540 discussion6-7

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

Vol.7, No.21, 2016

1

Assessment, Student Learning and Classroom Practice: A Review

Dr. Ekua Tekyiwa Amua-Sekyi

Department of Arts & Social Sciences Education University of Cape Coast

Abstract

Assessment in its various forms has always been a central part of educational practice. Evidence gleaned from

the empirical literature suggests that assessment, especially high stakes external assessment has effect on how

teachers teach and consequently, how students learn. Through focus group discussions, this paper draws upon

the experiences of 12 tutors and 18 student-teachers in 3 colleges of education in Ghana. The findings show that

although teachers are expected to nurture evaluative thinking skills in their pupils/students this is not reflected in

the assessment and teaching and learning practices of student-teachers. This paper argues that for teachers to be

effective in promoting the desired goals of the basic school curriculum, greater recognition must be accorded to

the influence of assessment on teaching and learning, the understanding of which could arguably play an

important role in introducing changes that will promote the cognitive processes and thinking skills desired in our

schools and classrooms.

Keywords: Assessment, teaching and learning, teacher training, classroom practice

1. Introduction

Assessment is about learning. Traditionally assessment is intended to find out and report on what has been learnt

thus its relation with classroom activities. Assessment is integral to teaching and learning activities in school and

mediates the interaction between teachers and students in the classroom. Assessment can be defined as all

activities that teachers and students undertake to get information that can be used to alter teaching and learning.

This includes teacher observation and analysis of student work (homework, tests, essays, reports, practical

procedures and classroom discussion of issues). All these are concerned with sampling what a student may or

may not know. Assessment is also used in ‘selecting, controlling or motivating students, and to satisfy public

expectations as to standards and accountability’ (Biggs, 2003; p.141). Consequently, assessment has been

categorised as formative or summative depending on how the results are used (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009).

Formative assessment is embedded in the teaching and learning process and provides feedback to the teacher in

the course of teaching to enable him or her judge how well students are learning. It also provides information on

the effectiveness of teaching which will help to determine an appropriate remedial action where necessary. For

this reason, it is appropriately referred to as assessment for learning. Summative assessment takes place at the

end of a course or programme to determine the level of students’ achievement or how well a programme has

performed. It often takes the form of external examinations or tests and is referred to as assessment of learning.

Students spend a relatively large part of their time in school practising the kind of knowledge and skills

demanded in assessment and this is what they acquire.

1.1 Formative and Summative Assessment

Formative assessment takes place when teachers and students respond to students’ work, making judgements

about what is good learning with feedback [information about how the student’s present state of learning and

performance (actual outcome) relates to goals and standards (desired outcome)] from this dialogue being used to

improve the learning experience of the student (Nicol, 2009; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Formative

feedback is therefore exploratory, provisional and aims at prompting further engagement from the students as

part of an on-going dialogue between and amongst students and teachers (Pryor & Croussand, 2008; Attwood,

2009). This implies that the feedback process in the learning cycle commences with the production and

submission of student work, followed by teacher assessment of the work and feedback provision on it.

Consequently, formative assessment and feedback involves a much more dialogic form of language, often

moved away from the traditional classroom interaction where the teacher initiates, students respond and teacher

gives feedback (IRF) to one which more approximates conversation (Pryor & Croussand, 2008).

The teacher and the student are often in a hierarchical relationship that inhibits collaboration in their

learning. The opportunity for dialogue that formative feedback promotes breaks that linear transfer of knowledge

associated with the hierarchical relationship between the teacher and student and engenders deep learning.

Feedback as dialogue means that the student not only receives initial feedback information, but also has the

opportunity to engage the teacher in discussion about that feedback (Laurillard, 2002). As Nicol & Macfarlane-

Dick (2006) point out, good feedback practice is not only about providing accessible and usable information that

helps students to improve their learning. It is also about providing good information to teachers:

The act of assessing has an effect on the assessor as well as the student.

Assessors learn about the extent to which they [students] have developed

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

Vol.7, No.21, 2016

2

expertise and can tailor their teaching accordingly (Yorke, 2003, p. 482).

The idea that dialogue is fundamental to successful learning and teaching is well documented in the

educational literature and many researchers have acknowledged that formative assessment can play a central role

in shaping and improving the effectiveness of the teaching learning experience (Covic & Jones, 2008; Bloxham

& Boyd, 2007).

