Sub-Theme: Reflections on the Implementation of School-Based Assessment

Topic: School-Based Continuous Assessment Implementation in Zimbabwean Secondary

Schools: Reflections on Maiden Experiences of Teachers and Learners

Charumbira Gamuchirai Chiwiye Timothy (Dr)

gamuchiraicharumbira@gmail.com tchiwiye@zimsec.co.zw
+263 772 925 127 +263 773 613 548
+2634307823 +263 4 307836
The Zimbabwe School Examinations Council

Abstract

The Zimbabwean education system is in a transitional period as from January 2017, following the
adoption of the new Curriculum Blueprint (2016-2022) in 2016. One of the landmark reforms in the
new curriculum was the introduction of School-Based Continuous Assessment (SBCA) to be
administered at all levels in the education system for both formative and certification purposes. This
reform implied a major shift, from a single summative examination driven education system to one
which is a hybrid of summative and formative assessments in the form of SBCA. While the reforms in
the new curriculum were welcome, the implementation was also fraught with challenges, particularly
on the wherewithal of SBCA which was implemented at the Forms 3 and 5 cohorts for the first time in
all subjects in 2017, only to be suspended one year after in 2018. This development prompted the
researchers to conduct a study with secondary schools in five provinces to establish factors that led to
the untimely suspension of SBCA at a time resources were committed to the cause. The researchers
endeavoured to share the experiences of 486 secondary school teachers who were maiden
implementers of SBCA since January 2017. The data for the study was collected through
questionnaires and focus group discussions of between 10-12 participants. It emerged from the
research that SBCA in Zimbabwe seemed to have been prematurely implemented when nothing much
had been done to institute human, material and capital resource bases. In addition, implementers and
stakeholders had not been adequately enlightened about the reform. More so, learners were
overwhelmed by the many SBCA tasks and projects they executed under limited time constraints,
while teachers were heavily weighed down by large class sizes and disharmonised school operation
policies and practices. Despite the challenges, there was consensus that SBCA is relatable to the
world of work, hence a panacea to the socio-economic woes bedevilling the country. Learners and
teachers opined that for SBCA to thrive in the country, all stakeholders should be made to understand
fully the concept and rationale for SBCA. The study recommends advocacy for SBCA, marshalling of
human and material resources and a revisit of policies on teacher/learner ratios, amount of written
work and the number of tasks and projects.

Key words: school-based continuous assessment, curriculum blueprint, formative and summative
assessment, Assessment for/is Learning

1
Background

Zimbabwe started implementing a new curriculum in January 2017 following the adoption of
a Curriculum Framework for Primary and Secondary Education (2015-2022). Robust
consultations with all stakeholders revealed that the educational curriculum in Zimbabwe
which was inherited from the British colonial education system was heavily inclined towards
academic achievement as it placed more emphasis on academic subjects and tended to
neglect non-cognitive educational objectives and other critical competences which are needed
in life and in the world of work. In view of this, the new curriculum underscores the
importance of an educational programme which aims at holistic development of graduates
who are able to contribute meaningfully towards the socio-economic development of their
country. The Blueprint (2016-2022) underscores the importance of educating learners for life
and work and prioritises Assessment for Learning (AfL) in the form of School Based
Continuous Assessment (SBCA) to be administered at all levels in the education system. The
implementation of the new curriculum began in January 2017, and the greater part of the year
2017 saw the development of SBCA tasks and projects which were distributed to schools via
the organisational website in the third term of 2017. The tasks and projects were executed by
the 2017 Form 3 and 5 cohorts. During the first term of 2018, when the learners were
supposed to work on their second batch of SBCA tasks, the programme was suspended and
subject grades for the 2018 Form 4 and 6 candidates would be arrived at using summative
examinations only. This development prompted these researchers to gather evidence from
teachers’ experiences which could shed light on SBCA implementation in Zimbabwe, a
development which was rather short-lived.

Purpose of the study

This study sought to evaluate the process of Continuous Assessment implementation in

Zimbabwean Secondary Schools. It also endeavoured to establish the experiences of teachers
in SBCA implementation and to solicit their opinion on how best SBCA could be
implemented within the Zimbabwean context.

