KJEP 5:1 (2008), pp.

3-18

Continuous assessment policy implementation

in selected local government areas of Ondo
state (Nigeria): Implications for a successful
implementation of the UBE program

O. F. Adebowale
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile‐Ife, Nigeria

K. A. Alao
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile‐Ife, Nigeria

Abstract
This study examines the methods adopted by teachers in the implementation
of the provisions of a continuous assessment policy in Ondo State in Nigeria.
Data were collected from teachers selected randomly from all schools in two
non‐cosmopolitan Local Government Education Authorities of the state and
were analyzed using simple percentages, t‐test, and ANOVA. Results indicated
a non‐uniform strategy of implementing continuous assessment policy provisions
and are found to be independent of factors like gender, duty posts, teaching
experience, and qualifications, as no significant difference were found in the
score of respondents on all of these factors. It is recommended that the policy
should be freely distributed to basic school teachers in a simplified form as a
uniform implementation of the policy is connected to the success of the
Universal Basic Education program now that it is to span three more years
than the earlier Universal Primary Education (UPE) policy or any other
educational policy made earlier. Also, regular training workshops on
continuous assessment should be organized for teachers.

Keywords: Continuous assessment, teachers, learners’ performance, education,

gender, duty post, educational qualification

KEDI Journal of Educational Policy － ISSN 1739 －4341 －

ⓒ Korean Educational Development Institute 2008, Electronic version: http://eng.kedi.re.kr
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

Introduction

Quality education is crucial to the economic development and social stability

of a nation as it helps develop crucial humanitarian values like equity,
tolerance, and peace. These values lead to sustainable national development,
environmental protection, and improved family health, along with responsible
participation in democratic, social, and political processes (Durodola & Olude,
2005). It was further argued that the aim of this goal is the quality of what is
learned at school (knowledge, skills, values and attitudes) and how well these
are learned (levels of competence attained on learning outcomes by pupils).
Meanwhile, learners may not benefit much from a system of education unless
there are assessments aimed at determining pupil performance levels at
different stages of schooling. However, Puhl (1997) claimed that global
influences affecting education (such as changes in world economy, information
revolution, environmentalism and cross national health threats) and how
educators assess them encouraged the move away from the heavy use of the
traditional more judgmental approaches to assessment toward an alternative,
more inclusive means of determining what learners know and can do.
Assessment serves as the barometer by which student instructional achievement
outcome can be gauged.
Assessment enables the school to achieve an overall objective of having as
complete a record of the growth and progress of each pupil as possible in
order to make unbiased judgments in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
evaluation in the classroom. Kayode (2003) argues that teachers need to assess
pupils through a classroom mechanism referred to as continuous assessment.
Continuous assessment is the alternative (or supplement) to high stakes testing
(for certification, promotion or placement usually commercial) of pupil
achievement that offers a methodology for measuring pupil performance and
using those findings to improve the success of pupils (EQ, 2003).

Continuous assessment

Nitko (2004) described continuous assessment as an on‐going process of

gathering and interpreting information about student learning that is used in
making decisions about what to teach and how well students have learned.
Nitko highlighted some merits of continuous assessment:
- It promotes frequent interactions between pupils and teachers that enable
teachers to know the strengths and weaknesses of learners to identify
which students need review and remediation.
- Pupils receive feedback from teachers based on performance that allows
them to focus on topics they have not yet mastered.

