B-Ed Thesis Written

CHAPTER No.
: 01
INTRODUCTION
Performance in schools is increasingly judged based on effective learning outcomes. Information

is critical to knowing whether the school system is delivering good performance and to providing
feedback for improvement in student outcomes. Countries use a range of techniques for the
evaluation and assessment of students, teachers, schools and education systems. Many countries
test samples and/or all students at key points, and sometimes follow students over time.
1.1: Definition of Evaluation

Evaluation is a process of assessing, measuring the educational system. The child is supposed to
acquire objectives like knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes through classroom learning.
Number of changes occurred in his behavior through learning in the school.
Evaluation is a global process to assess all changes of physical growth and development,
behavioral and academic achievements. Thus, evaluation is the process of assessing the attainment
of the pre-determined objectives of the teaching-learning process. So, educational evaluation can
be considered as the process of determining the following aspects.
(i) The extent how educational objectives are being achieved.
(ii) The effectiveness of the teaching-learning experiences provided in the classroom situation
There is direct relationship among four important factors of the educational system like objective,
curriculum, method and evaluation. As Indian Education Commission (1964-66) has remarked, "It
is now agreed that evaluation is a continuous process, forms an integral part of the total system of
education and is intimately related to educational objectives, it exercises a great influence on
pupil's study habits and the teacher's method of instruction and this helps not only to measure
educational achievement but also to improve it."
1.2: Definition of Assessment:

The term ‘assessment’ may be used in education to refer to any procedure or activity that is
designed to collect information about the knowledge, attitudes, or skills of a learner or group of
learners. A more detailed definition is that assessment is:
1
‘The process of obtaining information that is used to make educational decisions about students,
to give feedback to the student about his or her progress, strengths, and weaknesses, to judge
instructional effectiveness and curricular adequacy, and to inform policy’.
In the type of assessment that everyone who has been to school will recognize, a teacher or
examiner is involved. An assessment could also be carried out by the learner himself or herself, or
by another party. Whatever the circumstances, assessment, as reflected in the above definition, has
traditionally been associated with the appraisal of individuals. The term, however, has been used
with increased frequency since the 1980s to describe the performance of schools or of school
systems.
1.3: Aims and Objectives of evaluation and assessment in school:

1. To describe students learning to identify and diagnose learning problems and to plan further
teaching learning.
2. To provide guidance for students in selecting further courses of study or in deciding on
vocational options.
3. To motivate students by providing goals or targets by clarifying the nature of learning tasks
and by letting students, and their teachers, know how they are progressing.
4. To certify that individuals have reached s certain level of competence
5. To select individuals for the next level of the education system or for a job.
6. Educational evaluation can and does serve several purposes, including control,
accountability and quality improvement.
7. The reasons for the current attention to education evaluation and assessment are varied and
include the concern with improving quality, the need to prove in a competitive international
environment, the superiority of its human resources and a stronger demand for
accountability in the public service.
2
1.4: Some common miss concepts:
1. Assessment and evaluation are the same.
Too many people, particularly those not employed in the field of education, conflate these
two and too often within the field we evaluate student work and tell ourselves that what
we’ve done is assessment. Assessment involves timely, detailed feedback based around
clearly defined learning outcomes. Evaluation is “giving a grade” to a piece of work,
usually based on normative criteria, but too often in comparison to the work of other
students.
2. Most assessment is summative.

As we’ve learned over the past two decades or so assessment can be a very powerful
learning tool in and of itself. As Dylan Wiliam has been saying for years, we need to
constantly assess both student work and our own teaching, adjusting as we go, such that by
the time we get to the end of a unit of study students have already had an opportunity to
rethink and revise their work. There are still far too many teachers who rely too heavily on
one single summative assessment at the end of each unit and then move onto another topic
no matter the outcomes.
3. Assessment is one-way communication; the teacher gives feedback on student work.

The most productive assessment should be a dialogue. In traditional assessment and
evaluation models students complete a task, the teacher assesses the work and tells the
student how they’ve done and, in formative cases, how to improve the work. But when
students engage with the teacher to discuss work, talk about what they’ve done and why,
both student and teacher stand to gain far more from the experience. Modern technology
makes two-way communication between teacher and student much easier and far more
ubiquitous, let’s start using it more effectively.
4. Assessment is for grading purposes.
This is one of the most pervasive and potentially damaging holdovers from bygone eras in
education. Yes, final grades should reflect some of what has gone on between student and
teacher regarding assessment. But the “collecting of marks” to arrive at the final grade is
counterproductive in many ways, here are just two.
First, the collation marks too often includes work which was done before students had
mastered the material. As has been said by others, when we redo things like driving tests
we don’t “average” the results, why do we do this with school work. Secondly, every
teacher, especially in secondary schools, is aware of how the pursuit of ‘marks’ often
distracts students’ focus from the work at hand. This is doubly damaging because
3
neuroscience is telling us that brains under stress from external stimuli can have
significantly diminished learning capacity.
5. Student work should be given a grade or a mark.

In summative situations, or where grades/marks are necessary, this assertion is true. But
too often we put a mark on student work when we’re hoping to use the work formatively,
which is a mistake. As soon as students see a grade on a piece of work, be it a letter or
number grade, the focus is immediately taken off of any meaningful feedback and, in the
student’s mind, that piece of work is complete. It’s time to move on. No matter what the
teacher intends grades imply a finality that’s hard to overcome in students’ minds.
6. If assignments are late, a teacher should deduct points.

There is no pedagogically defensible reason for doing this; this is simply trying to modify
behavior using coercion through grades. There is nothing wrong with having some
consequence for late work, but the assignment of grades (when necessary) should reflect
student learning, nothing more. Put another way, if a student hands in work worthy of an
A today, is that work somehow different if it were handed in tomorrow?
My experience as an administrator has been that when teachers rethink and reform their
views about what assessment is about, and what its primary purposes are, their feedback is
invariably positive. When we pry the “grade book” out of the collective hand of those in
the teaching profession and allow individual teachers the freedom to use assessment in
more productive ways, we find that assessment becomes far more authentic and fruitful
and far less about the drudgery (and judgment) of grading.
4
1.5: Statement of the problem
The statement of this problem will be “Evaluation and assessment structure for improving
school education”.
1.6: Objectives
1. Explore the evaluation and assessment structure of Public schools at Elementary level.
2. Explore the evaluation and assessment structure of Private schools at Elementary level.
3. Compare the evaluation and assessment structure provided both in Public and Private
schools at Elementary level.
1.7: Research questions

1. What evaluation and assessment structure are provided in Public schools at Elementary
level?
2. What evaluation and assessment structure are provided in Private schools at Elementary
level?
3. What is the difference between evaluation and assessment structure in both Public and
Private schools at Elementary level?
5
CHAPTER No.: 02
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
2.1: Definition and concepts of Evaluation:
Evaluation has a wider meaning. It goes beyond measurement. When from useful information
including measurement, we make a judgement, that is evaluation. Example: - The teacher may
evaluate the student Geetha that she is doing well in mathematics, because most of the class scored
50/100. This is an example of evaluation using quantitative data (measurable information). The
teacher might also make an evaluation based on qualitative data, such as her observations that
Geetha works hard, has an enthusiastic attitude towards mathematics and finishes her assignments
quickly.
 Evaluation is a Science of providing information for decision making.

