Republic of the Philippines

CEBU NORMAL UNIVERSITY

Osmeña Blvd., Cebu City, 6000 Philippines

COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Center of Excellence (COE)
Level IV Accredited (AACCUP)
Telephone No. (032) 231 8044
cte@cnu.edu.ph
Website: www.cnu.edu.ph

Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) Course Design/Syllabus in Education 11

Assessment of Learning 2
Course Credit: 3 units
Date Revised/Enhanced: January 17, 2022

Program: BSEd and BEEd Term: Second Semester

Pre-requisite: Assessment of Learning 1 Academic Year: 2021-2022

I. Vision: A leading multidisciplinary research university of education committed to build a strong nation.

II. Mission: To develop high-performing professionals and intellectuals proficient in generating new knowledge
toward a progressive and peaceful pluralistic society.

The CNU Mission comprises three mutually reinforcing thrusts:

1. Transformative education that nurtures thinking individuals who are valued members and leaders
of society;
2. High impact researches that push the boundaries of knowledge in education and contribute to
improving communities; and
3. Strong partnership that collectively and creatively addresses the development gaps of
communities.

Core Values: Commitment to Excellence Social Sensitivity

Honesty and Integrity Flexibility and Adaptability
Inclusiveness Knowledge Generation-Driven
III. Quality Policy:
Cebu Normal University commits itself to deliver excellence in education, research and extension
services towards global competitiveness, to meet the increasing levels of customer demand, statutory,
regulatory and international standards through continuous quality improvement and good
governance.

To ensure compliance to the commitment, relevant and responsive virtual and/or physical
monitoring, review and upgrading of service delivery is implemented.

IV. Exit Institutional Outcomes:

Design Thinkers Mission-driven Workers
Facilitators of Learning Protectors of Nature

V. College Outcomes:
The College of Teacher Education envisions its graduates in the different degree programs to
demonstrate technological, pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) imbued with the essential skills
that prepare them for excellence in the delivery of relevant, meaningful and facilitate instruction in
the basic education. Moreover, the college aspires its graduates to be leaders in promoting education
for sustainable development addressing emerging sociocultural, economic, and environmental
concerns.

VI. Program Outcomes:

The BSEd degree program aims to develop high performing facilitators of learning who are
motivated, competent, research-driven, creative and critical thinkers who can demonstrate
principled understanding of educational processes incorporating global perspectives through direct

College of Teacher Education Syllabus in Educ 11: Assessment of Learning 2

 teaching experiences utilizing ICT and innovative instructional designs while upholding professional
and ethical teaching standards.

VII. Course Description:

This is the course that focuses on the principles, development, and utilization of alternative forms of
assessment in measuring authentic learning. It emphasizes on how to assess process- and product-
oriented learning outcomes as well as an affective learning. You, as students, are expected to
experience how to develop rubrics and other assessment tools for performance-based and product-
based assessment.

VIII. Course Outcomes:

After completion of the course, the students can be able to:
C1 Employs non-traditional/authentic assessment techniques (portfolio, authentic performance,
journals, rubrics, etc.)
C2 Provides timely and accurate feedback to learners to encourage them to reflect on and monitor
their own learning growth as well as understand the basis of the results of evaluation
C3 Suggests measures for improvement of student performance to reflect personal accountability
of learners’ achievement and performance
C4 Design and develop curriculum, lesson planning, materials, instructional delivery strategies, and
educational assessment
C5 Perform planning, assessment and reporting using basic and higher levels of thinking