4 ∥
 Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

The definition of continuous assessment given by Ojerinde and Falayajo

(1984) captures the real essence in the practice of continuous assessment in
Nigeria. They defined it as a mechanism where the final grading of a student
in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of behavior takes a
systematic account of all performances during a period of schooling. Afolabi
(1999) stated that this definition embodies the need for comprehensiveness in
scope, regularity of collection of student performance evidence, and the
cummulation of student records. The study claimed that the Handbook on
Continuous Assessment (1985) and Ojerinde (1985) take similar perspectives. In
terms of comprehensiveness, continuous assessment is expected to make use of
different approaches and evaluation tools in the process of assessing the
learners such as, tests, questionnaire, rating scales, observation, and anecdotal
records to obtain information on the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor
domains of learning by children.
Continuous assessment is systematic in that it requires an operational plan.
It is also cumulative in nature in that any decision taken about a learner is
based on earlier decisions and it is guidance oriented in that any data
gathered on the learners will serve as the basis for further academic growth
and development (Ojerinde & Falayajo, 1984; Okpala, 1985; Okpala & Utoh,
2005). Puhl (1997) also contended that continuous assessment offers a way to
cater to a diversity of learners particularly in a language class that derives
from sociological factors like maternal‐tongue differences, culture, and place of
origin as well as individual factors like differing abilities, interest, and
motivations. Continuous assessment is most suitable to the Nigerian education
system and is recognized by the government of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria as it states in the National Policy on Education, NPE (1981) revised in
1998 and 2004 that:

Education assessment will be liberalized by basing them in whole or in

part on continuous assessment of the progress of the individual.

Continuous assessment in Nigeria

Continuous assessment as an instructional process began in Nigeria in 1977

with the idea that it will enable educators to be more involved in the overall
assessment of learners and allow for diverse instructional methods (Pennycuick,
1990, as cited in Israel, 2005). It is appropriate to note that the nature, process,
and methods of handling continuous assessment have since been included in
all teacher preparation efforts leading to the award of all educational
qualifications: TC II, NCE, B. Ed., B.A. Ed., M.Ed., M.A. Ed..
Nigerian researchers have evaluated and recommended continuous assessment

∥ 5
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

as providing solid evidence of the achievement, attitude, motivation and

aptitude of learners (Ali & Akube, 1988). In terms of weighting, Kayode (2003)
reported that continuous assessment scores contribute 60% of every terminal
assessment at the primary school level. Osunde (2003) and Afolabi (1999)
stated that at the Junior Secondary School level continuous assessment of
pupils constitute 60% of the final assessment scores while the final
examination at the end of the program is only 40%. At the end of the first
three years following primary education, the Junior Secondary School certificate
would be based on the state examination and continuous assessment method.
The continuous assessment method would also play a substantive role in the
overall assessment of students at the senior secondary level and would
constitute 40% of the final examination. Although Afolabi (1999) warned that
the combination of raw continuous assessment scores with students’
examination scores for the SSCE results (instead of standardized scores) as raw
scores cannot ensure fair comparability. It was pointed out that any
comparison made with a combination at the SSCE level cannot be considered
fair, equitable, and just.
The frequency of collection of the evidence of student learning (such as testing
or observation) is an important component of continuous assessment. Afolabi
(1999) stated that students who have more observed scores for continuous
assessment are likely to obtain final scores which are closer to the mean scores
of the group (smaller variances) than those who have fewer observed scores.
Ojerinde (1985) in Afolabi (1999) suggested at least two times per term of
assessment in a school year of three terms for curricular areas, once a term for
the determination of interest, attitudes, physical health, and outdoor activities
and twice a year for cultural and co‐curricular activities. The study further
suggested a once a term assessment for non‐scholastic aspects of student
characteristics like personal and social qualities. Afolabi, attributed the wide
variations found in teachers and schools in terms of this frequency to the
absence of statutory guidelines on the ‘when’ of continuous assessment measures.

Critique of continuous assessment

Alausa (2003) associated one advantage of continuous assessment to the fact

that it places teachers at the centre of all performance‐assessment activities and
that it encourages more teacher participation in the overall assessment or grading
of learners. This is in agreement with what was suggested by Paris, Lawton,
Turner, and Roth (1991), that teachers must be given opportunities to select and
review assessments so that they become involved and knowledgeable in the
process. It is expected that through this approach, teachers would be able to
integrate assessment results into instructional practice. Teachers are also expected

