Relationship between continuous assessment scores and performance in art in plateau state post primary schools

Thesis Overview

<p> INTRODUCTION<br>1.1 Background<br>Continuous assessment is often regarded as a comprehensive mechanism for grading students’<br>performance in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of learning (FMEST, 1985). It<br>was first introduced into the Nigerian School System in 1982, along side the 6.3.3.4 system of<br>education. Turton (1984), Ogunnoyi (1984), and Ohuche (1988) share the view that continuous<br>assessment involves the assessment and recording of the total learning experiences and<br>achievements of students throughout their school career. This is carried out in a manner that is<br>systematic, cumulative, comprehensive and guidance-oriented, thereby ensuring that relevant<br>information, from which far reaching decisions affecting the learner’s academic and future life<br>could be taken. Ebegulem (1982), and Dean (1996) add that the system also requires the use of a<br>broad range of evaluation techniques to secure the vital data for decision making.<br>With its introduction, continuous assessment effectively replaces the<br>old system of examination which according to Farrant (1980), assessed<br>and certificated students on the basis of one final examination, mainly<br>in the cognitive domain. But this has known to only encourage<br>memorization or rote learning and create psychological tension that<br>could lead to poor performance during end of term or final<br>examinations. In addition, it makes no provision for students who fall<br>sick during examination. This position is supported by Farrant (1980),<br>Desforges (1989) and is also amplified by a Federal Ministry of<br>Education, Science and Technology (F.M.E.S.T., 1985) document<br>which adds that the over emphasis on examination grades and paper<br>qualification has encouraged the prevailing large scale examination<br>leakage and other examination malpractice witnessed even today, to the<br>detriment of actual performance by the learners.<br>However, the foregoing does not imply that continuous assessment<br>lacks certain weaknesses, as contained in the findings of Turton (1984)<br>– 16 –<br>and James (1998). They identified variation in the scoring procedures<br>and grading among teachers using different assessment instruments.<br>They also identified differences in the quality of tests and assignment<br>instruments used by different teachers in different schools.<br>Comparability of records of student’s performance within the same<br>school and across schools consequently becomes difficult.<br>Furthermore, the cumulative nature of continuous assessment requires<br>extensive record keeping, trained teaching and non-teaching personnel,<br>facilities and equipment. Though the government is aware of these prerequisite<br>for successful implementation of the continuous assessment<br>system, not much has been done to address this issue.<br>While the problems hindering the successful implementation of<br>continuous assessment cuts across all subjects taught in the school<br>curriculum, specific problems affecting individual subjects also exist.<br>In the area of art education, the use of grades or numerical scores in<br>assessing students’ performance appears to be contentious. The<br>outcome of several studies in this area of art education: Lowenfeld and<br>Brittain (1975), Olorukooba (1977), Eisner (1989), Nwana (1981) and<br>Osuagwu (1997), indicate that the main problem centers on how best to<br>assess or grade students’ progress either by using letter grades or<br>numerical values to indicate or predict students’ performance. The lack<br>of uniform format for assessment can only compound the issue of<br>comparability of scores between classes of the same school and across<br>schools. This brings to question the reliability and validity of such<br>procedure.<br>As James (1998) opined, assessment goes with quality teaching.<br>However, Akolo (1989) found that inadequate staff both in quantity and<br>quality is among the serious problems facing the teaching of art, which<br>inversely affect assessment. The novelty of continuous assessment<br>requires intensive training of personnel in pre-service and in-service<br>programmes in data collection, analysis and interpretation. Arbitrary<br>award of grades and subjective assessment can be checked by using<br>trained personnel t improve validity and comparability of cores among<br>schools. Again, the non-availability of art materials and equipment in<br>school “A” which depends largely on improvised materials (where<br>– 17 –<br>obtainable) and the use of quality materials in school “B” does not<br>make for fair comparison of performance and selection for further<br>studies or job placement. Wachowiak (1985), Akolo (op cit), hold that<br>adequate classroom facilities are a pre-requisite for successful teaching<br>and by implication successful performance. Such variation in facilities<br>are seen in state and federal schools as well as private elitist<br>institutions.