01.continuous Assessment Ale

KJEP 5:1 (2008), pp. 3-18

Continuous assessment policy implementation in selected local government areas of Ondo state (Nigeria): Implications for a successful implementation of the UBE program O. F. Adebowale Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile‐Ife, Nigeria

K. A. Alao Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile‐Ife, Nigeria

Abstract This study examines the methods adopted by teachers in the implementation of the provisions of a continuous assessment policy in Ondo State in Nigeria. Data were collected from teachers selected randomly from all schools in two non‐cosmopolitan Local Government Education Authorities of the state and were analyzed using simple percentages, t‐test, and ANOVA. Results indicated a non‐uniform strategy of implementing continuous assessment policy provisions and are found to be independent of factors like gender, duty posts, teaching experience, and qualifications, as no significant difference were found in the score of respondents on all of these factors. It is recommended that the policy should be freely distributed to basic school teachers in a simplified form as a uniform implementation of the policy is connected to the success of the Universal Basic Education program now that it is to span three more years than the earlier Universal Primary Education (UPE) policy or any other educational policy made earlier. Also, regular training workshops on continuous assessment should be organized for teachers. Keywords: Continuous assessment, teachers, learners’ performance, education, gender, duty post, educational qualification KEDI Journal of Educational Policy － ISSN 1739 －4341 － ⓒ Korean Educational Development Institute 2008, Electronic version: http://eng.kedi.re.kr

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

Introduction Quality education is crucial to the economic development and social stability of a nation as it helps develop crucial humanitarian values like equity, tolerance, and peace. These values lead to sustainable national development, environmental protection, and improved family health, along with responsible participation in democratic, social, and political processes (Durodola & Olude, 2005). It was further argued that the aim of this goal is the quality of what is learned at school (knowledge, skills, values and attitudes) and how well these are learned (levels of competence attained on learning outcomes by pupils). Meanwhile, learners may not benefit much from a system of education unless there are assessments aimed at determining pupil performance levels at different stages of schooling. However, Puhl (1997) claimed that global influences affecting education (such as changes in world economy, information revolution, environmentalism and cross national health threats) and how educators assess them encouraged the move away from the heavy use of the traditional more judgmental approaches to assessment toward an alternative, more inclusive means of determining what learners know and can do. Assessment serves as the barometer by which student instructional achievement outcome can be gauged. Assessment enables the school to achieve an overall objective of having as complete a record of the growth and progress of each pupil as possible in order to make unbiased judgments in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor evaluation in the classroom. Kayode (2003) argues that teachers need to assess pupils through a classroom mechanism referred to as continuous assessment. Continuous assessment is the alternative (or supplement) to high stakes testing (for certification, promotion or placement usually commercial) of pupil achievement that offers a methodology for measuring pupil performance and using those findings to improve the success of pupils (EQ, 2003).

Continuous assessment Nitko (2004) described continuous assessment as an on‐going process of gathering and interpreting information about student learning that is used in making decisions about what to teach and how well students have learned. Nitko highlighted some merits of continuous assessment: - It promotes frequent interactions between pupils and teachers that enable teachers to know the strengths and weaknesses of learners to identify which students need review and remediation. - Pupils receive feedback from teachers based on performance that allows them to focus on topics they have not yet mastered.

4 ∥

Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

The definition of continuous assessment given by Ojerinde and Falayajo (1984) captures the real essence in the practice of continuous assessment in Nigeria. They defined it as a mechanism where the final grading of a student in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of behavior takes a systematic account of all performances during a period of schooling. Afolabi (1999) stated that this definition embodies the need for comprehensiveness in scope, regularity of collection of student performance evidence, and the cummulation of student records. The study claimed that the Handbook on Continuous Assessment (1985) and Ojerinde (1985) take similar perspectives. In terms of comprehensiveness, continuous assessment is expected to make use of different approaches and evaluation tools in the process of assessing the learners such as, tests, questionnaire, rating scales, observation, and anecdotal records to obtain information on the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of learning by children. Continuous assessment is systematic in that it requires an operational plan. It is also cumulative in nature in that any decision taken about a learner is based on earlier decisions and it is guidance oriented in that any data gathered on the learners will serve as the basis for further academic growth and development (Ojerinde & Falayajo, 1984; Okpala, 1985; Okpala & Utoh, 2005). Puhl (1997) also contended that continuous assessment offers a way to cater to a diversity of learners particularly in a language class that derives from sociological factors like maternal‐tongue differences, culture, and place of origin as well as individual factors like differing abilities, interest, and motivations. Continuous assessment is most suitable to the Nigerian education system and is recognized by the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as it states in the National Policy on Education, NPE (1981) revised in 1998 and 2004 that: Education assessment will be liberalized by basing them in whole or in part on continuous assessment of the progress of the individual.

