Board of Regents or Board of Trustees. However, the practice of these ethical standards in test preparation and administration, much needs to be understood. Existing ethical practices among teachers and faculty members needs to be validated to existing standard of ethics that has been openly subscribed among teachers and educators in the USA and New Zealand.
The yardstick for engaging in the study of ethical standards the Philippines are those established codes of ethics and widely adopted by the forerunners in education because there are dearth in codified ethical standards in the country. Most institutions of learning have not codified ethical
standards and worse, teachers have not openly promoted the laudable practice of ethical standards to other members of the academic community.
In Zamboanga del Sur, ethical standards in tests present opportunity to highlight the appropriate and ethical practices among teachers and establish codified system of respectable ethical standards that will engage the role of classroom teachers and their supervisors to serve the interests of the learners in their schools and institutions.
In test and measurements, there are two sets of tests – standardized or teacher-made tests. Both exemplify one common requirement and that is ethical standards to safeguard students and pupils from potential abuses and unethical practices of educators. It is believed to be so because as much as possible, schools must safeguard students and pupils from these threats because they have no choice in whether to attend or not attend schooling, both in public and privates schools. Inside the classroom, the symbol of authority rests entirely on the shoulders of the teachers and instructors. Students and pupils are made to be under the circumstance that their fate in terms of education entirely rests on the integrity of teachers and instructors administering the tests. Tests are part assessment and measurement, of which results provide for entirely brighter future at best or uncertain and unstable future, at worse.
Teaching is to fill in the mind of the learner by information and knowledge of facts for future use(Singh, 2005). And because of this very nature of teaching, the relevance of the ethical administration of tests that adequately or sufficiently covers instruction is desired. In this context, teaching is defined as a way of molding pupils and students for the future. It does not tinkle with the present, much more, not of the past however, it dwells on the capacity and capability of the student to hurdle the challenges of the future. The teacher is not anymore exclusively dealing with the present but more so with the future of every child in the classroom.
Further, “teaching is a profession that has both a knowledge base and an ethical/moral base. Like other professionals who possess knowledge and expertise their clients do not have and whose actions and judgments affecter their clients in many ways, classroom teachers are responsible for conducting themselves in an ethical manner. This responsibility is particularly important in education, because unlike most other professions, pupils have no choice about whether they will or will not attend school” (Airasian, Peter W., 2001).
This observation by Airasian echoes more clearly in the Philippine educational setting. It is observable that pupils and even tertiary level students have no openly adhered freedom of choice in the manner they choose schools and institutions. Prior to enrolment, most often, parents decide where the child goes for elementary, secondary and college or university. In these vital decisions, only a handful of students and pupils are consulted by their parents prior to enrolment. Even in the choice of baccalaureate courses in college or university and the choice of colleges or universities are not entirely of the decision of the student. This cultural flaws and malpractice hindered individual progress based on the skills and capacity of pupils and students. This heightened the vulnerability of pupils and students from abuses and indiscretions those who decide for their fate. Similarly, this can also be true in school and classroom choices. Pupils and students are not empowered to chose what topic to be tested on, which areas they wanted to be assessed, in what manner the assessments are to be done and in what place will the tests be made.
Worse, especially in a classroom that are adjacent or along major thoroughfares that elicited unnecessary disturbances brought about by traffic congestions and noise pollution, often, pupils and students do not have the choice whether to take the tests or examinations in other much conducive and student-friendly classrooms away from the population that affects his performance during the tests.
It is because in almost everything that is inside the classroom, decision-making processes are unilateral. It is the teacher or the instructor who usually decides and the decisions are most of the time, in conflict with established norms and practices of the pupils and students. A classic example of such unilateral decision illustrates the supremacy of teachers and instructors in selecting the time and day for make-up classes. To a certain extent, teachers engaged the students and pupils in discussion and consultation pertaining to the proposed make-up class, however, when the decision is made and the entire class agrees, it can seldom be implemented for reasons entirely based on the availability of teachers and instructors, worse, it could be cancelled due to personal appointments of teachers and instructors like bringing their child to the dentist, appointment at the beauty parlor, out-of-town trips and lastly, sickness. Due to such ‘personal’ reasons, the teacher or instructor have unwittingly deprived the pupils and students their inherent right to learn and acquire knowledge that can help them survive in this highly competitive environment. With this, the students and pupils does have little choice as to the effectiveness of their decisions as arrived at commonly agreed principles but all those have to succumb to the whims and demands of time of the teachers and instructors. Classroom supremacy by teachers and instructors take reins of the outcome of learning.
As embodied by the Code of Ethics by the New York Board of Education, Principle Five of the Code establishes the need for collaboration with parents and community and further states that the teacher or instructor should “act only in the best interests of the students” (Teaching, 2003). The best interests of students include ‘quality of schooling’ (Glossary , 2007). Further, the use of the best interest doctrine represented a 20th century shift in public policy. The best interests doctrine is an aspect of parens patriae and, in the United States. It has replaced the tender years doctrine, which rested on the basis that children are not resilient and almost any change in a child's living situation would be detrimental to his or her well being (History of Best Interests,2006). Although its origin pertains to conjugal relationships in view of the inherent role of parents towards the child, ‘best interests’ of the child can also be favorably invoke in the relationship between teachers and pupils or students. It is because teachers and instructors act as surrogate ‘mother’ or ‘father’ to the child once inside the school premises. Inherently, it is ethical that teachers and instructors acting as ‘parents’ should see to it that in all its dealings with the pupil or student and in all activities involving them, their best interests should be at the forefront of all considerations.
Foremost, the educator, believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of the democratic principles. Essential to these goals is the protection of freedom to learn and to teach and the guarantee of equal educational opportunity for all. The educator accepts the responsibility to adhere to the highest ethical standards (Code of Ethics of the EducationProfession, 2005). The said preamble of the National Education Association appropriately highlighted the role of educator in the conduct of his/her profession in view of all his/her
activities that includes the administration of tests and measurement. Also, by accepting teaching careers and upon signing teaching contracts, teachers and instructors are duty-bound to adhere to the highest ethical standards in the conduct of their classroom management. Unfortunately, in the Philippine setting, a teacher or instructor may sign appointment papers and take oaths of office but are not oriented with the ‘highest ethical standards’ expected of them. They may have signed contracts already and receive copies of their signed appointment from the Division or District Offices sans the recitation and indoctrination of ethical standards inherent in teaching professions. Perhaps, they recite portions that exhort ethical standards in oaths of office or other documents and they often swear to it in front of witnesses present, but as to the regular adherence to the code of ethics in teaching profession it remains to be questionable. The 2000 Service Manual of the Department of Education never mentions about ethical standards for education and teaching professions. This service manual is the one being used by school heads in school management and operations, however, Republic Act 6713 sets the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees. The law governs the ethical standards of all public employees in all agencies in government including the Philippine Department of Education. Moreover, the law as it is a generic law that governs ethical standards and code of conduct of government employees but the need for adopting ethical policies and standards in the Department of Education in consideration of its special nature of profession. There should be distinct and exclusive ethical standards by which teachers and their acts can be easily judge using such code of ethical standards as adopted by the teachers themselves and openly promoted by the Department.
Tests is “a measuring instrument whose general characteristic is that it forces responses from a pupil and such responses are considered to be indicative of the pupil’s skill, knowledge, attitude, etc (Calderon & Gonzales, 2007). Further, tests are composed of short communications called questions or items (Airasian, 2001). As such, results of tests often drive teachers and instructors and formally, institutions to recognize the capability of pupils and students in certain standards and lesson as well as skills. If the preparation of such tests in cases of teacher-made tests are flawed and mired in unorthodox manner, the results of such tests will affect ‘quality education’ as it is from the standpoint of the school or institution. Most often too, the remarks of the teacher or instructor, even if it is made out of flawed assumptions become the official stand of the institution or school and unfortunately too, pupils and students including their parents do not have avenues to contests decisions arising from flawed assessments and evaluation measures that included tests other than in courts. Sadly, the pupils and students, who are vulnerable in any school system in the country concede to such decision without realizing that this will influence that outcome of their productive stay in school and their future capability to engage in much higher educational requirements in education. Almost always too, parents will not pursue lawsuits in contesting teacher’s or instructor’s unethical practices in the classroom and choose to re-enroll or repeat the same course or subject which translates to additional costs on education. As a result, for those whose finances are not as stable, pupil and students to drop out of school. If this be continued to prevail, education is direly jeopardized.
