Continuous assessment activities

As indicated in the previous section, as distinct from terminal examination continuous assessment encompasses: exercises, class tests and homework. According to the MoE (2004) for the ‘termly assessment plan’:

Your pupils will be doing a lot of exercises in class. You will need to find the average (mean) of all the scores every two or three weeks and record of scores. (In the case of SSS, give 4 assignments). There should be four (4) of such scores in the term and the maximum score for all four will be 40 as indicated in column 2 (p. ii).

In terms of class tests, the MoE (2004) state that:

Three class tests you administer should be recorded for this purpose. The tests may be administered after every 3 or 4 weeks of the term. The first two tests should carry 10 marks each and the third should carry 20 marks so that the maximum for all the three tests should be 40 marks as shown in column 4 (p. ii).

Furthermore, the MoE (2004) states:

Sometimes the teacher may give the pupils work to do in groups. For each such group work each member of the group is awarded a maximum of 5 points or marks, the actual mark will depend on each member’s contribution to the project. If homework is given and pupils are expected to do this individually,

each task also attracts a maximum of 5 points, the actual mark depending on the quality of the work done. The maximum score for all four (homework/project) in the term is 20 as shown in column 6 (p. ii).

The emphasis on marks raises three concerns: measurement, competition and time. The focus on marks causes teachers to focus on measuring pupils’ attainments, which leads to giving pupils feedback mainly in the form of marks. It is imperative that teachers also record information that both teachers and pupils can use to improve learning. As Watkins (2007) points out, assessment is a key tool for teachers in determining not just what pupils need to learn, but also how best they can learn it.

Second, by focusing on marks teachers are more likely to give feedback to pupils, including those who are lower attainers, mainly in the form of marks. However, literature has shown that feedback in the form of marks and grades are not beneficial to pupils, particularly lower attainers (see Black and Wiliam, 1998; 2006a; Butler 1988). Clarke (2005) states that giving grades and marks for every piece of work leads to inevitable complacency or demoralisation leading to regression in progress. Whilst, pupils who continually receive high grades such as ‘A’ and ‘B’ may become complacent, lower attainers who get low marks will become demoralised.

In line with this, in the UK, the ARG (2002) advises teachers to be mindful of the impact of comments, marks and grades on learner’s confidence and enthusiasm and should be as constructive as possible in giving feedback to learners. For teachers’ feedback to be effective the focus should be on the learning or success criteria, aim at closing the gap, and give specific guidance about how to improve. As a result of his review of literature about feedback and the link with pupil motivation, Clarke (2005) concluded that:

The greatest motivational benefits will come from focusing feedback on the qualities of the pupil’s work, and not on comparison with other pupils; specific ways in which the pupil’s work could be improved; improvements that the pupil has made compared to his/her earlier work (p. 70-71).

The continuous assessment plan should encourage teachers to use information to help each pupil to improve.

However, given that the 1987 Education reforms model the American education system (Chapter 2), which is known for its frequent assessments (Harlen and Crick, 2003), it is not strange that continuous assessment emphasises the grading function rather than improvements in learning. Calfee and Masuda (1997) synthesized literature about classroom assessments in the USA and concluded that, assessment as practised in that country was more akin to appraisal than inquiry, driven by neither curiosity nor the aim of improving conditions. Calfee and Masuda argued that, in the inquiry model the teacher is driven by professional impulse to understand and shape pupils’ learning. Such teachers take full responsibility for assessment; they switch from an activity-driven model “assessment is something that you do” to a conceptual model “assessment is a way of thinking about teaching” (p. 83).

Third, the procedure for processing pupils’ marks for recording is laborious and time consuming. The amount of time and energy teachers expend in paperwork can reduce efforts for supporting pupils who record lower attainments in class to improve. As Weeden, Winter, and Broadfoot (2002) have argued, when teachers spend so much time on paperwork they have less time to help pupils to improve.

In line with this, Farrell (1997) states that in order to assess the progress pupils are making on the curriculum successfully it is necessary for schools to have a carefully

planned curriculum and accompanying record sheets which enable pupils’ progress to be recorded clearly and without taking up too much time. Also, Stakes and Hornby (2000) suggest that records should be straightforward to keep and simple to access.