<br>Qualitative art product and experience is contingent upon, (a) adequate<br>time devoted to teaching and learning, and (b) adequate time to produce<br>the art products. Akolo (1989), observed that insufficient time for<br>teaching and learning art can only result in inadequate creative<br>sessions. Moreover some parents and schools generally consider art as<br>a recreational activity that lacks serious academic value. This probably<br>explains the lack of serious attitude towards it as regards the allocation<br>of adequate time for teaching and learning. Continuous assessment in<br>these circumstances experiences problems because teachers require to<br>pay individual attention to students. Overcrowded classrooms and<br>excess work load further make comprehensive assessment, recording<br>and subsequent report on students more comprehensive, in the<br>affective, cognitive and psychomotor domain. Obanya (1985) confirms<br>the need for extensive reporting on pupils to parents and guardians.<br>Despite these short comings of continuous assessment, the benefits<br>outweigh its deficiencies. Farrant (1980), perceived this when he<br>asserted that it monitors teaching, discriminates between children of<br>different abilities, motivates pupils and teachers, enhances predictive<br>validity, guidance opportunities inter-alia. For Turton (1984) and<br>Duncan and Dunn (1988), the informal approach and observation<br>adopted in the course of continuous assessment can lead to<br>improvement in relationship and cooperation between staff and<br>students.<br>Continuous assessment is characterized by systematic, cumulative and<br>comprehensive nature. Being systematic it introduces order into the<br>system. Being comprehensive, different assessment instruments are<br>used, giving assessment a broad base, greater validity and reliability.<br>– 18 –<br>By its cumulative nature, previous assessments and records are used for<br>detailed and comprehensive reports from students. Lost of information<br>at any point could be recreated from other sources. Since records are<br>sent from school authorities to local government, state and federal<br>education authorities. Obanya (1985), F.M.E.S.T. (1985), documents<br>considered this as an insurance against theft, fire disaster and other<br>hazards. Duncan and Dunn (1988), Ohuche (1988), Desforges (1989)<br>all consider it as diagnostic. It identifies immediate and long range<br>strengths and weaknesses in students for immediate and subsequent<br>remedial actions, to improve learning and teaching conditions.<br>The process of continuous assessment hinges on the process of<br>evaluation. Olorukooba (1987), Duncan and Dunn (op.cit) regard<br>evaluation as the determination of the extent of success or failure to<br>achieve one’s objectives in a given task. It involves making judgment<br>based on information available from the process of assessment, which<br>includes formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is<br>carried out during class sessions to gather information, (a) by teachers<br>about their pupils, (b) by teachers about their teaching, and (c) by<br>pupils about their progress. According to Duncan and Cunn (op.cit),<br>the central focus of evaluation should always be the curriculum and the<br>pupils. This is contrasted to summative evaluation, which provides<br>assessment records achieved in the past for the purpose of reporting to<br>parents, students themselves and other parties, (James 1988). In<br>addition, Desforges (op.cit) and Dean (1996) strongly recommend<br>assessment for four reasons:<br>i) factual recall;<br>ii) understanding of the concept behind a pierce of work;<br>iii) ability to apply what has been learned to new situations;<br>iv) assessing the extent to which new skills have been acquired.<br>This way, the art teacher can identify students who need more help,<br>those who work faster and at more challenging level. The teacher also<br>gains knowledge of his areas of success or failure in teaching and the<br>readiness of the students for the next stage of learning. The students<br>also receive feedback, which tells their level of progress. Dean (op.cit)<br>however observed that assessment may have counter points, where low<br>achievers are demoralized or discouraged by their low performance<br>scores.<br>– 19 –<br>The operators of continuous assessment techniques are the teachers.