No less than the president commented in her speech before the delegates to the 2001 Educators Congress held in Manila on April 23, 2001 that “we must equalize access and expand the opportunities of the poor to acquire the kind of education they want” (Macapagal-Arroyo, 2001). This presidential commentary on the state of educational commitment by the government
transcends departmental commitment in the areas of opening up opportunities to better serve stakeholders in basic education in the country but also encapsulates the need to improve the manner we manage classroom to be more attuned to ‘quality’ education and such would have to adhere to certain standards that included ethical standards that expands over classroom assessment and evaluation.
Quality education can never be achieved if teachers and instructors are not adhering to the commonly accepted and widely subscribed Code of Ethics that explicitly details its relationship with their pupils and students. Such adherence will safeguard the ‘best interests’ of the child in every classroom and further stress the serious commitment among teachers and instructors to equitably assessed and evaluates through tests and measurement every student based on established standards and based solely on their individual capabilities and capacities as well as skills.
The Code of Ethics also includes specifically tailor-fitted Codes of Ethics and among the laudable codes worthy of emulation is the one crafted and adopted by the National Council on Measurement in Education called the Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement.
Accordingly, the Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement applies to any type of assessment that occurs as part of the educational process, including formal and informal, traditional and alternative techniques for gathering information used in making educational decisions at all levels. These techniques include, but are not limited to, large-scale assessments at the school, district, state, national, and international levels; standardized tests; observational measures; teacher-conducted assessments; assessment support materials; and other achievement, aptitude, interest, and personality measures used in and for education (Code ofProfessional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement , 1997).
Common observation among schools, colleges and universities in the country nowadays yields concerns as to the kind of instruction that is simply in compliance with the curriculum as required by either the DepEd or the Commission on Higher Education, but this aspect is the end result of curriculum implementation. In order for us to better understand ethical teaching as openly espoused by Dr. Patti Harrington, we have to go back to the curriculum on Teacher Education programs as provided for by the Commission on Higher Education.
A cursory review of Commission Memorandum Order 59 S of 1996 signed by CHED Chairman Angel C. Alcala yields an impression that ethical consideration for teaching profession and ethics education is not a fundamental and central course offering in the new General Education Curriculum (GEC) which almost every student in education has undertaken in the past. The nearest one could reach in terms of the study of ethics in education as well as in our courses to be offered under the new GEC is under Humanities and Social Sciences, specifically under Philosophy. However, ethics is widely taught in philosophical courses in colleges and universities, at the end of each course, the ‘ethics thought’ failed to germinate in the interests of education as a profession in the case of students pursuing education courses or in political science students who ended up struggling to pass the bar because they find it too hard to focus on the contexts and contents of bar questions in ‘legal ethics”. Ethics as a course in the curriculum
and as taught in colleges and universities should be able to empower future teachers, much more with other professions to openly subscribe to the Code of Ethics and places them in the highest regard of public service. So much for ethics in the General Education Curriculum.
An in-depth study of Republic Act 9155, otherwise known as “Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001” which governs the operationalization of the Department of Education in the country provides the wider picture on the role ethics education in the mainstream public basic educational sector. As an inherent component of its declared policies, the law stipulates that “It shall be the goal of basic education to provide them with the skills, knowledge and values they need to become caring, self- reliant, productive and patriotic citizens” (Republic Act 9155,2001). In this context, perhaps ethics in education is part of ‘values’ as aspired in this law but this has to be given emphasis on the products of basic education, that they will be imbued with certain ‘Filipino’ values that are inherently good and laudable. The law does not speak about ethical practices of teachers working in the Department of Education from the national level down the regional, division, district, and eventually to the school level.
Quality standards in education are widely highlighted in RA 9155 but unfortunately, ethical standards in education and in the teaching profession under the Department of Education as enshrined in the law have not claimed prominence. At the onset, it is understandable perhaps the absence is due in part and whole to the extant Republic Act 6713 which provides for the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employees in the government. Still, the law as it is does not cover ethical standards that can easily be ascribed to the roles and responsibilities of teachers inside the classroom. Teachers are public employees however, concerns of unethical practices such as but not limited to tests preparation, administration, classroom assessments and evaluation as well as measurement is not covered by the law. Pupils and students as well as their parents can not, in one way or the other, invoke RA 6713 if they are unjustly evaluated as a result of flawed and unethical testing administration. Pupils and students are not provided with mechanism, both absent in RA 6713 and RA 9155 to seek redress against unethical practices of teachers and instructors pertaining to classroom assessment and evaluation.
Even Ricardo T. Gloria, former Secretary of the Department of Education failed to highlight the role of ethics education in molding young Filipinos to become active partners in societal development albeit he highlighted that the “state provides for a broad general education that will assists individuals in society to acquire the essential educational foundations for their development into productive and versatile citizens” (Gloria, 1996).
And taking into consideration that Philippine educational system is by nature governed in tri-focal manner that is, elementary, secondary under DepEd, Vocational and Technological short-term courses under TESDA and graduate and higher education under SUCS/HEIs and CHED. Due to this tri-focalization as claimed by Adriano Arcelo in his report presentation to the UNESCO, supervision and management is problematical (Arcelo, 2003) thus adherence to ethical standards is also problematical.
Perhaps, it is safe to infer that ethical standards in classroom assessment including those in test preparation and administration is entirely included in the Rules Implementing the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees as prepared by the Civil Service Commission as it stated that the rules shall be in consonance with Sec. 2 of RA 6713 to wit: “It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest” (Implementing Rulesand Regulation for RA 6713).
Teaching ethics in education can be best applied on students pursuing education as a profession. It is simply because at this crucial time of their academic journey that a pre-service teacher can be taught the highest ethical standards which will govern their future actions and decisions as permanent teachers in either elementary or secondary schools. In this regard, the Commission on Higher Education issued Commission Memorandum Order 30 S of 2004 which sets the policies and guidelines for the new Teacher Education curriculum for colleges and universities around the country.
CMO 30 S of 2004 at face value, lacks the ‘ethical standards’ ingredient among its recommended courses under the new curriculum. The CHED may have successfully revised the Teacher Education curriculum but failed to incorporate ethics education as one of the highlights of the course to better prepare teachers in BEEd and BSEd baccalaureate programs to be effective adherents of ethical standards in teaching profession thus easily replicating the acceptance of and adoption of Codes of Ethics in Teaching Profession among teachers in the future. Although one of the competency standards that a new teacher as envisioned under this order is in the aspect that they ‘can demonstrate and practice professional and ethical requirements of the teaching professions” (CMO 30 , 2004). Further, in education, “we expect our learners to benefit from a curriculum promoting universal values because they are to play a critical role in helping build a peaceful, prosperous, just and sustainable global community” (Romero, 2005). In this context, universal values should also include ethical standards that promote fairness, equality and equity in educational professions as well as in other professions.
In view of the desire of this undertaking to pursue ethics in education as a driving factor that governs acts of teachers and instructors inside the classroom, we understood that we refer social ethics as perhaps the ethical standards that is suitably ideal for educational professions and acts of teachers inside the classroom. Particularly, it refers to those studies of the relation between individuals and society as well as in the role of social authority (Artigas, 1990). It is simply because ethical standards that cover acts of teachers and those who are in teaching professions are covered in one or the other by social ethics as a major context of philosophy. Obviously, many ethics or philosophy classes in colleges and universities are not focused on the contextualization of ethical standards of teachers and those in the teaching profession. Unfortunately, in most cases too, college or university instructors handling philosophy and ethics are neither had teaching professional background nor BEEd or BSEd degrees that complements the effective integration of social ethics towards education as a professional opportunity and as a community wherein learners are at its prime and central considerations.
High ethical standards in the testing process results to high evaluation of learning which is central to the operationalization of any curriculum at any levels of Philippine educational system. As commonly adhered to in Philippine educational system, similar to any educational systems around the world, central in the learning process is the curriculum and the different components of curriculum points to the importance of the evaluative process in learning (Palma, 1992). However, before any evaluative process in learning commence, test needs to be administered by teachers and instructors to arrive at scientifically identifiable and verifiable assessments of student or pupil’s academic performance based on the standards set in the curriculum. Borrowing the concept of Jesus Palma (1992) however with brief modifications, it is best to illustrate the components of the evaluation process of learning in the following diagram.
Although Palma (1992) effectively illustrated in his book the concept of the evaluation of learning, it is best to also highlight the relationship between learning experiences and resources to tests as well as the relationship of tests to the evaluation of learning outcomes. It is of primary consideration that these two relationships be established because as previously discussed, ethical tests can conduct after ethical teaching. Effective and ethical teaching reaps learning experiences that promotes well-balanced and rewarding academic performance on the part of the students and pupils which forms part of the entire evaluation of learning outcomes based on established curricular standards.
