Warning: include_once(../article_type.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/suxhorbncfos/public_html/asm/ASM.MS.ID.555637.php on line 125
Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '../article_type.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/alt/php56/usr/share/pear:/opt/alt/php56/usr/share/php') in /home/suxhorbncfos/public_html/asm/ASM.MS.ID.555637.php on line 125
Factors Affecting the Implementation of Formative Assessment in Some Selected Primary Schools in Nekemte Town, Oromia Region, Ethiopia
Misgana File Bayissa1 and Chali Abate Jote2*
1 Department of Psychology, Nekemte College of Teacher Education, Ethiopia
2 Department of Chemistry, Nekemte College of Teacher Education, Ethiopia
Submission: September 11, 2019; Published: September 25, 2019
*Corresponding author: Chali Abate Jote, Department of Chemistry, Nekemte College of Teacher Education, P.O.B. 88, Nekemte, Ethiopia
How to cite this article:Misgana File Bayissa, Chali Abate Jote. Factors Affecting the Implementation of Formative Assessment in Some Selected
0072 Primary Schools in Nekemte Town, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Ann Soc Sci Manage Stud. 2019; 4(3): 555637. DOI: 10.19080/ASM.2019.04.555637
The purpose of the study was to examine factors affecting the implementation of formative assessment from teachers’ perspectives, in some selected primary schools of Nekemte town. So, to examine this impact, two sets of target population, teachers and principals were taken in the study. A questionnaire was administered to all teachers of the selected schools. Moreover, interview was conducted to school principals. The information obtained through questionnaire was analyzed using the procedure of descriptive and inferential statistics. The existence of statistically significant difference between the two compared groups in their mean score were computed using t-test (sex and experience) and statistically not significance between the two compared groups in their mean scores. In addition to this, the existence of significance difference among the groups of departments (language, social science, natural science and aesthetics) mean scores were computed using one-way ANOVA. Pearson moment correlation coefficient was also used to see the multicollinarity of the predictor variables and the criterion variable. In addition, proportion of the variance in formative assessment practice implementation explained by the predictor variables (awareness, attitude, experience, commitment and sex) the contribution of each independent variable to the dependent variable was analyzed by using multiple regression. From the regression analyses, the coefficient of determination (R2) indicates that about 14.4% of the variation accounted for in the dependent variable is due to the combined effect of the seven predictor variables. Conclusions and recommendations are made based on the results.
Quality assessment is a very essential element in the provision of quality education. This is because assessment provides a foundation for making sound evaluative judgments about students’ learning progress and about the effectiveness of the whole education system in general [1,2]. It is a general term that includes the full range of procedures used to gain information about students’ learning and the information of value judgment concerning learning progress . According to them, assessment is systematic processes that plays a significant role in effective teaching and begins with the identification of learning goals have been attained. Airasian  has also defined assessment as a process of collecting, interpreting and synthesizing information in decision making.
From the ideas stated above, one can infer that instruction requires formative assessment of students’ progress as to benefit from learning, and that teachers have a great role in discharging this responsibility. Regarding this, formative assessment is a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides
feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve student’s achievement of intended instructional outcomes . These days, advanced nation such as Australia, England, Spain and developing nations like Nigeria, Malawi, South Africa and others have incorporated formative assessment to their educational system [6,7]. Similarly, the Ethiopian Education and Training Policy gives due emphasis on the uses of FA as an effective means of instructional processes [8,9]. These documents argued that the committed practice of FA improves students’ learning and among other things could alleviate the problem of grade repetition in elementary schools. However, research and personal observations of the researcher indicate that the implementation of FA at all levels of our education system is below the standard. Especially, in Nekemte Town Primary Schools.
Assessment happens every day in classrooms. Therefore, nowadays, increasing attention is being given in education to the quality of classroom assessment, because more than any of its aspect’s assessment plays a central role in determining the
quality of education . To this effect, formative assessment is
both the means to ascertain the effectiveness of curriculum and is
an indirect indicator of the teaching learning process . Some
countries of the world have passed laws and include provisions
that make teachers accountable for the learning and development
of students [7,11].
Traditionally, in Ethiopia FA is understood as testing and
measuring of the outcomes of learning. According to Black and
William , FA is an essential component of the instructional
process which enables the teacher to better use the “Assessment
Feedback Correction” learning cycle that is missing from the time
limited examinations. In addition to this, it helps teacher to collect
the wide variety of information about their students’ learning
processes provides the basis for determining what they need to
do next to move student learning forward. The use of formative
assessment and remain to their old experiences .