Summative assessment on the other hand, creates tests, marks, academic reports and qualifications

which are socially highly valued (Biggs, 2003). Summative assessment events are usually designed to help

make a (final) judgement about a learner’s achievement on a programme and potential subsequent achievement;

certify achievement and award a qualification; help make decisions about entry to other learning programmes;

provide information that will help others make selection decisions and provide formal evidence of a learner’s

competence (Awoniyi & Fletcher, 2014). Education is therefore largely controlled by assessment, especially

summative assessment as a result of the ways in which the results are used. Where the stakes attached to the

assessment are high, they influence “what is taught, how it is taught, what is learned and how it is learned”

(Stobart, 2008; Luxia, 2007; Paige, 2006), as teachers and students will align teaching and learning to their form

and content to meet its demands. DeCesare (2002) describes high stakes assessments as tests designed to

measure not only the achievement of students, but also of teachers and schools. The literature on the discourse

on assessment shows consensus among both critics and proponents about the controlling influence of high-stakes

external assessment on teaching and learning and its potential to change the way teachers teach in spite of any

official policy to the contrary. Concerns about the quality of education have to do with teaching and learning,

but a lot more to do with the nature of assessment, especially high-stakes external assessment. This supports the

argument that if teaching to the test can have effects on learning, it is important to ensure that the intended

knowledge and skills are what the tests direct students to practise as they prepare to take the tests. In that case,

teaching to the test will produce the desired effect on students’ learning (Ghana National Association of

Teachers (GNAT, 2006, p. iv).

2. Context

Educational reforms in Ghana aimed at addressing the perceived falling standard or quality of education

considered assessment as a major factor affecting quality. The end of cycle external examinations was believed

to inhibit quality educational delivery. Consequently, reforms in 1987, involved the restructuring of the content

and the assessment regime. Three external assessments namely, the Common Entrance Examination (CEE)

written after the sixth year of schooling, the General Certificate of Education Ordinary level examination (GCE

O’ level) written after the eleventh year of schooling and the General Certificate of Education Advanced level

examination (GCE A’ Level) written after the thirteenth year of schooling were replaced with the end-of-cycle

Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) after the ninth year of schooling and West African Secondary

School Certificate Examination (WASSCE) after the twelfth year of schooling for junior and senior high schools

respectively. This restructuring reduced summative assessment levels in pre tertiary education and created room

for more formative assessment in the curriculum in the form of continuous assessment to improve students’

learning experience. However, the abysmal performance of students in the first BECE in 1990 generated an on-

going public debate about the quality of basic education in the public school system which resulted in another

educational reform in 2007. This reform sensed the need for a shift enabling a move from a notion of learning as

primarily a process of storing and reproducing knowledge, which stakeholders blamed on the nature of external

assessment (GNAT, 2006), to the nurturing of higher order thinking and problem solving skills that will enable

students to apply knowledge. Consequently, the concept ‘profile dimensions’ was introduced in the curriculum

of pre tertiary education (Ministry of Education, 2004).

The concept ‘profile dimensions’ presented as a taxonomy of learning (Bloom et al., 1971), has been

made central to the teaching syllabus of all subjects and is the prime focus of teaching and assessment from basic

school (primary and junior secondary school) to secondary school. The dimension weighting for knowledge and

understanding is 40%, as against 60% weighting for the higher levels of application, analysis, synthesis and

evaluation, summarily referred to as Use of knowledge or Application of knowledge. It requires teachers to

promote evaluative thinking in their classrooms. However, the revised teaching syllabi for basic and senior

secondary schools published in 2012 admonished teachers for not promoting evaluative thinking in their

classrooms as expected:

It has been realized unfortunately that schools still teach the low ability

thinking skills of knowledge and understanding and ignore the higher

ability thinking skills. Instruction in most cases has tended to stress

knowledge acquisition to the detriment of the higher quality behaviours

such as application, analysis etc. The persistence of this situation in the

school system means that students will only do well on recall items and

questions and perform poorly on questions that require higher ability

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

Vol.7, No.21, 2016

3

thinking skills. For there to be a change in the quality of people who go

through the school system students should be encouraged to apply their

knowledge, develop analytical skills, develop plans, generate new and

creative ideas and solutions, and use their knowledge in a variety of ways

.... (subject focus is addressed from here). For example, solve

mathematical problems (Ministry of Education, 2012, p. xvi), or deal with

learning problems and issues in their lives (Ministry of Education, 2012a, p.vii).

