Standardised Testing, From Two Sides of the Seemingly Same Coin

Home >> Articles >> Malaysian Education >> Standardised Testing, From Two Sides of the Seemingly Same Coin

Written by johnleemk on 10:10:57 am May 4, 2005.

Okay, Malaysian students. Picture this: You're an American high school junior. Soon your first standardised test ever, the SAT is coming up. You're tense and a bit afraid, as the results will determine which college you get into. Your parents enrol you in a special class to prepare students for the SAT. Nevertheless, you face the test with little trepidation, knowing your high school education will keep you in good stead, even if it never prepared you to fill in these funny circles with a 2B pencil, as the SAT only tests you on maths and English anyway. Sounds pretty much like paradise doesn't it? Well, if you're an American student, here's the other side of the coin...

You're a 5th former in a Malaysian secondary school. Your third standardised test ever is coming up. This will be the test that determines which college you can be admitted to. Although you feel the pressure, you're extremely well prepared. After all, you've been coached for this all your life. Already in primary 1, you were trained to fill in test papers with a 2B or HB pencil. You know exactly what is expected of you and what you will be tested on in the examination. You've sat for all the practice papers and done every activity book available on the market, just like you did for your two previous standardised tests, the UPSR in primary 6 and the PMR in form 3. Your daily tuition classes are keeping you focused on your target of as many As as possible, whether or not they are relevant to your ultimate career choice.

Sounds like hell, doesn't it? Well, welcome to the life of the average urban Malaysian student.

Now, if you're a Malaysian kid, you may be wondering what this fuss is about. Well, American students sit for this test known as the SAT. It's not mandatory, and if you don't sit for it, you still graduate from high school. If you want to go to college, though, the SAT is almost certainly a must. However, the schools there do not, for the most part, focus on preparing you for this test. As you can see, although it's important, the emphasis is on providing you with a good education. Paper qualifications come second, since if you're talented, it doesn't matter what papers you have; quality speaks for itself.

In Malaysia, on the other hand, we are pretty much primed for sitting for standardised tests right up until we leave secondary school. Everyone learns how to spot what questions will come out, what will be on the test and will not be on the test, and that's pretty much what school is for. The syllabus is followed strictly and uniformly standardised. Anything that may be relevant but will not be tested is sidelined. Even if teachers do not relegate it to the corner of educational history, it is highly unlikely any students will bother to retain the information.

Having seen what the situation is like in both sides, it may surprise Malaysian students to know that Americans chafe at having to sit for the SAT. To us it seems pretty elementary, but the idea of a standardised test is foreign to American students. They are more used to being judged on their merit using an assesment by a teacher or other professional than by an objective test, which they feel unnecessarily gambles their future away. There is actually a movement to abolish the SAT in the US.

For us? Well, we're fine. But as you can see, American and Malaysian education are in two completely different leagues of their own. America emphasises education and critical thinking skills, with paperwork coming second; if you're good, you'll get the papers eventually. In Malaysia, focus is on getting your diploma/degree ASAP. The presupposition is that if you have the paper, you'll obtain the skills.

How do I know all this? Being a Malaysian student (and having attended a Chinese school, private school and national type school), I'm exceedingly familiar with how we are taught here. Having a huge network of American friends/acquaintances has also helped me obtain knowledge about what goes on over there, as has the internet. (Now you can see why I champion more non-fiction reading; it gives us a point of reference for our own lives.)

If you liked this article, check out these related articles:

Here are the most popular articles in Malaysian Education:

If you'd like to keep informed about updates to the site, consider subscribing to our web feed:

Raw feed (Atom 1.0)

Want to know when new articles are published? Subscribe to our newsletter:

(What's this?)

Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.

Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.