Nekemte town primary schools were also related with the
above idea. For that reason, problems like absence of enough
awareness and teachers’ failure to have positive attitude and
commitment towards formative assessment were the major
problems that hinder the implementation of FA. Beside this,
teachers seem not committed to effectively implement FA in
the classrooms. Thus, the problems mentioned above urged the
researcher to conduct the study about the problem at hand.
Based on the above statement of the problem, the following
basic questions are forwarded
a) Is there statistically a significance difference in the
implementation of formative assessment between teachers due
to their sex, work experience, age, and teacher’s department
to practice implementation of formative assessment?
b) Are there statistically significant relationship among sex,
experience, age, department, awareness level, commitment
and attitude towards the practice’s implementation of
c) To what extent do sex, work experience, age,
department, awareness, attitude and commitment influence
the effectiveness of formative assessment implementation
d) What are the factors that participants encountered in
practices of formative assessment implementation?
The findings of this study will be significant in:
a) Identifying the problems encountered in the
implementation process of formative assessment and as a
result makes aware policy makers and practitioners to the
problems teachers are facing in implementing formative
assessment at a classroom level.
b) It will indicate the extent, to which formative assessment
is used, and the prevailing attitude, commitment, age,
department, sex, work experience and awareness of teachers
towards formative assessment.
c) Finally, it may also serve future researchers interested in
classroom assessment as starting point.
Although it was helpful to study the problem at larger
area coverage and including all other factors, because of time
and finance constraints and the researchers’ interest as well,
this study was delimited to make investigation on the factors
affecting the implementation of formative assessment with a
particular reference to teacher related variables (experience,
age, department, sex, awareness, attitude and commitment) in
the Nekemte primary schools. Specifically, the study is limited
to investigating the level at which the Nekemte primary schools’
teachers in the study area practice formative assessment and
identifying the factors that call for stakeholders’ attention.
Many Scholars based on what they want to give more emphasis,
have different views regarding educational assessment, some
consider formative assessment more than summative assessment
or vice versa. So, it is vital to briefly look at assessment in general
in order to understand the concept of formative assessment and
feedback. Assessment is defined as the process of gathering,
interpreting, recording, and using information about the pupils‟
response to educational tasks . It becomes a helpful and
constructive tool when the information derived from it is used to
adapt and modify the applied teaching and learning techniques
. On the other hand, assessment refers to the full range of
information gathered and synthesized by teachers for making
decisions about their students. Information gathered through
both informal (observation and verbal exchange) and formal
(homework, tests, quizzes and etc) . From the above scholar’s
definitions of assessment, it seems that assessment is for decision
making but this brings the notion that there is no conceptual difference between assessment and evaluation. While, evaluation
of learners is the process of making a judgment about the quality
of a learner’s performance using the information gathered during
an assessment. It further adds; action is what you do as the result
of your assessment of learners and evaluation of their assessment
Historically speaking, assessment can have a more noticeable
influence on students‟ behavior and performance than teaching
does . Assessment is still the most influential factor in
formal education and, if not approached properly, may subvert
the positive aspects of both the teaching and learning process.
Although tests and examinations are considered as one way of
assessing, assessment does not mean testing. There is an obvious
distinction between assessing and testing students‟ performance.
The purposes of tests or examinations determine clearly whether
they are being used for assessment or testing . They are
“testing” if they only provide students with marks, the final
judgment, without any useful feedback of what they have (or have
not) mastered. On the contrary, they are “assessments” when they
aim to identify what students need to do in order to enhance their
performance in the future.
In contrast to testing, assessment with the provision of
feedback (as its main distinctive feature) has an enormous
advantage since students are informed about the continuous
development in their achievement. Ainsworth  alludes to the
dissimilarity between tests and assessments by arguing that the
latter can: a) motivate students to be more engaged in learning,
b) help students develop positive attitudes toward a subject, and
c) give students feedback about what they know and can do. It
is instructive to recognize the purposes of assessments before
addressing assessment types. Kellough  have characterized
six purposes of assessment:
a) To assist student learning.
b) To identify students‟ strengths and weaknesses.
c) To assess the effectiveness of a particular instructional
d) To assess and improve the effectiveness of curriculum
e) To assess and improve teaching effectiveness.
f) To provide data that assist in decision making.
