The English Literature Journal Vol. 2, No. 1 (2015): 225-237 Article Open Access

ISSN: 2348-3288

Formative Assessment: Teachers’ Perceptions, Practices and Challenges in its Implementation at Debre Markos College of Teacher Education Andualem Tesfa Zerihun* Lecturer at Debre Markos CTE, Department of English, Ethiopia.

*Corresponding author: Andualem Tesfa Zerihun; e-mail: [email protected] Received: 17 November 2014

ABSTRACT

Accepted: 08 December 2014

Online: 01 January 2015

The present study was aiming at assessing the status of FA implementation and teachers’ perceptions towards the benefits of its implementation, and investigating the major challenges that impede its implementation at Debre Markos CTE. In achieving this objective, the necessary data was collected from student teachers and instructors using questionnaires and classroom observation. The necessary data collected through the multi-method instruments were analyzed through qualitative and quantitative methods of data analyses. Qualitative method of data analyses was employed to analyze data which was collected through open-ended questions of teachers’ and students’ questionnaires, and quantitative method of analyses used to analyze data collected through alternative answer items of both teachers’ and students’ questionnaires, and classroom observations. For quantitative analyses simple descriptive statistical measures: frequency counts, percentages, means and standard deviations were used. Moreover, t-test, one way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons were made to investigate whether there were variations among respondents’ responses given to the items which were meant to assess the quality of their FA implementation and their commitments towards implementing FA. From the analyses of data it was found out: teachers in the college perceived FA up grades the level of their teaching. However, some of them perceived recording students’ personal details about their everyday learning as tiresome, time consuming and a burden to them. The understanding of teachers on the basic concepts of FA in the college was found to be incomplete. Moreover, the commitment of teachers in the college in implementing FA, in general, and using national standards and assessment information from other sources (for example, international studies, colleagues etc.) that confirm their professional judgments and to plan for improvement, in particular, was found low. It was also found out that due to the difference in sex, age, qualification, work load, experience and programs that they teach there were no significant differences among teachers in implementing FA. Teachers were also found to interact with their students using thoughtful questions. That is, the questions that they often asked found to enable them to monitor their students’ understanding, to encourage students to participate in classroom discussions, and give reflective responses. It was also found out that teachers actively encourage their students to ask and answer questions. Nevertheless, there was no satisfactory student-student interaction. Besides, teachers’ engagement in core FA element such as using appropriately designed lesson plans, using previous assessment information from next classes, providing timely and meaningful feedback, involving students in self and peer assessments, utilizing profiles to follow up students learning progresses was found at grass- root level. Furthermore, lack of good governance, students’ poor language skills and knowledge (particularly students in the linear modality), lack of laboratory equipments, chairs and tables, lack of commitment from teachers, the nature of FA, teachers’ negative feelings towards their students and over criticism, lack of skills and understanding of teachers about FA, lack of commitment from students to take responsibilities for their learning, rigidity of the college’s assessment code of conduct, unwillingness of students to listen to comments etc. were the major challenges that this study revealed.. Finally, based on the findings of the study, recommendations were forwarded.

Keywords: Formative assessment, Teachers’ feedback, Self and peer assessment.

INTRODUCTION

In describing the historical development of Formative assessment (FA), Brookhart (2010) said that as with

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

most effective teaching methods and practices, individual teachers have probably used formative assessment throughout history. Indeed, Socrates could be claimed as an early practitioner. He used to teach his 225

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

students with questions that probed and provoked, and he used their responses to measure their learning and guide his instruction; this is the primary attribute of formative assessment.

Brookhart (2010) further pointed out that although teachers have long used strategies like the Socratic Method and other forms of meaningful questioning, the term “formative assessment” is a relatively new one. Its contemporary use is often traced to Michael Scriven (1967), who used “formative” and “summative” to indicate differences in both the goals for collecting evaluation information and how that information is then used.

Supporting Brookhart’s claim, Scriven (1967) explained that while a programme is in the planning and developmental stages, it is still malleable, and the information gathered from evaluation can therefore contribute to change in the programme. He called evaluation for this purpose of improving “formative.” Once a programme has been created and implemented, Scriven argued, evaluation can only yield information to determine whether the programme has met its intended goals. Scriven called this final gathering of information a “summative evaluation.” Micheal Screvan’s conceptions of formative versus summative educational assessment then got acceptance and applied by Benjamin Bloom and his work led to the foundations for the concept of mastery learning (Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus, 1971). According to Brookhart (2010), the purpose of mastery learning was to ensure that students did not move forward to the next level of learning until they had demonstrated mastery of the learning objectives set for the current level. This concept, in turn, became the basis for modular instruction, widespread in the 1970s, in which students learned from self-directed packets, or modules of instruction. When a student successfully completed one packet, he or she could move on to the next packet, proceeding through modules until all objectives were met. In theory, mastery learning resembles Vegotskey's scaffolding, but in practice, students worked mostly in isolation without much teacher support or peer interaction (ibid). In the decades following, formative assessment began to be more widely explored. Bloom continued his theoretical work, examining several issues relating to formative assessment. He identified two essential elements of formative learning: feedback for students and corrective conditions for all important components of learning. He also argued that formative information could be used to divide the class into cooperative groups based on the corrections required. From this point, teachers could differentiate instruction to meet the needs of individual students through selected teaching strategies and corrective responses (Brookhart, 2010). In New Zealand, Terry Crooks studied the effect of classroom assessment practices on students’

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

achievement and reported on their potential to emphasize what is important to learn and positively affect student motivation (Brookhart, 2010). Crooks as cited in Brookhart (2010) asserted that classroom assessment “appears to be one of the most potent forces influencing education; accordingly, it deserves very careful planning and considerable investment of time from educators”. Around the same time, Sadler (as cited in Brookhart, 2010) reasoned that assessment is most effective when students can monitor the quality of their own work through specific provisions that are incorporated directly into instruction.

Perhaps the biggest step forward in the embrace of FA came in 1998, when Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam completed a meta-analysis of more than 250 research studies on the topic. Their findings, published as “Inside the Black Box,” make a compelling case for FA. Black and Wiliam's review concluded that “there is no other way of raising standards for which such a strong prima facie [apparent] case can be made”(Brookhart, 2010).

“Inside the Black Box”, according to (Brookhart, 2010), led the way for many educational leaders to define and apply formative assessment in classrooms, not just in the United States but throughout the world. New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain have been especially strong leaders in this movement. The recent groundswell in interest and information is creating an imperative to change how we think about and use assessment.