Continuous assessment in Nigeria Continuous assessment as an instructional process began in Nigeria in 1977 with the idea that it will enable educators to be more involved in the overall assessment of learners and allow for diverse instructional methods (Pennycuick, 1990, as cited in Israel, 2005). It is appropriate to note that the nature, process, and methods of handling continuous assessment have since been included in all teacher preparation efforts leading to the award of all educational qualifications: TC II, NCE, B. Ed., B.A. Ed., M.Ed., M.A. Ed.. Nigerian researchers have evaluated and recommended continuous assessment

∥ 5

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

as providing solid evidence of the achievement, attitude, motivation and aptitude of learners (Ali & Akube, 1988). In terms of weighting, Kayode (2003) reported that continuous assessment scores contribute 60% of every terminal assessment at the primary school level. Osunde (2003) and Afolabi (1999) stated that at the Junior Secondary School level continuous assessment of pupils constitute 60% of the final assessment scores while the final examination at the end of the program is only 40%. At the end of the first three years following primary education, the Junior Secondary School certificate would be based on the state examination and continuous assessment method. The continuous assessment method would also play a substantive role in the overall assessment of students at the senior secondary level and would constitute 40% of the final examination. Although Afolabi (1999) warned that the combination of raw continuous assessment scores with students’ examination scores for the SSCE results (instead of standardized scores) as raw scores cannot ensure fair comparability. It was pointed out that any comparison made with a combination at the SSCE level cannot be considered fair, equitable, and just. The frequency of collection of the evidence of student learning (such as testing or observation) is an important component of continuous assessment. Afolabi (1999) stated that students who have more observed scores for continuous assessment are likely to obtain final scores which are closer to the mean scores of the group (smaller variances) than those who have fewer observed scores. Ojerinde (1985) in Afolabi (1999) suggested at least two times per term of assessment in a school year of three terms for curricular areas, once a term for the determination of interest, attitudes, physical health, and outdoor activities and twice a year for cultural and co‐curricular activities. The study further suggested a once a term assessment for non‐scholastic aspects of student characteristics like personal and social qualities. Afolabi, attributed the wide variations found in teachers and schools in terms of this frequency to the absence of statutory guidelines on the ‘when’ of continuous assessment measures.

Critique of continuous assessment Alausa (2003) associated one advantage of continuous assessment to the fact that it places teachers at the centre of all performance‐assessment activities and that it encourages more teacher participation in the overall assessment or grading of learners. This is in agreement with what was suggested by Paris, Lawton, Turner, and Roth (1991), that teachers must be given opportunities to select and review assessments so that they become involved and knowledgeable in the process. It is expected that through this approach, teachers would be able to integrate assessment results into instructional practice. Teachers are also expected

6 ∥

Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

to incorporate assessment into the larger learning framework and be able to provide evidence regarding how assessment information is used to inform and guide instruction for individual learners. Alausa also identified some problems working against the proper implementation of continuous assessment. Some of them that could be associated with teachers include skills in test construction, test administration, attitudes toward the continuous assessment approach, and record keeping. For successful results in the implementation of the continuous assessment policy, Alausa argues that teachers need to give increased tests that result in more marking by the teacher. They need to observe the learners more to assess affective outcomes and there will be more records to be kept on learners. All these could mean more work for the teacher, greater demands on time, and increased responsibility. Teachers must be prepared professionally and mentally for operating in the system. If the teacher is not adequately prepared for operating in the system, it may lead to a tendency to manufacture scores in the name of continuous assessment. Teachers should be encouraged to form favorable attitudes toward the practice. Another problem identified with continuous assessment is the issue of record keeping. The records of learners have to be properly stored, meticulously kept, and easily retrievable for long periods of time. A related issue is that of collation where scores may have to be combined from different sources using various weights. Although continuous assessment recognizes teachers as professionals having integrity and expertise to judge student abilities (Isaac, 1995, as cited in Israel, 2005), Israel (2005) contended that educator unreliability in continuous assessment scores is an international problem. The study mentioned that gross inflation is usually detectable when continuous assessment scores are compared with examination scores in South Africa. It was also claimed that issues facing 3rd world countries in terms of implementation of continuous assessment are st very different from those facing 1 world countries. From the viewpoint of learners, continuous assessment can mean too many projects from too many educators at the same time and the fact that wealthy learners are given an unfair advantage over poorer learners as they would have greater access to resources. Research in Ghana showed that the unreliability of educators in continuous assessment practices stemmed from the fear of transfers or dismissal if students did not perform well in examinations (Akwesi & Murphy, 1994, cited in Israel, 2005). It was also observed in Afolabi (1999) that the obligation to send in marks for the end‐of‐term reports is the singular motivation for testing by teachers in the Netherlands.