 It Includes measurement, assessment and testing
 It is a process that involves
 Information gathering
 Information processing
 Judgement forming
 Decision making
From the above, we can arrive at the following concept of evaluation
Evaluation is a concept that has emerged as a prominent process of assessing, testing and
measuring. Its main objective is Qualitative Improvement.
Evaluation is a process of making value judgements over a level of performance or achievement.
Making value judgements in Evaluation process presupposes the set of objectives
Evaluation implies a critical assessment of educative process and its outcome in the light of the
objectives.
Wikieducator.org/CONCEPT OF EVALUATION AND ITS PRINCIPLES.
6
2.1.1: Characteristics of evaluation:
1. Evaluation is a comprehensive process
Evaluation is a global process it assesses all aspects of child's development. There are
different techniques which, are used by the teachers to evaluate the performance of the
child.
2. Evaluation is a continuous process

Evaluation is a continuous process as education. It is not examination but examination is a
part of evaluation process. There is no fixed time limit for the completion of evaluation
work. But it is a continuous process.
2.1.2: Functions of evaluation:

Evaluation does not end with the summarization of results. It has direct bearing on the
improvement of the system. The functions of evaluation are:
1. Evaluation provides feed back to the pupils to know their own strengths and weaknesses.
2. It creates a motivational effect on pupils and motivates them towards better attainment and
growth.
3. It encourages in building good study habits.
4. Evaluation helps teacher in guiding the growth of pupils.
5. It helps in locating the areas require remedial measures.
6. It helps the teacher in planning, organizing and implementing learning activities.
7. It provides basis for revision of curriculum.
8. It helps in inter-institutional comparison.
9. It helps the administrator in educational decision making, relating to selection, classification,
placement, promotion etc.
10. It helps in assigning marks and reporting pupil's progress to their parents.
7
2.1.3: Types of evaluation procedure
Evaluation may be classified based on the sequence in which different procedures are used.
Different types of evaluation procedures involve different ways and techniques. There are four
evaluation procedure:
1. Placement Evaluation.
2. Formative Evaluation
3. Diagnostic Evaluation
4. Summative Evaluation
2.1.4: Evaluation devices

A good evaluation device is one which is securing valid evidence regarding the desired change of
behavior. A teacher needs to know the various devices that are helpful in gathering evidence on
the changes taking place in pupil.
(1) Written Examination:

It is otherwise known as paper pencil tests. These are commonly used in school. Where, answers
are to be written as per the instruction of question.
(2) Oral Examination:

These types of examination or tests are conducted for supplementing to written examination. Test
of reading ability, pronunciation etc. where there is nothing to write.
(3) Practical Examination:

These tests are necessary to test experimental and manipulative skills of learner particularly in
subjects like Science, Technology, Agriculture, Craft and Music.
(4) Observation:
Observation is used to evaluate overt behavior of pupil in controlled and uncontrolled situations.
It is purposive, systematic and carefully viewing/observing behavior and recording it.
(5) Interviews:
Interview is sometimes superior to another device. It is because of the fact that pupils are usually
more willing to talk than write.
8
(6) Questionnaire:
Questionnaire is a systematic compilation of questions that are submitted to the pupils from whom
information is desired.
(7) Check-list:
A check-list is an instrument that is used for collecting and recording evidence regarding
significant behavioral tendencies of the pupils or specific problems they present in the classroom.
(8) Rating Scale:

Rating is a term applied to expression of opinion or judgment regarding some situation, object or
character. Rating scale is a device by which judgments can be quantified.
(9) Records:
Anecdotal records, cumulative record cards and dairies of pupils are some other devices used in
evaluation process to know detail about child's behavior.
Jay Prakash, “Valuable notes on the evaluation process in education”.
2.2: Aligning educational standards and student assessment:

In standards-based systems, which are increasingly common across countries, governments set
standards for student attainment, clearly defining the knowledge and skills students are expected
to have attained at different stages of their education. The curriculum covers the objectives
identified in standards, and student assessments focus on attainment of standards. The core logic
of standards-based systems rests upon the alignment of these key elements. If the assessments do
not well match the curriculum and the standards, then results have little value in judging how well
students are learning and in diagnosing school or student needs. Hence, policy needs to give
considerable attention to sound strategies to assess performance against standards. Part of the
strategy may consist of developing large-scale standardized tests with a high degree of validity
(i.e. the degree to which assessments and evaluations measure what they are intended to measure),
reliability (i.e the consistency and stability of results across student populations) and usability (i.e.
how policy makers, school leaders and teachers make sense of and respond to assessment and
evaluation results). Another possible strategy is to develop teacher capacity in assessing against
standards, provide detailed guidelines on marking assessments and strengthen moderation
processes between teachers and schools.
9
2.3: Balancing external assessments and teacher-based assessments in the
assessment of learning:
An important policy challenge is the design of student summative assessment which seeks to
provide a summary statement of student achievement at a point in time. Research shows that while
summative assessment is primarily conceived to measure the outcomes of learning, the approach
to summative assessment can, in turn, have a strong impact on the learning process itself. Different
assessment policies and practices influence students' motivation, effort, learning styles and
perceptions of self-efficacy as well as teaching practices and teacher-student relationships.
External assessment refers to standardized examinations that are designed and marked outside
individual schools and normally take the form of a written test. The major advantage of external
assessment is its high reliability. It ensures that all students are assessed on the same tasks and that
their results are measured by the same standards. Moreover, external assessment is usually
conducted in supervised conditions which ensure that the work being assessed has been done by
the student.
However, external assessment is often criticized for having lower validity than teacher- based
assessment. It tends to be in the form of a written test under supervised conditions, so that only a
limited range of curriculum goals can be covered. It can also have detrimental effects on teaching
and learning. The risk is that teachers may end up focusing on test-taking skills, especially when
high stakes for their students are attached to the test results.
Typically, teacher-based assessment is presented in the literature as having higher validity than
external assessment. Due to its continuous nature, teacher-based assessment often allows for
important achievements to be measured that could not be captured in a final examination, such as
extended projects, practical assignments or oral work.
However, teacher-based assessments are often perceived as unreliable. Test items and grading
standards may vary widely between teachers and schools, so that the results of internal assessment
will lack external confidence and cannot be compared across schools. There might also be a high
risk of bias in teacher-based assessment, i.e. the assessment is unfair to groups of students.
This indicates that a combination of teacher- based and external assessments would be most
suitable to ensure maximum validity and reliability. Learning outcomes that can be readily
10
assessed in external examination should be covered this way, whereas more complex competencies
should be assessed through continuous teacher-based assessment.
Also, strategies to improve the reliability of teacher-based assessment include using scoring
guides, negotiated scoring criteria, external benchmarks, training for teachers, multiple judgements
and external moderation. Another approach is to develop on-demand assessments, where teachers
can draw from a central bank of assessment tasks and ask students to take the assessment when
they consider that they are ready.
2.4: Integrating student formative assessment in the evaluation and

assessment framework:
Classroom-based formative assessment – the frequent, interactive assessment of student progress
to identify learning needs and shape teaching – has taken on an increasingly important role in
education policy. An important policy challenge is to find suitable strategies that can integrate
classroom-based formative assessment within the broader assessment and evaluation framework.
Strategies to achieve such integration include a closer interface between formative assessment and
summative assessment. For example, countries may strengthen teachers’ assessment roles.
Because teachers can observe students’ progress toward the full range of goals set out in standards
and curriculum over time and in a variety of contexts, their assessments help to increase validity
and reliability of summative assessments.
Countries can also consider developing “complex assessments” combining performance- based
assessments with standardized assessments. Performance-based assessments are better able to
capture complex student performances, such as reasoning and problem-solving skills, while
standardized assessments increase reliability of results. Another priority could be to strengthen
the potential of standardized assessments to be used formatively in the classroom. More generally,
it should be recognized that within the classroom the distinction between the two forms of
assessment is often blurred and depends on each teacher’s classroom practice.
An additional strategy is the development of test banks, allowing teachers to choose from centrally
developed assessments. These tests may provide more detail and be delivered in a timelier fashion
so that teachers may use the results formatively. Closer integration of formative assessment can
also be achieved through ensuring that teacher evaluation and school evaluation respectively assess
11
teachers’ ability to engage in student formative assessment and schools’ approaches to formative
assessment.
2.5: Why Is There a Need for Quality Teacher Evaluation?