Statement of the Problem Many researchers, in describing the importance of FA, say that FA involves the philosophy of ‘assessment for learning’. To put it differently, FA is the use of assessment to aid the process of learning (Churchill et. al, 2013). In the back ground section of the present study, it is pointed out that Paul Black and Dylan William from a meta-analysis of more than 250 research studies they put “there is no other way of raising standards for which such a strong prima facie [apparent] case can be made” (Brookhart, 2010). In line with this view, they also noted that, focusing on learning goals/standards, self-assessment skills (enhancing metacognition) and appropriate feedback, FA leads to adjusted and improved teaching and learning (Black and William, 1999).

In confirming the above claim, a team of researchers under OESD said that FA is producing the largest improvements ever reported in education, and these benefits are generated for both teachers and learners (OESD, 2005). Farrel and Barret as cited in (Black and William, 1999) stated that the benefits of FA for students include: enhanced teacher/pupil relationships, improved engagement, responsibility for their own learning, greater mastery of a subject and motivation to become a lifelong learner. He also noted that the biggest reported benefits for teachers include: motivated students and the ability to 226

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

target planning and teaching based on informed evidence/results. This suggests that FA becomes an instrument of data collection/feedback for teachers and students (Forster, 2009). The benefits and accuracy of this data however, rely on the development of an effective assessment task.

In general, experts suggest that effectively designed assessments: correlate with the curriculum outcomes, involve students in the assessment design, make goals/outcomes explicit and negotiable and suit differentiated learning styles (Black and William, 1999). Realizing these countless benefits of FA, many countries, as it is stated in the background section of this study, now a day, countries such as the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain make this assessment as an integral part of major classroom activities.

In the same way, our college, Debre Markos College of Teachers Education, has been insisting the teachers to improve their teaching by making use of FA for the last few years. However, as Animaw (2012) commented “despite many years of research and policy support, still our knowledge about how students learn and how teachers should teach is incomplete.” It seems that with this very reason the implementation of FA is often reported minimal in the college under the study. However, there are no researches which have been conducted so far which provide clear answers why the implementation of formative assessment is at its poor stage of performance in the college. Here, the researcher believes that the present study would fill the gap. Thus, the study mainly assesses the status of FA implementation and teachers’ perceptions towards the benefits of its implementation, and investigates major challenges that impede its implementation at Debre Markos College of Teacher Education (DMCTE). In achieving this, the study mainly tries to answer the following questions: A. What perceptions do teachers have about the benefits of FA? B. What is the current status of the implementation of FA in the college? C. What are the main challenges that impede the implementation of FA?

Specific Objectives The specific objectives were also to:  

    

examine the perceptions of teachers towards FA. examine teachers’ understandings of basic concepts of FA. examine to what extent teachers perceive that implementing FA was challenging. Assess teachers’ commitment to implement FA. assess the qualities of teachers’ lesson plans. level the qualities of teachers-students and students-students interaction. evaluate the qualities of feedback that teachers gave to their students everyday work.

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf



   

assess the use of teachers’ recorded assessment i nformation of their students. assess to what extent teachers encourage self and peer assessment. assess if there were variations among teachers in implementing FA. investigate the challenges that teachers often encounter in implementing FA. recommend possible solutions that could improve the status of FA implementation in the college.

Significance of the Study As indicated in statement of the problem section, as FA reflects the philosophy of ‘assessment for learning’, or it is a mod of assessment that uses its assessment results to aid the process of learning (Churchill et. al, 2013), the researcher, thus, strongly believes that the present study will have the following significance:

 To the teachers, it could help them to adjust and improve their teaching since the findings of the research are about setting learning goals/standards, planning lessons, classroom interaction and questioning techniques, using students’ self and peer assessment effectively, providing students appropriate feedback, using recorded students’ personal profiles etc.  To the students, it could enhance teacherstudent and student-student relationships, improve students involvement, or motivation and responsibility for their own learning.  To college administrators, it would help them to identify major problems that hinder the implementation of FA in the college and point them possible solutions.  To other researchers, it would encourage them to conduct similar studies on the area and it could lay a ground for their researches.

Limitations of the Study Due to time constraint, the classroom observations were made with only eight teachers for two periods. Therefore, the researcher feels that it would have been possible to get more reliable data if the number of teacher Participants and the frequency of periods that they had been observed maximized. Moreover, the classroom observations were made with teacher respondents whom were willing to be observed, that could again reduce the reliability of data obtained through classroom observations since these observant supposed to show different behavior from other teacher Participants. Research Methodology Research Design It is indicated that the study mainly aimed at assessing the status of FA implementation and teachers’ perceptions towards the benefits of its implementation, and investigating major challenges that impede its implementation at DMCTE. In achieving this, mixed 227

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

research approach, where quantitative and qualitative techniques of data analyses were employed alongside since quantitative approaches, as described by Gay and Airasian (2006), are used to describe current conditions, investigate relationships, and study causeeffect phenomena, and qualitative research allows the researcher to answer "how" and "why" questions and to compile a “detailed view” and narration of the research, as well as carry out the investigation in a natural setting.

Participants of the Study Participants of the study were teachers and students of DMCTE. The total population of instructor participants was 94. These were only from five departments of the college namely Language, Mathematics, Natural Science, Social Science and Professional Studies. Teachers of Health and Physical Education department were not included in the study since they were selected to the pilot study of the teachers’ questionnaire. From this target population, 67 teachers were selected to fill the questionnaire, and again 8 of them were selected for actual classroom observations. No

Department

Language Mathematics Natural Science Social Science Professional Studies Total

In summary, the population and sample size of instructor and student participants is shown by the following table-1.

Table 1: The Population and Sample Size of Instructor and Student Participants Population and Sample Size of Teachers Population

1 2 3 4 5

The total population size of student participants was 954. They all were only from third year regular students of the departments in which teacher participants were selected. That is, students of Health and Physical Education were not included since it was believed that the data which could be collected from the students of this department alone would not be worth living to meet the target. Third year students were targeted to be student participants simply because the researcher believed that these students in a longer stay at the college they would have relatively better impression about everyday learning teaching routines and they would provide more reliable information which would be used to cross check the information given by teacher respondents. And thus, from 954 total population size of students, 245 student participants whom were chosen from four departments: Language, Mathematics, Natural Science and Social Science were and made to fill students’ questionnaire.