Ethics in tests administration must be specifically emphasize in all teaching profession in all levels in the educational system because results of such affects evaluation of learning outcomes and scores are unfortunately, becoming strong determinants of academic achievement in the Philippine educational experience. In most cases than not, teachers in basic educational system and instructors in colleges and universities often rely heavily on scores garnered by pupils and students in tests as benchmarks for academic performance in a given curricular standard. Unfortunately too, those who usually receive high scores may not necessarily effectively learning the curricular content as well as inculcated special learning experiences to better prepare them for future undertakings. Scores are not sole determinants in student and pupil assessment and scores are therefore also affected by the presence or absence of ethical standards among those who administers the tests in the classroom setting. It must be emphasized that any test score simply describes a particular performance at a particular time, and it may or may not be indicative of the child’s ability (Gelleman, 1995). This conclusive observation of Gelleman pertaining to the non-reliability of scores unless validated by trends leading to the conclusion that the pupil or student is a consistently of high academic performance or disappointingly low
TESTS Evaluation of Learning Outcomes
Learning Content
Learning ExperiencesResources
Learning Objectives
academic performance. One test score will not make a huge difference in the academic performance among pupils and students in a given test period under the curriculum.
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY:
On the category “Communicate to students, parents and the public what any test does and does not do, when and how it will be administered, and how the results may be appropriately used” , majority or 64% of the respondents responded that it is “appropriate and ethical” as compared to only 28% of them of responded that it is “somewhat appropriate and ethical”.
Communicate to students, parents and the public what any test does and does not do, when and how it will be administered, and how the results may be appropriately used
Responses F PercentageAppropriate and Ethical 39 63.9%Somewhat appropriate and Ethical
17 27.8%
Inappropriate and Unethical 0 0Undecided or confused 3 4.9%Total 59 96.6%
In this category, only 59 of the respondents answered item #1 from the questionnaire thus by way of computation, there were only 96.6% of the respondents answered. As commonly practiced in the Department of Education, the classroom teacher administering the tests normally communicate to stakeholders in the educational sector as to what extent tests does and what it does not do and the dates as well as the mechanics of the tests and how are results to be interpreted and used. As widely practiced, the Department of Education usually issues Memorandum Circular regarding the administration of the tests in district and school levels and such issuances includes date, time and place of examination. In most cases too, a separate Department Memorandum is being issued to designate tests proctors and administrators and how the results of the test is to be used in the light of the tests.
Most of the teacher-respondents revealed that it is “appropriate and ethical” because they are already used to the information campaigns regarding upcoming tests like NAT, NCAE and even to some extent, classroom level information dissemination with regards to summative tests to be administered by the teacher. At some point too, because in every test to be administered, it requires that those who will be taking the tests be best informed of the mechanics of the tests and when and where the test will be administered in order for students to prepare and study the coverage of tests.
In education, it is proper and ethical to communicate to all stakeholders, including the students who will be taking the tests, their parents and the community regarding the details of the tests and how this can help in the assessment or for whatever specified purpose the tests are made for. In all contexts and considerations, it is the primary duty of the teacher to inform and communicate the kind of tests and its emphasis to parents and the students alike, in order for them to be able to take hold of it in terms of preparations and the like. Many students who failed
in the tests because teachers and instructors short-circuited the test administration by failing to communicate the details of the tests to students and the parents. One observable example of this is the sudden change of classroom assignment as a venue for standardized tests, which often times, happen in short notice. Parents and students alike will spend a good percentage of their previous time locating the test venue and there were instances that the minutes they spent will be forever loss because proctors will not give consideration to late comers as a result of this predicament. Usually, teachers posts room assignments and names of test takers are either placed conspicuously in strategic places near the entrance of the testing rooms, however, still, due perhaps to erroneous entries (by omission or wrong spelling) the test takers find it hard to locate their names and examinee number in case of the standardized tests. Again, the time spent for locating their names and examinee number will take as much and will be disadvantageous as well as stressful to the students taking the tests. These are some of the observable loopholes in tests administration that oftentimes can be gleaned from any educational system in the country simply because there are those who failed to communicate to parents and students about the examination details.
In the aspect of “Teach to the Essential Learning Requirements (national curriculum standards) at each grade level so that students will learn the skills and knowledge they need to accurately show what they know and can do”, 72.1% of the respondents revealed that they consider this “appropriate and ethical” while 24.5% of them revealed that they consider it, “Somewhat appropriate and ethical”. In this, it can be understandably gleaned in the common practice of the Department of Education as stipulated in their numerous department issuances pertaining to the teaching of NAT covered subjects, that teachers are mandated to teach these basic necessities at grade levels in order for them to hurdle the race towards academic excellence.
Mostly, in the basic education sector, teachers bat for the familiarization and eventually, for mastery in the key identified skills and competencies at the grade level, prior to the granting of exit report results as depicted in grades. As to validation, teachers administers test, however, the results of the tests surely depends on the level of mastery of the pupils and students as the teacher illustrates a lesson, discusses a point or clarifying questions raised in class. If the teacher is creative enough, he/she could harness the best potentials of students to sufficiently engaged themselves at their level, discussions that exhibited the six elements of Bloom’s taxonomy however, highlighting the Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) of the students or pupils.
Sadly, most classroom teachers do not necessarily engage students to probing questions and activities that encourages the use of HOTS in classroom lesson deliberations and discussions, ergo, student’s capacity and capability on engaging on tasks that requires HOTS is adversely jeopardized. Lessons too, are made to be overly simplified in the light of student’s assessed level of intelligence without the benefit of an established benchmark as commonly agreed by the teacher and the students themselves. Sometimes, teachers established the standards without prior consultation with the pupils and students or worse, teachers succumb to the whims and prior hesitancies of pupils or students to establish higher set of standards.
In this, the use of the TOS is much required prior to the construction of any teacher-made test. As the teacher is done teaching specific lessons at the pace realistically acceptable to the pupils
and students, he/she needs to established the benchmark using the Table of Specification in order for him/her to identify how many items substantially represents the lesson discussed or in what manner will the placement of test items be. Absence of a concrete and valid TOS, test construction will be disastrous. This usually happens in the tertiary level education wherein instructors usually design tests that are not based on anything similar to a TOS and much more, instructors, upon finishing the conduct of the tests in the classroom, failed to validate their tests because they have not undertaken an activity called, ‘item analysis’. As the teacher teach the essential learning requirement of the curriculum, it is prudent that these assumptions always have to be etched validly in a TOS for test construction to be effective and valid.
In the aspect of to, “incorporate all subject area objectives into the local curriculum throughout the year including, but not limited to, the objectives of the tests to be administered”, 44% of the respondents revealed that they considered it “appropriate and ethical” because normally, the classroom teacher implements subject areas previously identified in the curriculum handed down by the Department of Education at the classroom level and usually too, objectives of tests are patterned to the set objectives of the curriculum. Meanwhile, 41% of the respondents revealed that it is “somewhat appropriate and ethical”, providing the impetus that there are a good number of classroom teachers that does not adopts the same objectives for the subject areas in the curriculum with the objectives of the tests. This assumption is such that because teachers are not familiar with the use of the TOS, they ended up at a loss as to what will be the established objectives of the tests which resulted to the practice of objective setting of tests that is totally different from the objectives set in the standard curriculum, at the classroom level.
At the school level, this will be ironed out since master teachers will tend to bring to the attention of the teacher concerned discrepancies in the objectives set in the curriculum and the tests.
In most cases too, at the classroom level the objectives of the tests to be administered at always safely ‘pegged’ at validating or evaluating mastery of competencies by the pupils and the students per lesson covered. A quick review perhaps of the tests and TOS will probably reveal a standardized objective which has been copied from test to the other over the years.
82% of the respondents responded that they considered it “appropriate and ethical” to conduct review on skills, strategies and concepts previously taught to class. This is common among all strata of education in the Philippines, and even in the tertiary level of education, professors and instructors oftentimes, conduct review classes prior to any tests to be administered. This is not be construed that the review will be for the tests in itself but to evaluate the level of mastery of students and pupils of the concepts, lessons, and skills being taught.
In this, it is acceptable to administer short quiz prior to a new lesson to set the tone of the class however, the coverage of the lesson should most likely be about the previously taught lesson or part of the syllabus. It is unwise for teachers to give quizzes to the class without sufficiently covering the areas of the tests per subject area. Say for instance, a lesson in Biology I which covers lessons previously discussed in class and sufficiently covered by the students and teachers in terms of classroom activity will only be the coverage of the tests to be administered and not something that will still have to be discussed in class. Otherwise, it is allowable if the teacher has
assigned activity, readings, assignment or takes home projects and the teacher wanted to know as part of the established objective if the students or pupils have studied, then a test may be administered but this should be practice sparingly.