Besides, the continuous assessment plan does talk about the methods teachers should use to gather pupils’ records. This may be seen as flexibility in terms of teachers’ choice of methods for assessing their pupils’ progress in classrooms. It is vital to state that documents such as, the teaching syllabuses (MoE 2001a, 2001b) provide many options that teachers can use to evaluate their lessons. The options include: narration, dramatisation, and role-play, written exercises, working in pairs and groups, demonstration, as well as observations.

However, Angbing (2001) in his study involving JSS teachers in Ghana, reported that the teachers were confused about the methods they had to use to gather pupils’ records. Some of the teachers in his study reported that they used class tests and exercises to gather pupils’ records; while others said they used assignments. Angbing, however, did not elaborate on the form the exercises or assignments took.

Elsewhere, in Trinidad and Tobago, Rampaul and Freeze (1992) suggest that continuous assessment measurement methods combine the frequent measurement of specific skills with use of graphs and charts to monitor skill acquisition and maintenance. In a study, Rampaul and Freeze reported that teachers perceived a variety of continuous assessment measures as effective. The methods included behavioural charting, for promptness, homework completion, and attendance; precision teaching of basic mathematics facts and reading; and skill monitoring

through direct daily measurement of pupils’ work samples in many subject areas. According to Rampaul and Freeze, all of these assessment methods represented a forward looking approach in which the purpose of assessment was as much to guide future instruction as it was to evaluate past attainments.

Furthermore, in Ghana, the continuous assessment plan directs the basic schoolteachers to give pupils group work to do in homework (MoE, 2004). For homework the plan specifically mentions the use of individual and group work, but does not explain how teachers should organise pupils for exercises and class tests. This may suggest that apart from homework, pupils have to do individual work in exercises and class tests. By focusing mainly on individual work, the continuous assessment plan deprives all pupils and in particular, lower attaining children of the benefits from group work.

In a study in the UK, employing systematic classroom observations of 8-9 year-olds with moderate learning difficulties in the mainstream Croll and Moses (1985) found that group work was particularly successful. Whereas all pupils in the class benefited, those with learning difficulties did so to the greatest extent. The level of engagement increased from 46% when working alone, to over 70% in a group. Also, one of the main findings was that slow learners (lower attainers) recorded low levels of engagement when working on their own (individually).

Watson (2000) reported that pupils with learning difficulties showed impressive gains in reading comprehension while engaged in group work. The pupils moved on to producing their own learning materials, forming a culture of learning, where ‘reading,

writing and thinking took place in the service of a recognised, reasonable goal- learning and helping others learn about a topic that deeply concerned them’ (p. 124). The researchers judged the nature and quality of their learning to be communal and joint, totally different from that obtained in an individual setting.

Although, Croll and Moses (1985) and Watson (2000) report studies which were conducted in England and the USA, in which the educational policies have largely shifted towards inclusion, Ghana could adapt these classroom practices promoting group work, rather than individual work, for pupil records. This would not be inconsistent with current practice in Ghana, since the teaching syllabuses, (see MoE, 2001a; 2001b), direct basic schoolteachers to use group work in addition to individual tasks to evaluate lessons.

Also, in Ghana the continuous assessment plan directs to give pupils a lot of exercises for their records. Frequent assessments generate substantial information on pupils’ learning which teachers can use for improvements (Amedahe, 2000; Asamoah- Gyimah, 2002; MoE, 1988). Writing in the context of England, Pollard, Collins, Simco, Swaffield, Warin and Warwick (2005) note that the strengths of using tasks for enquiry purposes derive both from the frequency and routine nature of the opportunities which are available and from the high validity which this form of assessment is likely to have. As routine exercises are embedded in everyday classroom processes they should provide a rich source of insights about pupil learning strategies and attainments that can be used to foster their inclusion in the mainstream.

Though frequent exercises can provide teachers with substantial information about pupils’ learning for the purpose of improvement, the emphasis on summative marks and the elaborate procedure for processing marks to fill pupils’ records can drastically reduce the time at teachers’ disposal. Also, the pressure to get marks obtained by pupils in all activities ready for recording within the stipulated time can cause basic schoolteachers to ignore the needs of lower attaining pupils. Since the pupils will not get requisite support from teachers they are likely to become demoralised as they constantly face assessments that they are unable to deal with effectively (see Black and Wiliam, 1998, 2006a; Harlen, 2006a; Harlen and Crick, 2003, 2002).