Purpose of study Studies have been conducted into the implementation practices of continuous assessment in Nigeria and other countries in which the policy has been ∥ 7

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

adopted with recommendations made towards improvement where lapses were observed. For instance, Govender (2003) gave a vivid operational framework of continuous assessment in South Africa with a simplified manual for improving the practice, but some Nigerian researchers have complained about how different components of the policy are handled (e.g. Onuka, 2005; Ezeudu, 2005; Akinlua & Ajayi, 2003; Afolabi, 1999). In fact, Kayode (2003) concluded that only a partial continuous assessment is practiced in the Nigeria state of Kwara and encouraged both the government and the National Association of Educational Researchers and Evaluators (NAERE) to intervene to ensure that the laudable goals of continuous assessment are achieved. Adeyemo (2003) also complained of the haphazard way in which continuous assessment is implemented in the Nigerian state of Osun. The research was designed to determine if this situation exists in other states of the federation (particularly non‐cosmopolitan states) or if there exist any confusion in the minds of the implementers of the policy, the teachers, the kind Kruger (2004) said have previously occurred in Namibia. If there were problems with the policy then to locate whether the confusion was limited to a certain group(s) of individual among the teachers. The Universal Basic Education (UBE) policy (recently introduced into the Nigerian education system) stipulates that basic education is to last three more years than the former primary education, is compulsory, and all inclusive. The program also provides that children receive the first six years of the nine years at a primary school different from the Junior Secondary School where they are expected to complete the remaining three years (Oduolowu, 2007). A single teacher takes care of a class in Nigerian primary schools so that the assessment of pupils (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor) obtained via different tools (like tests, project, assignment, interest inventory, and attitude scales) and records can be collected, kept by the same person, and later passed on to another teacher in the next (primary) class. In the Junior Secondary School (where team teaching is practiced) different teachers handle different subjects and assessments. The records are conducted by many teachers that are carried on to the next class to be taught, examined and recorded by teachers that may be different from those of the previous class(s). Ultimately, both regimes together are expected to constitute a sizeable percentage of the outcome of the Universal Basic Certificate of Education (UBCE) obtained at the end of the 9‐year program. In order to ensure accurate implementation of the Universal Basic Education scheme, the knowledge and attitude of the teachers towards continuous assessment should be examined periodically with the view to addressing inherent lapses and misconceptions in order to strengthen the UBE program in Nigeria and other countries where the policy has been adopted. This is the basic focus of this paper, but targeted at the primary school that is the foundation of the UBE scheme.

8 ∥

Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

Methodology The study adopted a survey design. One hundred (100) primary school teachers were selected from all the schools in two selected non‐cosmopolitan Local Government Education Authorities (LGEAs) in Ondo state (Akoko North West and Akoko South West) of Nigeria and the demographic data are shown in Table 1. The teachers were drawn by simple random sampling in each of all the schools in the two LGEAs that were purposefully selected from all the LGEAs in Ondo Table 1. Distribution of respondents across the independent variables Variable Gender

Percentages % Male

22

30.4

Female

46

63

5

6.8

Total

73

100.2

Head teacher

10

13.7

7

9.6

40

54.8

1

1.4

No Response

15

20.