Research Objectives

The study endeavoured to attain the following research objectives:

i. To interrogate the SBCA implementation matrix in Zimbabwean secondary schools

ii. To establish teachers’ and learners’ experiences in SBCA implementation

2
 iii. To solicit the opinion of the teachers on how best SBCA could be implemented in the
Zimbabwean education system

Theoretical Framework

This study is grounded in the Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT) propounded by the Russian
psychologist Lev Vygotsky which views learning as a process of constructing meaning from
interaction with others and good assessment as an integral part of the learning process that
benefits the learners and all stakeholders in the educational system through provision of
credible feedback (Mishra, 2014). The over-arching principle in Vygotsky’s SCT is that the
human mind is mediated by other people and by tools within their environment. Vygotsky
(1978) argues that learners benefit psychological from interacting with others during the
learning process. The SCT as one of the constructivist views, emphasizes the importance of
Assessment as Learning which stresses the learner’s active role in learning and assessment
and the critical role that the teacher plays in the assessment exercises in order to support
student learning (Arega, 2014). The SCT criticises assessment of what the learners would
have actualised and advocates for assessment which seeks to establish what the learners can
successfully accomplish with the help of others (Vygotsky 1978). Mishra (2014) avers that
formative assessment is one of the methodologies in a constructivist learning environment
where learners are actively engaged in knowledge construction and will have the opportunity
to learn even during the assessment process. Randall and Zundel (2012) argue that there is
need to shift from traditional methods of assessment which emphasize academic
achievements and are characterised by summative and norm-referenced examinations to
formative criterion referenced examinations which provide feedback throughout the learning
process which can be used to inform, improve and promote learning. In light of emerging
global trends in assessment which are grounded in this view, Zimbabwe embraced SBCA to
complement summative examinations so that learner performances throughout the entire
period of learning are utilised to improve learning and are taken into consideration for final
reporting.

Review of related literature

The concept of assessment

There is general consensus among researchers that assessment is of paramount importance in

teaching and learning as it plays a crucial role in ascertaining whether learning is indeed

3
taking place (Alufohai & Akinlosotu, 2016; Alausa, 2006). “Educational assessment
provides the necessary feedback we require in order to maximise the outcomes of educational
efforts” (Alausa, 2006: 1).Afflerbach (2016) obstinately opines that when we teach children
they do not learn everything that is taught and as a result, teachers need to constantly check
whether children are indeed learning what they are supposed to learn. They do that through
assessment which refers to a variety of methods and tools that can be used to evaluate,
measure and document learning progress and skills acquisition (UNESCO, 2016).
Educational assessments have widely been in the form of summative which have been used to
evaluate learner performance at the end of a course or programme. Although summative
assessments have been widely used in education to determine the final achievement of
learners in schools at the end of term, year or course, they have not been useful in providing
feedback about students’ learning which could be used to effect adjustments when teaching
and learning is still in progress. (Oberlin, 2014; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Broussard, Hickoff-
Creskon & Oberlin 2014). It has also been argued that evaluating learner performance basing
on end of term examinations is unfair since there are chances that learners could perform
differently in different tests (Alufohai & Akinlosotu, 2016; Faleye & Adefisoye 2016;
Alausa, 2006). Okoloeze, Iyoke, Okoh, and Akubuilo, (2015) aver that this type of
assessment was found to be judgmental and breeds examination malpractice among other ills.
In view of the problems associated with the above system of evaluation, there is generally a
shift in education from using assessment to judge learner performance to a more dynamic
alternative which is outcome-based and seeks to establish what learners know, understand
and can do throughout their entire learning period (Yigzaw 2013). “Many educational
systems all over the world have adopted this approach (Continuous Assessment) in assessing
learners in many subject areas” (Seifu, 2016:534).