Comments

Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)

Related comments from forum thread "Extrapolating culture from examination practices":
johnleemk Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 948 IP Logged	Posted at 12:38:25 pm Oct 25, 2005 Today while I was sitting for my GCE 'O' Levels for the first time (at the British Council, near KLCC), I realised there are some rather startling discrepancies between how the Americans and British handle the process of examinations. To contrast this, let's look at how I applied to sit (and actually sat) for the American SAT I exam and the GCE 'O' Levels. When I applied to sit for the SAT, I logged on to the official American College Board website, registered a user account, and just registered for the test online. To pay for the fees, all that was required was a valid credit card number. As a statement of entry, printing out the confirmation webpage would suffice. The whole approach struck me as something like fast food for examinations, or a drive-thru examination, if you will. When you headed for the test centre, at the entrance, there would be these very helpful signs pointing you in the correct direction of the room you were meant to head for. At the entrance of the room, your identification and statement of entry would be scrutinised before you would be allowed to enter, where an invigilator would then assign you a seat (depending entirely on her whims). Bags would have to be placed on the floor in the front of the hall. Then at the test itself, we had to wait for late candidates before beginning the test. Due to the nature of the test (it's divided into separate sections, which are sat for one at a time, like different papers), we would not be allowed to leave early if we finished early. Before the test began, the invigilators read out the instructions for us (as if students sitting for a college-entrance examination are illiterate). The instructions themselves were readily available as part of the answer booklet, and were so easy to follow, any old literate dummy could properly fill in his candidate number, etc. When it came to toilet breaks, nobody was allowed to leave the room except at specific periods, when as a group everyone could go to the toilet. (So if you had to go, you had to wait.) Reminders of how much time was left were pretty frequent, although considering the nature of how the test was divided into sections, this would probably not be too unreasonable. Once time was up, you handed in everything, and said goodbye permanently to both your question and answer booklets. The results would come out in about a month. For the 'O' Levels, things were pretty different. Registering was done in the good old pen and paper manner, right down to having to fill out a bank draft. Then you'd have to wait for your statement of entry and instructions to come in the post. And if there were any clashes between subjects you were sitting for (such as a clash between a physics and biology paper), the onus would be on you to inform the test centre, and not for the test centre to work things out and settle everything down properly. At the test centre itself, there were no signs at all to guide you to the correct general location (let alone room) of the examination. You would be expected to enquire at the counter of the British Council, apparently. Then when you arrived at the general location of the examination hall, you'd have to work out where exactly it was (fortunately, that wouldn't be too hard, as a permanent sign was available; no "'O' Levels this way" signs though). Outside the hall, there would be no staff to scrutinise you or inform you of what next; you would be expected to do that yourself. Finally, about five minutes before the test, an invigilator would pop out of a nondescript door to inform you if you wanted a last-minute toilet visit, you would have to do it now. Having done so, you would be admitted to the exam hall. Bags would be placed on a couple of tables apparently provided for such a purpose. Seating had already been predetermined, so no need to worry about invigilators seating you in the wrong spot (whatever that may be). At the beginning of the test, surprisingly little instructions were given beyond the basic "turn off your cellphone, don't cheat, bla bla". The examination answer and question booklets were hardly clear or verbose in their instructions either; I actually had to ask if I would need to shade in my candidate number for the multiple-choice paper (I didn't have to). No timing warnings were provided throughout the duration of the test. If you finished early, you could hand in your paper and either move on to the next one or leave the exam hall. If you needed any toilet breaks, you could raise your hand and then be accompanied from the room by an invigilator to look out for any cheating. It was only when you finished the test that you would find out whether you missed any instructions or not; somehow, somebody seemed to have forgotten to remind candidates sitting for subjective papers that each sheet of paper should have the candidate's name and candidate number written on top. If you wanted your question paper returned to you, you couldn't keep it, but you could write down your postal address and wait for it to come back in about three months. Now, naturally any inferences drawn from the differences observed from the juxtaposition of these two exams are likely to contain some errors. For example, the very nature of these two exams differ; the SAT tests aptitude, not knowledge, while the 'O' Levels test academic knowledge, not aptitude. Nevertheless, because I have nothing better to do with my time, I'm going to try. One noticeable difference between the two exams is that in the SAT, the onus is on the part of the examiners to work out all the kinks. If a candidate is late, they have to wait. If something is wrong, they have to notice it and fix it. With the 'O' Levels, you have to ensure everything's alright; forget about the examiners doing it for you. I suppose you could infer from this that American culture is customer-oriented and businesslike, while the 'O' Levels remain the domain of pure academia, where the student's supposed to do everything. Another difference is that it seems the American SAT reflects the typical American notion of egalitarianism - everyone does everything at the same time; no special toilet breaks for you. You finish early? Too bad, you have to wait it out. Not so with the traditionally aristocratic British - go ahead with your private business at your own rate. ~~(D*, have to go now. Will continue later. In the meantime, if you think this is bulls, don't hesitate to tell me so.)~~ Okay, back. So, where was I? Ah, yes. Ignorance vs intelligence. The SAT made everything so simple. A dummy could take the test (like I said). It's idiot-proof. On the other hand, the 'O' Levels were exactly what they were meant to be - a scary, academic test. Even the atmosphere pre-test was scary. Everyone was studying like hell. Most of the candidates dressed conservatively (as opposed to the surprising dress standards of SAT candidates - I saw a lot of flesh). Perhaps that Americans have such a low expectation of mental ability isn't too surprising - pick up a copy of Michael Moore's Idiot Nation* to see why. (Even if you disagree with him, at least read the book for his story of how he ran for a seat on his school board. At the age of 18, he was the boss of his school principal.) Anyway, so those are my observations and inferences from my sociological "experiments". Feel free to kutuk (Malay for criticise, if you're a [i]mat salleh/i], which is a word I won't translate for you) my failure at appreciating the scientific method or my astounding idiocy. I'm bored, and I have nothing better to do than argue with you, anyway.
Last five replies (0 comments not shown):