Too often, educational reform has produced disappointing results (Clark & Astuto, 1994) or
outright failure (Pogrow, 1996). Fullan (1996) noted that one of the reasons for failure of systemic
reforms is fragmentation: "Fragmentation occurs when the pressures - and even the opportunities
- for reform work at cross purposes or seem disjointed and incoherent" (p.420). Other reasons for
the failure of systemic reforms are that reform efforts are implemented too quickly, from too many
directions, and without regard as to how the reform effort and the subsequent changes will affect
teachers (Bascia & Hargreaves, 2000). Thus, reform efforts fail.
One example of cross purposes, disjointed, and incoherent reform that is played out in schools on
a regular basis is as follows: 1) change school policy for a given innovative teacher
program, 2) provide some level of staff development on the prospective innovation, 3) ostensibly
implement the innovative practice, and 4) continue to use existing evaluation practices. When
reform efforts are disconnected from assessment, there is no way to measure success in the reform
effort. Such a disconnect is a formula for failure. A conceptually sound and properly implemented
evaluation system for teachers (and, indeed, for all educators) is a vital component for successful
reform efforts. "A rational relationship exists between personnel and programs: If program
effectiveness is important and if personnel are necessary for effective programming, then a
conceptually sound and properly implemented evaluation system for ... education personnel is
essential" (Stronge, 1993, p. 445).
2.6: Balancing the Needs of Teachers and the Needs of the Organization
A dynamic relationship between the teacher and the school exists in a healthy organization: What's
good for the organization must also be good for the teacher. This type of synergistic relationship
enhances the ability of both the teacher and the school to achieve desired goals. Moreover,
balancing individual needs with institutional expectations is essential for fostering productive work
environments (March & Simon, 1967, 1993). An organization’s beliefs about performance
appraisal are inherent in the assumptions underlying the development of an appraisal system.
Cassette (1996) explained that these assumptions “form a basis for achieving integration of
individual and organizational interests” (p.282). If the assumption is correct that individual and
institutional goals are intertwined, then it is logical to consider teacher evaluation as a vehicle to
facilitate and assess success for both the teacher (e.g., personal growth and performance
improvement) and the school (e.g., goal accomplishment, accountability). Thus, teacher evaluation
12
can and should be considered a vital part of the total improvement-restructuring efforts in
education. Improvement can take numerous forms, including:
• improvement in performance of individual teachers, and other educators (administrators, support
personnel);
• improvement of programs and services to students, parents, and community; and
• improvement of the school's ability to accomplish its mission.
Fostering improvement in teacher evaluation systems means balancing individual and institutional
demands. Little (1993) stated that "the language of reform underestimates the
intricate ways in which individual and institutional lives are interwoven" (p. 147) As Fullan (1991)
noted, "Combining individual and institutional development has its tensions, but the message ...
should be abundantly clear. You cannot have one without the other" (p. 349). In order to
accomplish personal and professional goals, the individual needs the institution. In order to
accomplish organizational goals, the institution needs the individual.
2.7: Purposes of Teacher Evaluation

In addition to the basic function of school, teacher, and, ultimately, student improvement, how can
the requisite time, effort, and resources needed to design, implement, and support a quality teacher
evaluation system be justified? Why should school divisions develop a teacher evaluation system?
The Personnel Evaluation Standards of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational
Evaluation (1988, pp. 6-7) identified ten distinct purposes for high quality teacher evaluation.
The two most frequently cited purposes of personnel evaluation are accountability and professional
growth (see, for example, Danielson & McGreal, 2000; Peterson, 2000). The accountability
purpose reflects the need for determining competence of teachers in order to assure that services
delivered are safe and effective (McGaghie, 1991), and typically has been viewed as summative
in nature. The performance improvement purpose reflects the need for professional growth and
development of the individual teacher, and typically has been formative in nature.
There is room in teacher evaluation systems for both accountability and performance improvement
purposes. In fact, evaluation systems that include both accountability and personal growth
dimensions are both desirable and necessary for evaluation to productively serve the needs of
individual teachers and the school and community at large.
Performance improvement and accountability purposes are not competing, but supportive interests
- dual interests that are essential for improvement of educational service delivery. These two roles
13
are inextricably intertwined in the total evaluation process. Moreover, a conceptual framework
for [teacher] evaluation should emphasize the dynamic relationship between individual and
institution where the needs and interests of one fuse with and support the other. (Stronge, 1995, p.
13).
For multiple purposes in teacher evaluation systems to be feasible, however, there must be a
rational link between the purposes (Stronge, 1995). McGreal (1988) argued that multiple purposes
of evaluation can be met successfully with a single evaluation system when the system is viewed
as one component of a larger mission - furthering the goals for the school. This conception of
teacher evaluation ties evaluation not only to teacher improvement but also to school improvement.
Thus, a comprehensive teacher evaluation system should be rooted in two broad purposes:
• It should be accountability-oriented, contributing to the personal goals of the teacher and to the
mission of the program, the school, and the total educational organization, and should provide a
fair measure of accountability of performance (i.e., summative focus).
• It should be improvement-oriented, contributing to the personal and professional development
needs of the individual [teacher] as well as improvement within the school (i.e., formative focus).
(Stronge, Helm, & Tucker, 1996).
James H. Stronge, “Teacher evaluation and school improvement: Improving the educational
landscape”.
2.8: School Evaluation:

2.8.1: Aligning external evaluation of schools with internal school evaluation
In many countries there has been a move away from school evaluation which emphasizes
compliance with central policies and procedures towards much greater stress being placed on the
need for schools to evaluate themselves as part of wider strategies of school improvement. Partly
as a result of this strengthened school autonomy, the role of external evaluation has undergone
significant change and achieving a much closer alignment between self-evaluation and external
evaluation has become a key policy objective.
Self-evaluation has the merit of being immediate, responsive to the school’s specific needs and
circumstances and its results are ‘owned’ by the school. However, self-evaluation which serves
14
the needs of accountability is subject to inevitable tensions between rigor and depth on the one
hand and a natural desire not to undermine the confidence of parents and superiors on the other.
As a result, self-evaluation is more a tool for managing development than for challenging
assumptions or for arriving at conclusions which threaten key actors in the school’s hierarchy. The
involvement of externality in school evaluation, therefore, both provides that element of distance
from the internal dynamics of the school and gives the kind of perspective and challenge to
assumptions and to the interpretation of evidence. This can lead to greater rigor in the process.
Externality can be achieved in a variety of ways. Who evaluates, what is evaluated and how, and
the ways in which the results are agreed and communicated must be explicit concerns for policy
from the outset. Clarity is needed about the nature of externality and about the contexts within
which it is important.
2.8.2: Providing balanced public reporting on schools

Access to credible information about school performance has been a growing phenomenon in
recent years. In part, it results from the right of stakeholders, particularly parents, to know how
well a school is performing, and is sometimes associated with giving parents more choice about
which school their child can attend. In some countries, public availability is also a legal obligation
associated with collecting information.
There is also the belief that measuring and publicizing student outcomes on a comparative basis
will lead schools to focus on taking the action necessary to improve their relative performance.
Thus, the assumption is that increased accountability and transparency will help drive
improvement.
There are, however, several potential problematic aspects in placing too great reliance on this
approach. Published information on student outcomes, which are often limited to results of
standardized tests, also reflect factors that are beyond the influence of school (although value-
added approaches can take these into account) and they often fail to capture the full spectrum of
student learning objectives. This entails the risk of shifts in teaching practice towards an over-
emphasis on what is assessed through the measures of student performance, with a possible
narrowing effect on the curriculum and wider achievement.
There is also a danger that schools which perform satisfactorily may become complacent as the
spotlight falls on those schools which perform least well. Hence, there is a case to provide
15
complementary information in evaluations that broadens the base of evidence and provides more
explanation of the factors which have influenced performance.
The challenge, therefore, is to address transparency by presenting student standardized test results
in a way that is seen as fair and credible by all stakeholders and is set in a wider array of evidence
about performance that reflects broader student learning objectives. That implies the development
of a wider strategy that uses school evaluation evidence in ways that encourage schools to remain
aspirational in relation to the wider educational agenda, whatever their test results.
2.8.3: Improving the data handling skills of school agents