Total

73

99.5

Less than ten years

20

27.4

10 years to less than 15yrs

7

9.6

15 to 20Yrs

8

10.9

20 to 30 yrs

17

23.3

7

9.6

No response

14

19.2

Total

73

100

2

2.7

National Certificate of Education (NCE)

16

21.9

NCE + GRD II

37

50.7

8

11

No response

10

13.7

Total

73

100

No Response Duty Post

Assistant Head teacher Class teacher Others

Teaching Experience

More than 30yrs

Highest Educational Qualification

Grd. II Teachers Cert.

Degree in Education

∥ 9

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

State being non‐cosmopolitan in nature. An instrument titled “Questionnaire on the handling of continuous assessment by primary school teachers” consisting of 15 items (see Appendix 1) were purposely developed by the researchers and moderated by experts in educational tests and measurements. This instrument was trial tested on 30 teachers that were not involved in the proper research. The internal consistency reliability of the instrument was obtained through the determination of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient that was found to be 0.81 signifying a moderately reliable instrument. This instrument was then administered on the respondents in the respective schools. Simple percentages were computed to obtain a set of descriptive statistics. T‐test and ANOVA were employed during data analysis as inferential statistics. Four independent variables were employed in the research, gender of the respondents, duty post, years of teaching experience, and educational background. The response rate to the questionnaire was 73% with 30.4% of the respondents being male, 63% female, and the 6.8% that did not indicate gender. For duty post, there were 13.7% head teachers, 9.6% assistant head teachers, 54.8% class teachers, 1.4% computer instructors and 20.5% others who did not indicate any duty post. For teaching experience, 27.4% teachers served for 5 to 10 years, 9.6% served for 10 to 20 years, 23% served for 20 to 30 years, 9.62% served for more than 30 years, and 19.2% teachers did not indicate the length of service. For educational qualifications, only 2.7% teacher possess only Grd.II teacher certificate, 21.9% possess only NCE certificate, 50.7 possess a combination of Grd.II and NCE, 11% possess NCE with a degree certificate, and 13.7% teachers did not indicate educational qualifications.

Results There is no agreement in terms of how regularly the pupils should be assessed in continuous assessment as shown in Table 2 that presents a descriptive analysis of the responses given by the respondents. From Table 2 above, 29.8% of the respondents claimed that it should be done daily, while 31.6% said it is weekly, 28.1% said it is fortnightly, and 10.5% said it is term based. The confusion is also apparent across different duty posts even among head teachers who had to rise through the workforce to present posts. Even gender, teaching experience or educational qualification did not make much difference. Most of the teachers (95.5%) agreed that continuous assessment should take place in all subjects, although a few (4.5%) still believed that it should be limited to English and Mathematics. There was also agreement (78.8%) that homework should be given to pupils everyday. A considerable percentage (32.8%) of respondents still makes use of written tests only for continuous assessment and 48.1% of the respondents believe in the use of different tools like test, contribution to class discussion, drawing, simple article composition,

10 ∥

Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

and terminal examination for continuous assessment. Most teachers (61.2%) claimed that the most frequently employed methods in school were written tests and term examinations. Only 22.4% said all these tools were used for the continuous assessment of pupils. Although most of the respondents agreed that all projects, assignments, observational techniques, anecdotal records, and oral interviews are sometimes used, many respondents (56%) said only the records of tests and term exams are kept and used for the assessment of pupils while others (33.8%) believed that homework should be included in the continuous assessment. Table 2 . Descriptive analysis of the responses of teachers with regards to frequency, weighting and involvement of the pupil Frequency of assessment in C.A.

Calling the attention of pupils to performance in C.A.