20 13 22 14 25 94

Sample Unit 16 7 19 9 16 67

Population and Sample Size of Students Students by Modality Cluster Linear Population

Population

148 161 151 75

Sample Unit 40 29 37 27

93 74 169 83

Sample Unit 32 17 43 20

535

133

419

112

Sample of the Study The area of the study was DMCTE. With regard to participants of the study, as indicated above, teachers of five departments: Language, Mathematics, Natural Science, Social Science and Professional Studies were included through purposive sampling technique. The total number of teacher respondents was 94 and of these 78 of them were made to fill teachers’ questionnaire through availability sampling technique, but the analysis was made on 67 questionnaires, since 7 questionnaires were not returned and 3 of them were found incomplete. And for classroom observations 8 teachers, two teachers from each department indicated, whom were voluntary were chosen.

On the other hand, the total size of students’ population was 954. All of them were from four departments: Language, Mathematics, Natural Science and Social Science_ as Professional Studies was not given as major field of study there were no students in it. Among these, 275 of them were selected as Participants of the study through random sampling

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

Total Population Size

Total Sample size

241 235 290 158

72 46 80 47

954

245

technique and were made to fill students’ questionnaire, but again 12 questionnaires were not returned and 18 questionnaires were found carelessly filled and incomplete, and hence only 245 of them passed through the analyses. Instruments of Data Collection So as to collect the required data for this study, two types of data collection tools namely; questionnaires and class-room observation were used.

Questionnaires Questionnaires were used as the main instruments for data collection and, as indicated above, were designed for two groups of respondents: instructor and student Participants.

Questionnaire for Teachers The teachers’ questionnaire was used as the main source of data collection tool and it was prepared using the insights obtained from the literature review, more specifically, Sadler (1989), Black et al. (2006), Stiggins 228

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

et al. as cited in Black and William (2003), Animaw (2009) etc. It had five parts and 64 items. The first part, consisting of 8 items, was targeted to collect data about teachers’ personal information; the second part, comprised 31 items with five point scales (5= Most Frequently, 4= Frequently, 3= Sometimes, 2= Rarely and 1= Not at All) which were devised to elicit data about the status of FA implementation in the college; the third part which contained 11 items with five point scales (5= Strongly Agree, 4= Agree, 3= Undecided, 2= Disagree and 1= Strongly Disagree) was targeted to collect data about the perceptions of teachers towards the importance of FA implementation; the fourth part which consisted of 12 items with three alternative answers (Yes, No and Undecided) was designed to assess teachers understandings of the basic concepts of FA and the last part had 2 open-ended questions. The first open-ended question of the teachers’ questionnaire was aimed to elicit information about the major challenges that the teachers encounter in implementing FA and the second one was targeted to let them forward their suggestions about the majors that should be taken by the teachers themselves, trainees and college administrative bodies to improve the implementation of FA at the college. Questionnaire for Students Students’ questionnaire had two parts and 26 items. The first part comprised 2 items that were designed to explore data about students’ background information and the second part consisting of 22 items with five point scales (5= Most Frequently, 4= Frequently, 3= Sometimes, 2= Rarely and 1= Not at All) which were devised to cross check teacher participants’ responses about the status of FA implementation at the college. This part of students’ questionnaire was adapted from part two of the teachers’ questionnaire which was designed for the same purpose and had the same content of the teachers’ questionnaire except in its wordings. For example, if the item in the teachers’ questionnaire was presented as: ‘I ensure that any feedback I provide is positive, encouraging and specific’ and, in the students’ questionnaire, this item was presented as: ‘our teachers provide us feedback which is positive, encouraging and specific’. The third part had only one open- ended question which asked students participants to suggest solutions that be done by the teachers, students themselves and college administrative organs to improve classroom instruction. However, in order to make easy for students understanding, students’ questionnaire was translated into Amharic before it was administered. Classroom Observations In order to triangulate the data which was obtained through teachers’ and students’, classroom observations were made with 8 voluntary teachers, two teachers from each department indicated, of the college who participated in filling the teachers’ questionnaire. Each teacher was observed for two consecutive periods using a check list which was prepared taking into account major points of the teachers’ questionnaire as

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

its purpose was to triangulate the data obtained through the two questionnaires. In brief, the check list consisted of 13 items which were meant to assess the quality of daily lesson plans teachers often use, teacher student and student-student interactions, teachers’ questioning techniques, the feedback that teachers provide to their students, and the efforts that teachers make to motivate students to make self and peer assessment and the attempts that teachers make to use students recorded profiles.

Pilot Study An assessment of face validity and content validity of the teachers’ questionnaire was made by two teachers of DMCTE. After the questionnaire had been reorganized and improved in accordance with the comments which they provided, it was distributed to all teachers of Health and Physical Education department at the college for pilot study. Teachers of this department were chosen for the pilot study since their numbers were, relatively, less than that of teachers of other departments. It was not also tried to include teachers from other departments for the pilot study fearing since that would minimize the number of participants to the final study and, in turn, would put the validity of the findings of the research under question. After the questionnaire was filled by all teachers of the department, reliability test was made by SPSS computer programme to part two, three and four of the questionnaire, which had closed-ended items. That is, since the second part of the questionnaire had 31 items with five point scales, the third part had 12 items with five point scales and the fourth part of the questionnaire contained 8 closed-ended types with three alternative choices. The Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients (α) of these three parts of the questionnaire were found to be 0.92, 0.68 and 0.97 respectively.

Though the Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients (α) of these three parts of the questionnaire supposed to be good, since they were above 0.65 which was considered to be tolerable for social science researches like the present study, compared to part two and four of the questionnaire, the coefficient computed from the third part of teachers’ questionnaire was much below the coefficients of the other two parts (0.68). From the reliability test of each item by the same programme it was found out that the reliability of this part of the questionnaire would rise to 0.75 and 0.73 if items were improved or excluded. Consequently, one item was deleted since there were other items which could substitute it and the other item was improved since it lacked clarity. Therefore, the reliability of this part of the questionnaire was supposed to rise into α= 0.75. Moreover, an attempt was made to improve the clarity of items after the pilot study. In the same way, an assessment of face validity and content validity of the students’ questionnaire was made by two teachers of DMCTE. As it was indicated in section 3.4.1.2 above, since students’ questionnaire was 229

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

the direct translation of teachers’ questionnaire, it was not piloted. However, the reliability test of 22 closedended items students’ questionnaire was made using the same computer programme after student respondents were made to fill it. And thus, the Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients of these items found to be α= 0.90. This shows that the reliability of students’ questionnaire was even better than that of teacher respondents’ questionnaire.