The gathering and analysis of data from student assessment and testing together with satisfaction
surveys is increasingly an established feature of evaluation and assessment frameworks. In several
cases, well-established and sophisticated tools are available to principals, teachers and parents to
analyses student standardized test results across schools in ways that allow comparisons using
student-level socio-economic data. Such data not only provides teachers with valuable diagnostic
evidence about students’ performance but also helps to identify issues in relation to learning and
teaching and the performance of the school more generally.
In a range of countries, there is an increasing commitment by principals and teachers to the use of
students test data to improve student learning and their own accountability for student learning. In
this context, teachers use data formatively to identify individual students’ strengths and
weaknesses and to take appropriate steps to promote subsequent progress. However, teachers often
note the limitations of their knowledge to appropriately analyses and interpret student performance
data.
Consequently, the challenge is to ensure that all of those who within schools must gather evidence
and analyses results have the necessary skills in data gathering, analysis and interpretation which
allow the results of evaluation to be understood and translated into action. There is a need to
improve the data handling skills of principals and teachers across the board.
16
2.9: System evaluation
2.9.1: Meeting information needs at system level
A key priority within the evaluation and assessment framework is to develop indicators and
measures of system performance that permit a good understanding of how well schooling is being
delivered. Using these data, governments can analyses performance and identify priority areas for
planning, intervention and policy. This typically entails the development of a system performance
measurement framework.
The emphasis is generally on starting with high level objectives for the education system and then
mapping out the feasibility of measurements in each area. Other phases include ensuring
systematic collection to agreed definitions of existing information at different levels in the system;
promoting data quality improvement; undertaking research to shed light on some of the ‘gaps’
where systematic collection is too costly/not feasible; and developing a long-term strategy to
improve measurement tools for future information needs.
Policy should be informed by a range of quantitative and qualitative measures. The challenge is to
ensure that the measures of system performance are broad enough to capture the whole range of
student learning objectives. Policy making at the system level needs to be informed by high quality
data and evidence, but not driven by the availability of such information.
2.9.2: Monitoring key outcomes of the education system

Student assessment provides keystone indicators for assessing system performance. Assessments
of student learning provide evidence by which policymakers, the public, administrators, educators
and parents at the national and local levels can gauge both students’ current performance relative
to student learning objectives and the extent to which improvement goals are being realized.
System performance monitoring based on national assessment programmers can take a variety of
forms. Periodic sample-based student tests can allow greater breadth of measurement, fuller
coverage of the curriculum and avoid distortions deriving from ‘teaching to the test’. They can be
carried out at comparatively low cost.
By contrast, full cohort student tests have the advantage of potential feedback to schools on
classes/students but are narrower measures that cannot realistically include a full coverage of the
17
curriculum. Large-scale standardized tests are often limited to written formats such as multiple
choice or short essay questions that are easiest to score and most cost-efficient to implement: such
tests may only draw upon a limited set of students’ skills.
Full-cohort national assessments can also be performance-based, where students are scored on
open-ended performances, such as written essays, oral communication skills, reasoning processes,
collaborative problem solving, and so on. These are often seen as being more effectively aligned
with curricula that emphasize development of higher-order thinking skills and capacity to perform
complex tasks.
The challenge is to develop strategies to collect valid, reliable and broad outcome measures to
monitor performance against key national educational goals over time, for different sub-national
areas and student groups.
2.9.3: Maximizing use of system-level information

While countries often collect large amounts of data and statistics at the system level, there is
frequently significant untapped potential for integrating and using the available data. This is
sometimes the result of insufficient consultation between interested stakeholders and agencies on
how to best manage and present data for optimal use by different audiences.
There are a range of options to ensure the more effective use of existing information by key
stakeholders in system evaluation. One option is to establish a protocol to share data among key
stakeholders in system evaluation – this may include data that are not available to the public, but
that can be analyzed and used, for example, for school or local government reviews. Another
option is to build the analytical capacity at the national level to fully exploit existing information
by ensuring statistical, analytical and research competencies.
Part of analytical capacity will require attention to the clear and timely reporting of results to
different audiences. Giving high quality feedback on system results is one way to maximize the
use of results by stakeholders throughout the system. For example, databases and technical
materials are useful for researchers, but clear key messages on major results are helpful for local
government and – where available – schools will benefit from comprehensive feedback on student
performance on national tests (e.g. by test area, by individual question, by class, by student group).
18
The challenge is how to best organize the collection and analysis of key information at the national
level, to clearly communicate results of system evaluation and ensure the effective use of results
by stakeholders throughout the system.
www.oecd.org/ Evaluation and assessment framework for improving school education.
19
CHAPTER No.: 03
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1: Introduction
This chapter discusses the research design, population of the study, sample of population, the
sampling techniques and the research hypothesis, the research instruments, data collection and data
analysis.
3.2: Research Design:

The type of research was descriptive in nature and survey method was used to collect data.
3.3: Population of study:

All students from Public and Private Schools at elementary level were covering the population of
this study.
3.4: Sample of population:

The researcher was collecting data from five Public and five private Elementary schools. 100
students were taken from each Public and private School at elementary level, as well as 50 teachers
were taken from each Public and Private school at elementary level.
3.5: Research Instruments:

Only one instrument was used to collect data for the study. And it was the Questionnaire. They
were filled by the teachers and students. The role played by the teachers in discipline management
and the factors that hinders effective use of evaluation and assessment The principal and other
staff. And what problems they faced while Evaluating or Assessing students. The role played by
Evaluating and Assessing students is that they was be able to tell what are the problems related to
Evaluation and Assessment were faced by them in their schools?
What issues are faced by them while learning ? and they tell how they share their personal, career,
future and other problems to their guide or counselor.
3.6: Data Collection:

First of all the researcher visit five Public and Five Private Elementary School for collecting my
data. The researcher prepare separate Questionnaire for Evaluating and Assessing students as well
as researcher prepare separate Questionnaire for. In each Questionnaire researcher added 15
Questions and then go to the students and teachers. In students Questionnaire the researcher ask
Questions related to their Assessment serving which are providing in their schools by teachers and
other staff. How teachers solve their issues? In which way their teachers Assess them? In teacher
Questionnaire the researcher ask in which way school principal help or facilitate them to continue
20
their work and provide facilities to student? How other teaching staff compromise with them to
perform their Assessing services?
3.7: Data Analysis:

Descriptive statistics is fundamental in organizing research data as it serves to summarize the
information. Data collected were categorized, coded and subjected to statistical package of social
science for analysis. Data analysis was done using both qualitative and Quantitative techniques.
Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statics including mean scores, frequencies and
percentages that was presented using table, charts and graphs. Qualitative data was analyzed
thematically by arranging responses according to the research questions and objectives. Thereafter,
similar responses were tallied and inferences, conclusion and recommendation were drawn.
21
CHAPTER No.: 04
Analyses and Interpretation Data
Researcher’s studies concern with evolution and assessing services provided in public and private
schools at elementary level. Researcher did survey to collect data from 200 students from public
and private school at Elementary level and 100 teachers 50 from each school public and private.
This chapter present the tables of data analysis and interpretation of various aspects of evaluating
services provided in public and private school at elementary level.
Data were analyzed with the help of computer program Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS). Result of data are being resented in following tables.
4.1: Overall Data Analysis and reporting strategy