6 ∥
 Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

to incorporate assessment into the larger learning framework and be able to

provide evidence regarding how assessment information is used to inform and
guide instruction for individual learners.
Alausa also identified some problems working against the proper implementation
of continuous assessment. Some of them that could be associated with teachers
include skills in test construction, test administration, attitudes toward the
continuous assessment approach, and record keeping.
For successful results in the implementation of the continuous assessment
policy, Alausa argues that teachers need to give increased tests that result in
more marking by the teacher. They need to observe the learners more to
assess affective outcomes and there will be more records to be kept on
learners. All these could mean more work for the teacher, greater demands on
time, and increased responsibility. Teachers must be prepared professionally
and mentally for operating in the system. If the teacher is not adequately
prepared for operating in the system, it may lead to a tendency to manufacture
scores in the name of continuous assessment. Teachers should be encouraged
to form favorable attitudes toward the practice. Another problem identified
with continuous assessment is the issue of record keeping. The records of
learners have to be properly stored, meticulously kept, and easily retrievable
for long periods of time. A related issue is that of collation where scores may
have to be combined from different sources using various weights.
Although continuous assessment recognizes teachers as professionals having
integrity and expertise to judge student abilities (Isaac, 1995, as cited in Israel,
2005), Israel (2005) contended that educator unreliability in continuous
assessment scores is an international problem. The study mentioned that gross
inflation is usually detectable when continuous assessment scores are compared
with examination scores in South Africa. It was also claimed that issues facing
3rd world countries in terms of implementation of continuous assessment are
st
very different from those facing 1 world countries.
From the viewpoint of learners, continuous assessment can mean too many
projects from too many educators at the same time and the fact that wealthy
learners are given an unfair advantage over poorer learners as they would
have greater access to resources. Research in Ghana showed that the
unreliability of educators in continuous assessment practices stemmed from the
fear of transfers or dismissal if students did not perform well in examinations
(Akwesi & Murphy, 1994, cited in Israel, 2005). It was also observed in
Afolabi (1999) that the obligation to send in marks for the end‐of‐term reports
is the singular motivation for testing by teachers in the Netherlands.

Purpose of study
Studies have been conducted into the implementation practices of continuous
assessment in Nigeria and other countries in which the policy has been

∥ 7
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

adopted with recommendations made towards improvement where lapses were

observed. For instance, Govender (2003) gave a vivid operational framework of
continuous assessment in South Africa with a simplified manual for improving
the practice, but some Nigerian researchers have complained about how
different components of the policy are handled (e.g. Onuka, 2005; Ezeudu,
2005; Akinlua & Ajayi, 2003; Afolabi, 1999). In fact, Kayode (2003) concluded
that only a partial continuous assessment is practiced in the Nigeria state of
Kwara and encouraged both the government and the National Association of
Educational Researchers and Evaluators (NAERE) to intervene to ensure that
the laudable goals of continuous assessment are achieved. Adeyemo (2003) also
complained of the haphazard way in which continuous assessment is
implemented in the Nigerian state of Osun. The research was designed to
determine if this situation exists in other states of the federation (particularly
non‐cosmopolitan states) or if there exist any confusion in the minds of the
implementers of the policy, the teachers, the kind Kruger (2004) said have
previously occurred in Namibia. If there were problems with the policy then
to locate whether the confusion was limited to a certain group(s) of individual
among the teachers.
The Universal Basic Education (UBE) policy (recently introduced into the
Nigerian education system) stipulates that basic education is to last three more
years than the former primary education, is compulsory, and all inclusive. The
program also provides that children receive the first six years of the nine
years at a primary school different from the Junior Secondary School where
they are expected to complete the remaining three years (Oduolowu, 2007). A
single teacher takes care of a class in Nigerian primary schools so that the
assessment of pupils (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor) obtained via
different tools (like tests, project, assignment, interest inventory, and attitude
scales) and records can be collected, kept by the same person, and later
passed on to another teacher in the next (primary) class. In the Junior
Secondary School (where team teaching is practiced) different teachers handle
different subjects and assessments. The records are conducted by many
teachers that are carried on to the next class to be taught, examined and
recorded by teachers that may be different from those of the previous class(s).
Ultimately, both regimes together are expected to constitute a sizeable
percentage of the outcome of the Universal Basic Certificate of Education
(UBCE) obtained at the end of the 9‐year program.
In order to ensure accurate implementation of the Universal Basic Education
scheme, the knowledge and attitude of the teachers towards continuous
assessment should be examined periodically with the view to addressing
inherent lapses and misconceptions in order to strengthen the UBE program in
Nigeria and other countries where the policy has been adopted. This is the
basic focus of this paper, but targeted at the primary school that is the
foundation of the UBE scheme.