Subsequent revised syllabi emphasise the importance of developing evaluative thinking and remind

teachers to promote evaluative thinking in their classrooms. For teachers to foster evaluative thinking in their

pupils/students, they must have developed and practiced the knowledge and skills involved while in training.

This begs the question whether teachers in training are being prepared to meet this curriculum demand in their

classrooms. Teachers can only give what they have. Since assessment mediates the interaction between teachers

and students in the classroom, and the kind of knowledge and skills demanded in assessments are what students

spend a large part of their time in school practising and therefore learn and acquire, the purpose of this study is to

examine the assessment practices in colleges of education to find out whether student- teachers are being

adequately prepared to meet the demands of profile dimensions in the basic school curriculum. Research

questions that direct this study are:

What is the nature of assessment practices in colleges of education?

How is formative feedback used to direct evaluative thinking?

To what extent do summative assessment instruments foster evaluative thinking in student teachers?

3. Method A case study of colleges of education was undertaken. This involved focus group interviews with tutors and

students and a qualitative analysis of the end of semester examination questions. The objective of the interviews

with tutors was to get them to talk freely about their assessment practices. Focus group interviews with students

were to give them a voice and an opportunity to share their ideas and experiences on assessment (Cousin, 2009).

The population of the study was the 38 public colleges of education in Ghana. The 38 public colleges are made

up of 8 female colleges, one male college and 29 mixed colleges. The male college was purposively sampled and

one female college and a mixed college were randomly selected for the study using the lottery method. Four

tutors, including the assessment officer of each college sampled participated in the study. In all cases contact

with participants was facilitated by the Assessment Officer of the college. Six second year students made up of

three men and three women (mostly course representatives and prefects) were purposively selected from each

college to participate in focus group interviews. The second year cohort was selected because they have had one

year of college experience. Moreover, the first year students were new to the college experience and the third

year students were out practising teaching in basic schools. A total of 12 tutors and 18 students participated in

interviews. The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. The interviews were guided by semi-structured

interview schedules. They were structured to the extent that each focus group of tutors and students was asked

the same questions, and interviewed under the same conditions. They were semi-structured to the extent that the

researcher was free to probe and explore in depth participants’ responses to each of the questions.

3.1. Analysis of Data and Interpretation

Data analysis included repeated review of all interview transcripts. The constant comparative method was

employed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Bloom’s et al.’s (1971) taxonomy of educational objectives was used to

classify the cognitive demands of the items in the end of semester examination questions into knowledge and

comprehension on one hand, and analysis, application, synthesis and evaluation on the other hand. The findings

are discussed in line with the research questions.

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1. What is the nature of assessment practices in colleges of education?

Tutors and students in different colleges described similar assessment routines which showed that individual

tutors organised various formative assessment tests, and the college organised a mid-semester test or mock

examination:

“We have two quizzes per semester ... class exercises ... assignments ... presentations ... mid-semester

or mock examinations.” (tutor and student focus groups).

From these descriptions it is clear that students are taken through a potpourri of assessments during the semester.

The notion that apart from the institution-wide mid-semester examinations, tutors have the prerogative to

determine what, how and when to assess students within the semester resonated in interviews:

“we may give different assessments at different times but by the end of

the semester all students experience the same assessments”. (Focus groups, tutors).

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

Vol.7, No.21, 2016

4

Tutors agreed they put the different types of assessment together as formative/continuous assessment which

accounts for 40% of students’ marks. This implies that tutors have the opportunity to use feedback from

formative assessment to improve their students’ learning experiences (Nicol, 2009; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick,

2006). The critical issue here therefore is the extent to which tutors engage student- teachers in feedback

dialogue that will enable them to practise the evaluative thinking they are required to foster in their classrooms

upon graduation. The shift in focus on nurturing evaluative thinking in pupils/students has profound implications

for the way in which teachers support learning and organise assessments. I recognise therefore with Black &

Wiliam’s (2006) description of the demanding nature of such renegotiation of teacher and student relations in the

context of formative assessment and note how teachers’ own previous learning experiences count a great deal

more than policy directives.