Weight of C.A in final assessment

Very often

Often

Seldom

8.6 29.3 100 5.4

9

16.1 35.8 33. 100

Gender

32.8 31.3 23.9 11.9 100

46.3

20.9 23.9 100 4.7

9.4

21.9 32.8 31.3 100

Teaching Experience

25.9 36.2 27.6 10.3 100

48.3 10 13.8 27.6 100 5.1

8.6

15.5 37.8 32.7 99.7

9.8

14.7 37.7 32.8 99.9

9.7 12.9 27.4 100 4.9

Occasionally

No need

Total

30%

51.7 10 9

40%

29.8 31.6 28.1 10.5 100

50

60%

Duty Post

Educational 29.1 35.5 25.8 9.7 100 Qualifications

100%

Total

Term

Fortnightly

Daily

Weekly

Parameters

In terms of the weight of continuous assessment in the final assessment score, 51.7% claimed that the continuous assessment is the final assessment of the child, while 10% claimed that it should constitute 60%, 8.6% of respondents claimed that it should constitute only 40% while 29.3% respectively stated that continuous assessment constitutes 30% of the final assessment. Most of the teachers claimed that the pupils are aware that the homework and other periodic activities undertook in class will contribute to the final assessment while some said they were not aware. A few of the teachers (5.4%) believe there is no need to call the attention of the pupils to the continuous assessment performance, while some (9%) said they seldom do so. Only 16.1% of the respondents sometimes do so, 35.8% do so oftentimes while only 33% do so very often. 60% of the respondents occasionally call the attention of parents to the performance of pupils in continuous assessment, ∥ 11

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

21.2% do often, 9.1% very often, while another 9.1% do not at all. In terms of the purpose of continuous assessment, the largest percentage of respondents (31.7%) claimed that continuous assessment is used for improving the performance of pupils and promotion to the next class while only 30.2% added other usage such as diagnosing learning difficulties and realizing learning objectives that are actually the basic schedule of duty of classroom teachers. Also only a mere 15.2% of the respondents stated that the assessment score of pupils are scaled and added to those of the next classes while only 13.8% claimed that the assessment scores of a primary six pupil is added to the assessment in the next basic education class. It is believed to be kept in the school archive for record purposes. Conclusively, 58.5% agreed that continuous assessment has helped in achieving learning objectives; only 1.6% said it did not help at all. The total scores of all respondents were also subjected to t‐test and ANOVA to determine if the observed situation were caused by the differences in gender, duty posts, and years of teaching experience or teaching qualification. The results obtained are as follows: Based on gender, no significant difference was obtained in the scores of respondents on the knowledge of the standard practice of Continuous assessment (t = 0.718, p>0.05). Also, no significant difference was obtained in the mean scores of respondents on the basis of duty posts at various schools (F = 5.977, p>0.05). Again, no significant difference was found in the mean scores of respondents based on years of teaching experience (F = 2.660, p>0.05). Finally, no significant difference was obtained in the mean scores of respondents based on duty posts at various schools (F = 2.892, p>0.05).

Discussion The implementers of continuous assessment policy in the schools under study do not understand the standard implementation practice of the policy, in fact the way continuous assessment is implemented in the schools were very similar to the gloomy pictures painted by Kayode (2003), Adeyemo (2003) and Onuka (2005). Teachers were practicing continuous assessment of pupils in different ways and manners; this can only be attributed to some forms of confusion in the understanding of the policy. The researchers saw the confusion in three areas: ⅰ. how often the pupils were assessed ⅱ. how many of such assessment should be graded and weighted ⅲ. calling the attention of pupils and parents to performance in continuous assessment The usage of other assessment tools apart from cognitive tests, assignment, and examinations is absent in the assessment; where it is present it is not included when the pupils assessment 1 is combined. Weighting of the

12 ∥

Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

constituent assessments and contributions to the final assessment needs concise clarification and the interface between the primary school and the Junior Secondary phases of Basic Education creates some confusion particularly among classroom teachers and those who have not taught long. Most of these findings are in agreement with those of Akinlua and Ajayi (2003) while evaluating the continuous assessment practice of primary school head teachers in this same state (Ondo state of Nigeria). They found that “very many of them cannot be said to know how it is practiced” and that although a continuous assessment committee was available in some of the schools, they were not functional. Nwakoby (1988) and Erinosho (1993) in Israel (2005) also confirmed inadequate conceptualization of continuous assessment by educators among other problems, even Awomolo (1992) who happened to be the head of Research Division of the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) complained that the assessment of teachers were notoriously low in terms of reliability level. Very significant differences were also reported in the frequency of the formal assessment components of continuous assessment by teachers of different subjects (technical, mathematics, language, science, social studies, and business studies) in more than 20 schools in South Western Nigeria. These are not strange developments in an educational system. Kruger (2004) recalled how similar confusion also occurred among teachers in Namibia, even among different agencies of the government that led to some constructive steps which eventually led to a clear direction in terms of implementation of continuous assessment in that country. Nigerian educators are attempting to shift to a new paradigm in educational assessment, School Based Assessment (SBA) (NTI, 2006), the features of continuous assessment are still very prominent even in the new system. The timely and effective intervention will not only re‐invigorate continuous assessment as an educational practice but it will also provide a strong preliminary barometer on which the new paradigm can be assessed.