Continuous Assessment

Alufohai and Akinlosotu (2016: 71) define continuous assessment as “ a method of

evaluating the progress and achievement of learners in educational institutions with the aim
of getting the true possible picture of each learner’s ability and helping each to develop
his/her abilities to the fullest”. In CA learners are graded in the cognitive, affective and
psychomotor domains and it allows teachers to assess a wide range of learner competences,
skills and abilities during the whole period of schooling ((Alufohai & Akinlosotu, 2016). CA
therefore involves the use of a variety of assessment instruments to assess not only the mental

4
capabilities of the learners (knowledge and understanding) but also the learners’ ability to use
their hands and other “characteristics such as attitudes, motives, interests and other
personality traits (Alausa, 2006:1). “Continuous assessment is therefore the periodic
determination of the value and worth of a learner all through his school career and ensuring
that the decision based on the assessment contributes to his final assessment at the end of the
programme”( Okoloeze, Iyoke, Okoh & Akubuilo, 2015:73).

Tebeje and Abiyu (2015) contend that Formative continuous assessment (FCA) is
sometimes described as ‘assessment for learning’ as distinct from ‘assessment of learning’ for
it prioritises promoting students’ learning unlike assessment of learning which serves the
purposes of grading and certifying learner competences. Arega (2014) articulates the
interrelationship between assessment ‘of’, ‘for’ and ‘as’ learning which provides
information to be used as feedback, by teachers, and by their students, in assessing
themselves and each other, to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are
engaged, and which is also done for certification. Fig 1. Below summarises the
complementarity among assessment ‘of’, ‘for’ and ‘as’ learning.

Abejehu (2016) explains that there is now a realization of the need for complementarity
among SA (assessment of learning), FA (assessment for learning) and Assessment as

5
Learning for holistic assessment of the learner. “In assessment for learning, teachers use
assessment as an investigating tool to find out as much as they can about what their students
know and can do, and what confusions, preconceptions, or gaps they might have” (Abejehu
2016:25). Assessment of learning which is summative is intended to certify learning and
report to parents and students about students’ progress in school, and it compares the
performance of a student against that of other students (Abejehu, 2016). AaL emphasizes the
role of the student, not only as a contributor to the assessment and learning process, but also
as the critical connector between them (Abejehu, 2016). Contemporary Continuous
Assessment therefore serves the purpose of monitoring learning progress of students,
providing students with constructive feedback, identifying learning difficulties and examining
effectiveness of teaching methodology, and also serves the purpose of grading students’
performance, and yet at the same time recognizing students as their own best assessors who
can monitor what they are learning and use the feedback from this monitoring to make
adjustments to their learning programme so that they master what they are expected to learn.

Advantages of Continuous Assessment

Continuous Assessment has been adopted to augment summative examinations in many

countries and studies conducted on CA implementation have documented many benefits of
this form of assessment. Continuous Assessment gives educationists the opportunity to have a
cumulative appraisal of performance of individual learners throughout the period of
schooling in order to render the overall ability of the learner more valid. CA is therefore
anchored on ‘Assessment As and For Learning’ which seeks to establish where learners are
with reference to set goals and how to get there by developing and supporting their meta-
cognition. In this way, learners are, therefore, actively engaged in the assessment process;
that is, they can even monitor their own learning. Alausa (2006:2) observes that another main
advantage of CA is that “it places the teacher at the centre of all performance-assessment
activities.” As a result the teachers take an active role in the assessment of their learners and
they will embed assessment and assessment results into the teaching and learning activities.
Researchers observe that CA has several advantages over the traditional one-short
examination because it is systematic, comprehensive, cumulative and guidance-oriented in
nature” (Faleye & Adefisoye, 2016; Alufohai & Akinlosotu, 2016; Okoloeze, Iyoke, Okoh &
Akubuilo, 2015 ). CA is systematic in the sense that it is well planned and follows a clearly
laid out operational plan in its implementation. CA is considered to be a comprehensive