8 ∥
 Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

Methodology
The study adopted a survey design. One hundred (100) primary school teachers
were selected from all the schools in two selected non‐cosmopolitan Local
Government Education Authorities (LGEAs) in Ondo state (Akoko North West
and Akoko South West) of Nigeria and the demographic data are shown in Table
1. The teachers were drawn by simple random sampling in each of all the schools
in the two LGEAs that were purposefully selected from all the LGEAs in Ondo

Table 1. Distribution of respondents across the independent variables

Variable Percentages %
Gender Male 22 30.4
Female 46 63

No Response 5 6.8
Total 73 100.2
Duty Post Head teacher 10 13.7
Assistant Head teacher 7 9.6
Class teacher 40 54.8
Others 1 1.4
No Response 15 20.
Total 73 99.5
Teaching Experience Less than ten years 20 27.4

10 years to less than 15yrs 7 9.6

15 to 20Yrs 8 10.9
20 to 30 yrs 17 23.3

More than 30yrs 7 9.6

No response 14 19.2
Total 73 100
Highest Educational Grd. II Teachers Cert. 2 2.7
Qualification
National Certificate of Education (NCE) 16 21.9
NCE + GRD II 37 50.7
Degree in Education 8 11
No response 10 13.7
Total 73 100

∥ 9
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

State being non‐cosmopolitan in nature. An instrument titled “Questionnaire on

the handling of continuous assessment by primary school teachers” consisting of
15 items (see Appendix 1) were purposely developed by the researchers and
moderated by experts in educational tests and measurements. This instrument was
trial tested on 30 teachers that were not involved in the proper research. The
internal consistency reliability of the instrument was obtained through the
determination of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient that was found to be 0.81 signifying
a moderately reliable instrument. This instrument was then administered on the
respondents in the respective schools. Simple percentages were computed to
obtain a set of descriptive statistics. T‐test and ANOVA were employed during
data analysis as inferential statistics.
Four independent variables were employed in the research, gender of the
respondents, duty post, years of teaching experience, and educational
background. The response rate to the questionnaire was 73% with 30.4% of the
respondents being male, 63% female, and the 6.8% that did not indicate
gender. For duty post, there were 13.7% head teachers, 9.6% assistant head
teachers, 54.8% class teachers, 1.4% computer instructors and 20.5% others who
did not indicate any duty post. For teaching experience, 27.4% teachers served
for 5 to 10 years, 9.6% served for 10 to 20 years, 23% served for 20 to 30
years, 9.62% served for more than 30 years, and 19.2% teachers did not
indicate the length of service. For educational qualifications, only 2.7% teacher
possess only Grd.II teacher certificate, 21.9% possess only NCE certificate, 50.7
possess a combination of Grd.II and NCE, 11% possess NCE with a degree
certificate, and 13.7% teachers did not indicate educational qualifications.

