The promise and reality of formative assessment practice in a continuous assessment scheme: the case of Trinidad and Tobago

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 79-103

  De Lisle, Jerome ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES   (Trinidad and Tobago)

Author keywords

classroom assessment; continuous assessment; developing countries; formative assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84922120407     PISSN: 0969594X     EISSN: 1465329X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.944086     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. Abrams, L. M. (2007). Implications of high-stakes testing for the use of formative classroom assessment. In H. McMillan (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 70–98). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
2. Adebowale, O. F., & Alao, K. A. (2008). CA policy implementation in selected local government areas of Ondo state (Nigeria). KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 5, 3–18. Retrieved from http://eng.kedi.re.kr/07_journal/arc_main.php
3. Bailey, A. L., & Heritage, M. (2008). Formative assessment for literacy, Grades K-6: Building reading and academic language skills across the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage/Corwin Press.
4. Barrett, A. M. (2007). Beyond the polarisation of pedagogy: Models of classroom practice in Tanzanian primary schools. Comparative Education, 43, 273–294. doi:10.1080/0305006070136262310.1080/03050060701362623
5. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 5–25. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
6. Bernard, H., & Ryan, G. (2010). Analysing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Berry, R. (2010). Assessment reforms around the world. In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education: Policy & practice (pp. 89–102). London: Springer.
8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 7–74. doi:10.1080/096959598005010210.1080/0969595980050102
9. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Classroom assessment is not (necessarily) formative assessment (and vice versa). In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability: 103rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Pt. 2, pp. 183–188). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2007). Large-scale assessment systems: Design principles drawn from international comparisons. Measurement: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 5(1), 1–53.
11. Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. doi:10.1080/1536636070129338610.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
12. Bray, M., & Steward, L. (Eds.). (1998). Examination systems in small states: Comparative perspectives on policies, models and operations. London: The Commonwealth Secretariat.
13. Broadfoot, P. (2002). Editorial: Beware the consequences of assessment! Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9, 285–288. doi:10.1080/096959402200002764510.1080/0969594022000027645
14. Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Classroom assessment: Tensions and intersections in theory and practice. Teachers College Record, 106, 429–458. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00346.x10.1111/tcre.2004.106.issue-3
15. Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Mixing it up: Combining the sources of classroom achievement information for formative and summative purposes. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Routledge.
16. Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged instrument. Psychological Reports, 99, 166–170. doi:10.2466/PR0.99.5.166-170
17. Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., O’Quinn, C., & Lane, K. E. (2011, April). New Zealand and Louisiana practicing teachers’ conceptions of feedback: Impact of Assessment of Learning versus Assessment for Learning policies? Paper presented to the Classroom Assessment SIG at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
18. Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for improvement: Understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16, 347–363. doi:10.1080/0969594090331973710.1080/09695940903319737
19. Brown, G. T. L., & Lake, R. (2006, November). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of teaching, learning, curriculum and assessment: Comparisons with New Zealand teachers. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Adelaide, Australia.
20. Brown, G. T. L., & Remesal, A. (2012). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A cross-cultural comparison. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 75–89. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.8. Retrieved from http://www.ucm.es/info/psi/docs/journal/v15_n1_2012OLF/art8.pdf 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37286
21. Buchmann, C. (2002). Getting ahead in Kenya: Social capital, shadow education, and achievement. In B. Fuller & E. Hannum (Eds.), Schooling and social capital in diverse cultures (pp. 133–159). Amsterdam: JAI Press.10.1108/S1479-3539(2002)0000013008
22. Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12, 39–54. doi:10.1080/096959404200033390410.1080/0969594042000333904
23. Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning. Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. London: Routledge.
24. Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation. Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Chen, H. T. (2006). A theory-driven evaluation perspective on mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13, 75–83.
27. Cheung, D. (2000). Measuring teachers’ meta-orientations to curriculum: Application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 149–165. doi:10.1080/0022097000959850010.1080/00220970009598500
28. Cheung, D. (2001). School-based assessment in public examinations: Identifying the concerns of teachers. Education Journal, 29, 105–123.