Procedures of Data Collection The distribution and collection of the questionnaires was made in the time when both students and teachers are convenient. This was highly considered to maximize the accuracy of the data collected since tiredness and time constraint may make respondents give least focus for the questions they respond to. Both questionnaires were administered by the researcher. Similarly, the observations were made in sequential days after the data obtained through questionnaires analyzed since, as indicated above, the data obtained through classroom observations was intended to triangulate the data obtained through these two questionnaires it was essential to see the gaps between the data obtained through the questionnaires first.

Methods of Data Analysis The collected data from teachers’ and students’ questionnaires and classroom observations were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods of analyses. Qualitative method of data analyses was employed to analyze data which was collected through open-ended questions of teachers’ and students’ questionnaires and quantitative method of analyses used to analyze data collected through alternative items of both teachers’ and students’ questionnaires, and classroom observations. For quantitative analyses simple descriptive statistical measures: frequency counts, percentages, means and standard deviations were used. Moreover, t-test, one way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons were made to investigate whether there were variations among respondents’ responses given to the items which were meant to assess the quality of their FA implementation and their commitments towards implementing FA with the variation in some selected variables. The alpha level for test of statistical significance was set at 0.05.

DISCUSSION

The Assessment of Teachers’ Perceptions about the Benefits of FA Teachers’ implementation of innovations is dependent on teachers’ perceptions towards the innovation, knowledge or understanding about the innovation [FA in the case of the present study] and their level of commitment to implement it (Girmma, as cited in Animaw, 2012). Following are discussions which are made on the results of teachers’ perceptions towards the benefits of FA, their knowledge or understanding about it and their level commitment. http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

The Assessment of Teachers’ Perceptions towards the Implementation of FA In assessing the perceptions of teacher respondents towards FA, they were provided 11 items with five point scales: strongly agree undecided, disagree and strongly disagree to rate. The analyses of data collected from these items revealed that teacher respondents’ responses to the rating scales indicated: strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree and strongly agree in percentages were found to be 6.7%, 9.2%, 14%, 32.4% and 37.7% in their order of appearance. To put it differently, from the analyses, 70.1% of respondents’ responses to the given rating scales were found to be ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’. This shows that the perceptions of the majorities of teacher respondents towards the benefits of the implementation of FA were positive.

Nevertheless, from the items which were designed to evaluate teacher respondents’ perceptions towards the importance of FA, the mean score computed from two items which were meant to assess to what extent teacher respondents’ feel that recording students’ personal details about their everyday learning is tiresome, time consuming and a burden to them. From the analyses made to the first item, it was found out that 50.7% respondents’ response to the item is ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. Similarly, the analyses made to the second item showed that 49.2% teacher res-pondents’ responses to this item were ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. Moreover, higher variations were computed among respondents’ response from these items, (SD=1.3) and (SD=1.4) in their order.

From this we can deduce that even if the majorities of respondents feel that FA is essential to improve their teaching, a half of teacher participants still feel recording students’ personal details about their everyday learning is tiresome, time consuming and a burden to them. This shows that there is big variation among teacher respondents’ attitudes towards this component of FA. This also confirmed by higher standard deviations computed to the items (SD=1.3 and SD=1.4) from their responses.

The Assessment of the Knowledge or Understanding of Teacher Respondents on Basic Concepts of FA In assessing the understanding of teacher participants’ on the basic concepts of FA, they were made to respond 8 items which consisted of three alternatives: ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘undecided’. The analyses of their responses to these items revealed that 68.7% of the respondents had good understanding of the basic concepts of FA; whereas, the rest of the respondents (31.3%) were not found to have clear understanding of the basic concepts of FA. The Assessment of Teacher Respondents’ Commitments towards Implementing FA In assessing teachers’ commitment in implementing FA, teacher participants were made to rate 4 items. Regarding the results of the analyses of these items, it 230

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

was found out that the percentage values of teacher participants’ responses to the rating scales were 17.2%, 22.4%, 31.4%, 22.4% and 6.7% to not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequent-ly and most frequently respectively. Again, the grand mean of their responses to these items was found to be 2.8. On the other hand, the comparisons among the mean scores of these items revealed that the mean score computed to an item which was designed to assess to what extent teacher respondents’ use national standards and assessment information from other sources (for example, international studies, colleagues etc.) to confirm their professional judgments and to plan for improvement was found to be 2.4, which was lower than the mean scores calculated to other items under this category.

The Assessment of the Current Status of the Implementation of FA in the College In assessing the status of the implementation of FA in the college, teacher participants were asked to rate 31 items using five point rating scales: most frequently, frequently, sometimes, rarely and not at all. Though all items were designed to the purpose indicated, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, they were analyzed grouping into six sub-categories. The results of the analyses of these sub- categories are discussed in the preceding sections.

A) The Assessment of the Current Status of Student- Teacher Interactions through Questions and Answers Technique Questioning techniques help to reveal students’ level of understanding and identify possible mis-conceptions. Teachers may also guide students toward deeper understanding of a subject through extended dialogues that build on a series of questions. Students may develop and deepen knowledge by generating their own lines of questioning. Nonetheless, this can be achieved if teachers are able to ask ‘why’ questions than a “yes” or “no” response or that are designed to stress recall rather than reasoning processes provide little information on the student’s level of understanding and may hide errors in thinking OECD (2005). In evaluating to what extent teachers’ questioning and answering technique involve high quality interactions, based on thoughtful questions, careful listening and reflective responses, they were provide four items to rate using the rating scales indicated above. From the analyses it was found out that the total average number of respondents to each rating scale: not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently were 1.1%, 8.2%, 28.8%, 43.8% and 15.7% in their order. This reveals that more than half of teacher respondents (59.5%) often ask their students quality questions ‘frequently’ or ‘most frequently’ but the rest of the respondents do not. Moreover, the grand mean of their responses to these items was found to be 3.7; whereas, the grand mean calculated to these items from student respondents’ responses was found to be which was a bit lower than that of the teachers, 3.4. Nevertheless,

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

from the analyses of data obtained through classroom observations it was found out that 75% of teachers whom were observed encouraged their students to participate in classroom discussions, and they asked questions to monitor their students’ understanding. Similarly, 50% of them actively encouraged their students to ask questions and gave their students sufficient time for students to answer questions. This confirms that the quality of teachers’ questioning technique in the college is considered to be good. However, in comparison, though there were no significant differences among the mean score of each item, as well as the grand mean, the respondents’ assessments to their attempts towards using trainees’ responses effectively to plan for future learning and teaching was found to be lower than the other items (3.3).