Results
There is no agreement in terms of how regularly the pupils should be
assessed in continuous assessment as shown in Table 2 that presents a
descriptive analysis of the responses given by the respondents.
From Table 2 above, 29.8% of the respondents claimed that it should be
done daily, while 31.6% said it is weekly, 28.1% said it is fortnightly, and
10.5% said it is term based. The confusion is also apparent across different
duty posts even among head teachers who had to rise through the workforce
to present posts. Even gender, teaching experience or educational qualification
did not make much difference.
Most of the teachers (95.5%) agreed that continuous assessment should take
place in all subjects, although a few (4.5%) still believed that it should be
limited to English and Mathematics. There was also agreement (78.8%) that
homework should be given to pupils everyday. A considerable percentage
(32.8%) of respondents still makes use of written tests only for continuous
assessment and 48.1% of the respondents believe in the use of different tools
like test, contribution to class discussion, drawing, simple article composition,

10 ∥
 Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

and terminal examination for continuous assessment. Most teachers (61.2%)

claimed that the most frequently employed methods in school were written
tests and term examinations. Only 22.4% said all these tools were used for the
continuous assessment of pupils. Although most of the respondents agreed that
all projects, assignments, observational techniques, anecdotal records, and oral
interviews are sometimes used, many respondents (56%) said only the records
of tests and term exams are kept and used for the assessment of pupils while
others (33.8%) believed that homework should be included in the continuous
assessment.

Table 2 . Descriptive analysis of the responses of teachers with regards to frequency,

weighting and involvement of the pupil
Calling the attention
Frequency of Weight of C.A in final
of pupils to
assessment in C.A. assessment
performance in C.A.
Daily

Weekly

Fortnightly

Term

Total

100%

60%

40%

30%

Total

No need

Seldom

Occasionally

Often

Very often
Parameters

Duty Post 29.8 31.6 28.1 10.5 100 51.7 10 8.6 29.3 100 5.4 9 16.1 35.8 33. 100

Gender 32.8 31.3 23.9 11.9 100 46.3 9 20.9 23.9 100 4.7 9.4 21.9 32.8 31.3 100

Teaching
25.9 36.2 27.6 10.3 100 48.3 10 13.8 27.6 100 5.1 8.6 15.5 37.8 32.7 99.7
Experience
Educational
29.1 35.5 25.8 9.7 100 50 9.7 12.9 27.4 100 4.9 9.8 14.7 37.7 32.8 99.9
Qualifications

In terms of the weight of continuous assessment in the final assessment

score, 51.7% claimed that the continuous assessment is the final assessment of
the child, while 10% claimed that it should constitute 60%, 8.6% of
respondents claimed that it should constitute only 40% while 29.3%
respectively stated that continuous assessment constitutes 30% of the final
assessment. Most of the teachers claimed that the pupils are aware that the
homework and other periodic activities undertook in class will contribute to
the final assessment while some said they were not aware. A few of the
teachers (5.4%) believe there is no need to call the attention of the pupils to
the continuous assessment performance, while some (9%) said they seldom do
so. Only 16.1% of the respondents sometimes do so, 35.8% do so oftentimes
while only 33% do so very often. 60% of the respondents occasionally call the
attention of parents to the performance of pupils in continuous assessment,

∥ 11
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

21.2% do often, 9.1% very often, while another 9.1% do not at all.
In terms of the purpose of continuous assessment, the largest percentage of
respondents (31.7%) claimed that continuous assessment is used for improving
the performance of pupils and promotion to the next class while only 30.2%
added other usage such as diagnosing learning difficulties and realizing
learning objectives that are actually the basic schedule of duty of classroom
teachers. Also only a mere 15.2% of the respondents stated that the assessment
score of pupils are scaled and added to those of the next classes while only
13.8% claimed that the assessment scores of a primary six pupil is added to
the assessment in the next basic education class. It is believed to be kept in
the school archive for record purposes. Conclusively, 58.5% agreed that
continuous assessment has helped in achieving learning objectives; only 1.6%
said it did not help at all.
The total scores of all respondents were also subjected to t‐test and ANOVA
to determine if the observed situation were caused by the differences in
gender, duty posts, and years of teaching experience or teaching qualification.
The results obtained are as follows:
Based on gender, no significant difference was obtained in the scores of
respondents on the knowledge of the standard practice of Continuous
assessment (t = 0.718, p>0.05). Also, no significant difference was obtained in
the mean scores of respondents on the basis of duty posts at various schools
(F = 5.977, p>0.05). Again, no significant difference was found in the mean
scores of respondents based on years of teaching experience (F = 2.660,
p>0.05). Finally, no significant difference was obtained in the mean scores of
respondents based on duty posts at various schools (F = 2.892, p>0.05).