29. Chewang, K. (1999). Continuous assessment in Bhutan: Science teachers’ perspectives (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of New Brunswick, Canada.
30. Clarke, M. (2012). What matters most for student assessment systems: A framework paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.
31. Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2011). The teaching perspectives inventory at 10 years and 100,000 respondents: Reliability and validity of a teacher self-report inventory. Adult Education Quarterly, 61, 358–375. doi:10.1177/074171361039276310.1177/0741713610392763
32. Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. for the Office of Behavioural and Social Sciences Research. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http://obssr.od.nih.gov/mixed_methods_research
33. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Crossouard, B. (2011). Using formative assessment to support complex learning in conditions of social adversity. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 59–72. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.536034
35. Darling-Hammond, L., Pecheone, R., Jaquith, A., Schultz, S., Walker, L., & Wei, R. C. (2010, March). Developing an internationally comparable balanced assessment system that supports high-quality learning. Presented at the National Conference on Next Generation K-12 Assessment Systems, Washington, DC.
36. De Lisle, J. (2009). External examinations beyond national borders – Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean Examinations Council. In B. Vlaardingerbroek & N. Taylor (Eds.), Secondary school external examination systems – Reliability, robustness and resilience (pp. 265–290). New York, NY: Cambria Press.
37. De Lisle, J. (2010). Final report for the consultancy to determine the status of the Continuous Assessment Programme (CAP) in the sixty (60) full treatment schools under the SES Project. Port of Spain: Trinidad and Tobago Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.tt/national_consultation_reports_2011.html
38. Firestone, W. A. (1998). A tale of two tests: Tensions in assessment policy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5, 175–191. doi:10.1080/0969594980050203
39. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
40. George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.
41. Gioka, O. (2008). Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education, 39, 411–428.
42. Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context: Preparation for academic writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
44. Hansen, H. F. (2005). Choosing evaluation models: A discussion on evaluation design. Evaluation, 11, 447–462. doi:10.1177/135638900506026510.1177/1356389005060265
45. Hansen, M. B., & Vedung, E. (2010). Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 295–313. doi:10.1177/1098214010366174 10.1177/1098214010366174
46. Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (1999). Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 711–731.
47. Harlen, W. (2006). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 61–80). London: Sage.
48. Harlen, W. (2007, September). Designing a fair and effective assessment system. Paper presented at the 2007 BERA annual conference as part of the ARG Symposium, Future Directions for Student Assessment, University of Bristol, ARG.
49. Hayford, S. K. (2007). CA and lower attaining pupils in primary and junior secondary schools in Ghana (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, UK.
50. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
51. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 28(3), 24–31. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00151.x10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00151.x
52. IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). (2009). Support for a seamless education system program – loan contract. Washington, DC: Author.
53. Israel, H. F. (2000). The implementation and effects of continuous assessment in the English classrooms within the changing milieu of education in South Africa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Baylor, Waco, TX.
54. Jennings, Z. (2001). Teacher education in selected countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean: The ideal of policy versus the reality of practice. Comparative Education, 37, 107–134. doi:10.1080/0305006002002045310.1080/03050060020020453
55. Kamangira, Y. T. (2003). Feasibility of a large-scale implementation of continuous assessment as a stimulus for teacher development in Malawi. Improving Educational Quality (IEQ) Project. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
56. Kapambwe, W. M. (2010). The implementation of school based continuous assessment (CA) in Zambia. Educational Research & Reviews, 5, 99–107. Retrieved from http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
57. Kennedy, K. J., Chan, K. S. J., Fok, P. K., & Yu, W. M. (2008). Forms of assessment and their potential for enhancing learning: Conceptual and cultural issues. Educational Research for Policy & Practice, 7, 197–207. doi:10.1007/s10671-008-9052-310.1007/s10671-008-9052-3
58. Koch, M. J., & De Luca, C. (2012). Rethinking validation in complex high-stakes assessment contexts. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19, 99–116. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.604023
59. Lamprianou, I., & Christie, T. (2009). Why school based assessment is not a universal feature of high stakes assessment systems? Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 21, 329–345. doi:10.1007/s11092-009-9083-1
60. Le Grange, L., & Reddy, C. (1998). Continuous Assessment: An introduction and guidelines to implementation. Cape Town: Juta.