The review of skills, strategies and concepts is limited to the lessons given to class prior to every new lesson to be introduced. In this, it is the primary concern of the classroom teacher to provide such review in light of the tests to be administered. But the review of the lessons should not also be to ensure that the ones being reviewed will also be the coverage of the tests to be constructed. Some practices among classroom teachers in all educational system tend to justify the giving of pointers as coverage of the tests and the review to be conducted will not anymore be about skills, strategies and concepts but on the specific pointers provided to the students, apparently to ensure that a higher percentage of students will pass the tests to be administered. This can be widely observed in some teacher-made tests or in some distinct case, prior to the NAT examination to improve the MPS level of a given school as required by the district or the division.
In the category, “teach and review test-taking and familiarization skills that include an understanding of test characteristics independent of the subject matter being tested”, 63.9% if the respondents answered that they sees it as ‘appropriate and ethical’ over to 29.5% of the respondents who commented that they considered it as “somewhat appropriate and ethical”. This responses best explains the behavior of classroom teachers who reviews how properly to answer test questions after checking the test papers of pupils and students. At some point in the researcher’s educational experience, some classroom teachers even initiated sort of ‘review’ on how students and pupils should answer each questions and to stress the relevance of reading instructions in the tests questionnaires.
This shows the picture that in the Philippine educational sector, classroom teachers exert efforts to promote self-learning as evidenced by the many review of answers usually after the tests has been given, especially on formative tests. Classroom teachers are more oriented towards ensuring that students and pupils are made to understand that their answers are taken into account and that they were taught how to correct it in futures tests that have similar mechanics or types, not coverage.
The researcher opined that in the Philippine setting, the manner review of answers are done by classroom teachers not in a way to humiliate students and pupils who performed less, but to encourage them to see the positive side of tests and that is in the manner that individual improvements and self-study is key to passing the tests. In this kind of review, usually classroom teachers teach students and pupils how best to arrive at answers in complex mathematical equations or problem solving; how best to approach analysis in sentence construction and how to answer English coverage of the tests. This activity, however, if wrongly administered will create an impression that students are being ‘coach’. But, the real intention is to provide for an immediate corrective mechanism to verify answers made by students and pupils in a given test.
In the category of “Use any test preparation documents and materials prepared by the test-maker and the Office of the Schools Division Superintendent”, 42.6% of the respondents answered that it is ‘appropriate and ethical’. Only 9.8% of the respondents answered that is rather ‘inappropriate and unethical’.
In this category, it is understood that in classroom teachers are allowed to fill-up attached documents prepared by the Department of Education’s Center for Testing for information purposes. Because these materials are not review materials, these can not be use for review of tests to be administered.
Usually, attached test preparation documents include a shopping list of documents sent out from the Department of Education Central Office to the Division, District and to the School level. These documents and materials are usually filled up by teacher-proctors as well as the testing supervisors. 34.4% of the respondents, moreover, are saying that these practice among classroom teachers are ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. In the kind of response that they have shown, there is a good number of classroom teachers who are not fully convinced of the ethical dimension of using tests preparation materials as prepared by the agency tasked to construct tests to be administered. This is explainable in the light of a strict government crackdown on examination leakage brought about by unscrupulous teachers and review centers as evidenced in the leak of the Nursing Board Examinations which has affected nursing professionals, both passers and flankers as they were asked to re-take certain tests items in the standardized Nursing Licensure Examinations.
These 34.4% of the respondents are extra-cautious of the use of the tests preparation documents and materials fearing that using any part of the tests preparation documents and materials will be tantamount to stealing and illegal use of tests materials. The researcher stressed that these documents and materials are not the tests questionnaires and answer keys, however, attached documents or special instructions prepared by the test-maker.
In “Read and discuss the tests administration manual with colleagues”, 62.2% of the respondents answered that it is ‘appropriate and ethical”. This is in the light that usually, the Division’s or the District’s designated test officer conducts tests administration briefings among classroom teachers and in these briefings, tests administration manuals are openly discussed. It is also in these meetings that the Department of Education will engage classroom teachers to make use of the issued Test Administration Guidelines which covers usually, the kind of tests to be administered, how do the tests are to be administered and the ethical dimensions of tests.
The common practice in the Philippines is that, classroom teachers are called to a meeting by the principal to be brief as to the important aspects of tests preparation and eventually, in its administration. In these meetings or briefings, guidelines for tests administrations issued by the Department of Education Central Office are presented. The Manual has to be made available to classroom teachers during these meetings and briefings.
In the meetings done by the Department of Education regarding the mechanics of the test to be administered, the District and also, the Division office calls for a meeting with the Principals and the designated testing officer, for the detailed deliberations on the tests administration manual, to ensure that the manual has been widely subscribed and that classroom teachers are well informed of the tests administration manual.
In “Schedule and provide the appropriate amount of time needed for the assessment”. 78.68% of the respondents said that this is ‘appropriate and ethical’ as compared to only 14.75% of the respondents who said that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.
This is so because in the Philippine educational setting, any examination or tests, whether teacher-made or standardized, the school administrators in the school level shall arrange the opportune schedule for the tests and to provide considerable amount of time needed for the preparations prior to any tests to be administered.
Usually too, the Department of Education releases Department Orders or Memoranda to set the time and schedule of standardized tests in the basic education system, like in the administration of the National Achievement Tests (NAT) and the National Career Assessment Examinations (NCAE).
The researcher believes that the scheduling and the provision of appropriate amount of time in the classroom by the teacher is within the bounds of ethical standards that has been widely observed among Filipino teachers. It is in this context that teaches usually consults the principals on the dates and the time allocation for tests, especially on summative tests which are usually departmentalized. In the Philippine tertiary level education, the widely practiced scheduling of tests and examinations are departmentalized.
With this in view, Filipino students are well-attuned to their preparations of the coverage of the tests or the examinations to be administered. It will become unethical, if the schedule is so disadvantageous to the students and pupils taking the examinations. The schedule becomes disadvantageous in instances when original schedules of tests are forgone for reasons within the control of the classroom teacher and reset on days that are considered to be heavily-loaded with previously and originally scheduled examinations. This practice is widely seen among colleges and universities in the Philippines.
In “take appropriate security precautions before, during and after administration of the tests”, 80.32% of the respondents answered that they considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’ and 13.11% of the respondents said that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ to secure tests materials prior, during and after the administration of tests, whether teacher-made or standardized tests.
Since the widely practice tests administration especially in summative tests in the Philippine educational system is departmentalized, the onus of the responsibilities of securing the tests questions prior, during and after the administration of the tests rests entirely on the staff or staffs assigned in the reproduction of tests materials. Because in the Philippine setting, summative tests construction are being contributed by members of the given department where the course falls within one specific semester or academic year, encoding and reproduction is handled by either the Department Secretary or the support staff at the Department Chairperson’s Office.
It is vitally important that the security details of the tests questions will not have to be limited to physically securing the tests questions prior and during, and answer keys after the administration of the tests. It has to include securing the computer that has been used for encoding the tests
questions as well as the reproduction machines like photocopying machines, resograph machines, mimeographing machines and others that are being used to reproduce tests questions.
Some, in the Philippines, photocopying business establishments retains copies of tests materials unbeknownst to the classroom teacher. This unscrupulous act among very enterprising businessmen has been the sources of examination leaks to students and this are sold usually expensive and usually too, students are much more willing to procure such copies prior to taking the tests or examinations.
In the administration of national standardized achievement tests in the Philippine basic education sector, the security component is stringently observed. however, there are instances that test materials are intentionally retained in the division or district offices for future uses (like in review classes to students and pupils, believing that in the following year, the test questions are not the same). In this context, the practice becomes unethical and inappropriate however, classroom teachers have no direct information as this are done in district and division offices. The opportunity to retain copies of the tests materials remains high primarily because the distribution of tests materials are done through a contracted courier, that delivers test materials (usually, sealed) to division offices and after the administration of the tests, pick up the answer keys and the test materials (usually, again, sealed). Because these are sealed, the courier will not be able to determine how many tests materials as well as answer keys are in one delivery and in one picking. These retained copies usually end up to be use in the review of pupils and students using the previously administered tests.
“Include all eligible students in the assessment”, is an important decision to be made by the classroom teacher prior to the administration of standardized testing in schools, like in the case of the NAT or NCAE. Normally in the Philippines, the administration of national standardized tests covers all students and pupils, and their eligibility requirement is that they are presently enrolled in a school year, in a given school. The non-inclusion of the administration of these tests happen whenever a pupil or student may be absent in a given academic period which is also the coverage of the NAT since a certain percentage of the grade in a given academic period is also one of the requirements of the NAT and the results of the NAT is computed and added to the final grade of the pupil or student in a given academic period in a academic year.