6
method of assessing learners because it uses diverse assessment tools to assess a wide range
of learner competences including cognitive, affective and psychomotor skills (Faleye &
Adefisoye, 2016). Another advantage of CA is that it is cumulative in nature and that means
all records of learner performances for the entire period of schooling are added up, weighted
and taken into account for certification (Faleye & Adefisoye, 2016; Okoloeze, Iyoke, Okoh &
Akubuilo, 2015). Another feature of CA is that it is guidance oriented and therefore it is
meant and is supposed to guide learners in detecting their areas of strengths and weaknesses
in order to enable them to make adjustments to their learning styles with a view to making
necessary changes capable of fostering learning and the teacher is expected to facilitate the
consolidation of the areas of students’ strength in learning and at the same time plan
remediation for the mitigation of the areas of weaknesses (Okoloeze, Iyoke, Okoh &
Akubuilo, 2015). The benefits discussed above, place CA precisely in the classroom. It is a
strategy which works perfectly well for both teaching and assessment with the view to
continuously inform the teaching and learning process.

Statement of the problem

Teachers and learners in Zimbabwe started implementing a new curriculum in accordance
with the Blueprint adopted in 2015. The new curriculum framework adopts a combination of
summative examinations and SBCA in determining the performance of the learner. The
introduction of SBCA to complement summative examinations, while a welcome
development in schools, marks a shift from the traditional system of assessment in the past
where one examination was administered at the end of a learning programme to determine
learner achievement for certification to cumulative appraisal which would make a
contribution towards certification and is also aimed at improving learner performance. Such a
reform implied major adjustments to be undertaken by all stakeholders including parents,
learners and the assessment board in a bid to accommodate the new development. One
important observation was that SBCA implementation in Zimbabwe was implemented for a
short time and had to be shelved after the realisation more planning in the implementation of
the programme was pertinent. This research therefore sought to examine how the programme
was implemented and to establish from teacher experiences insights which can shed light on
how the programme was implemented and what prompted the decision to consider more
planning on SBCA implementation.

Methodology

7
This research adopts a Mixed Method Research (MMR) design, therefore utilizes data
gathered from both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide answers to research
questions ((Almipanis 2016; Creswell 2014; Caruth 2013; Hesser-Biber 2010). A
questionnaire was administered to 486 teachers who were randomly selected from schools in
Bulawayo, Midlands and Masvingo Provinces. Information gathered through the
questionnaires was analysed and presented in the form of tables. Qualitative data was
collected through focus group discussions with teachers who participated in SBCA
implementation. Purposive sampling and maximum variation (heterogeneity) sampling was
employed to select a sample of 100 teachers who formed groups of 10-12 participants. The
researcher tape-recorded the focus group discussions which were later transcribed into text
for analysis. The data from focus group discussions were coded and grouped into data types,
and these categories were analyzed to form meaning (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents findings and discussions in form of tables and narrative descriptions.
Data from the questionnaire is triangulated with narratives from the focus group discussions.
The questionnaires intended to establish how SBCA was implemented and the focus group
discussions aimed at gathering evidence on SBCA implementation from the teachers’
experiences.

Task and Project Distribution

The first tasks and projects were distributed to all registered centres through the ZIMSEC
portal. Subsequently, centres downloaded these after undergoing training. Table 1 presents
the findings on teachers’ views on the distribution of tasks and projects.

Table 1 SBCA task and project distribution strategy

Rating variables Frequency Percent

Very good distribution strategy 144 29.6
A fair distribution strategy 231 47.5
Very poor distribution strategy 105 21.6
Total 480 98.8
No response 6 1.2
N 486

Participants were asked to rate the model that was used by ZIMSEC to distribute SBCA tasks
and projects. ZIMSEC deployed a software that was developed by the IS division to
distribute the instruments. Table 1 shows that examination centres that did not face

8
challenges in accessing the SBCA documents rated the distribution model as average to very
good. However, a significant number (21.6%) rated the distribution model as poor. The
reasons for this low rating varied from centre to centre. Some centres experienced poor
network while others failed to activate their accounts. The ‘missing’ in the table represents
those teachers who left this question blank, either because they were indifferent or they did
not understand it.