61. Lubisi, R. C., & Murphy, R. J. L. (2002). Assessment in South African schools. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9, 255–268. doi:10.1080/0969594022000001968
62. Luyten, H., & Dolkar, D. (2010). School-based assessments in high-stakes examinations in Bhutan: A question of trust? Exploring inconsistencies between external exam scores, school-based assessments, detailed teacher ratings, and student self-ratings. Educational Research & Evaluation, 16, 421–435. doi:10.1080/13803611.2010.530437
63. Mansell, W., James, M., & the Assessment Reform Group. (2009). Assessment in schools. Fit for purpose? A commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Program. London: ESRC.
64. Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. J. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21, 133–149.10.1080/02671520600615638
65. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods, 16, 243–264. doi:10.1177/1525822X0426683110.1177/1525822X04266831
66. Mchazime, H. (2003). Integrating primary school curriculum and CA in Malawi. Improving Educational Quality (IEQ) Project. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
67. Modell, S. (2009). In defence of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20, 208–221. doi:10.1016/j.mar.2009.04.00110.1016/j.mar.2009.04.001
68. Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2006). Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6, 45–59. doi:10.1177/146879410605887010.1177/1468794106058870
69. Moss, P., Girard, B., & Haniford, L. (2006). Validity in educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 30, 109–162. doi:10.3102/0091732X03000110910.3102/0091732X030001109
70. Mulenga, M. B., & Kapambwe, W. M. (2008). The implementation of school based continuous assessment (CA) in Zambia. Paper presented at the IAEA conference. Retrieved from www.iaea2008.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ca/…/180453_Mulenga__Saka…
71. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
72. Nakabugo, M. G., & Siebörger, R. (2001). Curriculum reform and teaching in South Africa: Making a ‘paradigm shift’? International Journal of Educational Development, 21, 53–60. doi:10.1016/S0738-0593(00)00013-410.1016/S0738-0593(00)00013-4
73. Newton, P. E. (2007). Clarifying the purposes of educational assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14, 149–170. doi:10.1080/0969594070147832110.1080/09695940701478321
74. Nitko, A. (1995). Curriculum-based CA: A framework for concepts, procedures and policy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 2, 321–338. doi:10.1080/096959595002030610.1080/0969595950020306
75. Nsibande, R. (2007). Knowledge and practice of CA: The barriers for policy transfer (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa. Retrieved from http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/2187
76. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Dickinson, W. B. (2008). Mixed methods analysis and information visualization: Graphical display for effective communication of research results. The Qualitative Report, 13, 204–225. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-2/onwuegbuzie.pdf
77. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. T. (2009). A call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, 114–139. doi:10.5172/mra.3.2.11410.5172/mra.3.2.114
78. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Slate, J. R., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). Conducting mixed analyses: A general typology. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 1, 4–17. doi:10.5172/mra.455.1.1.410.5172/mra.455.1.1.4
79. Pennycuick, D. B. (1990). The introduction of continuous assessment systems at secondary level in developing countries. In P. Broadfoot, R. Murphy, & H. Torrance (Eds.), Changing educational assessment: International perspectives and trends (pp. 106–135). London: Routledge.
80. Perry, L. (2013). Review of formative assessment use and training in Africa. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1, 94–101. doi:10.1080/21683603.2013.789809