The researcher used a systematic procedure for this purpose and following steps were taken in to
consideration:
 Data entry/editing in SPSS
 Data analysis
 Data presentation/ tabulation
Researcher like to present hearing impairer’s data result first, as following result is concern with
hearing impaired who are doing studies, some are those who are completed their studies but jobless
and some are those who are in service in different sectors.
22
Student’s responses about evaluation methods in their schools
The following tables presented the comparison of evaluation methods provided in public and
private school at elementary level.
Table 4.1
Mean Comparison of separate evaluation methods teachers provides in public and private school.
Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean
all
Separate Public 100 27.0% 13.0% 16.0% 6.0% 38.0% 2.86%
evaluation Private 100 34.0% 22.0% 30.0% 11.0% 3.0% 3.73%
methods
teacher
provides
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students for separate evaluation teacher
provides services in our school in Public and Private school. More private school students (3.73)
as compared to Public school students (2.86).It can be concluded that more Private school provide
separate evaluation teacher services in their school.
23
Table 4.2
Mean comparison of regular teacher provide us evaluation services to students in public and
private schools.
all
Regular Public 100 6.0% 38.0% 27.0% 13.0% 16.0% 3.05%
evaluation Private 100 28.0% 43.0% 28.0% 2.0% .0% 3.96%
methods
teacher
provides
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students for regular evaluation teacher
regular teachers provide evaluation services to students in their school.
24
Table 4.3
Mean comparison of teachers consider evaluation services to be important for better teaching
learning in public and private schools.
all
Teachers Public 100 5.0% 28.0% 37.0% 12.0% 18.0% 2.90%
consider Private 100 26.0% 39.0% 34.0% 1.0% .0% 3.90%
evaluation
services
to be
important
for better
teaching
learning
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to teachers consider evaluating
services to be important for better teaching learning in school in Public and Private schools. More
private school students (3.90) as compared to Public school students (2.90).It can be concluded
that more Private school provide teachers consider evaluating services to be important for better
teaching learning in their school.
25
Table 4.4
Mean comparison of Guest/ speakers are invited in our school evaluation services to students in
public and private schools.
all
Guest/ Public 100 2.0% 29.0% 44.0% 14.0% 11.0% 2.97%
speakers Private 100 23.0% 37.0% 38.0% 2.0% .0% 3.81%
are
invited in
our
school
evaluation
services
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to guest / speakers are invited
in our school for evaluating in Public and Private school. More private school students (3.81) as
compared to Public school students (2.97). It can be concluded that more Private schools provide
guest/ speakers are invited in their school for evaluation.
26
Table 4.5
Mean comparison of evaluating services are provided to problematic students individually in
all
Evaluating Public 100 12.0% 13.0% 45.0% 24.0% 6.0% 2.99%
services are Private 100 27.0% 31.0% 38.0% 4.0% .0% 3.81%
provided to
problematic
students
individually
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to evaluating services are
provided to problematic students individually in Public and Private school. More private school
students (3.81) as compared to Public school students (2.99). It can be concluded that more Private
schools do evaluation to problematic students individually.
27
Table 4.6
Mean comparison our principal provides support for evaluating services in our school in public
and private schools.
all
Our Public 100 18.0% 15.0% 36.0% 26.0% 5.0% 2.85%
principal Private 100 32.0% 34.0% 32.0% 2.0% .0% 3.96%
provides
support
for
evaluating
services
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to our principal provides support
for evaluation services in our school in Public and Private school. More private school students
(3.96) as compared to Public school students (2.85). It can be concluded that more Private schools
guidance principal provides support for evaluation services in their school.
28
Table 4.7
Mean comparison of evaluating methods are organized and administered by school in public and
private schools.
all
methods are Private 100 33.0% 12.0% 35.0% 4.0% 1.0% 3.87%
organized
and
administered
by school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to evaluation methods are
organized and administered by school in Public and Private schools. More private school students
provide evaluation methods are organized and administered by school.
29
Table 4.8
Mean comparison of evaluating methods are monitor and assess by school principal in public and
private schools.
all
methods Private 100 28.0% 33.0% 35.0% 4.0% .0% 3.85%
are
monitor
and assess
by school
principal
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to evaluation methods are
monitor and assess by school principal in Public and Private schools. More private school students
provide evaluation methods are monitor and assess by school principal.
30
Table 4.9
Mean comparison of evaluating services are the part of school program/plan in public and private
schools.
all
services are Private 100 26.0% 38.0% 32.0% 4.0% .05% 3.86%
the part of
school
program/plan
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to evaluating services are the
part of school program/plan in Public and Private schools. More private school students (3.85) as
evaluating services are the part of their school program/plan.
31
Student’s responses about assessment services in their schools
The following tables presented the comparison of assessment methods provided in public and
Table 4.10
Mean Comparison of separate assessment methods teachers provides in public and private school.

all
Separate Public 100 13.0% 19.0% 26.0% 20.0% 22.0% 2.81%

assessment
methods Private 100 40.0% 40.0% 19.0% 1.0% .0% 4.19%
teacher
provides
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students for separate assessment teacher
separate assessment teacher services in their school.
32
Table 4.11
Mean comparison of regular teacher provide us assessment services to students in public and
private schools.

all
Regular Public 100 10.0% 20.0% 31.0% 25.0% 14.0% 2.86%

assessment
methods Private 100 25.0% 35.0% 31.0% 9.0% .0% 3.76%
teacher
provides
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students for regular assessment teacher
regular teachers provide assessment services to students in their school.
33
Table 4.12
Mean comparison of teachers consider assessment services to be important for better teaching

all
Teachers Public 100 0.0% 0.0% 37.0% 39.0% 24.0% 2.13%

consider
assessment Private 100 39.0% 33.0% 25.0% 3.0% 0.0% 4.08%
services to
be
important
for better
teaching
learning
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to teachers consider assessing
services to be important for better teaching learning in school in Public and Private schools. More
private school students (4.08) as compared to Public school students (2.13).It can be concluded
that more Private school provide teachers consider assessing services to be important for better
teaching learning in their school.
34
Table 4.13
Mean comparison of Guest/ speakers are invited in our school for assessing services to students in

all
Guest/ Public 100 14.0% 16.0% 28.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.86%

speakers
are Private 100 43.0% 16.0% 30.0% 11.0% .0% 3.91%
invited in
our
school
for
assessing
services
in our school for assessing in Public and Private school. More private school students (3.91) as
guest/ speakers are invited in their school for assessing services.
35
Table 4.14
Mean comparison of assessing services are provided to problematic students individually in public

all
Assessing Public 100 10.0% 21.0% 27.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.83%

services are
provided to Private 100 28.0% 37.0% 30.0% 5.0% .0% 3.88%
problematic
students
individually
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to assessing services are
schools provide assessing services to problematic students individually.
36
Table 4.15
Mean comparison our principal provides support for assessment services in our school in public

all
Our Public 100 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 25.0% 15.0% 2.90%

principal
provides Private 100 33.0% 29.0% 29.0% 8.0% 1.0% 2.85%
support for
assessment
services in
our school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to our principal provides support
for assessing services in our school in Public and Private school. More private school students
guidance principal provides support for assessment services in their school.
37
Table 4.16
Mean comparison of assessing methods are organized and administered by school in public and
private schools.

all

methods are
organized Private 100 26.0% 35.0% 25.0% 14.0% 0.0% 3.73%
and
administered
by school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to assessment methods are
provide assessment methods are organized and administered by school.
38
Table 4.17
Mean comparison of assessment methods are monitor and assess by school principal in public and
private schools.

all
Assessment Public 100 19.0% 16.0% 32.0% 19.0% 14.0% 3.07%

methods
are monitor Private 100 30.0% 24.0% 33.0% 12.0% 1.0% 3.70%
and assess
by school
principal
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to assessment methods are
provide assessment methods are monitor and assess by school principal.
39
Table 4.18
Mean comparison of assessment services are the part of school program/plan in public and private
schools.

all

services are
the part of Private 100 19.0% 38.0% 32.0% 9.0% 2.0% 3.63%
school
program/plan
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to assessing services are the
assessing services are the part of their school program/plan.
40
Teacher’s responses about assessment services in their schools
The following tables presented the comparison of assessment methods provided in public and
Table 4.19
Mean Comparison of separate assessment methods teachers provides in public and private school.

all
Separate Public 50 4.0% 12.0% 23.0% 2.0% 9.0% 3.00%

assessment
teacher Private 50 7.0% 17.0% 25.0% 1.0% .0% 3.60%
provides
services in
our school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of separate assessment teacher provides
services in our school in Public and Private school. More private school students (3.60) as
compared to Public school students (3.00).It can be concluded that more Private school provide
separate assessment teacher services in their school.
41
Table 4.20
Mean comparison of regular teacher provide us assessment services to students in public and
private schools.

all
Regular Public 50 5.0% 9.0% 23.0% 7.0% 6.0% 3.00%

teacher
provide Private 50 12.0% 9.0% 26.0% 2.0% 1.0% 3.58%
us
assessing
services
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response values of regular teacher provides assessment
services to students in Public and Private school. More private school students (3.58) as compared
to Public school students (3.00). It can be concluded that more Private school provide regular
teachers provide assessment services to their students.
42
Table 4.21
Mean comparison of teachers consider assessment services to be important professionals in public


all
Teachers Public 50 0.0% 2.0% 19.0% 16.0% 13.0% 2.20%

consider
assessment Private 50 15.0% 20.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.00%
services to
be important
professional.
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers considers assessing services to
be important professionals in Public and Private schools. More private school students (4.00) as
compared to Public school students (2.20). It can be concluded that more Private school provide
teachers consider assessing services to be important professionals.
43
Table 4.22
Mean comparison of Guest/ speakers are invited in our school for assessing services to students in

all
Guest/ Public 50 6.0% 8.0% 18.0% 11.0% 7.0% 2.90%

speakers
are Private 50 14.0% 9.0% 27.0% 0.0% .0% 3.74%
invited in
our
school
for
assessing
services
in our school for assessing in Public and Private school. More private school students (3.74) as
guest/ speakers are invited in their school for assessing services.
44
Table 4.23
Mean comparison of assessing services are provided to problematic students individually in public

all

services are
provided to Private 50 9.0% 24.0% 16.0% 1.0% .0% 3.82%
problematic
students
individually
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers of assessing services are
schools provide assessing services to problematic students individually.
45
Table 4.24
Mean comparison our principal provides support for assessment services in our school in public

all
Our Public 50 4.0% 11.0% 15.0% 13.0% 6.0% 2.94%

principal
support for
assessment
services in
our school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers to our principal provides support
for assessing services in our school in Public and Private school. More private school students
provide their principal support for assessment services in their school.
46
Table 4.25
Mean comparison of assessing methods are organized and administered by school in public and
private schools.