In addition, it is crucial to establish clear principles that
may successfully guide the implementation of assessments. The
following six principles have been adapted from Pausch & Popp
 who also stress the significance of grounding assessments‟
purposes on rational principles. These principles are:
a) The assessment of student learning begins with
b) Assessment is most effective when it reflects an
understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated,
and revealed in performance over time.
c) Assessment works best when the programs it seeks to
improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes.
d) Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and
equally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes.
e) Assessment works best when it is ongoing, not episodic.
f) Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when
it is part of a largest of conditions that promote change.
In past decades, teachers would design a unit of study that
would typically include objectives, teaching strategies, and
resources. The student’s mark on this test or exam was taken as the
indicator of his or her understanding of the topic. In 1998, Black
& Wiliam  produced a review that highlighted that students
who learn in a formative way achieve significantly better than
matched control groups receiving normal teaching. Formative
assessment occurs throughout the learning process. It is designed
to make each student’s understanding visible, so that teachers can
decide what they can do to help students progress. Students learn
in individual and personal ways, yet, at the same time, there are
predictable patterns of connections and preconceptions that some
students may experience as they move along the continuum from
emergent to proficient .
In formative assessment, teachers use assessment as an
investigative tool to find out as much as they can about what their
students know and can do, and what confusions, preconceptions,
or gaps they might have. The wide variety of information that
teachers collect about their students’ learning processes provides
the basis for determining what they need to do next to move
student learning forward. It provides the basis for providing
descriptive feedback for students and deciding on groupings,
instructional strategies, and resources. In formative assessment,
teachers use assessment evidences to monitor students learning
progress and inform their teaching. This form of assessment is
designed to provide diagnostic information to teachers about
students’ prior knowledge and formative information about the
effects of their instruction on student learning . So, the roles
of teacher in formative assessments are:
a) Aligning instruction with the targeted outcomes.
b) Identifying particular learning needs of students or
c) Selecting and adapting materials and resources.
d) Creating differentiated teaching strategies and learning
opportunities for helping individual students move forward in
e) Providing immediate feedback and direction to students.
f) Enhance students’ motivation and commitment to
g) Help students identify their strengths and weaknesses
and target areas that need work.
h) help facility recognize where students are struggling and
address problems immediately.
i) It creates a competitive learning environment and
boosts students‟ attitudes toward learning since its primary
focus is to help students understand the level of learning they
have achieved .
When teachers commit to learning as the focus of assessment,
they change the classroom culture to one of student success.
They make visible what students believe to be true and use
that information to help students move forward in manageable,
efficient, and respectful ways. Formative assessments are
generally low stakes, which means that they have low or no point
value. Examples of formative assessments include asking students
to: draw a concept map in class to represent their understanding
of a topic, submit one or two sentences identifying the main point
of a lecture and turn in a research proposal for early feedback .
Research findings on whether or not teachers vary in their
classroom practice with the variation in their teaching experience
present mixed findings. For instance, Girma  contended
that teachers previous professional experience poses problems
that are more intractable, because more experienced may have
established their own pattern of behavior in classroom settings
than less experienced ones. In other words, the more the teacher
is professionally experienced, the less likely he/she is willing to
exert considerable effort to implement pedagogical innovations
like assessment. Research reports by many scholars also reported
that increments in experience were associated with decline in
obligation to classroom practices. That is, teachers with more
teaching experience were slightly less devoted than did teachers
with less experience [24,25].
Girma  argued that the teacher is the most significant factor
in determining the success of new pedagogical innovations. This
is partly, because teachers’ implementation of that improvement
is dependent up on teachers’ attitude towards the originality,
knowledge about the advance, and their level of commitment to
implement it. Teachers’ attitude towards pedagogical innovations
such as FA can be one of the causes of the discrepancy between
prescribed theory and classroom practice. In another words, the
match or mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and that innovation
influences its implementation in the actual classroom practice.
Because teachers’ reaction is to change it’s determined by this
congruence between their beliefs and attitudes combined and that
innovation. On the other hand, Alausa  found that had it not
been the conceptual gap on FA, teachers everywhere are willing
enough to embrace new ideas about assessment. Stated simply, it
is to mean that teachers have already developed positive attitude
towards FA, but they have lack of understanding on its conceptual
The second teacher related constraints that influence
teachers’ effective implementation of FA is their knowledge
about FA and its practical implications (i.e. given positive attitude
by teachers towards an innovation, teachers’ awareness about
that pedagogical innovation may be a source of rejection of the
innovation. Regarding this, Girma  has the following to say:
Teachers may favor a change and yet fail to implement it effectively
if they do not have a clear understanding of the theoretical under
pinning and practical application of the change. Similarly, in the
literature it is indicated that teachers lack knowledge about the
conceptual framework of FA or about the special value that quality
assessment has for improving quality of education [26-28].