4.2. How is formative feedback on assessment used to direct evaluative thinking?

The use of “formative feedback to draw students’ attention to their strengths and weaknesses” resonated strongly

in interviews with both tutors and students. This suggests that tutors remain very much in control with feedback

focusing on correcting mistakes rather than prompting further engagement on work done:

“After they (tutors) mark our work and return our books, they discuss our

work with us and point out our strengths and weaknesses” (students, all

focus groups).

Feedback that supports student learning engages both students and teachers in a dialogue on students’

work (Attwood, 2009; Pryor & Crossouard, 2008). However, what both tutors and students describe does not

suggest the presence of feedback dialogue. It appears that feedback is still generally conceptualised as a

transmission process, controlled by and seen as the responsibility of teachers who tell students about what is

right and what is wrong in their academic work, about its strengths and weaknesses. Feedback as a transmission

process involving ‘telling’ ignores the active role the student must play in constructing meaning from feedback

messages, and developing critical thinking and evaluative skills in the process (Covic & Jones, 2008). If

feedback from formative assessment is exclusively in the hands of tutors, then it is difficult to see how student-

teachers can develop the critical thinking skills that will empower them to foster evaluative thinking of their

pupils/students in the classroom. An agricultural science student described how his tutors get them to relate

issues with what goes on in the environment and encourage them to think critically. From his description, the

point of departure is what one might describe as a kind of scaffolding whereby the teacher plays a crucial role in

enabling learners to do with help that which they would not have been able to do alone (Pryor & Crossouard,

2008).

Some tutors noted how: “students’ fail to engage in discussions about their work when we try to get

them to talk”. They however corroborated students’ views that:

“we don’t get our assignments on time ... sometimes after other topics

have been covered ...”

What tutors identified as a weakness in their students is indeed a failure on their part to create and make

the most of opportunities for formative feedback. When feedback on students’ work is delayed, it loses its

relevance. Feedback provided has to be useful to the recipient and feedback is only useful when provided

quickly enough and acted upon to improve students’ work and learning (Covic & Jones, 2008; Nicol &

Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). This implies that the ability of the student to take on board the advice offered by

formative feedback from assessment is crucial to feedback having an impact on the ability of the student to

improve.

Tutors described dialogic feedback on formative assessment as challenging due to student staff ratios

and workload: “so we grade students and discuss their performance in general”. This practice undermines the

process of learning that is dependent upon feedback which serves to inform and guide students during their

studies. Feedback in the form of grades is noted to encourage students to focus on performance goals (passing

the test) rather than learning goals (understanding the subject). This leads students to compare themselves

against others rather than focus on the difficulties in the task and on making efforts to improve (Attwood, 2009).

Generally, tutors lamented about the structure of the programme:

“Everything is exams, exams, exams ... we have content to cover and

students are learning to pass their exams”.

Tutors seem to feel pressed for time to address all that they want to in a course. The compulsion to

cover content is noted as one of the greatest barriers to effective teaching. Considering the wide ranging

influence of high stakes summative external assessment on classroom practise and the entire education system

(see Stobart, 2008; Luxia, 2007; Paige, 2006), it is important to take a look at the nature of the instruments in the

end of semester examination that are at the centre of this influence.

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

Vol.7, No.21, 2016

5

4.3. To what extent do summative assessment instruments foster evaluative thinking in student-teachers?

An analysis of questions presented in the 2014 end of semester examination showed that multiple type test and

questions that demand true or false answers dominate objective questions (80%). Questions that required short

answers accounted for only19% as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Types of examination questions - Section ‘A’ (objectives test)

Number of items Average Percentage

Multiple type test 702 17.1 65.3

True/False 157 3.8 14.5

Matching type test 14 0.3 1.1

Short Answer 206 5 19.1

Total 1079 26.2 100

The essay component of the examination questions was not different. Based on Bloom et al.’s (1971)

taxonomy of learning, the findings showed that test questions on essays mostly demanded knowledge and

comprehension (80%) at the expense of the desired learning objectives of analysis, application and synthesis