Related comments from forum thread "Extrapolating culture from examination practices":

johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind
Head Administrator
Posts: 948
IP Logged

Posted at 12:38:25 pm Oct 25, 2005

Today while I was sitting for my GCE 'O' Levels for the first time (at the British Council, near KLCC), I realised there are some rather startling discrepancies between how the Americans and British handle the process of examinations. To contrast this, let's look at how I applied to sit (and actually sat) for the American SAT I exam and the GCE 'O' Levels.

When I applied to sit for the SAT, I logged on to the official American College Board website, registered a user account, and just registered for the test online. To pay for the fees, all that was required was a valid credit card number. As a statement of entry, printing out the confirmation webpage would suffice. The whole approach struck me as something like fast food for examinations, or a drive-thru examination, if you will.

When you headed for the test centre, at the entrance, there would be these very helpful signs pointing you in the correct direction of the room you were meant to head for. At the entrance of the room, your identification and statement of entry would be scrutinised before you would be allowed to enter, where an invigilator would then assign you a seat (depending entirely on her whims). Bags would have to be placed on the floor in the front of the hall.

Then at the test itself, we had to wait for late candidates before beginning the test. Due to the nature of the test (it's divided into separate sections, which are sat for one at a time, like different papers), we would not be allowed to leave early if we finished early. Before the test began, the invigilators read out the instructions for us (as if students sitting for a college-entrance examination are illiterate). The instructions themselves were readily available as part of the answer booklet, and were so easy to follow, any old literate dummy could properly fill in his candidate number, etc.

When it came to toilet breaks, nobody was allowed to leave the room except at specific periods, when as a group everyone could go to the toilet. (So if you had to go, you had to wait.) Reminders of how much time was left were pretty frequent, although considering the nature of how the test was divided into sections, this would probably not be too unreasonable. Once time was up, you handed in everything, and said goodbye permanently to both your question and answer booklets. The results would come out in about a month.

For the 'O' Levels, things were pretty different. Registering was done in the good old pen and paper manner, right down to having to fill out a bank draft. Then you'd have to wait for your statement of entry and instructions to come in the post. And if there were any clashes between subjects you were sitting for (such as a clash between a physics and biology paper), the onus would be on you to inform the test centre, and not for the test centre to work things out and settle everything down properly.

