Beyond Exams: Rethinking Assessments Towards Purposeful Learning

Recently, the release of SPM results once again captured national attention, with headlines highlighting both the achievements and the ongoing concerns. But is SPM the only assessment that matters? Given the spotlight it receives, it can certainly feel that way. 

Yet in recent years, Malaysia has seen significant shifts in its education system, including the abolition of the Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) and Pentaksiran Tingkatan 3 (PT3). These changes have sparked ongoing debates, with questions like, “How will we track student progress?” and “How will students be prepared for SPM?” But beneath the surface, these reforms are part of a larger and essential conversation about the role of assessments and, ultimately, the purpose of education.

What is assessment, really?

Assessment is often equated with exams, but in reality, it is much broader. At its core, assessment is a tool to understand student progress — not just in terms of what they have learned but also in identifying areas where further support is needed. It can take many forms, from national-level (often high-stakes) standardised tests to classroom quizzes and project-based learning. It can be formative or summative. 

In education, we can categorise three broad purposes of assessment: assessment of learning (to measure achievement), assessment for learning (to inform teaching and learning), and assessment as learning (where students actively reflect and take ownership of their learning). To learn more about these assessment approaches, click here. 

Our education system has historically leaned heavily toward assessment of learning by focusing on scores, grades and rankings from summative assessments. But this approach alone limits the potential of assessments to support learning. Integrating and strengthening all three approaches would deepen student engagement and provide a more comprehensive picture of individual progress and the overall health of our education system.

What’s happening in Malaysia?

Although several years have passed since the abolishment of UPSR and PT3, these changes continue to spark concern and confusion. So, let’s take a moment to unpack what’s really going on and debunk a few myths along the way.

Debunking Myth #1: “There Are No More Exams”

The removal of UPSR and PT3 doesn’t mean there are no more assessments or exams because school-based assessments or Pentaksiran Berasaskan Sekolah (PBS) are still very much in place. Under the PBS framework, Pentaksiran Bilik Darjah (PBD) and Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik (UASA) continue to monitor and evaluate students’ learning progress, combining the different approaches to assessment. Click here to read the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Education for more details.

When school and class-based assessments are done well, they offer a more reflective and continuous picture of student learning that helps teachers understand where students are and what support they need to grow. The key difference is that these assessments are no longer high-stakes, one-off events. The shift away from national standardised exams allows for more holistic assessments that are better aligned with classroom learning. However, because they are somewhat less visible to the public (and perhaps less trusted), this shift is often misunderstood, leading to the misconception that students are no longer being assessed at all.

Debunking Myth #2: “High-stakes Exams Were Abolished to Reduce Stress”

Stress is a symptom, not the root cause. High-stakes national exams often create stress because students’ futures seem to hinge on one test. The pressure students experience is often not a result of the assessment itself but from the intense competition and the rewards and consequences tied to the exam results. Removing high-stakes exams isn’t just about easing stress; it’s about rethinking the purpose of assessment altogether and shifting towards more meaningful learning experiences and assessment approaches. 

When assessments are better aligned to curriculum goals and designed to support learning, we can get a truer picture of students’ progress and understanding while reducing unhealthy and unnecessary pressure at the same time.

Debunking Myth #3: “No High-stakes Exams Means No Motivation”

If students (and teachers) are only motivated by exams, that reveals deeper issues in our education system and broader society. Education has both intrinsic value and extrinsic value. Its intrinsic value lies in sparking curiosity, deepening understanding, and fostering personal growth. The extrinsic value comes from the opportunities it unlocks such as qualifications, jobs, and social mobility. Therefore, we must also shift our mindset to see education and experiences in school as something inherently valuable, whether there is an exam or not, and work towards getting that mindset across to all layers of society.

Paulo Freire, an educator and philosopher, famously critiqued what he called the ‘banking concept’ of education in his seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In the banking model, students are treated as empty vessels to be ‘filled’ with knowledge. Thus, education is likened to a transaction where the teacher deposits information and the student returns it during an exam. Instead of treating students as passive recipients of information, Freire proposed a ‘problem-posing education’ which encourages them to be active participants in their own learning and transform the real world.

Furthermore, if students receive quality education, the educational outcomes should be the same whether there is a standardised high-stakes examination or not. Assessment should support learning but not dictate it, so that we do not find ourselves constrained to teaching to the test.

So What Should We Focus On?

Firstly, we must acknowledge the trust deficit surrounding current assessment practices among the general public, resulting from the continued confusion, miscommunication, and conflicting accounts of why the reforms were made in the first place and what the current plan entails. This has been further fueled by the lack of clear, timely, and easily accessible information about what to expect, which has only deepened the public’s sense of worry and ambiguity.

To address this, we must focus on strengthening school-based assessments, improving public communication and education about current assessment practices, and exploring approaches that balance system-level monitoring with the flexibility to accommodate diverse needs and contexts.

Strengthen School and Class-Based Assessments

Investing and increasing the credibility and quality of school-level assessments is essential. This means equipping teachers with the tools, training, and support they need to design fair, meaningful, and informative assessments. The training and support provided should also account for the diverse contexts teachers face, such as varying subjects, class sizes, and student needs. 

With school-based examinations like UASA, there seems to be some variation across schools and subjects in terms of how the assessments are prepared. Some teachers rely on question banks the state or district provides, while others design their own. However, it is important to recognise that designing high-quality examination papers is a specialised skill. While the Ministry has provided training for some teachers, continued support and resources are needed for all teachers. Given the administrative burdens teachers often face, district or state-level assessment specialists could provide essential support, whether by helping design shared assessments or offering a repository of question banks for teachers to use or refer to (if it does not already exist).

Communicate Better

Another area to address is the disconnect between education policy decisions and public understanding. When reforms and new practices are introduced or amended, we must also educate the public on the rationale and broader goals of these changes in a timely manner. Otherwise, we risk creating a vacuum that is often filled with speculation, conflicting messages, and misinformation.

In addition, we must also communicate what stakeholders can expect moving forward. Timely, consistent, and accessible public communication, supported by clear plans and easily accessible resources, can help rebuild confidence in the system. Providing transparent, straightforward information will clarify the direction of these reforms and create space for more informed public dialogue on things that truly matter.

Embrace Flexibility and Balance

We don’t need to test every child to effectively monitor the education system. Drawing inspiration from international assessments like PISA and TIMSS, Malaysia can adopt a similar approach by using sampling-based testing to gather reliable data. This allows us to assess national trends without resorting to high-stakes exams.

At the same time, we must ensure that assessment practices are flexible enough to accommodate the diverse learning needs and contexts of students across the country. As seen in Sarawak’s decision to implement state-level tests, decentralisation is one example of how regions can exercise autonomy and tailor assessments to local needs. 

An Evolving Approach

Abolishing UPSR and PT3 doesn’t mean assessments have disappeared, they’ve simply evolved. What we need now is to build public trust in these newer forms of assessment, strengthen the capacity of schools and teachers to carry them out effectively, and ensure that students are learning not because of tests, but because they are inspired, supported, and engaged. Assessment should always serve learning, not the other way around.