Understanding of SBCA and related concepts

All generic tasks and projects had common elements such as the topic, background to the
task/project, concepts or skills, dimension/criteria to be assessed, and objectives to be
assessed, the task context, achievement standards and marking guide, which the teachers had
to interpret and understand. The teachers were also expected to contextualise the task, mark
and moderate learner’s work. Respondents were asked to rate their understanding of CA and
related concepts based on the training that they received. Table 2 presents the teachers
responses on SBCA and related concepts.

Table 2 Understanding of SBCA and related concepts

Rating variables Frequency Percent

Clearly understood 264 54.3
Fairly understood 184 37.9
Poorly understood 32 6.6
Total 480 98.8
No response 6 1.2
N 486

Table 2 shows that most of the teachers (54.3%) had a clear understanding of SBCA and
related concepts. A significant number (37.9%) also rated their understanding as fair and only
6% indicated that their understanding of SBCA and related concepts was poor. This could be
a signal that the train the trainer programme adopted was not wholly effective and this points
to the need for further training. The overall results however, show that teachers
comprehended SBCA and related concepts which was positive for successful implementation
of the programme.

9
Task Timelines

The teachers were also asked to rate the timelines for SBCA implementation. The task and
projects timelines referred to the period between tasks and project downloading,
implementation, supervision, moderation and uploading of task marks. Table 4 presents the
findings.

Table 3 Task timelines

Rating variables Frequency Percent

Very flexible timelines 82 16.9
Fairly flexible 188 38.7
timelines
Very tight timelines 206 42.4
Total 476 97.9
No response 10 2.1
Total 486

Table 3 shows that the timelines were rated as very tight by a significant number (30%) while
the majority of the teachers (42%) rated the timelines as fairly flexible. This implied that all
the activities that were lined up for SBCA could not be accomplished in the given
timeframes. These tight timelines had implications as well on the number of tasks and
projects for learners, daily and weekly exercises and tests, homework, and timetabling as
prescribed by the schools’ department policies. Those who rated the timelines as average
were not convinced that time was adequate for SBCA implementation. Tasks and projects
were dispatched to schools during the third term instead of the first term; hence teachers felt
that too much time was lost to meet the timelines. The other reason could be that since
learners were doing tasks and projects in all the subjects, the teachers felt that the timelines
were inadequate. Each subject had a project that was supposed to run for the duration of the
course at both ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels.

Nature of tasks and projects

SBCA tasks, projects and marking schemes were developed at national level by task setters
(teachers) whom ZIMSEC trained and commissioned to design performance tasks, projects,
achievement standards / assessment rubrics and marking schemes. The tasks and projects

10
were supposed to be generic and the individual teacher unpacked the tasks and projects to suit
the context of the learners.

Table 4 Nature of tasks and projects

Rating variables Frequency Percent

Clear and easy to 142 29.2
interpret
Fairly clear and 257 52.9
understandable
Vague and difficult to 74 15.2
interpret
Total 473 97.3
No response 13 2.7
Total 486

Respondents were asked to rate the tasks and projects which were sent to schools so as to
establish if they were understandable and easy to follow. Table 3 shows that only 29.2 of the
teachers indicated that the tasks and projects were clear and easy to understand, while the
majority (52.9%) of the teachers viewed the tasks and projects as fairly clear and
understandable. These two categories imply that teachers had some understanding of the task
and projects and could interpret them for the learners. However, the very low category had
teachers who found the tasks and projects vague and difficult to interpret and such teachers
were not in a position to assist learners with their projects.

Experiences of teachers during SBCA

Apart from the questionnaire that was administered to teachers, discussions were also carried
out on the experiences of teachers in SBCA implementation. The issues that emerged from
the focus group discussions were grouped in terms of teachers’ experiences in task
implementation and their suggestions for better SBCA implementation processes in
Zimbabwe.

 The adoption of SBCA as a model of assessment to augment summative examinations

was long overdue. The projects were very relevant as they equipped learners with
research skills and kept them engaged, and the tasks made learning more interesting since
they were learner-centred and they improved the pupils’ psychomotor skills. However,

11
 the tasks were haphazardly implemented and the whole process appeared to be rather
hurried without adequate preparations in terms of training the implementers and
mobilization of resources.

