I’ve been teaching Form 3 since 2015, when PT3 was still in effect, until recently when PT3 was abolished and replaced with UASA (Ujian Akhir Sesi Akademik – End of academic session test). Therefore, I have experience in teaching both types of assessment systems. In this article, I am going to elaborate on the differences between my experiences teaching Form 3 during pre and post-abolishment of PT3. Before I proceed, I would like to make a disclaimer that my experience may or may not be the same as other teachers who are teaching in an urban or rural school, as I am placed at a suburban school. In fact, my experience might even differ among teachers who are teaching in the same type of demographic. In addition, my experience is based on the subject matter that I teach which is English as a second language. 

When PT3 was implemented, as a manifestation of exam-oriented teaching culture, PT3 workshops were the common programs held in schools. Most schools would do this by inviting a teacher who is an expert at PT3 English paper answering techniques and provides tips to Form 3 students to ‘score’ the subject. Another manifestation of exam-oriented culture is that education district offices often rank schools within a district based on their PT3 performance during an obligatory academic performance dialogue. Lastly, at the classroom level, the teaching-to-the-test method would be the dominant way for teaching English because language learning activities are orientated towards the PT3 paper question format, which oftentimes limits teachers to explore other pedagogical methods – which was reflected in my past experience. 

When PT3 was abolished, many teachers were still skeptical about whether UASA will be treated the same as PT3. I had the same skepticism. However, the major difference that I felt and observed between PT3 and UASA is that I had more opportunities to conduct English language projects with my Form 3 students. The projects include an international journal exchange with Russian students (and a virtual meeting with them to conclude the one-month project), civic awareness project-based learning, postcard exchanges to Pahang and Taiwan, and a virtual exchange with Taiwanese students. I did this with all the 3 classes of Form 3 (2022/2023 batch) students that I taught. Additionally, I implemented and experimented with different language classroom activities that are not aligned with the format. Of course, some would say these types of projects and classroom activities could still be implemented if PT3 was still around. I don’t deny this but the main difference is I don’t have to do any of the projects in a hurry and there is no need to worry about not aligning the projects or activities with the examination format. The main purpose of these projects is to develop their overall language skills (CEFR aligned), regardless of the examination format. Apart from that, if PT3 is still around, I wouldn’t have been able to do a variety of projects in one year. 

Despite UASA not being exam-oriented, when examinations were around the corner, I admit that the teaching-to-the-test method is still one of the teaching methods that I employ in my classroom. However, the difference in using the teaching to the test method between pre and post-PT3 abolishment is that such a method is used to a lesser degree now as compared to when PT3 was in implementation. From my experience, prior to the PT3 abolishment, it was a common practice to use this method months and months before PT3, at the expense of other pedagogical methods. The reason for this is before the actual PT3 national assessment, schools would administer one or two trial PT3 examinations which took about 2-3 months before the actual PT3 exam. So, even before the real thing starts, students have already been drilled by familiarising themselves with the format a few months prior. But recently, I only used this method around 2 to 3 weeks prior to the examination for students to practice. I believe this is similar to any preparation for any language test. From my experience when I took TOEFL in 2021, I had to study the format and watched Youtube videos for tips on how to ace the language test. It took me about a month of practice. Of course, this was all self-taught and I had no instructor, which is different for these Form 3 students. So, I think we can perceive the teaching-to-the-test method as being just ONE of the teaching methods among many that we can employ for our students. It’s not necessary for us to completely discard it, but of course, it’s also not for us to use it as a dominant method for developing students’ language skills.

As of writing this, I have already finished grading my Form 3 students’ English UASA papers. One of the classes that’s been perceived as generally ‘low performing’ that I taught had an increase of 45% passes for their English language examination. During semester one, only 26% of them passed. For the second semester, 73% of them passed! I think this increase is attributed to both the teaching-to-the-test methods which were done for about 2 to 3 weeks before UASA alongside the variety of language classroom activities which were done throughout the whole year. Of course, I do not judge their language proficiency based on the UASA result alone as the recent examination only tested reading and writing skills, as listening and speaking were not tested. Assessments were done throughout the year based on classroom-based assessment (PBD) and I have included speaking and listening skills into the process. All of us need to be reminded that judging a student’s academic performance based on UASA alone does not reflect a holistic view of students’ learning development. Because if we do that, we are only going back to the same exam-oriented mindset back when PT3 was implemented.

With this experience of mine, it’s obvious that there are vast differences in terms of teaching practices during pre and post-abolishment of PT3. What’s commonly practiced when PT3 was in effect is no longer, for the major part, manifested in the current assessment system which is branded as ‘UASA’. Basically, it’s just a normal end-of-year assessment similar to the one implemented for Form One and Form Two students. This is the first time that UASA is being implemented and I have read about certain issues relating to its implementation but since education is dynamic, there is no denying that there will be changes and improvements from time to time. This is one development in our education system that I view as an opportunity for me to be more innovative and creative in the classroom. 

One question still remains is that since we are moving away from an exam-oriented system, isn’t it time for SPM to be implemented in a non-exam-oriented manner? This means to only consider SPM as a high-stakes exam in terms of using it as students’ qualifications to enter the workforce or tertiary education, and not to use SPM to rank schools or publicize it. There is more to unpack regarding this issue but I will leave it here for myself and the readers to think about.

*Read my other article regarding the abolishment of PT3 here

Written by Auzellea Kristin Mozihim