IX. Course Design Matrix:

Desired Learning Outcomes (DLO) Course Content/ Subject Matter Time Table
At end of the unit, the students Unit 0: Vision, Mission, and Outcomes Week 1
must have: a. The University Vision, Mission, Core Values, 3 hours
1. Internalized and demonstrated the and Outcomes
vision, mission, core values of the b. College of Teacher Education Outcomes
University and the institutional, c. BEEd/BSEd Outcomes
college/campus, degree and course d. Assessment of Student Learning 1 Outcomes
outcomes.
At end of the unit, the students Unit 1: Performance Assessment Weeks 2 to
must have: 4
1. Discussed briefly the Discuss the a. Definition and Qualities of Performance- 9 hours
essential concept of performance- based Assessments
based assessment in the classroom; b. Similarities and Differences Between
2. Follow the steps in utilizing Traditional Assessment and Performance-
performance-based assessment; and based Assessment
3. Plan for a performance-based c. Types of Performance-based assessments
assessment. d. Advantages and disadvantages of
Performance-based Assessment
e. GRASP model
f. Developing a Performance-based
Assessment
At end of the unit, the students Unit 2: Authentic Assessment in the classroom Weeks 5 to
must have: a. Definition of Authentic Assessments 8
1. Provide examples of authentic b. Difference of Authentic Assessment and 12 hours
assessment in the classroom; and Performance-based Assessment
2. Design an authentic assessment. c. Importance of Authentic Assessment
d. Developing an Authentic Assessment
At end of the unit, the students Unit 3: Authentic Assessment of the Affective Weeks 9 to
must have: Domain 11
1. select appropriately developed and a. Affective Assessment Methods 9 hours
high-quality affective assessment b. Affective Assessment Tools
tools; c. Developing Affective Assessment Tools
2. use target- and learner-appropriate
affective assessment methods and
tools; and
3. develop instruments for assessing
affective learning to improve
learner performance and inform

College of Teacher Education Syllabus in Educ 11: Assessment of Learning 2

 instruction.
At the end of the examination, the From Unit 1 to Unit 3 Week 12
students must have achieved at 1 hour
least 60% from the Midterm
Examination
At the end of the unit, the student Unit 4: Scoring and Communicating Authentic Weeks 13 to
must have: Assessment Results 17
1. Score fairly performance-based a. Scoring Performance-based Assessment and 15 hours
assessment and/or authentic Authentic assessment
assessment; b. Scoring tools (rubrics, rating scales,
2. Interpret and analyze assessment checklist, etc.)
results; c. Basic Data Analysis (Measures of Central
3. Report results of the assessment of Tendency – mean, median, mode; Measures
learner academic performance and of Dispersion – range and standard
achievement; and deviation; and Standardized Scores –
4. Provide timely feedback to Percentile rank, t-score, and z-score)
students. d. Reporting Assessment Results (Class
record, report cards, other forms)
e. Parent and teacher Conference/consultation

At the end of the unit, the student Unit 5: Assessment of One’s Practice Weeks 18 to
must have: 19
1. Utilize the results in performance- a. Assessment As Learning (Self-Assessment) 6 hours
based assessment and/or authentic b. Utilization of Assessment Results
assessment in improving the c. RPMS – PPST
teaching and learning process; d. Self-assessment tools/templates/activities
2. Demonstrate reflective self- e. Self-directed assessment tools
assessment, using learner f. Classroom Observation Tool
assessment data and other reflection
aids, for purposes of growing in the
profession (advancing in the career
stage); and
3. Explain how professional reflection
and learning can be used to improve
teaching practice.
At the end of the examination, the From Unit 4 to Unit 5 Week 20
students must have achieved at 1 hour
least 60% from the Final
Examination
Flexibility Provision. The Course Design Matrix may include additional topics, activities, remedial measures deemed necessary
based on the students’ needs.