<br>Their formative and summative assessment form the basis for the<br>proper certification of students at all levels of education. W.A.E.C., the<br>only recognized test agency nationally for the junior secondary schools,<br>presently relies on the results of assessments supplied by the teachers.<br>Conscientious assessments of performance therefore is a vital necessity<br>to the future of the students and the nation as a whole.<br>1.2 Statement of the Problem<br>The essence of this investigation is to study the extent to which<br>continuous assessment scores correlate with the students’ performance<br>in the light of the apparent variation and disparity in assessment<br>strategies.<br>The New National Policy on Education Section 4:1 states that<br>educational activity will be centred on the learner for maximum self<br>development. Furthermore, Section 1:7 states that educational<br>assessment and evaluation will be liberalized by basing them in whole<br>and in part on continuous assessment of the progress of the individual.<br>Continuous assessment system by its nature is “centred on the learner<br>for maximum, self development and fulfillment”. The systematic,<br>comprehensive and cumulative approach of continuous assessment is<br>utilized to achieve this maximum self development and fulfillment of<br>students, where the old examination system has failed because tests<br>conducted to assess the performance can only sample portions of the<br>syllabus during the examination, (Nwana, 1992). The old system<br>further promotes memorization thereby encouraging examination<br>malpractice. Consequently its reliability and validity as predictors of<br>students’ achievements is brought to question. Investigations also<br>reveal that examination malpractice and leakage were endemic in the<br>old terminal examination system as students work towards only passing<br>their examinations, by “fair and means”. Records of examination<br>malpractice of the late 70s attest to this. Subject teachers had no say in<br>the first examination assessment of the performance of their students.<br>Ironically, assessors who are remote from the classrooms were<br>– 20 –<br>engaged, ostensibly to ensure fairness to all students. Because the<br>system was not cumulative, the past performances of the students were<br>not taken into consideration. The result was a one way certification by<br>external examination. The weaknesses of the external examination<br>system outweighed its benefits, hence the decision to scrap it in 1982.<br>The new system (C.A.) combines both the class teachers assessments<br>scores and the results of the external assessors to certificate the<br>students, in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of<br>learning. It embraces the learning experiences of the students, which<br>subsumes (a) the mode of learning that took place while in the school,<br>(b) what they know and can talk about, (c) their application of the<br>knowledge, (d) their cognitive ability and performance, their likes,<br>dislikes, habits, attitudes and values all summarized the concern of the<br>teacher operating the continuous assessment strategy. Such assessment<br>is carried out at predetermined intervals of time, taking into account the<br>total experiences and achievements of the students throughout their<br>school career. It is characterized as systematic, comprehensive,<br>cumulative and diagnostic, thereby providing objective data on the<br>performance of the students to facilitate decision making.<br>Consequently, the resultant weighted scores are a truer reflection of the<br>student’s capability and ability.<br>However, the system is not without problems. The complex evaluation<br>technique using different instruments is found to be the consequences<br>of variation in grades and scores of different classes and different<br>schools. Murphey (1979), mounted a research on prediction exercise<br>that revealed considerable disparity on this issue. Teachers were found<br>to vary in their capacity to pick out the find attributes or behaviour in<br>their students’ performance. In addition, Hoste and Bloomfield (1975)<br>found similar disparities while attempting to standardize assessments<br>through the use of apparently specific scheme purporting to describe<br>achievement. These findings give pertinence to the questions raised by<br>Ojerinde (189), in Osuagwu (1997) on the reliability of raw scores sent<br>to examination sections of state ministries of education by schools.<br>– 21 –<br>1.3 The Need for the Study<br>Doubts have been raised as regards the efficacy of continuous<br>assessment as an alternative to the expunged terminal examination<br>system. The reasons for such fears appear genuine. The need to<br>undertake this study therefore is to confirm or dispel such fears.<br>1.4 Research Questions<br>i) To what extent will Junior Secondary School Students’<br>performance in continuous assessment in art correlate with their<br>performance in examination?