Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3-18
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.
Introduction
Continuous assessment
4 ∥
Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)
∥ 5
O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao
6 ∥
Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)
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
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
No Response 5 6.8
Total 73 100.2
Duty Post Head teacher 10 13.7
Assistant Head teacher 7 9.6
Class teacher 40 54.8
Others 1 1.4
No Response 15 20.
Total 73 99.5
Teaching Experience Less than ten years 20 27.4
∥ 9
O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao
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)
Weekly
Fortnightly
Term
Total
100%
60%
40%
30%
Total
No need
Seldom
Occasionally
Often
Very often
Parameters
Duty Post 29.8 31.6 28.1 10.5 100 51.7 10 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 9 20.9 23.9 100 4.7 9.4 21.9 32.8 31.3 100
Teaching
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
Experience
Educational
29.1 35.5 25.8 9.7 100 50 9.7 12.9 27.4 100 4.9 9.8 14.7 37.7 32.8 99.9
Qualifications
∥ 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)
∥ 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.
References
14 ∥
Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)
∥ 15
O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao
16 ∥
Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)
Appendix 1
∥ 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’ C.A. scores for?
Ⅰ. Realizing leaning objectives Ⅱ. Improving pupils’ performance
Ⅲ. Diagnosing learning difficulties Ⅳ. Promoting pupils to next class
a. IV only b. II & IV only c. II & III only
d. II, III & IV e. All of them
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 ∥