B) The Assessment of Teacher Respondents’ Responses to their Daily Lesson Plans Stiggins et al., as cited in Black and Williams (2003), pointed out that there are seven strategies that play vital roles in improving the implementation of FA. Among these strategies, designing a lesson which focuses on one learning target or aspect of quality at a time plays a significant role in improving the implementation of FA. They added that when assessment information identifies a need, we can adjust instruction to target that need through careful planning. In this strategy, we scaffold learning by narrowing the focus of a lesson to help students master a specific learning goal or to address specific misconceptions or problems. Consistent to this, OECD (2005) also pointed out that teachers need to be more systematic in their approach to classroom assessment since the most effective interactions with students are the result of careful planning. In evaluating this, five items were designed to assess how often and how appropriately teacher respondents plan their lessons. From the analyses of data, it was found out that the total number of respondents who often make efforts to plan their lessons appropriately were 1.2%, 11.1%, 24.8%, 44.2% and 18.8% to the rating scales: not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently respectively. In summary, 70 % of respondents responses were ‘frequently’ and ‘most frequently’ to the rating scales. Besides, the grand mean of all these items was 3.7 and, therefore, it shows that teacher respondents almost ‘frequently’ conduct their lessons using appropriately designed daily lesson plans. However, the analyses of data obtained through classroom observations indicated that, from the teachers whom were observed, only 25% of them conducted their lessons using daily lesson plans. Therefore, this indicated that teacher participants rated the items in exaggerated way and the performance of teachers in planning their lessons is considered to be very low. 231

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

Compared to other items, the mean score of teacher respondents’ responses to the item which was intended to assess to what extent respondents plan activities which enabled them to make effective dialogues with their students about their learning was found to be lower than the mean scores calculated to other items under this category, 3.4. C) The Assessment of Teacher Respondents’ Responses to the Feed-Back that they give to their Students Effective feedback shows students where they are on their path in attaining the intended learning. It answers for students the questions what their strengths are, what they need to work on, and where they went wrong and what they could do about it (Stiggins et al., as cited in Black and Williams, 2003). OECD (2005) pointed out that several studies have shown that feedback is most effective when it is timely, is tied to criteria regarding expectations, and includes specific suggestions for how to improve future performance and meet learning goals. It is also important to ‘scaffold’ information given in feedback; that is, to provide as much or as little information as the student needs to reach the next level. Feedback that is non-specific, even in the form of praise, may have a negative impact on learning. On the other hand, feedback that provides guidance on how to improve performance has a positive impact on learning. Feedback focused on the learning process rather than the final product, and which tracks progress over time, has also been found to be more effective. Regarding timing of feedback, William (2006) also asserted that feedback is most effective when it is provided within minutes (or even seconds), or at the most, within a period of days. At the same time, feedback should not be provided too rapidly; that is, before the student has had a chance to try to work out a problem by him or herself.

In assessing to what extent teacher respondents give their students timely feedback about the quality of their work and the feedback that they provide their students give clear directions how to make it better, they were provided to fill 4 items. The analyses of data showed that the total average number of teacher respondents to the given items were 0.8%, 5.8%, 9.7%, 48.9% and 23.6% to not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently in the same order. To put it differently, the total percentage of teacher respondents’ responses to the rating scales ‘frequently’ and ‘most frequently’ together was found to be 72.5% and the grand mean of these items computed was 3.9. This indicates that the performance of teachers in giving their students timely and quality feedback is considered to be very good.

However, the analyses of student respondents’ responses to the same items were found to be 13.3%, 23%, 23.2%, 25.6% and 16.0% to not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently in their order of appearance and the grand mean of these items computed from their response was 3.1. This is, in general, much below the results of the analyses from

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

teacher respondents’ responses. The analyses of data obtained through classroom observation also shows that only 25% of teachers whom were observed tried to provide their students constructive descriptive feedback. This uncovers that teacher respondents’ responses to the items that they were provided to rate in the teachers’ questionnaire were exaggerated and teachers did not look deep into themselves while they were responding. Therefore, from the analyses of data collected from these three instruments regarding the feedback that teachers give, we can easily deduce that teachers attempts in giving timely and quality feedback to their students is very minimal and which need to be improved.

Again, the mean score calculated to an item which was used to assess teacher respondents’ attempts to clearly know and tell their students weaknesses and strengths, found to be lower than the mean scores of the rest of the items (3.4). Moreover, the analyses of classroom observations indicated that, of all teachers whom were observed, none of them tried to demonstrate awareness of individual student learning needs, and to motivate students to assess themselves.

D) The Assessment of Teachers Attempts in Encouraging their Students to Practice Self and Peer Assessment A fundamental goal for FA is to help students develop skills for self and peer assessment (Sadler, 1989). Teachers establish clear learning goals and share criteria for assessing the quality of work with students. Students thus develop skills to monitor their own work so that they can gauge how well they are doing in relation to a set standard. They may develop new understandings of who they are as learners, and strengthen self-efficacy (belief in the ability to accomplish specific tasks). Again, it focuses on the process of learning as much as it is on the outcome. Students build skills for “learning to learn”. Stiggins et al., as cited in Black and Williams (2003), suggested that teachers need to teach their students to self-assess and set goals. The information provided in effective feedback models the kind of evaluative thinking we want students to be able to do themselves. This enables them to identify their strengths and weaknesses and to set goals for further learning. It helps them answer the questions what they are good at, what they need to work on and what they should do next. In evaluating teacher respondents’ attempts to what extent they encourage their students practice self and peer assessment, they were made to rate 7 items. From the analyses made from these items, it was found out that the total average number of teacher respondents responses to these items to each rating scale were found to be 7.1%, 18.8%, 36.4%, 30.3%, and 7.5% to not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently sequentially. The grand mean of these items was 3.1. In the same way, from the analyses of student respondents’ responses to these items, it was found out 232