At the test centre itself, there were no signs at all to guide you to the correct general location (let alone room) of the examination. You would be expected to enquire at the counter of the British Council, apparently. Then when you arrived at the general location of the examination hall, you'd have to work out where exactly it was (fortunately, that wouldn't be too hard, as a permanent sign was available; no "'O' Levels this way" signs though). Outside the hall, there would be no staff to scrutinise you or inform you of what next; you would be expected to do that yourself.

Finally, about five minutes before the test, an invigilator would pop out of a nondescript door to inform you if you wanted a last-minute toilet visit, you would have to do it now. Having done so, you would be admitted to the exam hall. Bags would be placed on a couple of tables apparently provided for such a purpose. Seating had already been predetermined, so no need to worry about invigilators seating you in the wrong spot (whatever that may be).

At the beginning of the test, surprisingly little instructions were given beyond the basic "turn off your cellphone, don't cheat, bla bla". The examination answer and question booklets were hardly clear or verbose in their instructions either; I actually had to ask if I would need to shade in my candidate number for the multiple-choice paper (I didn't have to). No timing warnings were provided throughout the duration of the test.

If you finished early, you could hand in your paper and either move on to the next one or leave the exam hall. If you needed any toilet breaks, you could raise your hand and then be accompanied from the room by an invigilator to look out for any cheating. It was only when you finished the test that you would find out whether you missed any instructions or not; somehow, somebody seemed to have forgotten to remind candidates sitting for subjective papers that each sheet of paper should have the candidate's name and candidate number written on top. If you wanted your question paper returned to you, you couldn't keep it, but you could write down your postal address and wait for it to come back in about three months.

Now, naturally any inferences drawn from the differences observed from the juxtaposition of these two exams are likely to contain some errors. For example, the very nature of these two exams differ; the SAT tests aptitude, not knowledge, while the 'O' Levels test academic knowledge, not aptitude. Nevertheless, because I have nothing better to do with my time, I'm going to try.

One noticeable difference between the two exams is that in the SAT, the onus is on the part of the examiners to work out all the kinks. If a candidate is late, they have to wait. If something is wrong, they have to notice it and fix it. With the 'O' Levels, you have to ensure everything's alright; forget about the examiners doing it for you. I suppose you could infer from this that American culture is customer-oriented and businesslike, while the 'O' Levels remain the domain of pure academia, where the student's supposed to do everything.

Another difference is that it seems the American SAT reflects the typical American notion of egalitarianism - everyone does everything at the same time; no special toilet breaks for you. You finish early? Too bad, you have to wait it out. Not so with the traditionally aristocratic British - go ahead with your private business at your own rate.

~~(D***, have to go now. Will continue later. In the meantime, if you think this is bulls***, don't hesitate to tell me so.)~~ Okay, back. So, where was I? Ah, yes. Ignorance vs intelligence. The SAT made everything so simple. A dummy could take the test (like I said). It's idiot-proof. On the other hand, the 'O' Levels were exactly what they were meant to be - a scary, academic test. Even the atmosphere pre-test was scary. Everyone was studying like hell. Most of the candidates dressed conservatively (as opposed to the surprising dress standards of SAT candidates - I saw a lot of flesh). Perhaps that Americans have such a low expectation of mental ability isn't too surprising - pick up a copy of Michael Moore's Idiot Nation to see why. (Even if you disagree with him, at least read the book for his story of how he ran for a seat on his school board. At the age of 18, he was the boss of his school principal.)

Anyway, so those are my observations and inferences from my sociological "experiments". Feel free to kutuk (Malay for criticise, if you're a [i]mat salleh/i], which is a word I won't translate for you) my failure at appreciating the scientific method or my astounding idiocy. I'm bored, and I have nothing better to do than argue with you, anyway.

Last five replies (0 comments not shown):

Standardised Testing, From Two Sides of the Seemingly Same Coin

Comments

Most Recently Read