81. Pink, S. (2001). Visual ethnography. London: Sage.
82. Plano Clark, V. L., Garrett, A. L., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. L. (2010). Applying three strategies for integrating quantitative and qualitative databases in a mixed methods study of a nontraditional graduate education program. Field Methods, 22, 154–174. doi:10.1177/1525822X0935717410.1177/1525822X09357174
83. Pratt, D. D. (1998). Alternative frames of understanding: Introduction to five perspectives. In D. D. Pratt & Associates (Eds.), Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education (pp. 33–53). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
84. Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 5–15. doi:10.1002/ace.4510.1002/ace.v2002:93
85. Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: Identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18, 429–462. doi:10.1191/02655320168243012010.1177/026553220101800407
86. Rogers, P. (2008). Using program theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14, 29–48. doi:10.1177/135638900708467410.1177/1356389007084674
87. Sadler, R. (2007). Perils in the meticulous specification of goals and assessment criteria. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14, 387–392.10.1080/09695940701592097
88. Shandomo, H. (2008). Continuous assessment in Swaziland: The predictable fate of western innovation in Africa. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft.
89. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. doi:10.3102/003465430731379510.3102/0034654307313795
90. Smith, K. (2011). Professional development of teachers – A prerequisite for AfL to be successfully implemented in the classroom. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 55–61. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.00510.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.005
91. Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10, 58–76. doi:10.1177/135638900404313510.1177/1356389004043135
92. Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Portland, OR: ETS Assessment Training Institute.
93. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times: The uses and abuses of assessment. Abingdon: Routledge.
94. Stobart, G. (2009). Determining validity in national curriculum assessments. Educational Research, 51, 161–179. doi:10.1080/0013188090289130510.1080/00131880902891305
95. Susuwele-Banda, W. J. (2005). Classroom assessment in Malawi: Teachers; perceptions and practices in Malawi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blackburg, VA.
96. Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic Assessment for Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18, 433–449. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2011.58283810.1080/0969594X.2011.582838
97. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
98. Tittle, C. (1994). Toward an educational psychology of assessment for teaching and learning: Theories, contexts, and validation arguments. Educational Psychologist, 29, 149–162. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2903_410.1207/s15326985ep2903_4
99. Torrance, H. (2012). Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative, and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 38, 323–342. doi:10.1080/03054985.2012.68969310.1080/03054985.2012.689693
100. Trinidad & Tobago Government. (1994). Education policy paper, (1993–2003) (White Paper). Port of Spain: Ministry of Education.
101. Trinidad & Tobago Government. (2002). Ministry of Education strategic plan 2002–2006. Port of Spain: Ministry of Education.
102. Trinidad & Tobago Ministry of Education. (1998). CAP pilot operational manual. Port of Spain: Author.
103. Trinidad & Tobago Ministry of Education. (2000). Integrating continuous assessment into the teaching and learning process operations manual. Port of Spain: Author.
104. Trinidad & Tobago Ministry of Education. (2008). National report on the development of education in Trinidad and Tobago. Presented at the forty-eighth session of the international conference on education (ICE). Port of Spain: Author.
105. Troman, G. (1989). Testing tension: The politics of educational assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 15, 279–295. doi:10.1080/014119289015030510.1080/0141192890150305
106. UNESCO. (2008). Education for All by 2015: Will we make it? EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: UNESCO & Oxford University Press.
107. Vandeyar, S. (2005). Conflicting demands: Assessment practices in three South African primary schools undergoing desegregation. Curriculum Inquiry, 35, 461–481. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2005.0033710.1111/curi.2005.35.issue-4
108. Vandeyar, S., & Killen, R. (2003). Has curriculum reform in South Africa really changed assessment practices, and what promise does the revised national curriculum statement hold? Perspectives in Education, 21, 119–143.
109. Vandeyar, S., & Killen, R. (2007). Educators’ conceptions and practice of classroom assessment in post-apartheid South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27, 101–115.
110. Wall, D. (2005). The impact of high-stakes examinations on classroom teaching: A case study using insights from testing and innovation theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
111. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.00110.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
112. World Bank. (1995). Report No. 14865-TR. Staff appraisal report, Trinidad and Tobago Basic Education report, October 26, 1995. Washington, DC: Author.
113. Wylie, E. C., Lyon, C. J., & Goe, L. (2009). Teacher professional development focused on formative assessment: Changing teachers, changing schools (Vol. RR-09-10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
114. Yu, Y. (2010). The washback effects of school-based assessment on teaching and learning – A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. Retrieved from http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/65273