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

that the percentage values to the rating scales: to not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently were found to be 39.1%, 22.6%, 21.1%, 11.4% and 5.7% respectively and the grand mean calculated from these items was 2.2, still which is much below the grand mean calculated from teacher participants responses. Moreover, the analyses of data from classroom observations revealed that, among teachers whom were observed, no teacher attempted to encourage his/her students practice self and peer assessment. This implies that teachers’ attempts to encourage their students practice self and peer assessment is deemed to be very low. E) The Assessment of Teacher Respondents’ Responses to their Appropriate Use of their Students’ Recorded Profiles OECD (2005) noted that portfolios and logbooks provide an opportunity for written dialogues between teacher and student, and also provide opportunities for students to reflect on their learning process. Teachers also enlist students in tracking their own performance. For example, teachers sometimes ask students to record the teacher or peer-feedback in individual portfolios. Students are able to refer to their portfolios and teachers do not need to invest inordinate amounts of time in detailed record-keeping. Students may also use tools such as rubrics -a checklist that details the criteria for a quality of piece work– to improve their work independently. NCCA (2010) also pointed out that there are a number of ways of documenting student’s learning. These include samples of student’s work, notes, photographs and video or audio records, stories, daily diaries or records of care, checklists, and reports. The guidelines suggest storing these in practitioners’ files, in central files and/or in children’s learning portfolios. A learning portfolio can take the form of a folder, a scrapbook, a shoe/cereal/pizza box or something similar in which assessment information can be stored. The collection tells the story of each student’s learning journey his/her efforts, progress and achievement over time.

Pertaining to this, teacher respondents’ responses to 7 items which were designed to assess to what extent they use their students’ recorded profiles to monitor their actual performance and progress and to plan for improvement and progress, help them to reflect on their evidence of learning and to plan for improvement. From the analyses of data it was found out that the percentages of the total numbers of respondents to the rating scales: not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently were 13.9%, 23.7%, 37.3%, 20.7% and 4.5% respectively and the grand mean calculated from these items was found to be 3.1. This indicates that greater number of respondents’ response to the given statements is ‘sometimes’. Therefore, the assessment of teachers’ efforts to use documented students’ portfolio is again below what it is expected to be. In comparison, the mean score calculated to each item under this group, teacher respondents’ appropriate use of their students recorded profiles

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

(which is contained with their aptitudes, progress and attainment) was found to be which got the least consideration (2.3) from all items among teacher respondents. From the analyses of student respondents’ responses to these items, it was found out that the distribution of the total average number of teacher respondents and their percentage values to the rating scales: to not at all, rarely, sometimes, frequently and most frequently were found to be 39.1%, 22.6%, 21.1%, 11.4% and 5.7% respectively and the grand mean calculated from these items was 2.2 and, in general, which is considered to be very low. The analyses of data collected through classroom observation also confirm the fact indicated; that is, among all teacher participants whom were observed, no teacher was observed to have well recorded students’ profiles.

FA Implementation Variation against Teachers’ Demographic Variables In evaluating the status of the implementation of FA in the college, teacher Participants were asked to rate 31 items using five point rating scales: most frequent-ly, frequently, sometimes, rarely and not at all. The results of analyses of their responses are discussed above. An analyses of these items as a whole was also made using One-Way ANOVA vis-à-vis their sex, age, department, qualification, work load, work experience and programs that they teach to compare teacher participants’ responses. The results of the analyses showed that there were no significant differences among respondents’ responses against all these independent variables. In the same way, comparisons of these groups of respondents’ responses to subcategories of these items were made using the same data analyses technique, One-Way ANOVA. From the comparisons, again, it was found out that there were no significant differences among teacher respondents’ responses in accordance to their sex, age, qualification, work load, experience and programs that they teach. However, from the analyses it was found out that teacher respondents significantly differ from department to department in implementing the third sub-category of the items which were meant to assess to what extent teacher respondents provide their students quality and timely feedback since F value which was calculated from these items (4.425) is greater than its table value (3.65) and its p value is (0.003) which is less than 0.05 at degree of freedom 4/62.

To identify participants in which category they significantly differ, a post significant- F-test which is also called post-hoc comparison was run (Tukey/ Krammer). The result of the analyses uncovered that, in comparison, the mean score calculated from the responses of Mathematics department teacher respondents was found significantly lower than that of teacher respondents who were in Natural Science, Social Science and Professional Science departments. 233

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

However, during classroom observation, the researcher did not observe any kind of difference among teachers of these departments whom were observed in implementation of FA.

Results from the Comparative Analyses of Teacher and Student Respondents’ Responses on the Evaluation of the Current Status of the Implementation of FA To see if there were variations between teacher and student respondents’ responses given on the evaluation of the status of the implementation of FA in the college a t-test analysis was made. The result of the analyses revealed that the calculated t-value (-4.048) of teachers ratings to all items designed to evaluate the status of the implementation of FA in the college in absolute value was found to be much greater than its table value (1.98). This implies that at df=310, alpha, 0.05 twotailed independent t-test, the total mean score which was computed from teacher respondents’ responses (3.25) was found to be statistically different from the mean score which was obtained from student respondents’ responses (2.89) from the items which were targeted to achieve the purpose indicated.

Major Challenges in Implementing FA In the teachers’ and students’ questionnaire both participants were asked to point out major challenges that hamper the effective implementation of FA. The results of the analyses are discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

a) Challenges Related to Students Teacher respondents pointed out that most students are not responsible for their learning. Hence, instead of improving themselves, they only strive for their grades. They want to learn everything from their teachers in ‘a spoon feeding type of learning’. The other problem which was noted here was students are not interested in cooperative learning and are not willing to listen to comments from their friends as well as from their teachers _that FA demands to do. Moreover, they said that, students hate teacher trainers who strictly follow up their students’ learning and consider them as conservatives. Consequently, they often accuse these teachers creating fictitious stories and they often claim them as causes of their failures. In supporting this, student participants also admitted that most students do not have much interest and motivation to learn and they do not usually come to college being ready for their learning. Therefore, they suggest that students should first be interested and motivated to learn. They should come to class being mentally ready, and they should bring their exercise books, pens, pencils and other relevant materials when they come to class. They should take responsibility for their learning and do whatever they are ordered to do by their teachers both in and outside their classrooms unless their learning will not be meaningful and effective.

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

Teacher respondents also indicated that most of the trainees, particularly the linear ones, have poor educational background and, thus, their English language skills and knowledge are much below the expected standard. Consequently, they are unable to express their ideas in English. This makes classroom interaction, or FA at large, very hard to implement in the college. Supporting this, Girmma, as cited in Animaw (2012), also described that pupils’ competence may facilitate or hinder the implementation of continuous assessment in general and FA in particular in the teaching process (ibid).