<br>ii) To what extent will continuous assessment predict the future<br>achievements of students in art activities?<br>iii) To what extent do continuous assessment scores in art correlate<br>with the scores of examination?<br>iv) To what extent can we compare scores across schools?<br>1.5 Null Hypotheses<br>i) There is no significant difference between continuous assessment score of<br>students and Junior Secondary Schools’ examination scores.<br>ii) Gender difference does not affect students’ performance in the continuous assessment<br>and Junior Secondary Schools Examination.<br>iii) There is no significant difference in the performance of students in continuous<br>assessment scores and examination scores in urban and rural schools in Plateau State.<br>1.6 Purpose of the Study<br>The study is designed to study the relationship (if any), between continuous assessment and final examination scores in predicting<br>students’ performance in art in Junior Secondary Schools Certificate Examination in Plateau State. The study will also investigate the<br>validity and reliability of teacher-made tests and their predictive validity in Junior Secondary Schools Certificate Examination<br>(J.S.C.E) and the comparability of scores across schools.<br>1.7 Significance of the Study<br>Relatively few studies appear to have been carried out on Junior Secondary School Examination performance and continuous<br>assessment scores as predictors for certification and entry into Senior Secondary Schools. This is necessary as qualified teachers both<br>in quality and quantity are lacking. In addition, studies have revealed discrepancy and variation in teachers’ approach to continuous<br>assessment issues. This seems to question the validity and reliability of continuous assessment scores sent to Examination Sections of<br>the State Ministry of Education by schools. The suspicion of bias and/or subjective assessment by teachers of art also highlights the<br>significance of this study. The degree of correlation between continuous assessment and final examination scores and their service as<br>predictors of students’ performance shall also be studied. Attempts shall also be made to establish whether correlation exists between<br>the continuous assessment scores of schools and performance of students in examination as intended by the Federal Government in<br>her policy statement, (1988, No. 22.1). Turton (1984), Ojerinde (1989) and James (1998) all seem to have misgiving regarding the<br>validity and reliability of test instruments. The findings shall confirm for refute the bases for such doubts. Furthermore, the problem<br>of equality standards across schools and between same levels of classes within the schools as observed by Turton (1984) and Ipaye in<br>Osuagwu (1996), again raises questions on whether the success of a student in one school could be replicated in another school, given<br>a similar test.<br>– 22 –<br>1.8 Scope and Delimitation of the Study<br>The selection of subjects for this study was from nine of the thirteen Area Inspectorate Zones of Plateau State. Twelve schools were<br>sample in the nine Area Inspectorate Educational Zones. The schools were those that share similar characteristics of teaching art in all<br>levels, and were offering art for a period of not less than five years. Furthermore, the schools should have been registering and sitting<br>for JSCE and SSCE examinations in art for five years, and were presently offering art in both examinations. In addition, the teachers<br>of art in selected schools were trained professionals in the area of art.<br>1.9 Organization of the Data<br>The research has been arranged into five chapters. Chapter 1 forms the background and justification of the study, statement of<br>problem, terminology used and the scope and delimitation of the study.<br>Chapter 2 contains the survey of related literature in areas that include the concept of continuous<br>assessment, rationale and characteristics of continuous assessment, concerns about continuous<br>assessment, concise scope of continuous assessment, recording and reporting, concept of<br>evaluation in art education, problem of evaluation in art, essential consideration in art evaluation,<br>teacher as evaluator of art in class, grading of art works, proposed method of evaluation, class<br>participation and critique as part of evaluation and conclusion.<br>Chapter 3 contains the research design or methodology and statistical background of the study.<br>Chapter 4 looks into the analysis and interpretation of data obtained in the course of the study,<br>while chapter 5 subsumes the summary of findings, conclusion, recommendation and research<br>report based on findings on the relationship of continuous assessment and examination. <br></p>