all

methods are
and
administered
by school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers of assessment methods are
provide assessment methods are organized and administered by school.
47
Table 4.26
Mean comparison of assessment methods are monitor and assess by school in public and private
schools.

all

methods
are monitor Private 50 12.0% 21.0% 17.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.90%
and assess
by school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers of assessment methods are
provide assessment methods are monitor and assess by school.
48
Table 4.27
Mean comparison of assessment services are the part of school program/plan in public and private
schools.
School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

all
Statement

services are
school
program/plan
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to assessing services are the
assessing services are the part of their school program/plan.
49
Teacher’s responses about evaluation methods in their schools
The following tables presented the comparison of evaluation methods provided in public and
Table 4.28
Mean Comparison of separate evaluation methods teachers provides in public and private school.

all
Separate Public 50 2.0% 21.0% 7.0% 20.0% 0.0% 3.10%

evaluation
methods Private 50 22.0% 21.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.30%
teacher
provides
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students for separate evaluation teacher
separate evaluation teacher services in their school.
50
Table 4.29
Mean comparison of regular teacher provides us evaluation services to students in public and
private schools.

all
Our Public 50 11.0% 24.0% 3.0% 12.0% 0.0% 3.68%

regular
teachers Private 50 23.0% 24.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.40%
provide
us
evaluation
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students for regular evaluation teacher
as compared to Public school students (3.68). It can be concluded that more Private school provide
regular teachers provide evaluation services to students in their school.
51
Table 4.30
Mean comparison of teachers consider evaluation services to be important for better teaching

all
Teachers Public 50 21.0% 16.0% 9.0% 1.0% 3.0% 4.02%

consider
evaluation Private 50 23.0% 18.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.28%
services
to be
important
for better
teaching
learning
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers considers evaluating services
to be important for better teaching learning in school in Public and Private schools. More private
school students (4.28) as compared to Public school students (4.02). It can be concluded that more
Private school provide teachers consider evaluating services to be important for better teaching
learning in their school.
52
Table 4.31
Mean comparison of Guests / speakers are invited in our school evaluation services in public and
private schools.

all
Guest/ Public 50 2.0% 14.0% 9.0% 21.0% 3.0% 2.82%

speakers
are Private 50 24.0% 15.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.31%
invited in
our
school
evaluation
services
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers to guest / speakers are invited
in our school for evaluating in Public and Private school. More private school students (4.31) as
guest/ speakers are invited in their school for evaluation.
53
Table 4.32
Mean comparison of evaluating services are provided to problematic students individually in


all

services are
provided to Private 50 20.0% 25.0% 24.0% 19.0% 12.0% 3.22%
problematic
students
individually
The above table shows that the mean of response value of students to evaluating services are
schools do evaluation to problematic students individually.
54
Table 4.33
Mean comparison our principal provides support for evaluating services in our school in public

all
Our Public 50 0.0% 10.0% 8.0% 26.0% 4.0% 2.50%

principal
support
for
evaluating
services
in our
school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers to our principal provides support
for evaluation services in our school in Public and Private school. More private school students
(4.27) as compared to Public school students (2.50). It can be concluded that more Private school’s
guidance principal provides support for evaluation services in their school.
55
Table 4.34
Mean comparison of evaluating methods are organized and administered by school in public and
private schools.

all

methods are
and
administered
by school
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers to evaluation methods are
provide evaluation methods are organized and administered by school.
56
Table 4.35
Mean comparison of evaluating methods are monitor and assess by school principal in public and
private schools.

all

methods
are Private 50 23.0% 17.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.26%
monitor
and assess
by school
principal
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers to evaluation methods are
provide evaluation methods are monitor and assess by school principal.
57
Table 4.36
Mean comparison of evaluating services are the part of school program/plan in public and private
schools.

all

services are
school
program/plan
The above table shows that the mean of response value of teachers to evaluating services are the
evaluating services are the part of their school program/plan.
58
Summary of Responses
Table 4.37
Comparison of student’s responses about evaluating services in their school.

all
Separate Public 100 27.0% 13.0% 16.0% 6.0% 38.0% 2.86

evaluating
Private 100 34.0% 22.0% 30.0% 11.0% 3.0% 3.73
teacher
provides
services in
our school
Regular Public 100 6.0% 38.0% 27.0% 13.0% 16.0% 3.05

teachers
provides us
evaluating
services to
students
Private 100 28.0% 43.0% 28.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.96
Teachers Public 100 5.0% 28.0% 37.0% 12.0% 18.0% 2.90

consider
Private 100 26.0% 39.0% 44.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.90
evaluation
services to
be important
for better
teaching
59
learning in
school
Guest / Public 100 2.0% 29.0% 44.0% 14.0% 11.0% 2.97

Speakers are
Private 100 23.0% 37.0% 38.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.81
invited in
our school
for
evaluation
services
Evaluation Public 100 12.0% 13.0% 45.0% 24.0% 6.0% 2.99

services are
Private 100 27.0% 31.0% 38.0% 4.0% 0.0% 3.81
provided to
problematic
students
individually
Our Public 100 18.0% 15.0% 36.0% 26.0% 5.0% 2.95

principal
Private 100 32.0% 34.0% 32.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.96
provides
support for
evaluation
services in
our school

services are
Private 100 33.0% 12.0% 35.0% 4.0% 1.0% 3.87
organized
and
administered
by school
60
services
Private 100 27.0% 31.0% 39.0% 3.0% 0.0% 3.82
contain
career and
educational
experiences

services are
Private 100 28.0% 33.0% 35.0% 4.0% 0.0% 3.85
monitor and
assesses by
school
principal

services are
Private 100 26.0% 38.0% 32.0% 4.0% 0.05% 3.86
the part of
school
program /
plan
61
Table 4.38
Comparison of student’s responses about assessment services in their school.

all
Separate Public 100 13.0% 19.0% 26.0% 20.0% 22.0% 2.81

assessing
Private 100 40.0% 40.0% 19.0% 1.0% 0.0% 4.19
teacher
provides
services in
our school
Regular Public 100 10.0% 20.0% 31.0% 25.0% 14.0% 2.86

teachers
provides us
assessment
services to
students
Private 100 25.0% 35.0% 31.0% 9.0% 0.0% 3.76
Teachers Public 100 0.0% 0.0% 37.0% 39.0% 24.0% 2.13

consider
Private 100 39.0% 33.0% 25.0% 3.0% 0.0% 4.08
assessment
services to
be important
for better
teaching
62
learning in
school
Guest / Public 100 14.0% 16.0% 28.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.86

Speakers are
Private 100 43.0% 16.0% 30.0% 11.0% 0.0% 3.91
invited in
our school
for
assessment
services
assessment Public 100 10.0% 21.0% 27.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.83

services are
Private 100 28.0% 37.0% 30.0% 5.0% 0.0% 3.88
provided to
problematic
students
individually
Our Public 100 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 25.0% 15.0% 2.90

principal
Private 100 33.0% 29.0% 29.0% 8.0% 1.0% 2.85
provides
support for
assessment
services in
our school

services are
Private 100 26.0% 35.0% 25.0% 14.0% 0.0% 3.73
organized
and
63
administered
by school

services
Private 100 28.0% 38.0% 27.0% 7.0% 0.0% 3.87
contain
career and
educational
experiences

services are
Private 100 30.0% 24.0% 33.0% 12.0% 1.0% 3.70
monitor and
assesses by
school
principal

services are
Private 100 19.0% 38.0% 32.0% 9.0% 2.0% 3.63
the part of
school
program /
plan
64
Table 4.39
Comparison of Teacher’s responses about evaluating services in their school.