Discussion
The implementers of continuous assessment policy in the schools under
study do not understand the standard implementation practice of the policy, in
fact the way continuous assessment is implemented in the schools were very
similar to the gloomy pictures painted by Kayode (2003), Adeyemo (2003) and
Onuka (2005). Teachers were practicing continuous assessment of pupils in
different ways and manners; this can only be attributed to some forms of
confusion in the understanding of the policy. The researchers saw the
confusion in three areas:
ⅰ. how often the pupils were assessed
ⅱ. how many of such assessment should be graded and weighted
ⅲ. calling the attention of pupils and parents to performance in continuous
assessment
The usage of other assessment tools apart from cognitive tests, assignment,
and examinations is absent in the assessment; where it is present it is not
included when the pupils assessment 1 is combined. Weighting of the

12 ∥
 Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

constituent assessments and contributions to the final assessment needs concise

clarification and the interface between the primary school and the Junior
Secondary phases of Basic Education creates some confusion particularly
among classroom teachers and those who have not taught long. Most of these
findings are in agreement with those of Akinlua and Ajayi (2003) while
evaluating the continuous assessment practice of primary school head teachers
in this same state (Ondo state of Nigeria). They found that “very many of
them cannot be said to know how it is practiced” and that although a
continuous assessment committee was available in some of the schools, they
were not functional. Nwakoby (1988) and Erinosho (1993) in Israel (2005) also
confirmed inadequate conceptualization of continuous assessment by educators
among other problems, even Awomolo (1992) who happened to be the head of
Research Division of the West African Examinations Council (WAEC)
complained that the assessment of teachers were notoriously low in terms of
reliability level. Very significant differences were also reported in the frequency
of the formal assessment components of continuous assessment by teachers of
different subjects (technical, mathematics, language, science, social studies, and
business studies) in more than 20 schools in South Western Nigeria. These are
not strange developments in an educational system. Kruger (2004) recalled how
similar confusion also occurred among teachers in Namibia, even among
different agencies of the government that led to some constructive steps which
eventually led to a clear direction in terms of implementation of continuous
assessment in that country.
Nigerian educators are attempting to shift to a new paradigm in educational
assessment, School Based Assessment (SBA) (NTI, 2006), the features of
continuous assessment are still very prominent even in the new system. The
timely and effective intervention will not only re‐invigorate continuous
assessment as an educational practice but it will also provide a strong
preliminary barometer on which the new paradigm can be assessed.

Implication for policy implementation

In view of the foregoing and in order that continuous assessment furthers

the goals of the UBE, and by extension the new School Based Assessment
(SBA) being proposed in Nigeria and in other countries, the following
suggestions become of interest. Simplified and concise interpretation of the
continuous assessment policy provisions should be made into manuals, leaflets,
and handbooks for distribution to teachers who are usually the implementers
of most educational policies. These services should be done for free in order
to ensure a wide circulation and acceptance.
Monitoring and supervision of the implementation of such policies should be

∥ 13
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

stepped up and reinserted into the research policy, formulation policy, and
implementation evaluation cycle. It should not be done in the usual “scapegoat
finding” mode, but in the performance support and enhancement type. Finally,
regular workshops and seminars should be organized for teachers in schools
to further the knowledge and understanding of continuous assessment policies,
programs, and implementation to neutralize confusion and misunderstanding.