(20%) in basic schools. Questions that demand evaluative thinking were absent as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Types of Examination Questions - Section ‘B’ (Essay Test)

Levels of test items Number of items Average Percentage

Knowledge 182 4.3 38.4

Comprehension 195 4.6 41.1

Application 51 1.2 10.7

Analysis 41 1 8.9

Synthesis 5 0.1 0.9

Evaluation - - -

Total 474 11.2 100

Essays are the main way to assess knowledge of a subject area. With the appropriate use of such terms

as ‘discuss’, ‘evaluate’ and ‘critically analyse’, an essay can be used to encourage the development of language

skills and more critical understanding of issues (Covic & Jones, 2008). If teachers are being urged to foster

evaluative thinking in their classrooms, they will have to learn to evaluate issues in their training. The point of

intervention that would possibly enhance the quality of teachers’ classroom practice may involve taking a critical

look at the teacher training curriculum, the teaching methods used, and above all, how assessment can be used to

help develop the kind of learning and the higher order thinking skills and processes required in the basic school

curriculum.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

The conclusion drawn from the findings of this study suggest that the transition in the goal of the basic school

curriculum from a mainly lower level recall cognitive domain to a much higher thinking and reasoning level is

not reflected in the teaching, learning and assessment of student- teachers. If formative assessment practices fail

to elicit the ‘multi-party’ dialogue that would encourage evaluative feedback on student-teachers’ work and

summative assessment does not demand evaluation of issues, student- teachers will not be equipped with the

knowledge and skills they require to foster evaluative thinking in their schools and classrooms. The gap between

teacher education and curriculum expectation in basic schools is a barrier to understanding and facilitating the

sort of engagement that will nurture the evaluative thinking required. Consequently, the practice of teaching will

not change and the cognitive processes that develop thinking and problem solving are unlikely to be practised, or

are little understood. The gap can however be controlled if assessment, teaching and learning are brought into

better alignment with the requirement of the basic school curriculum.

References

Attwood, R. (2009). Well, what do you know? Times Higher Education, January 29.

Awoniyi, F. C. & Fletcher, J. A. (2014). The relationship between senior high school mathematics teacher

characteristics and assessment practices. Journal of Educational Development and Practice, 4, 21-36

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.) Assessment

and Learning. London: Sage.

Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (Eds) (1971). Handbook on the formative and summative

evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. F. (2007). Developing assessment in higher education: A practical guide. Berkshire:

Open University Press.

Cousin, G. (2009). Researching learning in higher education. London: Routledge.

Covic, T., & Jones, M. K. (2008). Is the essay resubmission option a formative or summative assessment and

Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.org

ISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)

Vol.7, No.21, 2016

6

does it matter as long as the grades improve? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 75–

85.

DeCesare, D. (2002). How high are the stakes in high-stakes testing? Principal: The Standardized Curriculum,

81(3), 10-12.

Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessments: The limited

scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessments in education. Practical Assessment Research

and Evaluation, 14(7). Accessed January 12, 2010, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=7

Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT) (2006). CCTA forum: Time with WAEC to assess Public

School Examination System.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of

learning technologies (2nd ed). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Luxia, Q. (2007). Is testing an efficient agent for pedagogical change? Examining the intended washback of the

writing task in a high-stakes English test in China. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and

Practice, 14(1), 51-74.

Ministry of Education (2012). Teaching syllabus for Mathematics, primary school 4-6. Accra: Curriculum

Research and Development Division (CRDD).

Ministry of Education (2012). Teaching syllabus for Religious and Moral Education, junior high school 1-3.

Accra: Curriculum Research and Development Division (CRDD).

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOE) (October, 2004). White Paper on the report of the Education

Reform Review Committee.

Nicol, D. (2009). Assessment for learner self-regulation: Enhancing achievement in the first year using

technologies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(3), 335-352.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and

seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

Paige, R. (2006). No child left behind: The ongoing movement for public education reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 76(4), 1-10.

Pryor, J., & Crossouard, B. (2008). 'A socio-cultural theorisation of formative assessment'. Oxford Review of

Education, 34(1), 1-20.

Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Oxon, Routledge.

Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade

of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Curriculum Change, 10, 211 - 227.

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of

pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501.