Achievement of ‘assessment of learning’ and ‘assessment for learning’ in physical science and mathematics continuous assessment (CASS) practices in two East London district high schools in the Eastern Cape

Abstract

It has been argued that assessing learner performance is considered to be one of the most important things a teacher can do to promote learners’ learning. The Mathematics and Physical Science guidelines on assessment make a distinction between ‘assessment of learning’ and ‘assessment for learning’. Both processes are seen to be complementary aspects of continuous assessment (CASS) practices which constitute 25% of the final year learner’s mark in the National Senior Certificate. How teachers understand these processes and how they achieve them during their CASS practices were the focus of the study. This was a qualitative study in which two senior secondary schools in the East London District in the Eastern Cape participated. The respondents were four grade 12 Physical Science and Mathematics teachers and two heads of department (HoDs). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and document analysis. There were five main findings. First, it was found that CASS assessment practices were skewed towards fulfilling accountability requirements of the Department of Education. Teachers focused on the Programme of Assessment (PoA) tasks and ignored other forms of assessment. Second, it appeared the use of the term ‘informal’ in the Department policy documents with regard to ‘assessment for learning’ encouraged teachers to treat informal assessment tasks as unimportant, not to be marked and recorded. In some cases assessment tasks were used to ‘occupy’ learners when teachers did not feel like teaching, so that learners would not be idle and disruptive in class. Third, some teachers did not set their own assessment tasks; they took previous papers and did cut and paste. Such a practice seemed to preclude assessment tasks that are tailor-made for particular learners. This practice also may undermine the alignment of learning outcomes and assessment standards. Fourth, moderation of CASS tasks was sometimes ignored and in other times done not strictly according to guidelines. These findings cast doubt on the validity and reliability of CASS marks. Finally, in most assessment for learning tasks, learners were not given feedback by teachers. This appears to undermine one of the most fundamental uses of assessment, which is feedback on performance that guides learning. It can be concluded that the CASS assessment practices did not reflect a balance between ‘assessment of learning’ and ‘assessment for learning’. This state of affairs seemed to be encouraged by the fact that district departmental support systems were too technicist and appeared to encourage teachers to do assessment to fulfil accountability purposes rather than for learners’ learning. It is recommended that research on assessment practices based on probability sampling for which results can be generalised to the target population should be carried out. It is further recommended that courses on assessment should be run for teachers in order to renew and/or give them assessment skills that will enable them to achieve a balance between assessment for learning and assessment of learning.