Address for correspondence

Olusegun Fatai Adebowale

Assistant Lecturer
Department of Educational Foundations and Counseling
Faculty of Education
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile‐Ife
Nigeria
Tel: (234) 8038038046
Email: oluadefat@yahoo.com

References

Adeyemo, S. O. (2003). Evaluation of the use of continuous assessment in State

Joint Examination: A strategy for good academic standard and uniformity
in Nigerian primary education. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and
Evaluation, 4(1), 42‐46.
Afolabi, E. R. I. (1999). Six honest men for continuous assessment: evaluating
the ‘equating’ of achievement scores in Nigerian secondary schools. Ife
Journal of Behavioural Research, 1(2), 7‐15.
Akinlua, A. A., & Ajayi, P. O. (2003). Evaluation of continuous assessment
practice in primary schools. Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and
Evaluation, 4(2), 16‐23.
Akwesi, C., & Murphy, R. (1994). New roles for teacher assessment in Ghana and
the UK: Emerging issue. St. Anne’s college: Oxford.
Alausa, Y. A. (2003). Continuous assessment in our schools: Advantages and
problems. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.ednet.na/
Resouces/Reform%20Forum/journal9/journal% 209% Article%202.pdf
Ali, A., & Akube, A. (1988). Nigerian primary schools’ compliance with Nigeria
national policy on Education: An evaluation of continuous assessment
practices. Educational Review, 12(6), 625‐636.
Awomolo, A. (1992). The challenges of combining internal and external assessment
in certificate examinations: The West African examinations council experience.

14 ∥
 Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

Paper presented at the International Conference on Educational Policies

and Systems, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Durodola, S. L. & Olude, A. O. (2005). The use of assessment result in Nigerian
schools: An appraisal. Paper Presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the
IAEA, Abuja, Nigeria.
EQ (2003). Measuring pupil achievement: Continuous assessment. EQ Review,
1(1). Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.equip123.net/EQ_
Review/1_1.pdf
Erinosho, S. Y. (1993). Preferences of Nigerian high school teachers for modes
of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(4), 439‐445.
Ezeudu, S. A. (2005). Continuous assessment in Nigerian senior secondary school
geography: Problems and implementation strategies. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment,
Abuja, Nigeria.
Federal Ministry of Education. (1981). National policy on education. Lagos:
National Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC).
Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (1985). A handbook on
continuous assessment. Ibadan: Heinemann.
Govender, P. (2003). A critique of the moderation system of continuous assessment
in the senior certificate as implemented in the Guateng Department of Education
(South Africa). Retrieved November 11, 2006, http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/
available/etd‐12062004‐141525/unrestricted/02chapters5‐7.pdf
Isaac, T. (1995). Continuous assessment in the context of teacher education. Retrieved
November 11, 2006, from http://searchsabinet.co.za/images/ejour/high/high_
v19_sed_a19.pdf
Israel, H. F. (2005) Implementing continuous assessment in Your teaching/learning
situation. South Africa: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
Kayode. (2003). Evaluation of Continuous Assessment Practice in Primary Schools.
Nigerian Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(1).
Kruger, G. (2004, April). Continuous assessment in the lower primary school phase:
From confusion to direction. Paper presented at the meeting of Reform
Forum.
National Teachers Institute (NTI). (2006). School based assessment training
manual. Kaduna Nigeria: Author.
Nitko, A. J. (2004). Continuous assessment and performance assessment. Retrived
November 11, 2006, from http://www.moec.gov.jm.pdf
Nwakoby, F. U. (1988). The educational change process in Nigeria: An
evaluation of the junior secondary school innovation in Anambra State.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sussex University, England.
Oduolowu, E. A. (2007). A comparison of the Universal Basic Education (UBE)
program in Nigeria and the Grundskola of Sweden. Essays in Education, 20.
Ojerinde, D., & Falayajo, W. (Eds.). (1984). Continuous assessment. A new approach.
Ibadan: University Press.

