EVALUATION OF CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT STANDARDIZATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND USAGE IN JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS FOR NATIONAL TRANSFORMATION.

BY

DR. (MRS.) E.N. IKWUANUSI Integrated Science Department Alvan Ikeoku Federal College of Education, Imo State
E-mail:en_ikwuanusi@yahoo.com 08037067120

EVALUATION OF CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND USAGE IN JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS FOR NATIONAL TRANSFORMATION Abstract
The study Assesses the standardization, implementation and usage of continuous Assessment (CA) in Junior Secondary Schools (JSS). Evaluation is concerned with overseeing of aspects of education in Connection with the attainment of the objectives. Continuous assessment was introduced to assess a childs overall abilities and to guide the child effectively. The study used questionnaire to collect data from a sample of three hundred and thirty eight JSS teachers. The sample was randomly collected from 29 public Junior Secondary Schools in the three Educational zones in Imo State. The researcher used four research questions to guide the study. Findings include that majority of the teachers use only test for CA, teachers assess only

cognitive domain and CA scores are only used for Junior Secondary School Certificate computation, promotion to new classes and not for guidance and placement into Senior Secondary Schools or vocational schools as it was proposed in NPE (2004). Based on the findings the researcher recommended that government organize in- service training for teachers on CA implementation and usage. And that Government should enforce the use of CA scores for placement of students into senior secondary schools, technical collages, an out-of-school vocational training centers and apprenticeship scheme to achieve the policies 50: 50 transition to SSS and other vocational schools.

Introduction
Continuous assessment (CA) is an all round assessment of a child in cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains. It is a systematic process of collecting and recording a childs total experience gained throughout his schooling period. CA is one of the recommendations of sogbetun Tribunal that was set up to investigate into the Expo 77 because of the massive examination malpractice of that year. Action on the tribunals recommendations commenced in 1979 when the Federal Ministry of Education organized a workshop to map out a blueprint for the implementation of CA, it was during this workshop that the steering committee on CA was inaugurated (Harbor-Peter 1999). The actual practice of CA commenced with the new policy on Education 6-3-3-4 in 1981. According to NPE (1981) the existing practice in most of our institutions of learning which was basing assessment of students work on one final examination only, is no longer tenable. CA based on a variety of evaluation techniques should hence forth be adopted, and that there should be some means for ensuring some common national standards both in the areas of public examination as well as in internal one. Thus CA is seen as the systematic and cumulative recording of the pupils` progress in all aspects of his development and education from the moment upon which he starts a course of study until the end of the programme (Nworgu 1992).

Again Alausa (2004) infers that CA is an assessment approach which involves the use of a variety of assessment instruments assessing various components of learning, not only the thinking processes but including behaviours, personality traits and manual dexterity. CA will take place over a period of time. It is a holistic approach of assessment, representing the learner in his/her entirety. Characteristics of CA The handbook of CA (1985) wrote that such an assessment involves the use of a great variety of modes of evaluation for the purpose of guiding and improving learning and performances of the students. It enumerated the characteristics of CA as systematic, comprehensive, cumulative and guidance oriented. It is systematic because it requires an operational plan, which indicates what assessments are to be made of the students performance and at what intervals or periods during the year. It is comprehensive because enumerated the characteristics of CA as comprehensive, cumulative and guidance oriented. It is systematic because it requires an operational plan, which indicates what assessments are to be made of the students' performance and at what intervals or periods during the year. It is comprehensive because many evaluating instruments like class work, home work, tests, projects, observations, rating of behaviours or checklists, sociometric instruments or even interviews are used. CA is also comprehensive as it is supposed to take into account various hierarchies of the objectives of domains when developing an instrument. systematic,

CA is cumulative since it takes into account the results of students' performance progressively from level to level, to make final decision on the final students performance.