67.21% of the respondents answered that the inclusion of all eligible students in the assessment prior to any tests is ‘appropriate and ethical’; while 22.95% of them answered that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. There are only four (4) respondents or 6.55% of them who considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’.
Usually too, in the Philippine practice, it has to be stressed that non-inclusion of students and pupils in assessments prior to the administration of tests is tantamount of depriving them the right to education, thus, teachers and test directors usually allows students to take the examination especially, standardized national tests even if the students and pupils have not considerably attended the specific coverage of the academic period as well as gained mastery in the basic skills to be covered in the tests. Because assessments are made by the classroom teachers alone, the practice is usually, to allow all students and pupils to take the tests regardless of the result of the assessments done, if there are any.
In “actively proctor students during tests, keeping them focused and on task”, 54.01% of the respondents considered it “appropriate and ethical” while 24.59% of them also considered it “somewhat appropriate and ethical”. In the Philippine educational system, the practice of active proctoring is commonly observed wherein classroom teachers are asked to proctor examinations like the NAT and the NCAE to other schools within the district in which they are also presently serving. In these cases, teachers acting as proctor are oriented to assists students to stay focus on the examinations being administered. In some instances, teacher-proctors especially during standardized tests are unreasonably strict to the detriment of the comfort of the students and pupils taking the examinations, say for example, the pupil and students taking a 1 and half hour examination are not allowed to go to the rest room without the presence of the proctor or other examination assistant. There are instances that these practices are jeopardizing student’s and pupil’s chances of passing the examination being administered because they are inside a very ‘uncomfortable’, ‘pressure’ and ‘unfriendly’ testing environment wherein they are asked to go to the rest room prior and after the tests are being administered.
Proctoring in the Philippine educational system is too much for the students and the pupils taking the examination for the reason that teacher-proctor are oftentimes nose around on students and pupils during the examination, to the point of unreasonably checking on suspecting students and pupils whom they usually accused of plagiarism. As common among students and pupils taking examinations, the perennial problem of copying can not be avoided but this has to be undertaken in the context that it will not interfere student’s right to take the examinations and most importantly, it will not interfere with the other students taking the examination in the same room. Although plagiarism is not tolerated in the Philippine educational system, some teacher-proctor act as accomplices to copying if they allow students and pupils sharing answers in the hope that by doing so, the MPS of the given school and district will improve from the previous year.
In this case too, teacher-proctors are prone to ‘coach’ or ‘especially help’ students taking the tests, again, to help improve the school’s MPS. Sometimes, the practice is to allow the intelligent student or pupil to share his/her answers to the other students in order to increase the probability of passing the examination being administered. This is the same reason why there are 14.75% of the respondents who commented that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’.
In “seek clarification on issues and questions from the administrative team responsible for ethical and appropriate practices”, there are 59.01% of the respondents who said that this is ‘appropriate and ethical’ and another 24.59% of them who said that this is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. Strictly speaking, in the administration of tests in the Philippine educational system, from basic education to tertiary levels of educational ladder, there are no administrative teams created to be responsible for ethical and appropriate practices in the administration of the tests. What usually happens is that the Department of Education designates testing director who are usually based in either district or division offices and these designated officials are the ones who give briefing to teacher-proctor and those who will administer national standardized tests in the school level.
These designated personnel are task squarely on the proper procedure of administering the tests, the safekeeping of the test materials and answer keys as well as arranging for the briefing of
proctors and usually, they have no grasps on ethical and proprietary dimension of tests construction as well as administration. Usually, the common practice is that clarification on issues and logistical arrangements set by the central office of the Department of Education and this is through a pre-testing conference of all testing directors in the district and division or principals. There are no actual consultations relative to ethical and appropriate practices on the examination day itself and if there are any, it will be deliberated in the succeeding days pursuant to the written report to the district or the division office. With it, the process becomes tedious and highly bureaucratic. If there are ethical violations of tests administration procedures by teacher-proctors or students/pupils, normally, it will be resolve until after the examination is done and administered and upon filing of a formal complaint to the offices designated to receive such complaints, however, it will take some time for it to be resolved and answered.
In “avoid any action that would permit or encourage individuals or groups of students to receive scores that misrepresent their actual level of knowledge and skill”, there are 51.66% of the respondents who said that it is ‘appropriate and ethical’ while 31.14% of the respondents said that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.
This is the ideal practice that should happen in any administration of tests in the Philippines however, some teacher-proctor tend to ‘assist’ student/pupil taking the examination. Sometime way back in early 1990’s, in the advent of NCEE, there were many secondary school graduates who failed miserably in the NCEE however, have performed better when they have actually enrolled in their chosen courses and there are also those who excelled and garnered high results in the NCEE and yet, have not been performing beyond par when it comes to their chosen field. This practice of ‘assisting’ students in the examination period contributes to the downgrade competencies of the students after graduation in the basic education. Here, the classic evidence is in the students who pass the achievement tests and yet, have no mastery of basic skills on English, Math and Science and the moment they enrolled in college or university, college/university instructors will have a hard time teaching expert knowledge because they are pre-occupied with the recoiling of basic, factual and elementary competencies of students entering their courses.
Although the results of the study revealed that most of the respondents considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’, 13.11% of them considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ primarily because as has been commonly observed, teachers who aimed for a higher MPS would exert effort to improve it, whether ethical or through unethical means. These respondents are the ones who easily can exert special ‘assistance’ to students taking the examination who are obviously in distress and wanting also to improve the MPS level of a certain school or district, then they will willingly provide actions that will encourage to share answers and because of this, results of the examination does not necessarily representative of the actual level of knowledge and skills of students and pupils.
It is because of this that the result can be gleaned in the performance of college or university students in the Philippines. Many, as commonly observed, enrolled in their freshman in a baccalaureate degree without having the required mastery and competencies to hurdle the academic rigors required, and yet, these graduates have passed the nationalized standardized tests being administered in their basic education. This area are among the areas of test administration
in the Philippines that needs to be sufficiently improve to present a comprehensive results of tests that are representative of the acquired mastery and competencies in a given tested subject or area.
Before the tests are being administered to students and pupils, the determination of the ethical standards of the use of test preparation materials is of paramount consideration to all classroom teachers and proctors.
In the “use any tests preparation material that promises to raise scores on a particular test by targeting skills or knowledge from specific test items, and does not increase student’s general knowledge and skills. Materials which target the general skills tested may be appropriate if they reflect school or district priorities and best practices” 42.62% of the respondents considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’ while another 26.22% of them suggested that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. The misconception of the uses of test materials to improve the MPS of a given school in the form of review materials are commonly observed in many in the basic education system and even in many professional board/licensure examinations being conducted in the Philippines. As can be observed, many reviewers or review materials are taken directly or indirectly from test materials previously being administered.
These respondents who considered this activity as ethical and appropriate are those who are more focused on the improvement of the school’s MPS rather than in the actual learning competencies and mastery of the students and pupils taking the achievement or assessment tests.
Unfortunately still, many school heads and district officials are more oriented towards improving the MPS of the school as this affected their management of instruction as well as supervisory capabilities in the light of the actual competencies and mastery of skills. In order to better address a low MPS, these teachers are bent on conducting review classes for NAT examinations using previously administered tests materials.
Only 22.95% of the respondents who commented that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ in whatever means and however it is being intentionally used in the classroom. As effective teachers, the review, if there should be any, shall substantially cover skills and methodologies to improve the competencies and skills of the pupils and students, anyway, the results of the tests to be administered will be reflective of the actual learning outcome being gained in the class.
Because perhaps on too many task a given classroom teacher handles on a day to day basis, they would resort to review classes using test materials that targets skills and knowledge on specific test items on days nearing the examination dates. Again, because this do not focus on the competencies and mastery of skills, students may have potentially high raw test scores and collectively, the school may have a high MPS score across the board but the future educational plans of the students and pupils are in serious jeopardy, primarily because they were made to believe that they are able to hurdle a standardized national achievement tests but lacking miserably on required competencies and mastery of skills and knowledge.
On ‘limit curriculum and instruction only to those skills, strategies and concepts included on the tests’, there are only 31.14% of the respondents who considered this as ‘inappropriate and
unethical’ while 27.86% of them considered it as ‘appropriate and ethical’. In the Philippine context of ethical standards in tests administration, everything that is good for the student and the school is deemed ethical and practical much more appropriate even if it limits instruction on those skills and concepts that are covered in the tests. This can be gleaned in most practices among classroom teachers who changes gears in terms of discussion and lesson coverage on those that are vitally covered in the given tests.