 The timing for SBCA implementation was rather poor. Instead of instituting the
programme at Form 3 and Form 5, it could have been started at Form 1 where the syllabi
for most subjects began. It was unfortunate that new subjects were introduced at Form 3
and the tasks were also based on content material that could have been covered in Form 1
and Form 2.

 SBCA implementation was characterised by information gaps. There was no clear

position on whether schools should begin implementing the new curriculum at Form 1 or
at Form 3. A circular with information on how to implement the new curriculum was
distributed to schools very late into the first term of 2017 and by then some schools were
still doing the old curriculum. There was therefore need to shift to the new curriculum and
when the tasks were distributed, the situation was that the learners had not covered much
ground to enable them to execute the tasks. There were no deadlines for submission of
tasks and projects and no dates for school moderation.

 Some teachers indicated that they encountered difficulties in contextualising the generic
tasks, due to inadequate training. In addition, they did not know how to interpret the
achievement standards and the marking guide to mark learners work. The teachers also
did not know how they were supposed to moderate learners’ work.

 The tasks and projects were too many to be managed by secondary school learners who
also had to do work in preparation for summative examinations. The learners were so
overburdened that some were tempted to resort to all forms of malpractice such as
collusion and getting undue assistance from parents, siblings and adults. The teachers
noted that it was difficult to deal with malpractice in SBCA implementation. Plagiarism
was difficult to control. There was consensus among the teachers that SBCA put a lot of
pressure on learners and it was most likely that schools would experience more dropouts.
The teachers observed that some learners who were being weighed down by the demands
of the tasks and projects resorted to dropping subjects to lessen/ reduce their workload.
The tasks were too involving and demanded much of the learners’ time and that made
some learners to abscond classes so as to work on their tasks and projects.

SUGGESTIONS FROM PARTICIPANTS

The teachers were also asked to proffer suggestions and solutions in order to improve the
implementation of tasks and projects in Zimbabwean Secondary Schools. The following are
the suggestions they submitted.

 The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education should marshal for resources and
ensure that all schools are adequately resourced for CA implementation especially in
Science where the schools need laboratories and equipment for successful CA
implementation.

12
 Task implementation should be been done gradually, starting from Form 1 in order to
allow both teachers and learners time to learn and master SBCA processes. Projects
and tasks content areas should be broadened to include a wide range of material to
cover the entire syllabi from Form 1 to Form 4.

 Tasks should be made available to schools early, preferably just before the end of the
preceding term so that the learners can start gathering information on the tasks during
the holidays.

 Tasks must be generic so that teachers can contextualize them to suit the learners’ life
experiences and in future, the teachers must be trained on the design of tasks so that
an individual teacher sets tasks for their learners.

 Teachers need more training and continuous workshops on SBCA implementation.

There was need for subject panel workshops to train teachers on task implementation
since the teachers were experiencing serious problems in SBCA implementation.

 Learners should do only one project per pathway and the number of tasks should be
reduced considerably. If the learners could do only one task in two terms, that would
be most welcome.

 More time is needed for task and project execution and implementation since SBCA
is still new for both the teachers and the learners, and timelines should be clear. More
time should be given to slow learners to complete the task.

 Learners must submit soft copies of their responses to SBCA tasks so that these could
be subjected to anti-plagiarism software such as Turn-it-in and marking of the tasks
should be done in stages to minimize cases of malpractice.

 There is need to harmonize SBCA and policies on the amount of work to be assigned
to learners, and teachers need to be remunerated for task implementation.

 Tasks should be based on areas which would have been covered during teaching and
learning. There is need therefore to provide a list of topics to be covered per term on
which tasks will be based.

 The people in the community also need to be educated so that they have a clear
understanding of the SBCA concept and its processes through awareness campaigns.
The rationale for SBCA and its processes could be clarified during meetings with
parents.

 Teacher training institutions to include CA in the curriculum for teachers and in-
service training is necessary for all practising teachers.