Supporting teacher respondents’ views to the students, student participants also described that, mostly, most students give less attention to class discussions as they are not much motivated to learn. This is mainly because they feel that they are not competent enough to the level they are in. They develop dependency on some better students and relay on their project work results as means of their survival in the college. Consequently, they often do irrelevant things and talk about their personal issues during group discussions. They rarely take notes, ask their teachers questions and participate during classroom discussions. Moreover, they are not willing to answer question, to share their ideas to their class to comment one another.

b) Challenges Related to Teachers Regarding teacher related factors, some of teacher respondents again revealed that, among many factors that impede the implementation of FA in the college, lack of skills in designing activities which are appropriate for FA and commitment to implement FA among teachers could be considered. Others indicated that they rarely used this mod of assessment since they did not have clear understanding about what FA was and how they could implement it. Still others revealed that they were not interested to implement FA since they feared that they would be against the habits of majority teachers that could in turn expose them for students’ criticisms.

On the other hand, student participants commented that most teachers consider their students performance much below the level of standard and they often criticize them. However, they do not tell their students’ weaknesses and strengths clearly. As a result, they often are not motivated and do not have confidence to express their ideas during class discussions. Literature also supports student respondents’ views. For example, OECD (2005) said that FA approaches may also require deep changes in teachers’ perceptions about what students are capable of achieving, what types of adaptation and adjustment of teaching are appropriate, and what the purposes of assessment should be.

Moreover, student respondents pointed out that some of them do not use their time properly. Sometimes they begin class after some weeks or days and finish their courses a month or so before the date in which class officially ends. Thus, they should use their time 234

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

properly and manage their teaching using their lesson plans. The college administrators should also devise different mechanisms which enable them to see how teachers plan and conduct their lessons.

c) Challenges Related to the College Administration Regarding this, teacher participants reviled that they were not encouraged to implement FA since there was poor management and lack of good governance in the college. They commented that the college does not give them appropriate moral and material support. Besides, the college has no standardized laboratory room and the laboratory equipments. This makes the learning teaching process more of teacher- centered and impractical. In the same way, student participants said that most classrooms have no enough chairs, lack neatness and are not attractive. Students usually waste their time transporting chairs from class to class.

Consistent to this, Girmma , as cited in Animaw (2012) , pointed out that teachers’ possession of the appropriate knowledge and favorable attitude as well as commitment to an innovation could not always be guarantee for effective implementation of [FA] unless the situation (context) of the school is supportive. According to him, school factors include pupil-teacher ratio, available school facilities (such as laboratory, library and classroom facilities), teaching materials, administrative support etc. play remarkable role in implementing FA. The other problem which was pointed here was giving unfair favors for few teachers in the college. The said that, because of different reasons, since the college gives more privileges for only few individuals, that reduces the initiation of the majority of teachers to discharge their responsibilities.

d) Challenges Related to the Nature of FA The nature of FA also considered as a major challenge that impede the effective implementation of FA. Most of the respondents described that as FA, by its nature, is very time consuming and tiresome task that normally reduces teachers’ initiation to implement it. Besides of the nature of FA, many teacher respondents indicated that implementing FA is very difficult in their classrooms since many of the courses that they teach are very wide or bulky and are difficult to cover within the given time. According to them, they also face shortage of time to implement FA since they do not use the time given in a semester fully and appropriately. In describing this, a respondent for instance says, “The programme that we use does not enable us to use FA; i.e., we have four months [in a semester] but we usually use only two and half, or three months.”

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION

AND

Summary It has been indicated that the objectives of the present study were to assess the status of FA implementation

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

and teachers perceptions towards the benefits of its implementation, and to investigate major challenges that impede its implementation at DMCTE.

In achieving this, the necessary data were collected using questionnaires and actual classroom observation. Questionnaires were two types: teachers’ questionnaire and students’ questionnaire. Teachers’ questionnaire was used as the main instrument of data collection and students’ questionnaire and classroom observation were used to supplement the data obtained through teachers’ questionnaire. Data collected from the multi-method tools were analyzed through qualitative and quantitative data analyses techniques.

From the analyses of data collected through all instruments the following findings were obtained:

 Teacher respondents’ beliefs towards the benefits of the implementation of FA generally were found to be positive.  Teacher respondents’ understanding of the basic concepts of FA was found to be incomplete.  Although teacher respondents found to have positive feeling towards the importance of FA, half of them were found to perceive recording students’ personal details about their everyday learning as tiresome, time consuming and a burden to them to do. Moreover, higher variations among respondents’ responses were observed.  Teacher respondents’ commitment in implementing FA found to be low. In particular, they were not found to be committed enough to use national standards and assessment information from other sources (for example, international studies, colleagues etc.) that confirm their professional judgments and to plan for improvement.  Teacher respondents’ effort to conduct their lessons using appropriately designed lesson plans which enabled them to make effective dialogues with their students about their learning and their attempt towards using trainees’ responses effectively to plan for future learning and teaching was found to be low.  Teacher respondents’ teacherstudent interaction was found to be good. Teacher respondents were found interacting with their students using thoughtful questions, careful listening and reflective responses. They encouraged their students to participate in classroom discussions, and they asked questions to monitor their students’ understanding. Similarly, they actively encouraged their students to ask questions and gave their students sufficient time to answer questions. However, student-student interactions were found to be at grass root level. 235

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

 The feedback that teacher respondents’ provide their students were found which were not timely and which did not give clear directions to the students how to make their works better. Moreover, their attempts to clearly know and tell their students weaknesses and strengths, found to be low.  Teacher respondents’ effort to use their students’ recorded profiles to monitor their actual performance and progress, to plan for improvement and progress and to help them to reflect on their evidence of learning was found to be low.  Teacher respondents’ attempts to encourage their students practice self and peer was found to be very low.  No significant differences was found out among teacher respondents’ in implementing FA in accordance to their sex, age, qualification, work load, experience and programs that they teach.  Unfairly favoring few teachers by the college, students’ poor language skills and knowledge (particularly students in the linear modality), lack of laboratory equipments, chairs and tables, lack of commitment from teachers, the nature of FA, teachers’ negative feelings towards their students and over criticism, lack of skills and understanding of teachers about FA, lack of commitment from students to take responsibilities for their learning, the rigidity of the college assessment code of conduct, unwillingness of students to listen to comments etc. were found to be major challenges that hamper the quality of FA implementation in the college.