Implication for policy implementation In view of the foregoing and in order that continuous assessment furthers the goals of the UBE, and by extension the new School Based Assessment (SBA) being proposed in Nigeria and in other countries, the following suggestions become of interest. Simplified and concise interpretation of the continuous assessment policy provisions should be made into manuals, leaflets, and handbooks for distribution to teachers who are usually the implementers of most educational policies. These services should be done for free in order to ensure a wide circulation and acceptance. Monitoring and supervision of the implementation of such policies should be

∥ 13

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

stepped up and reinserted into the research policy, formulation policy, and implementation evaluation cycle. It should not be done in the usual “scapegoat finding” mode, but in the performance support and enhancement type. Finally, regular workshops and seminars should be organized for teachers in schools to further the knowledge and understanding of continuous assessment policies, programs, and implementation to neutralize confusion and misunderstanding.

Address for correspondence Olusegun Fatai Adebowale Assistant Lecturer Department of Educational Foundations and Counseling Faculty of Education Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile‐Ife Nigeria Tel: (234) 8038038046 Email: [email protected]

References Adeyemo, S. O. (2003). Evaluation of the use of continuous assessment in State Joint Examination: A strategy for good academic standard and uniformity in Nigerian primary education. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(1), 42‐46. Afolabi, E. R. I. (1999). Six honest men for continuous assessment: evaluating the ‘equating’ of achievement scores in Nigerian secondary schools. Ife Journal of Behavioural Research, 1(2), 7‐15. Akinlua, A. A., & Ajayi, P. O. (2003). Evaluation of continuous assessment practice in primary schools. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(2), 16‐23. Akwesi, C., & Murphy, R. (1994). New roles for teacher assessment in Ghana and the UK: Emerging issue. St. Anne’s college: Oxford. Alausa, Y. A. (2003). Continuous assessment in our schools: Advantages and problems. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.ednet.na/ Resouces/Reform%20Forum/journal9/journal% 209% Article%202.pdf Ali, A., & Akube, A. (1988). Nigerian primary schools’ compliance with Nigeria national policy on Education: An evaluation of continuous assessment practices. Educational Review, 12(6), 625‐636. Awomolo, A. (1992). The challenges of combining internal and external assessment in certificate examinations: The West African examinations council experience.

14 ∥

Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

Paper presented at the International Conference on Educational Policies and Systems, Ibadan, Nigeria. Durodola, S. L. & Olude, A. O. (2005). The use of assessment result in Nigerian schools: An appraisal. Paper Presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the IAEA, Abuja, Nigeria. EQ (2003). Measuring pupil achievement: Continuous assessment. EQ Review, 1(1). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.equip123.net/EQ_ Review/1_1.pdf Erinosho, S. Y. (1993). Preferences of Nigerian high school teachers for modes of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(4), 439‐445. Ezeudu, S. A. (2005). Continuous assessment in Nigerian senior secondary school geography: Problems and implementation strategies. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Abuja, Nigeria. Federal Ministry of Education. (1981). National policy on education. Lagos: National Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC). Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (1985). A handbook on continuous assessment. Ibadan: Heinemann. Govender, P. (2003). A critique of the moderation system of continuous assessment in the senior certificate as implemented in the Guateng Department of Education (South Africa). Retrieved November 11, 2006, http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/ available/etd‐12062004‐141525/unrestricted/02chapters5‐7.pdf Isaac, T. (1995). Continuous assessment in the context of teacher education. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://searchsabinet.co.za/images/ejour/high/high_ v19_sed_a19.pdf Israel, H. F. (2005) Implementing continuous assessment in Your teaching/learning situation. South Africa: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. Kayode. (2003). Evaluation of Continuous Assessment Practice in Primary Schools. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(1). Kruger, G. (2004, April). Continuous assessment in the lower primary school phase: From confusion to direction. Paper presented at the meeting of Reform Forum. National Teachers Institute (NTI). (2006). School based assessment training manual. Kaduna Nigeria: Author. Nitko, A. J. (2004). Continuous assessment and performance assessment. Retrived November 11, 2006, from http://www.moec.gov.jm.pdf Nwakoby, F. U. (1988). The educational change process in Nigeria: An evaluation of the junior secondary school innovation in Anambra State. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sussex University, England. Oduolowu, E. A. (2007). A comparison of the Universal Basic Education (UBE) program in Nigeria and the Grundskola of Sweden. Essays in Education, 20. Ojerinde, D., & Falayajo, W. (Eds.). (1984). Continuous assessment. A new approach. Ibadan: University Press. ∥ 15