 No tasks should be done during the third term when schools would be administering
summative examinations.

13
CONCLUSIONS
Following the presentation and discussion of the data that was collected on SBCA
implementation, the following conclusions were drawn. The introduction of SBCA to
augment summative examinations was a welcome idea for it made possible the assessment of
skills (e.g. psychomotor skills) which were not catered for by pen and pencil examinations.
SBCA also ushered in a new dimension to learning and assessment where learners engaged in
a variety of real world tasks which they found very interesting. However, SBCA
implementation was rather hurried when nothing much had been done in terms of financial,
material and human resource mobilisation. The train the trainer programme was hurried and
inadequate and as a result teachers experienced difficulties in task implementation. Some of
the tasks and projects required the learner to do field work and that was expensive and risky.
Unavailability of internet connectivity in remote areas made it difficult for some schools to
access tasks and projects from the ZIMSEC website. Some of the challenges encountered
from SBCA implementation resulted from information gaps. Stakeholders had inadequate
information about the programme. The tasks and projects were too many and they consumed
a lot of time for both teachers and learners who found themselves overloaded with SBCA
tasks and projects. The teachers were heavily weighed down by teacher/pupil ratio and they
found difficulties in supervising the learners due to large classes. Too many tasks and
projects prompted the learners to engage in malpractice and it was difficult for the teachers to
deal with malpractice cases.

RECOMMENDATIONS
 The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education should mobilise for financial,
material and human resources so that all schools are adequately resourced for SBCA
implementation especially in Science where the schools need laboratories and
equipment for successful SBCA implementation. Teachers who are at the centre of
CA implementation need to be equipped with requisite skills in SBCA
implementation through training. Teacher training institutions to include SBCA in the
curriculum for teachers and in-service training is necessary for all practising teachers.

 There is need to conduct more SBCA awareness campaigns so that all stakeholders
are educated and obtain a clear understanding of the SBCA concept and its processes.

 Teachers must be trained on how to set SBCA tasks and projects so that they can
design tasks for their learners.

 SBCA implementation should start at Form 1 so that projects and tasks content areas
can be broadened to include a wide range of material to cover the entire syllabi from
Form 1 to Form 4.
14
 There is need to reconsider the number of tasks and projects that learners must do per
course. It is important to decide on enough number of tasks and projects so that
learners are not overwhelmed and can have time to prepare for summative
examinations. There is also need to revisit SBCA implementation timelines so that all
learners, including special needs candidates complete their work. The timelines
should be clearly communicated to all concerned parties. Tasks should be made
available to schools early, preferably just before the end of the preceding term so that
the learners can start gathering information on the tasks during the holidays.

 Learners must submit soft copies of their responses to CA tasks so that these could be
subjected to anti-plagiarism software such as Turn-it-in.

 Marking of the tasks should be done in stages to minimize cases of malpractice.

 There is need to harmonize SBCA and policies on the amount of work to be assigned
to learners and there is also need to revise teacher/pupil ratios in order to rationalize
teaching loads.

 Learners require lessons on research methodology, e.g data collection before they can
execute tasks and conduct projects.

 No tasks should be done during the third term when schools would be administering
summative examinations.

 More researches need to be conducted concurrently with CA implementation so as to

deal with problems that arise during the implementation process.

 Monitoring and supervision of CA implementation should be a top priority due to the

subjective nature of CA activities.

15
References

Abejehu, S. B. (2016) The Practice of Continuous Assessment in Primary Schools: The Case
of Chagni. Ethiopia Journal of Education and Practice , Vol.7 (31), 24-30. www.iiste.org

Afflerbach, P. (2016) Reading Assessment. Looking Ahead. The Reading Teacher, Vol. 69
(4), 413–419. doi:10.1002/trtr.1430

Alausa, A.Y. (2006). Continuous assessment in our schools: advantages and problems.
http://www.nied.edu.na/journals/journal9/Journal%209%20Article%202.pdf

Almpanis, T. (2016) Using a Mixed Method Design in a study investigating the Heads of e-
learning perspective towards technology enhanced learning. The electronic Journal of e-
learning ,Vol. 14 (5): 301-311. ww.ejel.org (Accessed on 5April 2017)

Alufohai, P. J. and Akinlosotu, T. N. (2016) Knowledge and Attitude of Secondary School

Teachers Towards Continuous Assessment Practices in Esan Central Senatorial District of
Edo State. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.7, (10), 71-79. www.iiste.org

Arega, M. (2014). Classroom Assessment Manual for Primary and Secondary School
Teachers. Addis Ababa: NEAEA .