Conclusion It has been indicated that the main purpose of this study was to assess the status of FA implementation and teachers perceptions towards the benefits of its implementation, and to investigate major challenges that impede its implementation at DMCTE. To achieve this, questionnaires and observations were used for gathering the data. In line with the attempt made to achieve these objectives, the following conclusions are made:  Teachers in the college were found to perceive that FA up grades the level of their teaching. However, some of them were found to perceive recording students’ personal details about their everyday learning is tiresome, time consuming and a burden to them, but the others were not. The understanding of teachers on the basic concepts of FA in the college was fond to be incomplete. Moreover, the commitment of teachers in the college in implementing FA, in general, and using national standards and assessment information from other sources (for example, international studies, colleagues etc.) that confirm their professional judgments and to plan for improvement, in particular, was low.

http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

 Regarding the assessment of FA implementation, it was found out that there were no significant differences among teachers in implementing FA in the college in accordance to their sex, age, qualification, work load, experience and programs that they teach. Teachers were found to interact with their students using thoughtful questions. That is, the question that they often asked found to enable them to monitor their students’ understanding, to encourage them to participate in class-room discussions, and give reflective responses. Similarly, they actively encourage their students to ask questions and give their students sufficient time to answer questions. Nevertheless, there was found to be no satisfactory student –student interaction. It was also found out that the efforts that teachers made to conduct their lessons using appropriately designed lesson plans, to use trainees’ responses effectively to plan for future learning and teaching, to provide their students timely and appropriate feedback, to clearly know their students’ weaknesses and strengths, to encourage their students practice self and peer assessments, to use their students’ recorded profiles to monitor their actual performance and progress, and to help them to reflect on their evidence of learning were low.  The challenges that impede the implementation of FA in the college were many. Among these lack of good governance, students’ poor language skills and knowledge (particularly students in the linear modality), lack of laboratory equipments, chairs and tables, lack of commitment from teachers, the nature of FA, teachers’ negative feelings towards their students and over criticism, lack of skills and understanding of teachers about FA, lack of commitment from students to take responsibilities for their learning, rigidity of the college’s assessment method, unwillingness of students to listen to comments etc. were considered to be the major ones.

Recommendations Based on the findings described above, the following recommendations are forwarded to the teachers, students and college administrative organs:  To Teachers  Teachers should use their time properly and manage their teaching using their lesson plans.  Teachers should be committed enough to discharge their responsibilities in implementing FA, to develop their understanding to basic the concepts and strategies which are essential to implement FA better through reading most recently published books, journals, magazines, research 236

Andualem Tesfa Zerihun / The Eng Lit J. 2015, 2(1): 225-237

findings and so on in the field and sharing experiences one another.  Teachers should stop over criticizing and discouraging their students. Instead, they should try to identify their weaknesses and strengths and give guidance how they further strengthen their strengths and improve their weaknesses.  Teachers should be equally responsible in implementing FA and discharging their responsibilities.

students will be benefited; instead of forcing them to follow the college’s rigid evaluation format.  The college should enforce teachers uniformly implement FA.  The college should create awareness on the what, and how of learning among the students.

REFERENCES

 To Students  Students should develop the habit of cooperative learning and willingness to listen to comments from their friends as well as from their teachers. Moreover, they should create friendly relation-ships with their teachers and should stop accusing more responsible teachers creating factious stories.  Students should avoid dependence on few better students and should stop relaying themselves on the results of their project works. They should understand their final goals and should be courageous enough to improve themselves and to use their time effectively.  Students should develop their interpersonal skills, English language skills and knowledge to maximize their classroom participation.  Students should be aware of what learning is and how their learning can be effective.

 To College Administrative Bodies  The college should devise different mechanisms which enable them to see how teachers plan and conduct their lessons and enforce teachers to discharge their responsibilities.

 The college should organize continuous trainings which enhance teachers’ understanding of FA and give material and moral support to teachers.  The college should fulfill standardized laboratory rooms and laboratory equipments, classroom furniture such as chairs, tables etc. and should pass right order to people who are concerned to keep classrooms clean and attractive.  The college should ensure equalities among teachers and should give teachers equal privileges to get benefits.  The college should give rights to evaluate students, according to the nature of their course objectives and in the way they believe

1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

Animaw Tadesse (2012) Student-Centered Instruction: Opportunities, Practices and Challenges in its Implementation at Debre Markos College of Teachers Education: DMCTE Journal of Educational Research, Vol. II, p. 1-31. Animaw Tadesse (2009) The Status, Gaps, and Challenges of Implementing Continuous Assessment: The Case of Second Cycle Primary Schools in Debre Markos Town. Addis Ababa University: Unpublished MA Thesis. Black, P. & William, D. (1999) Assessment for Learning: Beyond the Black Box. London, England: Kings College: http://www.qca.org.uk/downloads/beyond_black_box2.pdf Black, P., and Wiliam, D., Formative Assessment and Assessment for Learning: http://ati.pearson.com/downloads/chapters/7%20Strats%2 0Ch%201.pdf Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bloom B.S., Hastings T.J., Madaus G (1971) Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: mcgraw-Hill; Broudy, HS. Churchill et al (2013). Teaching: Making a Difference (2nd Ed.). John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. Milton, QLD, Australia Brookhart, S. (2020) The Fundamentals of Formative Assessment: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/110017/chapters /The-Fundamentals-of- Formative-Assessment.aspx Churchill, R., Ferguson, P., Godinho, S., Johnson, N. F., Keddie, A., Letts, W., Vick, M. (2013). Teaching Making a Difference (2nd ed.). Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research competencies for analysis and application (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. NCCA (2010) Assessment in Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework Article for publication in An Leanbh Óg Mary Daly and Arlene Forste.www.ncca.ie/early learning. OECD (2005) Formative Assessment – Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms: Paris, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, ISBN-92-64-00739-3. Sadler, D. (1998). Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems. Instructional Science, 18 (2), 119–144. Screven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. F. Stake (Ed.), America Educational Research Association Monograph Series: No.1. Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 3983). Chicago: Rand McNally.20 PL OCTOBER 2005 Susan M. Brookhart (2010) Formative Assessment Strategies for Every Classroom: An ASCD Action Tool, 2nd Edition: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/111005.aspx.

© 2014; AIZEON Publishers; All Rights Reserved

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

***** http://english.aizeonpublishers.net/content/2015/1/eng225-237.pdf

237