all
Separate Public 50 2.0% 21.0% 7.0% 20.0% 0.0% 3.10

evaluating
Private 50 22.0% 21.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.30
teacher
provides
services in
our school
Regular Public 50 11.0% 24.0% 3.0% 12.0% 0.0% 3.68

teachers
provides us
evaluating
services to
students
Private 50 23.0% 24.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.40
Teachers Public 50 21.0% 16.0% 9.0% 1.0% 3.0% 4.02

consider
Private 50 23.0% 18.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.28
evaluation
services to
be important
for better
teaching
learning in
school
65
Guest / Public 50 2.0% 14.0% 9.0% 21.0% 3.0% 2.82
Speakers are
Private 50 24.0% 15.0% 9.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.31
invited in
our school
for
evaluation
services

services are
Private 50 20.0% 25.0% 24.0% 19.0% 12.0% 3.22
provided to
problematic
students
individually
Our Public 50 0.0% 10.0% 8.0% 26.0% 4.0% 2.50

principal
Private 50 23.0% 16.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.27
provides
support for
evaluation
services in
our school

services are
Private 50 23.0% 16.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.24
organized
and
administered
by school

services
Private 50 22.0% 17.0% 11.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.22
contain
career and
66
educational
experiences

services are
Private 50 23.0% 17.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.26
monitor and
assesses by
school
principal

services are
Private 50 24.0% 17.0% 12.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.18
the part of
school
program /
plan
67
Table 4.40
Comparison of student’s responses about assessment services in their school.

all
Separate Public 100 4.0% 12.0% 23.0% 2.0% 9.0% 3.00

assessing
Private 100 7.0% 17.0% 25.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.60
teacher
provides
services in
our school
Regular Public 100 5.0% 9.0% 23.0% 7.0% 6.0% 3.00

teachers
provides us
assessment
services to
students
Private 100 12.0% 9.0% 26.0% 2.0% 1.0% 3.58
Teachers Public 100 0.0% 2.0% 19.0% 16.0% 13.0% 2.20

consider
Private 100 15.0% 20.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.00
assessment
services to
be important
for better
teaching
68
learning in
school
Guest / Public 100 6.0% 8.0% 18.0% 11.0% 7.0% 2.90

Speakers are
Private 100 14.0% 9.0% 27.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.74
invited in
our school
for
assessment
services

services are
Private 100 15.0% 18.0% 17.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.96
provided to
problematic
students
individually
Our Public 100 4.0% 11.0% 15.0% 13.0% 6.0% 2.94

principal
Private 100 14.0% 21.0% 4.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.96
provides
support for
assessment
services in
our school

services are
Private 100 19.0% 15.0% 12.0% 3.0% 1.0% 3.96
organized
and
administered
by school
69
services
Private 100 13.0% 24.0% 11.0% 2.0% 0.0% 3.96
contain
career and
educational
experiences

services are
Private 100 12.0% 21.0% 17.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.90
monitor and
assesses by
school
principal

services are
Private 100 11.0% 21.0% 17.0% 1.0% 0.0% 3.84
the part of
school
program /
plan
70
CHAPTER No.: 05
Summary, Findings, Conclusions and recommendations
This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusions and recommendations generated based
on data obtained from teachers and students of public and private schools at elementary level
regarding the provision of evaluation and assessment services provided in their schools.
5.1: Summary:
The main purpose of the study was to identify the attitude towards evaluation and assessment
services provided in public and private schools at elementary level. There were taken 100
questionnaires from public and 100 questionnaires from private schools as the sample of the study
from the area of college road township Lahore. This questionnaire consisted of 15 statements on
5-point liker scale. Attitude towards evaluation and assessment services provided in public and
private school at elementary level was measured with respect to schools. Calculations were made
using SPSS along with mean score were used to find out significant difference among respondents’
attitude towards evaluation and assessment services provided in public and private school at
elementary level.
5.2: Findings:
Following findings are based on data analysis of evaluation and assessment services provided in
public and private school at elementary level. And firstly, the students’ findings are presented:
1. The majority of private schools (3.72) provide separated evaluation services as compared
to public schools (2.86).
2. The majority of private schools (3.96) provide regular teacher evaluation services to
students as compared to public schools (3.05).
3. The majority of private schools (3.93) provide teachers consider evaluation services to be
important for better teaching as compared to public schools (2.90).
4. The majority of private schools (3.81) provide guest/ speakers are invited in their school
for evaluation services as compared to public schools (2.97).
71
5. The majority of private schools (3.81) provide evaluation services to problematic students
individually as compared to public schools (2.99).
6. The majority of private schools (3.96) provide principals support for evaluation services as
compared to public schools (2.85).
7. The majority of private schools (3.87) evaluating services are organized and administered
by school as compared to public schools (2.91).
8. The majority of private schools (3.85) provide evaluation services are monitored and assess
by school principal as compared to public schools (2.97).
9. The majority of private schools (3.86) provide evaluation services are the part of school
program/plan as compared to public schools (3.03).
10. The majority of private schools (4.19) provide separate evaluating teacher services as
important for better teacher learning as compared to public schools (2.13).
15. The majority of private schools (3.85) provide principal support in evaluation services as
17. The majority of private schools (3.70) provide evaluation services are monitor and assess
19. The majority of private schools (3.60) provide separate evaluating teacher services as
important profession as compared to public schools (2.20).
72
24. The majority of private schools (3.96) provide principal support in evaluation services as
26. The majority of private schools (3.90) provide evaluation services are monitor and assess
28. The majority of private schools (3.60) provide separate assessment teacher services as
29. The majority of private schools (3.58) provide regular teacher assessment services to
30. The majority of private schools (4.40) provide teachers consider assessment services to be
for assessment services as compared to public schools (2.90).
32. The majority of private schools (3.82) provide assessment services to problematic students
33. The majority of private schools (3.96) provide principal support in assessment services as
34. The majority of private schools (3.96) assessment services are organized and administered
35. The majority of private schools (3.90) provide assessment services are monitor and assess
36. The majority of private schools (3.84) provide assessment services are the part of school
37. The majority of private schools (4.30) provide separate assessment teacher services as
38. The majority of private schools (4.40) provide regular teacher assessment services to
39. The majority of private schools (4.28) provide teachers consider assessment services to be
for assessment services as compared to public schools (2.82).
41. The majority of private schools (3.22) provide assessment services to problematic students
42. The majority of private schools (4.27) provide principal support in assessment services as
73
43. The majority of private schools (3.96) assessment services are organized and administered
44. The majority of private schools (4.26) provide assessment services are monitor and assess
45. The majority of private schools (4.30) provide assessment services are the part of school
5.3: Conclusions:
Evaluation and assessment services play a very important role in general student services
department of any elementary school. The aims of evaluation and assessment program in schools
are to give a hand individual to develop the ability to understand them, to solve their own problems,
and to make appropriate adjustments to their environment. Major evaluation services include
student judgment information giving, placement and transcribe, and assessment.
All principals and students of private girls elementary school felt need for starting evaluation and
assessment services in the schools. But most of the private elementary schools have all these
facilities in their schools and their students are facilitating from them. Nearly half of these facilities
in their schools and their students are providing evaluation and assessment services in some form.
All principals agreed that evaluation and assessment were helpful to students in adjustment in
school, home and society. It was observed from this study that student face emotional, social and
academic problems. Some of the students have a combination of domestic, personal and school
problems. Mostly they need guidance and counseling in school related problems. Lack of teachers
interest and guidance means to facilitate throughout their own lives and to manage or assemble
their own social, personal, educational and training that they attain their own budding and
contribute to the development of a paramount society.
5.5: Recommendations:
Following are the suggestions which are given for a betterment of publics schools.
Government should take some initiatives in public schools regarding evaluation services.
Government should provide separate evaluating teachers in public schools, provide support to the
evaluating and assessing teachers , provide guests/speakers for evaluation services in future.
74
Government should provide career and educational experiences to the teachers as well as students.
Also provide teachers concern and share information related to evaluation services to teachers as
well as students.
Government should provide career and educational experiences to the teachers as well as students.
Also provide teachers concern and share information related to evaluation services to teachers as
well as students.
Government should facilitate the students with evaluation services to the problematic students in
groups both in public schools. Government should also provide evaluation services to the
problematic students individually.
Government should facilitate with regular teachers for the assessment of students, teachers
consider assessment services to be important for better teaching learning in school and government
should provide guests/speakers in every public school for assessment services.
Government should take initiative for assessment services are organized and administered by
school, assessment services are monitor and assess by school. And assessment services are the part
of school program/plan. And make rule for every school that assessment teachers organize
conferences and meetings regularly. Assessing teachers work in partnerships with public health
services.
5.6: Recommendations for further research:

This research may be conducted by enhancing population and sample. It may be conducted further
another levels of education by using mixed method of research.
75
Appendix A
Public Schools:
1. Govt. Tehzeeb-ul-binat Model Girls High School
2. Govt. practicing Girls High School
3. Chudhri Rehmat Memorial, Boys High School
4. Govt. High School for Boys
5. Pilot Public School
Private Schools:
1. Pakistan Public School
2. The Punjab School
3. Dar-e-Arqam School
4. The Educators
5. The Science School
76
Appendix B
Questionnaire for evaluating students
Dear students
I am working on a research project “Evaluation and Assessment structure for improving school
education”. Your views matter a lot in this research. You are requested to provide the following
information by filling in the questionnaire by potting a kit in the relevant box. Written response
where it is required. Please answer according to what really reflects your honest opinion about the
statement rather then what you think your opinion should be. The information provided by you
will be kept confidential and use for research purpose only.
Thank you
Your sincerely,
Sahar
B-ed (1.5 years) 3rd semester
Personal information
Gender: ________________________ Residence: ____________________
Religion: _______________________ Qualification: ___________________
Name of School: _____________________________________
Name of Teacher: ____________________________________
77
Given below are the statement about the various aspects about “Evaluation and assessment
structure for improving school education”. You are requested to mark the most relevant point at
the given scale. The descriptions of codes is as under:
S# Statement Always Often Sometime Rare Not at

all
1 Separate evaluating
teacher provides
2
services in our school
3 Regular teachers
provide us evaluating
services to students
4 Teachers consider
evaluation services to
be important for
better teaching
learning in school
5 Guest / Speakers are

invited in our school
for evaluation
services
78
6 Evaluation services
are provided to
problematic students
individually
7 Our principal
provides support for
evaluation services in
our school
are organized and
administered by
school
contain career and
educational
experiences
are monitor and
assesses by school
principal
are the part of school
program / plan
79
Questionnaire for Assessing students
Dear students
Thank you
Your sincerely,
Sahar
Name of School: _____________________________________
Name of Teacher: ____________________________________
80
Sr Statement Always Often Sometime Rare Not at

No all
1 Separate assessing
teacher provides
2 Regular teachers
provides us
assessment services to
students
3 Teachers consider
be important for better
teaching learning in
school

for assessment
services
81
assessment services
are provided to
individually
6 Our principal provides

support for
assessment services in
our school
7 assessment services
are organized and
administered by
school
contain career and
educational
experiences
are monitor and
assesses by school
principal
program / plan
82
Questionnaire for evaluating teachers:
Dear students
Thank you
Your sincerely,
Sahar
Name of School: _____________________________________
Name of Teacher: ____________________________________
83
S# Statement Always Often Sometime Rare Not at

all
1 Separate evaluating
teacher provides
2
3 Regular teachers
provide us evaluating
services to students
4 Teachers consider
evaluation services to
be important for
better teaching
learning in school
84
Guest / Speakers are
for evaluation
services
are provided to
individually
7 Our principal
provides support for
evaluation services in
our school
are organized and
administered by
school
contain career and
educational
experiences
are monitor and
assesses by school
principal
program / plan
85
Questionnaire for Assessing Teachers:
Dear students
Thank you
Your sincerely,
Sahar
Name of School: _____________________________________
Name of Teacher: ____________________________________
86
Sr Statement Always Often Sometime Rare Not at

No all
1 Separate assessing
teacher provides
2 Regular teachers
provides us
students
3 Teachers consider
be important for better
teaching learning in
school

for assessment
services
are provided to
individually
87
Our principal provides
support for
assessment services in
our school
are organized and
administered by
school
contain career and
educational
experiences
are monitor and
assesses by school
principal
program / plan
REFERENCES
Wikieducator.org/CONCEPT OF EVALUATION AND ITS PRINCIPLES.
88
Jay Prakash, “Valuable notes on the evaluation process in education”.
James H. Stronge, “Teacher evaluation and school improvement: Improving the educational
landscape”.
www.oecd.org/ Evaluation and assessment framework for improving school education.
ASSESSMENT AND CLASSROOM LEARNING By Black, Paul, Wiliam, Dylan, Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice Mar1998, Vol. 5, Issue 1
“Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments: A Practical Guide” (1995)
Continuous assessment a practical guide for teacher’s American institute of research
An Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in Primary School
Principal Assessment: Leadership Behaviors Known to Influence Schools and the Learning of All
Students Steven N. Elliott Arizona State University Matthew Clifford American Institutes for
Research September 2014 CEEDAR Document No. LS-5
Report on The System of Education in Pakistan
Oracy Curriculum, Culture and Assessment Toolkit Evaluation report and Executive summary
June 2015
Student assessment inventory for school districts
89
“Teacher education and school improvement: A case study from Pakistan” Anil Khamis Aga Khan
University, Institute for Educational Development, Karachi Shahida Jawed Aga Khan University,
Institute for Educational Development, Karachi
Teacher education in Pakistan with particular reference to teachers' conceptions of teaching Amin
Rehmani Aga Khan University, Examination Board
Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The National Education Association’s Framework for
Transforming Education Systems to Support Effective Teaching and Improve Student Learning
90
91

B-Ed Thesis Written

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

B-Ed Thesis Written

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHAPTER No.

Performance in schools is increasingly judged based on effective learning outcomes. Information

1.1: Definition of Evaluation

1.2: Definition of Assessment:

1.3: Aims and Objectives of evaluation and assessment in school:

2. Most assessment is summative.

3. Assessment is one-way communication; the teacher gives feedback on student work.

5. Student work should be given a grade or a mark.

6. If assignments are late, a teacher should deduct points.

1.7: Research questions

 Evaluation is a Science of providing information for decision making.

Wikieducator.org/CONCEPT OF EVALUATION AND ITS PRINCIPLES.

2. Evaluation is a continuous process

2.1.2: Functions of evaluation:

2.1.4: Evaluation devices

(1) Written Examination:

(2) Oral Examination:

(3) Practical Examination:

(8) Rating Scale:

2.2: Aligning educational standards and student assessment:

2.4: Integrating student formative assessment in the evaluation and

2.5: Why Is There a Need for Quality Teacher Evaluation?

2.7: Purposes of Teacher Evaluation

2.8: School Evaluation:

2.8.2: Providing balanced public reporting on schools

2.8.3: Improving the data handling skills of school agents

2.9.2: Monitoring key outcomes of the education system

2.9.3: Maximizing use of system-level information

3.2: Research Design:

3.3: Population of study:

3.4: Sample of population:

3.5: Research Instruments:

3.6: Data Collection:

3.7: Data Analysis:

Analyses and Interpretation Data

4.1: Overall Data Analysis and reporting strategy

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Separate Public 100 13.0% 19.0% 26.0% 20.0% 22.0% 2.81%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Regular Public 100 10.0% 20.0% 31.0% 25.0% 14.0% 2.86%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Teachers Public 100 0.0% 0.0% 37.0% 39.0% 24.0% 2.13%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Guest/ Public 100 14.0% 16.0% 28.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.86%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Assessing Public 100 10.0% 21.0% 27.0% 26.0% 16.0% 2.83%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Our Public 100 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 25.0% 15.0% 2.90%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Assessing Public 100 15.0% 19.0% 25.0% 30.0% 11.0% 2.97%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Assessment Public 100 19.0% 16.0% 32.0% 19.0% 14.0% 3.07%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Assessment Public 100 21.0% 24.0% 33.0% 14.0% 8.0% 3.22%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Separate Public 50 4.0% 12.0% 23.0% 2.0% 9.0% 3.00%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Regular Public 50 5.0% 9.0% 23.0% 7.0% 6.0% 3.00%

Mean comparison of teachers consider assessment services to be important professionals in public

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Teachers Public 50 0.0% 2.0% 19.0% 16.0% 13.0% 2.20%

Statement School N Always Often Sometime Rare Not at Mean

Guest/ Public 50 6.0% 8.0% 18.0% 11.0% 7.0% 2.90%