There are may classroom teachers who are conducting focused-lectures and lesson deliberations that has been established emphasis in the national achievement tests (NAT) to benefit their classroom of potentially high passing raw scores in the examination and thereby increasing the MPS level of their schools.
On the positive note, 36.06% of the respondents are considering this as ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ and in the light of the different strategies to improve the ratings of students in the national achievement tests, many of them would tend to limit discussion and instruction on those areas that are covered in the tests. They would tend to some extent especially if their school encourages them to do so. This group of classroom teachers should be the focus of a strengthened ethical standards campaign to ensure that the instruction and curriculum are created and implemented in the classroom level to ensure mastery of skills and concepts and competencies among students and pupils, not as a leverage towards an increase MPS for the school.
Another aspect is in the category that “limit review to only those areas on which student performance was low on previous tests”, a combined percentage of the respondents considered it as ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ to ‘appropriate and ethical’.
32.78% of the respondents considered this as ‘inappropriate and unethical’. It is understandable in this light because as commonly practiced in many in the Philippine educational system, classroom teachers limit review only on those that needs improvement on the part of the students and pupils achievement tests results or in many formative or summative examinations. Usually too, coverage of the examinations especially teacher-made tests are limited only on those that classroom teachers considered to be needing improvement or those areas that students and pupils are ‘poor’ and needs immediate improvement.
Also, as commonly practiced in the Philippines, parents would tend to also guide study time and review on those areas that needs improvement and especially based on low performance of previous examinations among their children. In this, the orientation of parents and the classroom teachers are selectively focused on areas that they think will need more attention because their children or students have not been performing at par during the past examinations.
This is so because Filipino study habits and culture tends to point out on the ‘reactive’ attitude rather on the ‘proactive’ study attitude as expressed among highly advanced nations around the world. Review and study strategies are considerably focused on those areas that they feel weak as a result of a previous tests or examination, but have not mastered other areas that could have a direct or indirect relationship with an examination. For example, students who failed on problem solving tests in mathematics would tend to review on how to arrive at strategies and
methodologies that will ultimately improve their problem solving skills however, have not also studied reading comprehension in English area which could have been useful in answering problem solving questions in mathematics.
In “cram test material just before the tests are given”, 44.26% of the respondents considered this as ‘inappropriate and unethical’ and 24.59 % of the respondents answered that this is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ while only 16.39% of them who considered this as ‘appropriate and ethical’.
One laudable attribute of classroom teachers in the Philippine educational system is on being prepared before any tests or achievement examinations. Our being prepared has been attributed to our desire to improve our present accomplishment and also due to our clamor to excel in whatever endeavors that we pursue. This best explains why many classroom teachers who are tasked in the administration of any tests, preferred to go to the testing areas early on, mostly around two (2) hours prior to the start of the examination, bringing the test materials, and has already been briefed accordingly.
This aspect is also can be seen in the institutionalization of review classes in many colleges and universities that are offering board courses like education, accountancy, agriculture, architecture and engineering, nursing and physical therapy as well as in medicine and law. In most cases, colleges and universities are conducting review classes on board or bar examinations and this are usually attended by students of the same college or university and is conducted by in-house reviewers.
This practice prohibits the cramming of test materials as students and pupils are adequately given sufficient time to be adjusted with the manner of taking the tests as well as on the mechanism of taking the tests as provided in the review classes conducted.
In “train students for testing using locally developed versions of national norm-referenced tests”, 44.26% of the respondents considered this ‘appropriate and ethical’ while another 24.59% of them said that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ to do this.
Mostly, due to the ingenuity of Filipino reviewers, they devised locally-made tests materials patterned after the national standardized tests being administered for use exclusively in the review of students. This is evidenced by the proliferation of review materials available in many bookstores across the country, purportedly selling review tips and materials that ‘sound like the real’ test material use in the examination.
Because of this response, the sales of locally-made versions of review materials patterned from standardized tests are not condemned as unethical and inappropriate, in fact, many colleges and universities offering reviews are openly accessing these review materials to ensure that their students hurdle the national standardized tests.
Only 22.95% of the respondents considered this as ‘inappropriate and unethical’.
In the light of the fast and advanced construction of test items in a given test or examination, most classroom teachers using locally-made versions of these tests opined that what they are using are appropriate and ethical since this are not actual or real tests questions that will come out during the tests, however, the mere use of locally-made versions of national norm-referenced tests are unethical in the first place. Also, usually, the discussion will falls under economic dimensions of the use of the review materials since locally-made test materials used in the review are much affordable than approved review materials commonly used and is widely available.
54.09% of the respondents considered “revealing all or any part of secure copyrighted tests to students, in any manner, oral or written, prior to test administration” as ‘inappropriate and unethical’. This is so because administration of tests in all levels of educational system in the Philippines is replete with all the security mechanism to eliminate the threats of plagiarism or leaks in the examinations. Usually, because the security mechanism for test materials to be used in the examination is very tight, the leaks happened in the review centers as what has happened in the Nursing examination leaks.
This is widely practiced in the Philippines and the security mechanism is very fool-proof as students and pupils taking the examination will have the chance to see the test materials just minutes prior to taking the examination and during this time, the examination time has officially started.
In many board and licensure examinations, the tests materials are distributed to those who are taking the test inside the testing venue and the proctor then announced that the tests materials can now be viewed and read through, but at this time, again, the examination has officially started already.
“Copy or otherwise reproduce all or any part of secure or copyrighted tests” are very important aspects of the study of ethical standards in test construction and administration. In this category, Filipino classroom teachers are in the majority in saying that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’.
In this, only 19.67% of the respondents commented that this is ‘appropriate and ethical’. On the level of the personal motives of classroom teachers, they are usually not daring enough to reproduce all or any part of secure or copyrighted tests, however, there are potential sources of these reproduction and usually, this will not necessarily involved classroom teachers themselves, as in the Philippines experience, the test materials are not in the sole safeguard and property of the classroom teachers but to the sub-contracted couriers, the designated testing director in the division, the designated testing director in the district office and then, the school head or principal before it reaches the hands of the classroom teacher, although, usually, as commonly observed among those involved in the administration of tests in the Philippines, these testing materials are sealed when it arrives in the testing venues.
One notable experience shared by classroom teachers administering standardized tests in the basic education sector commented that they usually do not reproduce test materials but retain one or two copies of the test material for use in the review classes to be undertaken by the school or district. The choice of retaining copies of the test materials is not within the purview of the
classroom teachers anymore since the pick-up of test materials and answer sheets are done by the courier in the district or division offices.
In “review or provide test question answers to students”, 44.26% of the respondents commented that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while 32.78% of them also considered this as ‘appropriate and ethical’ and only 19.67% of them commented that this is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical”.
These responses are evidence of circumstances that surrounds the case at hand. It is considered inappropriate and unethical if the answer keys to the specific test or examination are provided to students, however, it can also be considered appropriate or ethical if the classroom teacher is only reviewing what will come out in the examination by using actual test questions. Depending on the gravity of the act, the classroom teacher will decide whether such act is inappropriate or ethical. These responses are driven by the present environment wherein schools that have low MPS in the previous NAT are asked to undertake measures to improve their MPS in the coming tests and because they have accessed to retained test materials, this will be used as a review test material for the NAT.
72.13% of the respondents who says that they considered possessing unauthorized copies of national tests as ‘inappropriate and unethical’ compared to only 8.19% who says that it is ‘appropriate and ethical’.
These responses points to the manner Filipino teachers considered that possessing unauthorized copies of national tests including tests questions is unethical however, perhaps, the 8.19% of them would consider it as ethical if it has been provided to them by the right office and the right person in the district or division office. It has been of common knowledge that in the Philippines, teachers made use of previously administered tests materials for review purposes of future tests. Possessions of these materials without prior approval and tacit knowledge of the right office and the right people is deemed illegal and unethical, but whenever a supervisor obtains tests materials for use in the review of specific schools and course through the school’s designated testing director or the principal, then it will be appropriate.
During the administration of the tests, 40.98% of the respondents commented that reading any parts of the tests to students except where indicated in the directions is ‘appropriate and ethical’ while 34.42% of them also considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’, however there are 16.39% of them who viewed it as ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’, which can easily be inferred as nearer to the majority of the respondents claiming that it is appropriate and ethical.
These responses can be best explained in the behavior and responses of the respondents on the category that teachers actively proctor students during tests, keeping them focused and on task and by this, they would also mean that undertaking some special reading of any parts of the tests is ethical and appropriate. This can also be explained by the lingering cultural construct among Filipino teachers that whenever their students are taking tests or participating in competitions that will bring potential honors or disgrace to their schools, they will go out of their way to ensure that their students are able to answer well and within all means to ensure success which oftentimes results to this practice, albeit unethical.
