The format of post-16 literature education assessment has not varied much since formal post-16 education began in Malaysia in the late 1950s. While it still relies heavily on the writing of literature essays, conceptualisations of literature as a school subject embedded in examination papers which are constructed by different examination boards have changed in important ways. This article argues that identifying these conceptualisations through an analysis of examination papers creates an avenue to provide a different perspective in exploring the development of literature in schools. To demonstrate this, examination papers on Shakespeare and modern literature from two examination sittings administered in Malaysia, one in the year 1968 and the other in the years 2012/2013, are analysed with a focus on whether questions are writer, text or reader-centred while considering how student response, termed outcome space, is framed. This study suggests that conceptualisations of literature have shifted in two ways: the first is a shift from a balance between writer, text and reader-centred questions to a heavy inclination towards text-centred questions which is linked to another noticeable shift in student responses to literature texts that has moved from the expression of personal meaning and interpretation of the text to the demonstration of detailed textual knowledge. Such shifts demonstrate that there is a need to consider literature assessment not only as an end-product of school subject construction but as an active representation of literature that influences the teaching and learning of the subject.

Keywords:  literature assessment; English literature; post-16 education; Malaysia; curriculum implementation

DOI: http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-03

Atherton, C. (2005). Defining Literary Criticism: Scholarship, authority and the possession of literary knowledge, 1880-2002. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Barlow, A. (2009). World and Time: Teaching Literature in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barrot, J. S. (2016). Examining the teaching beliefs and practices of experienced ESL teachers: A sociocognitive-transformative perspective. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. Vol. 22(1), 153-163.

Barry, P. (2009). Beginning Theory: An introduction to literary and cultural theory (3rd ed.). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

Barry, P. (2014). English in Practice: In pursuit of English studies (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury.

Crisp, V., & Shaw, S. (2012). Applying methods to evaluate construct validity in the context of A level assessment. Educational Studies. Vol. 38(2), 209 – 222.

Dixon, J. (1969). Growth Through English: A report based on the Dartmouth Seminar 1966 (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press.

Eagleton, T. (1985). The Subject of Literature. Cultural Critique. Vol. 2, 95-104.

Goodwyn, A. (2012). The Status of Literature: English teaching and the condition of literature teaching in schools. English in Education. Vol. 46(3), 212-227.

Green, A. (2005). Four Perspectives on Transition: English Literature from Sixth Form to University. The Higher Education Academy English Subject Centre.

Green, A. (2006). University to school: challenging assumptions in subject knowledge development. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education. Vol. 13(1), 111-123.

Green, A. (Eds.). (2011). Becoming a Reflective English Teacher. England: Open University Press.

Lacey, G. (2008). International examinations after 1945. In S. Raban (Ed.), Examining the World: A history of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (pp. 106-130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leavis, F. R. (1964). The Common Pursuit. New York: New York University Press.

Marshall, B. (2000). English Teachers – The Unofficial Guide: Researching the philosophies of English teachers. London: Routledge Falmer.

Marshall, B. (2003). The write kind of knowledge in English. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. Vol. 2(3), 83 – 94.

Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia. (2011). 2012 Literature in English Syllabus Specifications and Sample Questions. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from: http://portal.mpm.edu.my/documents/10156/28d2cd05-be4c-48a2-b967-bd0a14f4d24e

MPM, STPM Literature in English, November 2012, Question Paper 920/1.

MPM, STPM Literature in English, November 2012, Question Paper 920/2.

MPM, STPM Literature in English, November 2013, Question Paper 920/3.

Ong, 2010. Assessment profile of Malaysia: high-stakes external examinations dominate. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. Vol. 17(1), 91-103.

Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.). (2010). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (1967). 1968 English Syllabus. Cambridge Assessment

Archive.

Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical Criticism, a study of literary judgment. Available from http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001899141

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. London: Southern Illinois University Press.

Shaw, S., & Imam, H. (2013). Assessment of international students through the medium of English: Ensuring validity and fairness in content-based examinations. Language Assessment Quarterly. Vol. 10(4), 452- 475.

Snapper, G. (2007). A level Revamped: English literature, the universities and the schools. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education. Vol. 14(2), 107-120.

Tayeb, Y. A., Abd Aziz, M. S., Ismail, K., & Khan, A. B. (2014). The washback effect of the general secondary English examination (GSEE) on teaching and learning. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. Vol. 14(3), 83-103.

UCLES, HSC English, November 1968, Question Paper 806/7.

UCLES, HSC English, November 1968, Question Paper 801/2.

Warner, L. (2009). Asking the right question: Some aspects of the assessment of English Literature. Changing English. Vol. 16(3), 347- 353.

Widdowson, P. (1999). Literature. London: Routledge.

Yandell, J. (2014). The Social Construction of Meaning: Reading Literature in Urban English Classrooms. London: Routledge.