X. References
Abe, C.V. (2004). Towards More Authentic Assessment Practices in Schools. In J.O.
Obemeata & E.U.

Assessment Learning Network. (2019). Criterion- and norm-referenced score reporting:

What is the difference? ttps://www.michiganassessmentconsortium.org/wp
content/uploads/LP_NORM-CRITERION.pdf

Bellon, J.J., Bellon, E.C. & Blank, M.A. (1991). Teaching from a Research Knowledge Base: a
Development and Renewal Process. Facsimile edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Bland and Gareis. (2016). Performance Assessments: A Review of Definitions, Quality

Characteristics, and Outcomes Associated with Their Use in K-12 Schools Lynne
M. Bland Chesterfield County Public Schools. The College of William and Mary.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1174728.pdf
Bobowski, K. (2016). MAP Growth: Assessment Basics. Teachers Resources for Communicating
Assessment Results with Parents.

College of Teacher Education Syllabus in Educ 11: Assessment of Learning 2

 Burke, K. (2009). How to Assess Authentic Learning. Kay Burke & Associates, Inc. Corwin
SAGE Publishing. 5th Edition. ISBN: 9781412962797.

Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. (2021). Authentic Assessment. Indiana University
Bloomington.

Cooper, A. (2020). Sociogram: Mapping the Relationship Dynamics of a Classroom. Six

Seconds: The Emotional Intelligence Journal. New Zealand.

De Guzman-Santos, (2007). Assessment of Learning 1. Lorimar Publishing.

Department of Education (2021). School Forms Matrix from Planning Service. DepEd School
Forms Compilation (SF 1-10). Retrieved from
https://www.teachpinas.com/depedschool-forms-sf-1-10/

Department of Education, Australian Aid and Basic Education Transformation Sector (2018).
Classroom Assessment Resource Book. Kindergarten to Grade 10, pages 11-13.

Department of Education. Supported by the Australian Government through the Basic Education
Sector Transformation (BEST) Program. (2018). Classroom Assessment Resource
Book. Pages 15-22.

DepEd Order No. 8 series of 2015. Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to 12
Basic Education Program.

Eberly Center, Carnegie Mellon University (2021). Teaching Excellence and Educational
Innovation. Retrieved from
https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/assesslearning/rubrics.html

Eberly Center, Carnegie Mellon University. (2021). Teaching Excellence and Educational
Innovation. Retrieved from
https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/assesslearning/rubrics.htm

Finney, S., Alahmadi, S., Hammami, S., and LeRoy, S. (2017). The Assessment Cycle: Reporting
and Use of Assessment Results. James Madison University. Retrieved from
https://www.jmu.edu/assessment/sass/AC-step-seven.shtml

Frey, Bruce B. (2018). Measures of central tendency. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational
Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n422

Gabuya, Y. and Dy, G. (2013). Assessment of Learning II: Textbook and reviewer. Rex Book
store.

Hadi, S., & Andrian, D. (2018). The New Educational Review. 53(3), 250–260.

King, P.M. & Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural
maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 571-592.

Landesman, C. (2019). The Difference between Praise and Feedback: Why they are both
important. Retrieved from https://www.strategez.com/2018/06/21/the-difference-
between-praise-and-feedback/

Li, R. (2015). Designing Rubrics Workshop. DePaul University. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1JtXmQ-CeA

Maguire, E. (2021). Performance-based Grading: Changing the Ways We See Grades.

Manikandan, S. (2011). Measures of dispersion. Journal of Pharmcology and

Pharmacotherapeutics, 2(4), 315-216. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103%2F0976-500X.85931
McMillan, J.H. (2007). Assessment Essentials for Standards-based Education. Corwin Press.
6th Edition.

College of Teacher Education Syllabus in Educ 11: Assessment of Learning 2

 McTighe, J., & Ferrara, S. (1998). Assessing Learning in the Classroom. Washington, DC:
National Education Association.

Mueller, J. (2018). Authentic Assessment Toolbox. North Central College, Naperville,IL

Myford, C.M. (2002). Investigating Design Features of Descriptive Graphic Rating Scales.
Applied Measurement in Education, 15:2, 187-215, DOI: 10.1207/S15324818AME1502_04

National Council of Educational Research and Training (2006). Statistics for Economics:
Textbook for Class XI. New Delhi: NCERT

Navarro, R. and Santos, R. (2012). Assessment of Learning Outcomes: Assessment I, 2nd Ed.
Lorimar Publishing.

