Rethinking Assessment in Malaysian Public Universities: A Conceptual Framework for Authentic and Continuous Assessment

The increasing emphasis on graduate competency development, Outcome-Based Education (OBE), and the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) have prompted higher education institutions to reconsider the continued reliance on high-stakes final examinations as the primary measure of student achievement. Although final examinations remain an established assessment practice in many universities, growing evidence suggests that they may not adequately evaluate the diverse knowledge, skills, and professional competencies required of contemporary graduates, particularly within the social sciences. This conceptual paper examines the educational rationale for rethinking the role of high-stakes final examinations in undergraduate social science programmes in Malaysian public universities. Drawing upon contemporary literature on assessment reform, authentic assessment, continuous assessment, graduate employability, and higher education policy, the paper synthesises current evidence to examine the opportunities and challenges associated with transitioning towards more diversified assessment practices. The discussion is situated within the Malaysian higher education context by considering the principles of Outcome-Based Education, the Malaysian Qualifications Framework, and the quality assurance expectations of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency. Building on this synthesis, the paper proposes the Malaysian Authentic Assessment Transition (MAAT) Framework, a conceptual model that integrates institutional policy, curriculum design, assessment practice, student learning processes, and graduate competency development to guide assessment reform in Malaysian public universities. Rather than advocating the complete abolition of final examinations, the framework promotes a balanced assessment ecosystem in which authentic, continuous, and appropriately designed summative assessments collectively provide more comprehensive evidence of student learning. The paper contributes to the growing discourse on assessment reform by offering a theoretically grounded and contextually relevant framework that may inform future research, institutional practice, and higher education policy in Malaysia.

Assessment reform; Authentic assessment; Continuous assessment; High-stakes final examinations.

1. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learners in higher education. Kogan Page. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. French, S., Dickerson, A., & Mulder, R. A. (2024). A review of the benefits and drawbacks of high-stakes final examinations in higher education. Higher Education, 88(3), 893–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01148-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504676 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Jackson, D. (2016). Re-conceptualising graduate employability: The importance of pre-professional identity. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(5), 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1139551 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2024). Guidelines to Good Practices: Assessment of Students' Learning. Malaysian Qualifications Agency. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I—Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025 (Higher Education). Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). OECD Learning Compass 2030. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. American Association of School Administrators. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Forms of graduate capital and their relationship to graduate employability. Education + Training, 59(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-05-2016-0090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. World Economic Forum. (2025). The Future of Jobs Report 2025. World Economic Forum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Xia, Q., Weng, X., Ouyang, F., Lin, T. J., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2024). A scoping review of generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Theories, applications, and future directions. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00468-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study