CA is also Guidance-oriented because at each level, the student performance or the cumulative is used in guiding a student to further pursue a programme where he or she has the greatest potential. The handbook also outlined the aims of CA as: To liberalize educational assessment and evaluation. To replace the basing of certificate on one-shot final examination with a more comprehensive one. To reduce the incidence of examination mal-practice and leakage of final exams. To improve the method of selection into secondary schools by incorporating head teacher's CA into the Common Entrance examination results. To give the teacher the opportunity to participate in the final assessment of his students. To encourage teachers to introduce innovations in their teachings, since this will be included in the final result. To enable the use of assessment result for the guidance of s tudents learning and preparation for a career. To enable the teacher regularly improve upon his own performance from the feedback he gets from assessment.

To ensure consistency practices throughout the federation and ensure an even and orderly development of the country.

Importan ce of CA B as ed on the aims of CA the importance of CA therefore includes : To solve the P roblem of one-shot evaluation this cannot be us ed satisfactorily to know the overall ability of a child because it is not reliable. F or teachers to get feedback and be able to give guidance and be innovative in their methods of teaching for instructional improvement. For teachers' involvement in the final assessment of the students. For control of examination malpractices, CA is to complement the final assessment, this is supposed to reduce seeing examinations as do or die affairs, thus reduction in examination malpractice and help students to develop good study habit. For use of more comprehensive assessment, with one-short external examination psychomotor and affective domains are neglected so that result will not give the overall picture of the s t ud en t b ei ng as s es s e d. CA has given improvement in the system of reporting students'

performances. Because of the cumulative nature of CA the teachers differences in scoring and weighting of different subjects are counseled and downgrading students rank unnecessarily is minimized. CA improves record-Keeping, because of various methods and techniques used for assessment; also assessment is not only on cognitive but also on affective and psychomotor domains.

The record kept for a student on CA is more comprehensive and reliable then one-shot examination used before [Okpala, Onocha and Oyeji (1993) and Harbor Peter (1999)].

Standardization of CA The policy did not specify the methods of ensuring uniform implementation of this laudable project. Instead NPE (1981) only stated that, "the implementation of CA will be between the teacher training institutions, the Universities which serve as moderators for some of them, the ministries of education and the WAEC". These organizations were expected to meet and work out a scheme for standardization, but if they did we have not seen it. These lead to differences in the procedure and methods of CA in different schools as different teachers interpret and use any technique of evaluation he likes and can use. The new policy also stated that, "The first school leaving certificate examination will ultimately be abolished and primary school leaving certificate will be issued by Head teachers of individual schools and will be based on CA of the pupils and not on the results of a single final examination, that J S S leaving certificate will be based on CA methods. In the light of the NPE, many subjects are being examined and assessed by various teachers using different measuring instruments. The measurements are based on contents (covered) that suit a particular teacher and marks awarded suitable to him (Ibrahim 1995).

CA Implementation in JSS Despite the uniformity in teaching due to the uniform curriculum, CA encountered many implementation problems. These include:

Comparability of Standards : These are differences in the quality of tests and other assessment instruments used by different schools and teachers, the way and manner tests or assessment instruments are developed and administered in various schools, and the instructional effectiveness of different teachers. Record-keeping and continuity of CA: CA cannot be meaningful, unless there are meticulous keeping of accurate records for each student throughout the child's period of school (that is cumulative record from class to class, school to school). This can only be possible when there are adequate and effective storage facilities in the schools. Unqualified personnel : Many teachers even after training or seminar do not possess the necessary competence/skills in developing the instruments for evaluating the behavioural outcomes in the three domains, most of the time evaluation is done only on the cognitive domain; some teachers attitude towards the use of CA do not help matters. Large class size: Most of our classrooms contain very large number of students (more than 0 ) against what is stipulated by FRN (2004) for one teacher to teach and assess. This makes it impossible for the teacher to be comprehensive in his assessment of each individual in the class. Misinterpretation of Guidelines : The guidelines of CA by the Ministry of Education are most of the times misconceived by teacher and even principals of schools. Also some assess only with paper and pencil test while others summarize their class work assignments as CA result. Again the amount of content to be covered by each test turned to confuse some teachers. Students on their own sometimes feel very nonchalant about assignments; some can give friends to write for them or will not even submit any assignment. Still on the problems of CA implementation Oladunni (1998) noted that "the elements that constitute the assessment vary quite widely". He cited Falayayo (1988) as pointing out that, different kinds of assessments:

assignments, projects, long essay test, multiple choice etc would have been put together to contribute to the school assessment in one school, while in another school only tests are used. Each school, colleges and university prepares its own unique measuring scales. For as long as there are different schools there are bound to be in existence different standards of measuring scales. The scope of which questions cover and attempt to sample all segments of the prescribed syllabus is questionable, because assessment in many schools has to be based on the very limited areas of the content that is covered during teaching. He went further to say that if we consider teacher's roles in the award of certificate, then scores awarded by subject teacher no matter how subjective determine the quality of the certificate. Actually the problem of CA is associated more with the teacher as the main implementer of the programme. CA success will depend on teachers skills in test construction, administration, his honesty, his attitude towards CA approach and his ability to keep record accurately too. At JSS the question obviously is how is the quality, validity and reliability of the CA? On the CA forming the bases for the final result of JSS certificate, Ibrahirn (1985) stated that nobody seems to know the dividing line, should the present form three students have their forms one and two works included in the assessment?. How then does one make for standardization? How does one assess a school whose students score an average of 80% in the internal examinations (CA) and 10% in the external examination? And how could such school be compared with another school whose students score an average between 50-60% in both internal and external examinations?. For the foregoing there is need to standardize CA for it to be meaningful and serve the objectives it is meant to serve. Research Questions The following research questions guided the study.

What are the instruments used mostly by junior secondary school teachers for CA in schools? What is the mean rating of assessment of the three domains of objectives in the schools? Are the CA scores included in the final results and for guidance of the students? What are the available techniques for ensuring CA standard in the schools? Methodology The research design adopted was survey. The sample comprises of three hundred and thirty eight [338] JSS teachers who were randomly selected from the three educational zones in Imo State for the study. The instrument used was self made questionnaire. The questionnaire was presented in a modified likert-type four point rating scale form. It was evaluated by two experts in research and evaluation. The mean of 2.5 was taken as agreement or often, below 2.5 is disagreement or rarely.

Results: Table 1: The instruments used mostly by the teachers for CA: S/N instruments used very often often rarely not at all for CA 1. observation schedule 10 40 105 183 2. Project 26 38 122 152 3 home work 40 53 112 133 4 class work 3 28 43 264 5 rating scale 1 4 20 313 6 7 8 9 Test sociometric technique anecdotal record check list 321 0 0 11 13 20 2 20 4 40 10 45 0 278 326 262 Rated total 553 614 676 446 369 1331 418 352 456 _ X 1.63 1.82 2.00 1.32 1.09 3.94 1.27 1.04 1.35

From the table above only test has the mean that is above 2.5 all the other instruments have mean below 2.5. With the mean of 3.94 it implied that test is mostly used by the JSS teachers for CA.

Table 2: The mean rating of the assessment of the three domains of objectives: Domains Very often Often Rarely not at all total _ X Cognitive 268 50 18 2 1260 3.73 Affective 45 43 169 81 729 2.15 psychomotor 56 83 106 93 778 2.30 Table 2; revealed that the mean frequency of assessing cognitive domain for CA is 3.73, this is above the average mean of 2.50 meaning that cognitive domain is often assessed. The affective domain and psychomotor domain has mean of 2.15 and 2.30 respectively, these are below the mean of 2.50, indicating that they are rarely or not assessed at all. Table 3: The inclusion of CA scores in final/terminal examinations and for guidance: S/N CA Usage SA AG DA SD Rated Total _ X 1. For G and C 50 70 101 117 729 2.15 guidance 2. Added to final 290 48 1304 3.86 result for promotion to classes 3 Feedback from CA 30 58 154 96 698 2.06 is used for giving remedial studies 4 For vocational 10 54 148 126 624 1.85 guidance 5 Add to final JSSE 103 120 51 64 938 2.77 scores for JSSC 6 For placement in to 35 63 131 109 700 2.07 SSS and vocational schools The table above revealed that the respondents agree that CA scores are used for promotion to new classes and for Junior secondary school certification with mean of 3.86 and 2.77 agreement. While all the other stipulated uses of CA do not apply, because they all have mean- ratings that are below 2.5. Table 4: Techniques for ensuring CA standard in schools: Items SA AG DA SD Rated Total _ X