In the Philippines, the value of saving face at the onset of any academic tests or undertaking somehow would have something to play and these observations are the interplay of deep commitment towards ensuring the reputation of the school under a specific stewardship will not be sullied by poor results in tests or examinations, ergo, teachers will resort to violating ethical standards by undertaking such illegal activities during the administrations of the tests.
Also, one of the factors that classroom teachers will eventually be asked to read some parts of the tests to students except where indicated in the directions is on the manner directions are also constructed. In most cases, especially on teacher-made tests, instructions and directions are not clearly manifested which confuses students taking the tests thus, students will resort to asking for some explanations as to the directions or instructions before proceeding to answer all the questions. Some, after a review of the actual tests questions of standardized tests questions for the National Achievement Tests, some directions and instructions are confusing and ill-planned and misplaced within the tests material. With this, students would have to ask the proctor or the teachers themselves to read to them some parts of the tests that are not clear.
In the category “define or pronounce words used in the test”, the respondents have varied responses which is observable in many classroom tests administrations. 42.62% of the respondents said that it is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while 32.78% of them said that it is ‘appropriate and ethical’, and 36.06% commented that it is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.
In this, although there are a good percentage of the respondents who considered it inappropriate and unethical, there are also however, a substantial percentage of them who considered it somewhat to outright appropriate and ethical. This can be observe, again, in the manner classroom teachers wanting an improved results of the tests by undertaking ‘special help’ to students who are in distress while taking the examination.
Usually, as observed in many in the Philippine public basic education sectors that are now being under intense scrutiny because of low performance in the NAT and in the NCAE, teachers would oftentimes, resort to ‘clarify’ words used in the tests to ensure a high percentage of passing among those taking the tests. This is so because as widely being experienced by tertiary level instructors and professors, those who usually are able to hurdle the NAT in both elementary and secondary levels does not have sufficient mastery on the areas being tested like English, Math and Science thus, resulting to protracted discussions or deliberations on basic knowledge base acquisitions or master of certain skills rather than proceeding on expert knowledge discussions in classrooms and this also explains the proliferation of non-creditable refresher or tutorial classes to allow students to hurdle the rigorous demands of tertiary education and incredibly, many students have been under these subjects.
On the category, ‘make comments of any kind during the tests, including remarks about quality or quantity of student work, unless specifically called for in the administration manual’, 57.37% of the respondents considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while 21.31% of them considered it ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’. Only 14.75% of the respondents commented that this is ‘appropriate and ethical’. There are 4.91% who are ‘undecided or confused’ in this category.
As commonly practiced in the Philippines, during the administrations of tests, teachers and proctors are observing students taking the tests at a distance and normally too, there are no distractions as a result of this category. Mostly, the venue of examinations or tests are made to be conducive for the administration of tests and teachers are prohibited from talking aloud or to make comments regarding the tests as to its procedures, the manner to be administered and the way students answered. Due to this prohibition, the respondent’s answers to this category best represent the real situation during the administration of tests.
In ‘give “special help” of any kind to students taking the tests’, 63.93% of the respondents commented that this is inappropriate and unethical and only 13.11% of them considered this appropriate and ethical while 19.67% of them considered it ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’.
These responses do not sufficiently describe the prevailing practice among teachers who are in need of a better MPS in the batch of students taking any standardized tests in the Philippines. Although the responses of the majority of the respondents pointed to its perception that this is unethical and inappropriate, but in the event that their schools experiences low MPS and that they need to abruptly improve it in the next NAT examination, then these special help will be put into discreet practice. Although this has to be verified but I believed that there a good number of Filipino teachers who extend ‘special help’ to students taking the tests to ensure high percentage of passers from one specific school, though the respondents are not openly admitting it.
72.13% of the respondents considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ to suggest or coach students to mark or change their answers in any way as compared to only 16.39% of them who considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’.
In the Philippines, the administration of tests, whether teacher-made or standardized is a serious business. Teachers or proctors do not coach students to change or mark their answers in any way during the examinations. This extends to the practice in the administration of licensure examinations in the Philippines and in these cases, proctors are too strict that they are already sacrificing or jeopardizing the comforts of the students taking the tests.
It is however different when teachers ‘coach’ students to change wrong answers to ensure high MPS among the takers of the examination and ‘coaching’ to answer correctly. These are two different manners in which the end usually justifies the means. In this likely manner, students taking the examinations will be ‘coach’ to answer correctly during the tests but not ‘coached’ to change or alter wrong responses and this is widely observable in the Philippines.
I said this primarily because in most cases too, students who pass the NAT have difficulty in undertaking the rudiments of the subjects they are believed to be performing beyond expectations. Say, a student who garnered a high raw score on English because he/she was ‘coach’ to choose the correct answers will find it extremely difficult passing a similar examination being administered in the guise of college or university admission tests.
This observation is considerably being widely done in the Philippines as can be gleaned from the poor or below average performance of college or university freshmen in English, Mathematics or Science in which in their secondary education, they have garnered high raw scores. As I have
argued, raw scores are not the sole determinant of academic performance and achievement, although, among them.
In the category to ‘exclude eligible students from taking the tests’, an overwhelming 70.49% of the respondents considered it ‘inappropriate and unethical’ while only 9.83% of them considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’.
In the Philippines, prior to the administration of tests, a roster of eligible student takers are provided by the school to the district and eventually, to the division to ensure that these students can take the administered tests in their schools, and usually too, there were no instances that students are barred from taking the tests even if they are eligible to take the tests.
This responses also best illustrates the amendments made on the administration of the professional Civil Service Commission Licensure examination in which prior to its amendment, only degree holders or graduates of a four-year degree course can be allowed to take the professional licensure examination done by the CSC, however, just recently, this has been amended to allow even non-graduates of a four-year degrees to take the tests, however, this has its own limitations as this can not and will never be done in the administration of executive career service examinations or the foreign service officers (FSO) examinations, which requires specific courses and the examination takers should have obtained a university or college degree to be able take the examination.
“To reproduce test documents for any purpose”, 42.62% of the respondents commented that this is ‘inappropriate and unethical’ and 27.86% of them commented that this is ‘somewhat appropriate and ethical’ while 22.95% of them also considered it ‘appropriate and ethical’.
As I have been arguing, the reproduction of tests documents may not be necessary as the common practice in the Philippines is that the division or district offices will more or less, retain copies of the tests materials for review purposes and many schools have been undertaking review classes using these materials. In this practice, reproduction is not anymore the issue since a wholesale edition of true test materials will be made available for use in the review of the examinations to be administered.
After the test administration, an overwhelming 68.85% of the respondents considered ‘inappropriate and unethical’ to make inaccurate reports, unsubstantiated claims, inappropriate interpretations or otherwise false and misleading statements about assessment results. Only a meager 14.75% of them considered this as ‘appropriate and ethical’.
This is so because in the Philippines, teachers administering the standardized tests like the NAT and the NCAE or in many board licensure examinations undertaken by the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) are not allowed to interpret the answers or responses of students pursuing the tests. In the case of the correction or interpretation of the NAT and the NCAE, it is being undertaken by one office under the Department of Education and this is centralized so teachers do not have accessed to these test materials and the answer sheets.
To ‘erase or change student answers’, 81.96% of the respondents viewed this as ‘inappropriate and unethical’. In the Philippines, the teacher or proctors are not as daring as to erase or change student answers since this will also cost them their job if caught.
In the Philippines too, the possession of tests materials and answer sheets in the proctor or teacher do not usually lasts more than 24 hours after the administration of the tests and usually, the collected answer sheets and tests materials are sealed for verification in the district or division offices and eventually, for transport via courier to the Central Office for corrections. Even in the transport of the tests materials and answer sheets are shrouded in secrecy and teachers do not know when and where the tests materials or the answer sheets are to be picked up by the courier and modalities of its transport.