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappa International, Page 1-13.

Broussard, M., Hickoff-Cresko, R. and Oberlin, J. (2014) Snapshots of Reality: A Practical

Guide to Formative Assessment in Library Instruction. Chicago: Association of College and
Research Libraries.

Caruth, G. D. (2013) Demystifying Mixed Methods Research Design: A Review of the

Literature. Mevlana International Journal of Education, Vol. 3 (2): 112-122.
http://dxdoi.org/10.130541mije.13.35.3.2

CCEA. (2013) Guidance on Assessment in the Primary School. Belfast: Northern Ireland
Curriculum
Creswell, J. W. (2014) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method
Approaches. (Edition 4.) Los Angeles: Sage.

Faleye, B. A. and Adefisoye, B. T. (2016) Continuous Assessment Practices of Secondary

School Teachers in Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science, Vol.
4, (1), 44-55. doi.org/10.15640/jpbs.v4n1a5

Faleye, B. A., Awolowo, O. and Afolabi, E. R. I. (2005) Continuous Assessment Practices

in Osun State (Nigeria) Secondary Schools: From Policy to Practice. International Journal of
Learning, Vol 12, (12), 11-16. http://www.Learning-Journal.com

16
Hesser-Biber, S. N. 2010. Mixed Methods Research. Merging Theory with Practice. New
York: The Guilford Press.

Kapambwe W. (2010). The implementation of school based continuous assessment (CA) in

Zambia. Educational Research and Reviews Vol. 5(3), 99-107.
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

Mishra, S. (2014) Assessment of Learners in a Constructivist Learning. Gyanodaya: Vol. 7

(1), 35-43.

Okoloeze, N. M., Iyoke, J.O., Okoh, S.C. and Akubuilo, B. N. (2015) Trends In Educational
Evaluations In Nigeria: Issues And Challenges. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.6
(21), 71-76. www.iiste.org

Tebeje, M. and Abiyu, A (2015) Improving Implementation of Formative Continuous

Assessment at College of Agriculture, Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia. Vol.6, (19), 110 -
116. www.iiste.org

Randall, L. and Zundel, P. (2012) "Students’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Assessment

Feedback as a Learning Tool in an Introductory Problem-solving Course," The Canadian
Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Vol. 3: (1), 1-16.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2012.1.3

Seifu, W. G. (2016) Assessment of the implementation of continuous assessment: the case

of METTU university. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
Vol. 4, No. 4, 2016, 534‐544.

Strauss, A & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. (Second edition), Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Trumbull, E., and Lash, A. (2013) Understanding formative assessment: Insights from
learning theory and measurement theory. San Francisco: WestEd.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) 2016. Understanding What Works in Oral Reading
Assessments: Recommendations from Donors, Implementers and Practitioners. Montreal:
UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Interaction Between Learning and Development. In Gauvain, M. &

Cole, M. (Eds.). Readings on the Development of Children. New York: Scientific American
Books. Page 34-40.

Wiliam, D. (2013) Assessment: The Bridge between Teaching and Learning. Voices from the
Middle, Vol. 21(2), 15-20.

Yigzaw, A. (2013) High school English teachers' and Students’ perceptions, attitudes and
actual practices of continuous assessment. Educational Research and Reviews, Vol. 8(16),
1489- 1498, http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

17
Zhao, Z. (2013) An Overview of Studies on Diagnostic testing and its Implications for the
Development of Diagnostic Speaking Test. International Journal of English Linguistics,
Vol. 3 (1), 41-45. doi:10.5539/ijel.v3n1p41

18