There is no uniform methods for CA in the schools Different teachers and schools use different instruments for CA The school CA scores are highly subjective, because there is no given means of checking CA standard in schools CA is given by the schools at different periods/times

205 180 237

81 103 53

20 21 40

32 34 8

1135 1105 1195

3.36 3.27 3.53

89

105

81

63

896

2.65

Table 4 revealed that all the items pointed out that CA has no uniform standard in the schools with mean ratings of the items above 2.50. This showed that there is no uniformity in the CA application in the schools. Discussion of Findings The study revealed that most teachers use only tests for conducting the CA to find out the mental ability of the students. The junior secondary school curriculum is meant to cater for the differences in talents. The finding is therefore not in line with the NPE (2004) that Junior secondary school is to expose students to practical knowledge, ideas and skills for productivity and self-reliant. Since the students are not assessed for Affective and Psychomotor domain, how then can the teacher or school recommend them to Senior secondary or vocational schools? This implies that students skills and behaviour are not assessed. Therefore after JSS almost all the students who can afford SSS entre the school instead of the ratio of 50:50 to Senior secondary and other vocational out of school schemes as proposed by the NPE (2004). The research also found out that CA scores are used only for promotion to another class with the final term results and for Junior secondary school certification. It is not used for

guidance propose and for remedial help to the students. It implies that many of the students cannot realize their potentials and nobody advices them on the type of vocation they can fit in well after school. The students who do not know the skills they have and therefore cannot use it cannot be self-reliant and cannot help to transform the nation. CA is found to be subjective to different schools and teachers ideas, because there is no known standard for the implementation of CA. This finding agrees with the ascertion of Ibrahim (1995) that Many subjects are being examined and assessed by various teachers using different measuring instruments. This makes the CA not reliable as instrument for decision taking. Recommendations Based on the findings the researcher recommended that: Teachers must be mandated to use different CA instruments and to test/assess all the three domains of objectives. Government must as a matter of urgency organize workshops for teachers on CA instruments and usage. People who are stakeholders should streamline the implementation of CA and usage in Junior secondary schools. Conclusion When students talents are assessed and identified. The advice given will be accepted and applied by the students and parents and this in turn will lead to our great nations transformation.

References
Federal Ministry of Education (1981) National policy on Education Lagos: Heinemann Educational books.

Federal Ministry of Education (1985), A handbook of Continuous Assessment Lagos: Heinemann. Educational books.

Federal republic of Nigeria (2004) national policy on Education 4th edition Lagos : NEBRDC Press. Harbor Peters, V.F.A. (1999). Note worthy points on Measurement and Evaluation. Enugu: Snaap press

Ibrahim, A. (1985). 6-3-3-4 System. Are we ready? Daily star Jan 17, 8. Nwaogu, B.G. (1992). Educational Measurement and Evaluation. Theory and Practice Nsukka: Hall man Publishers. Oladunni, M.O. (1998). Equating scores across schools. A way to standardized C.A. scores. The Nigeria teacher today. Journal of Education.

Opkala P.N , Onocha C.O, &Oyedeji O.A, (1993) Measurement and Evaluation in Education, Ibadan: Stirling-Horden Publishers Nigeria.