Nitko, A. (2001). Education assessment of students (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
PrenticeHall, Inc.

Nitko, A. J. (1996). Educational assessment of Students (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Merril.

Oakland, T. (1997). Affective Assessment. CONPE No. III. University of Florida. Retrieved from
https://www.scielo.br/j/pee/a/NGRYV73vCJgkTfPPd77mqCn/?format=pdf&lang=en

Okwilagwe (eds.). A Handbook on Evaluation Research. Pen Services Publisher, pages 41-50.

Onocha, C.O. & Okpala, P.N. (1995). Tools for Educational Research. Stirling-Horden
Publisher (Nig.) Ltd, pages. 121-149.

Pandra, V., & Mardapi, D. (2017). Development of Mathematics Achievement Test for
Third Grade Students at Elementary School in Indonesia. International Electronik
Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(8), 769–776.

Performance-based learning and assessment. (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2020, from

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/performance-based-learning-and-assessment

Perkins, D. (2003). The Ladder of Feedback and John Hattie (2014). The Power of Feedback.
Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yjs67mhp

Petrosyan, Silva, Khachatryan Serob et al. (2005). Integrated Social Studies Instruction,
Curriculum Design and Models: An Educator’s Handbook. Yerevan: Bureau of
Educational & Cultural Affairs.

Popham J.W. (1995). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Rudner, L. M., & Boston, C. (1994). Performance assessment. ERIC Review, 3(1), 2–12.

Stiggins, R.J. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning. Columbus, Ohio. Pearson
Prentice Hall.

Stiggins, Richard, J. (1999). Assessment of Student Confidence and School. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(3), pages 191–198.

Suskie, L. (2010). Assessing Student Learning. Sharing Assessment Results with Internal and
External Audiences: A Common Sense Guide (Second Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

TeacherVision. (2001). Authentic Assessment Overview.

Teaching Commons (2008). The Types of Rubrics. Retrieved from
https://resources.depaul.edu/teaching-commons/teaching-guides/feedback-
grading/Pages/default.aspx

College of Teacher Education Syllabus in Educ 11: Assessment of Learning 2

 Walker, J.T., & Maddan, S. (2013). Measures of central tendency. Understanding Statistics.
Jones & Bartlett Learning

Ward, A.W., Murray-Ward, M. (1999). Assessment in the Classroom. Belmont, Ca. Wadsworth
Publishing Company

Wel, T. (2019). Development of Affective Assessment Tools. Retrieved from

http://www.ruelpositive.com/development-affective-assessment-tools

Wiggins, G. (1989, May). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70, 9.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Print.

Wiggins, Grant. (1998). Ensuring authentic performance. Chapter 2 in Educative Assessment:

Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, pp. 21 – 42.

Yorke, M. (2002). Academic Failure: a Retrospective View from Non-Completing

Students. In: Failing Students in Higher Education (eds Peelo, M & Wareham, T). SRHE and
Open University Press, Maidenhead.

Zhang, Z., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (2003). Classroom Assessment Practices and Teachers’ Self-
Perceived Assessment Skills. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(4), 323–342.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1604_4

XI. Course Requirements

Students’ performance will be rated on the basis of the following:
Written Works/Paper-and-Pencil Tests ---------------------------------------- 20%
Performance Tasks/Outputs ---------------------------------------- 40%
Major Examinations ---------------------------------------- 40%
Total ---------------------------------------- 100%

XII. Grading Scheme

The final Grade is equal to 50% of the Midterm Grade and 50% of the Final Term Grade. The 60%
criterion referenced-grading system is utilized.

Designed by: VINCENT THEODORE M. BALO, MS

Associate Professor I

Consultation Time 9:00-10:00 MW

College of Teacher Education Syllabus in Educ 11: Assessment of Learning 2