∥ 15
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

Ojerinde, D. (1985). Analysis of Nigeria’s national policy on education. Studies

in Educational Evaluation, 11, 249‐253.
Onuka, A. O. U. (2005, September). Continuous assessment as an instrument of
achieving learning objectives. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
International Association for Educational Assessment, Abuja, Nigeria.
Okpala, N. P. (1985). Teacher attitude variables in instructional and assessment
practices as correlates of learning outcomes in physics. Unpublished thesis,
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
Okpala, P. N., & Utoh, A. N. (2005, September). Assessment needs of practicing
teachers in Nigerian primary schools. Paper presented at the annual conference
of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Abuja, Nigeria.
Osunde, A. U. (2003). The Relevance of Assessment in Instruction and Learning in
the School System. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the
International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) at the Nicon
Hilton Hotel, Abuja, Nigeria.
Paris, S. G., Lawton, T. A., Turner, J. C., & Roth, J. L. (1991). A developmental
perspective on standardized achievement testing. Educational Researcher, 20(4),
40.
Pennycuick, D. (1990). The introduction of continuous assessment system at
secondary school level in developing countries. London: British Comparative
and International Society.
Puhl, C. A. (1997). Develop, not judge. Continuous assessment in the ESL classroom,
35(20), 2.

16 ∥
 Continuous assessment policy implementation in Ondo state (Nigeria)

Appendix 1

QUESTIONNAIRE ON RECORD KEEPING AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES OF

CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN ONDO STATE
This instrument was designed to investigate some salient issues on school
record keeping vis‐à‐vis the implementation strategies of continuous assessment
in Ondo state.
Please feel free to report the situation as it is in your school. Your response
will be held in strict confidence. Kindly respond to all items on this
instrument by ticking right the option that is applicable to the situation in
your school.

Sex: M F Duty Post (please indicate):

Teaching Experience:
Educational qualifications:

1. How often do you assess your pupils?

a. Daily b. Weekly c. Fortnightly
d. Termly e. annually
2. Which of the subjects are involved in continuous assessment in your school?
a. None b. Mathematics only c. English Language only
d. English Language and Mathematics e. All subjects
3. How regularly do you give your pupils “homework”?
a. seldom b. sometimes c. often
d. everyday e. everyday and in every subject
4. Which of the following methods do you employ in assessing the pupils?
Ⅰ. Test Ⅱ. Contribution to class discussion Ⅲ. Drawing
Ⅳ. Designing and construction of simple articles (e.g. shapes and figures)
Ⅴ. Terminal examinations
a. None b. I only c. V only
d. I and V only e. All of them
5. Which of the methods listed in (4) above do you use most often?
a. None b. I only c. V only
d. I and V only e. All of them
6. Which of the other tools listed below do you employ in assessing your pupils?
Ⅰ. Project assignment Ⅱ. Observational technique
Ⅲ. Anecdotal record Ⅳ. Oral interview
a. None b. I only c. IV only
d. III only e. All of them

∥ 17
 O. F. Adebowale & K. A. Alao

7. How many records of all assessment made during the term do you keep?
a. Only those of exams b. Tests and exams
c. All except home work d. All of them
8. What percentage of the terminal/sessional result do continuous assessment score
carry
a. 30% b. 40% c. 70%
d. 60% e. 100%
9. Do the pupils understand that many of their everyday assessment are being
recorded? Yes/No
10. How often do you draw the attention of pupils to their C.A. performance?
a. No need b. Seldomly c. Sometimes
d. Often e. Very often
11. How often do you invite parents concerning the performance of their children?
a. Not at all b. Occasionally c. often
e. Very often
12. Which of the following purposes do you use pupils’ C.A. scores for?
Ⅰ. Realizing leaning objectives Ⅱ. Improving pupils’ performance
Ⅲ. Diagnosing learning difficulties Ⅳ. Promoting pupils to next class
a. IV only b. II & IV only c. II & III only
d. II, III & IV e. All of them
13. At the end of a pupil’s stay in a primary class, what happens to the C.A. scores?
It is
a. kept in the class record
b. kept in the school records for future retrieval
c. scaled and added to his/her performance assessments in the next class
14. At the end of a pupil’s schooling at the primary level, what happens to his/her
C.A. scores? It is
a. kept in the school records for future retrieval
b. taken to the LGEA headquarters for record purposes
c. sent to his/her junior secondary school.
15. To what extent will you say C.A. has helped in achieving learning objectives?
a. Not at all b. Very small extent c. Some extent
d. To an appreciable extent e. To a great extent.

18 ∥