CONCLUSIONS:
Out of the findings of the study, the researcher draws the following conclusion:
1. In the area of the utilization and the proper evaluation of implementable Table of Specifications (TOS) in the school level, it has been observed that it is blatantly absent but there are areas of improvement wherein the district supervisors can take an active role through the constant guidance and consultation with the Schools Division Superintendent as well as the principal;
2. Generally, the Filipino classroom teachers do adhere to time-honored tradition and morals that are similar to ethical standards however, there is no existing Code of Ethical Standards that governs the construction of tests as well as in its administration;
3. The Department of Education has not sufficiently encourage teachers to conduct classes in major areas covered by standardized tests like the NAT instead of conducting review classes using previously administered tests materials;
4. Teachers in all educational levels observes ethical and appropriate standards in the activities covering testing which includes, pre-testing, during the tests and after the tests have been administered;
5. There is no Code of Ethical Standards for Tests Construction and Administration adopted by the Department of Education and many colleges and universities that is similar to the ones espoused by the Washington Education Research Association which has been central in this undertaking;
6. The implications varies to the gravity of the ethical violations which oftentimes too, can not be settled in judicial processes however, it have impacts on the future of the children and pupils taking the tests and specifically, the implications includes the following:
a. Wrong assessment and evaluation of tests results (i.e., high percentage raw score may not necessarily reflect mastery and competencies in the subject area or low percentage raw score may not also necessarily reflect low mastery or competencies);
b. Unpredictable and uncertain career paths are a result of wrong assessments done by teachers who committed a mistake in constructing the tests because he/she do not use a TOS and the grades become sole determinant of academic achievement which until now has to be proven;
c. For other researchers, academics and instructors, that they may find exceptional sources of information for future researches about Islamic education in the Philippines;
d. Absence of ethical standards in tests construction and administration will give unfortunately, rooms for misinterpretation and misrepresentation of tests results which hampers the future prospects of students and pupils, thus resulting to students pursuing mismatched careers;
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The researcher proposes the following recommendations:
1. Adoption of a Code of Ethical Standards in tests construction and administration by the classroom teachers from the basic education to instructors in colleges and universities;
2. Regular validation and evaluation of Tables of Specifications (TOS) in all classes from basic education to tertiary level education, including in the graduate school programs;
3. The Philippine Department of Education as well as the Commission on Higher Education shall endeavor to conduct information caravans, campaigns and seminars as well as fora to discuss ethical dimensions in tests construction and administration;
4. The Commission on Higher Education shall also include in the revised curriculum for Teacher Education Programs in all Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) across the country, course like “Ethics in Education” particularly targeting on ethical standards in tests construction and administration, outside the regularly offered, “Ethics in Teaching Profession”. This course program shall have a 3 unit equivalent in the major courses under the BEED and BSED baccalaureate programs;
5. Future researches pertaining to this area in education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
I gratefully acknowledged the assistance extended by Dr. Maria Nancy Cadosales. I thanked the students of the PhD Program in Educational Management and faculty of the Graduate School of the La Salle University as well as Br. Narciso Erquiza, FSC, President, La Salle University, for their support and inspiration. CHED Commissioner Luningning M. Umar for her support and favorable endorsement. Also, Ms. Michelle Beracis-Cagape for the support and understanding.
References
(2001, August 11). Republic Act 9155 . Manila: Government of the Philippines.
(2001). Paper-and-Pencil Test Questions. In P. W. Airasian, Classroom Assessment Concepts and Applications (p. 168). Boston: McGraw-Hill Publications.
Airasian, Peter W. (2001). Classroom Assessment Concepts and Applications, Fourth Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Publication.
Arcelo, A. A. (2003). In Pursuit of Continuingquality in Higher Education through accreditation: The Philippine Experience. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Arneson, R. (2007, September 16). A note on utilitarianism and consequentialism for Philosophy 13.
(1990). Ethics . In M. Artigas, Introduction to Philosophy (p. 68). Manila: Sinag-Tala Publishers, Inc.
Asaad, A. S., & Hailaya, W. M. (2004). In A. S. Asaad, & W. M. Hailaya, Measurement and Evaluation, Concepts and Principles (p. 124). Manila: Rex BookStore.
Asaad, A. S., & Hailaya, W. M. (2004). Measurement and Evaluation, Concepts and Principles. Manila: Rex Bookstore.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998, September 8). "Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment". Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Phi Delta Kappan: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm
Boston, C. (2002, October 1). The Concept of Formative Assessment. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation College Park MD: http://www.vtaide.com/png/ERIC/Formative-Assessment.htm
Cabreza, V. (2007, June 10). Whistleblowers in 2006 Nursing Test leak take new exams. Philippine Daily Inquirer , p. 6.
Calderon, J. F., & Gonzales, E. C. (2007). Charateristics and Classifications of Educational Measuring Instruments. In J. F. Calderon, & E. C. Gonzales, Measurement and Evaluation (p. 21). Mandaluyong City: National Book Store.
Cena, E. (2007, January 16). 1.8 Million High School Students to take career exams. Philippine Daily Inquirer , p. 9.
CMO 30 . (2004, September 13). Retrieved December 2, 2007, from Commission on Higher Education: http://www.ched.gov.ph
Code of Ethics . (2007, April 24). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Americna Association of School Administrators Website: http://www.aasa.org/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=2157
Code of Ethics for Registered Teachers. (2007, November 29). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from A New Zealand Education Council WebSite: http://www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/ethics/code.stm
Code of Ethics for Teachers. (2007, November 28). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from Association of American Educators Website: http://www.aaeteachers.org/code-ethics.shtml
Code of Ethics for Testing. (2001, April 29). Retrieved November 30, 2007, from North Carolina Public Schools: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/testing/policies/testcode080100.pdf
Code of Ethics of the Education Profession. (2005, July 12). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from National Education Association Website: http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/code.html
Code of Professional Responsibilities in Educational Measurement . (1997, June 15). Retrieved November 29, 2007, from National Association of Test Directors Website: http://www.natd.org/Code_of_Professional_Responsibilities.html
De Jesus, E. C. (2003, August 25). DepEd Order 70. Revised Grading system for Elementary and Secondary Schools . Quezon City: Department of Education.
DepEd Updates. (2007, December 16). Retrieved December 16, 2007, from Department of Education: http://www.deped.gov.ph/updates/updateslinks.asp?id=331
Education and Testing Program. (2006, December 08). Retrieved December 05, 2007, from DepEd Division of Island Garden City of Samal: http://www.region11.deped.gov.ph/igacos/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=34
(1995). Philosophy of Philippine Education. In A. Elevazo, & R. Elevazo. Manila: National Bookstore.
(1995). What Does the Score Tell you? In E. S. Gelleman, School Testing, What Parents and Educators Need to Know (p. 117). Westport, Connecticut : Praeger Publishers.
Gloria, R. T. (1996). The Development of Education, A National Report of the Philippines. 45th Session of the International Conference on Education (p. 3). Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO Geneva.
Glossary . (2007, December 01). Retrieved December 01, 2007, from The NOLO Web site: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/2AC7A5A3-29CC-44C8-ACCBC7DCB1F09395/alpha/B/
Harrington, P. (2007, December 1). Standard Tests Administration adn Testing Ethics for Utah Educators. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from Utah State Office of Education Website: http://schools.utah.gov
History of Best Interests. (2006, November 16). Retrieved December 01, 2007, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_interests
Hunter-Lowe, M. R. (2005, June 5). Ethics and Decision Making in Education. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from Therories of Ethics in Education: http://ezinearticles.com/?Ethics-and-Decision-Making-in-Education&id=857935
Implementing Rules and Regulation for RA 6713. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2007, from Civil Service Commission: http://www.csc.gov.ph/RA6713b.html
Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.
Keogh, B. K. (2003). Temperament in the Classroom, Understanding Individual Differnces . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
Macapagal-Arroyo, G. (2001, April 23). Presidential Speeches. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from Office of the President of the Philippines Website: http://www.opnet.ops.gov.ph/speech-2001april23a.htm
National Educational Testing and Research Center. (2007, December 5). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Department of Education: http://www.deped.gov.ph/about_deped/organizationlinks.asp?id=16
(1992). Evaluation of Learning. In J. C. Palma, Curriculum Development System, A Handbook for School Practitioners in Basic Education (p. 113). Mandaluyong City: National Bookstore.
Peterson, M. (2006, November 20). Are persons mere containers for wellbeing? Retrieved December 1, 2007, from Philisophy : http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/misc/moral_philosophy/papers/PetersonNOV20.pdf
Pimentel, A. (2006, August 18). Press Release . Retrieved December 01, 2007, from Senate of the Philippines website : http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2006/0818_pimentel1.asp
PNA. (2007, November 16). DepEd yo Focus on Schools with Low Master Scores. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Government of the Philippines Website: http://www.gov.ph/news/?i=19385
Romero, R. C. (2005). Education for International Understanding in the Philippines: Current Status and Future Challenges. Journal of Education for International Understanding, Vol. 1 , 146.
Singh, Y. (2005). Instructional Technology in Education. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation.
Teaching, N. Y. (2003, April 06). Code of Ethics for Educators . New York City, New York, United States of America .
Testing and Assessment. (2007, June 14). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/science/fairtestcode.html
Williams, B. (1973). A Critique of Utilitarianism. In B. Williams, & J. Smart, Utilitarianism: For and Against (p. 89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