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

Ojerinde, D. (1985). Analysis of Nigeria’s national policy on education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11, 249‐253. Onuka, A. O. U. (2005, September). Continuous assessment as an instrument of achieving learning objectives. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Abuja, Nigeria. Okpala, N. P. (1985). Teacher attitude variables in instructional and assessment practices as correlates of learning outcomes in physics. Unpublished thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Okpala, P. N., & Utoh, A. N. (2005, September). Assessment needs of practicing teachers in Nigerian primary schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Abuja, Nigeria. Osunde, A. U. (2003). The Relevance of Assessment in Instruction and Learning in the School System. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) at the Nicon Hilton Hotel, Abuja, Nigeria. Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C., & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(4), 40. Pennycuick, D. (1990). The introduction of continuous assessment system at secondary school level in developing countries. London: British Comparative and International Society. Puhl, C. A. (1997). Develop, not judge. Continuous assessment in the ESL classroom, 35(20), 2.

16 ∥

Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

Appendix 1 QUESTIONNAIRE ON RECORD KEEPING AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES OF CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN ONDO STATE This instrument was designed to investigate some salient issues on school record keeping vis‐à‐vis the implementation strategies of continuous assessment in Ondo state. Please feel free to report the situation as it is in your school. Your response will be held in strict confidence. Kindly respond to all items on this instrument by ticking right the option that is applicable to the situation in your school. Sex: M F Teaching Experience: Educational qualifications:

Duty Post (please indicate):

1. How often do you assess your pupils? a. Daily b. Weekly d. Termly e. annually

c. Fortnightly

2. Which of the subjects are involved in continuous assessment in your school? a. None b. Mathematics only c. English Language only d. English Language and Mathematics e. All subjects 3. How regularly do you give your pupils “homework”? a. seldom b. sometimes c. often d. everyday e. everyday and in every subject 4. Which of the following methods do you employ in assessing the pupils? Ⅰ. Test Ⅱ. Contribution to class discussion Ⅲ. Drawing Ⅳ. Designing and construction of simple articles (e.g. shapes and figures) Ⅴ. Terminal examinations a. None b. I only c. V only d. I and V only e. All of them 5. Which of the methods listed in (4) above do you use most often? a. None b. I only c. V only d. I and V only e. All of them 6. Which of the other tools listed below do you employ in assessing your pupils? Ⅰ. Project assignment Ⅱ. Observational technique Ⅲ. Anecdotal record Ⅳ. Oral interview a. None b. I only c. IV only d. III only e. All of them ∥ 17

O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

7. How many records of all assessment made during the term do you keep? a. Only those of exams b. Tests and exams c. All except home work d. All of them 8. What percentage of the terminal/sessional result do continuous assessment score carry a. 30% b. 40% c. 70% d. 60% e. 100% 9. Do the pupils understand that many of their everyday assessment are being recorded? Yes/No 10. How often do you draw the attention of pupils to their C.A. performance? a. No need b. Seldomly c. Sometimes d. Often e. Very often 11. How often do you invite parents concerning the performance of their children? a. Not at all b. Occasionally c. often e. Very often 12. Which of the following purposes do you use pupils’ Ⅰ. Realizing leaning objectives Ⅱ. Improving Ⅲ. Diagnosing learning difficulties Ⅳ. Promoting a. IV only b. II & IV only c. II d. II, III & IV e. All of them

C.A. scores for? pupils’ performance pupils to next class & III only

13. At the end of a pupil’s stay in a primary class, what happens to the C.A. scores? It is a. kept in the class record b. kept in the school records for future retrieval c. scaled and added to his/her performance assessments in the next class 14. At the end of a pupil’s schooling at the primary level, what happens to his/her C.A. scores? It is a. kept in the school records for future retrieval b. taken to the LGEA headquarters for record purposes c. sent to his/her junior secondary school. 15. To what extent will you say C.A. has helped in achieving learning objectives? a. Not at all b. Very small extent c. Some extent d. To an appreciable extent e. To a great extent.

18 ∥