The other teacher related potential factor hampering proper
implementation of FA is teachers’ lack of commitment. Literature
indicates that successful implementation of FA requires teachers
to provide variety of assessment tools . More specifically,
assessment demands teachers to prepare effective plan, act
accordingly and continuously evaluate how learning is going
on. The procedure includes provision of assignments and
tests, supplementary assessment, providing immediate and
constructive feedback, calculation of final marks for all subjects,
and reporting to parents how pupils are progressing [7,26]. It is
obvious that these activities mean more work to the teacher, more
demand on his /her time, and more responsibility [29,30], which
in turn requires teachers’ commitment to invest inputs assessment
The school situation may facilitate or hamper FA
implementation in the teaching learning process. The school
context may be explained by; Pupil-teacher ratio, available
school facilities (like laboratory, library, and classroom facilities),
teaching materials, administrative supports, pupils’ competence,
and parents’ involvement. Many researchers have described
that large class size (unfair pupil-teacher ratio) is an important
challenge to implement assessment, because it prohibits teachers
to follow-up pupils in their homework’s and assignments [29-32].
The underlying reason is that in classrooms where the number of
students is large, teachers may consider the provision of feedback
and follow up activities are difficult [31-33].
A descriptive survey method was designed to be used for this
study. Since the purpose of this study was the factors that affect
the implementation of formative assessment in some selected
Nekemte primary schools, and it is assumed that the problems
were approached using descriptive method. This method is an
appropriate research method to get a description of current status
of a problem by examining and describing the major problems
facing primary schools.
The samples of the population of this study were teachers and
principals in three selected primary schools in Nekemte town. In these primary schools there were a total population of 123
teachers, and 3 principals.
Sampling is closely linked to the external validity or
generalizability of the findings in an enquiry; the extent to which
what we have found in a particular situation at a particular time
applies more generally . So, the sample population of the
study was shown under the following in (Table 1).
The sample population was obtained from the three primary
school teachers. Concerning the sampling techniques teachers
were selected using Purposive sampling technique. Because of
the number of the population was small and manageable. Due to
this, the researcher was interested to use the whole population as
a sample of the study. The school director (Principals) was also
selected by purposive sampling technique.
These instruments are the primary instruments to collect
data from the target population. The researcher developed
the questionnaire based on the statement of the problem and
review of related literature. The prepared questionnaires were
administered to primary school teachers
Like the questionnaires, the interview was developed based
on the statement of the problem and review of related literature.
Moreover, it was used to support information gathered through
questionnaires since it has occupied an important place in
descriptive educational research. The prepared interviews were
administered to primary school principals.
The data obtained from the closed ended questionnaire was
tabulated and analyzed quantitatively. This is through percentage,
mean, standard deviation, t-test, one-way ANOVA, correlation
and multiple regressions. The result of the data was analyzed by
SPSS-version-20 and for the data obtained from open ended and
interviews was analyzed qualitatively.
The analysis on the sex through the independent t-test of
(Table 2) above revealed that teachers with different sex did not
significantly differ in their practices of formative assessment
implementation. This indicates that, sex of teachers does not affect
formative assessment practices in the schools under the study
area. This finding is consistent with the findings of Ajuonuma
 that sex does not affect the formative assessment practices in
An independent t-test was conducted to compare the mean
scores of teachers’ work experience of the practices of formative
assessment between low experiences and high experiences on
implementation of formative assessment as indicated in the (Table
3). The difference between the mean scores of the two groups is
found to be statistically not significant at .05 levels. This implies
teachers with varying experience did not significantly differ in their
usage of the formative assessment approach to assess students’
learning progress. Adebowale et al.  reported a similar finding;
they found that teachers’ teaching experience did not significantly
contribute to the variation in their implementation of formative
assessment. In addition, this finding is in agreement with the
previous studies .
(Table 4) As can be seen from (Table 5), teachers were
significantly differing in their practices of formative assessment
with the difference in their department [F (3,120) = 7.179, p < .05]
[Language, Social science, Natural science and Aesthetics]. The
mean score obtained by participants who were teaching natural
science subjects was the lowest (M = .742) when compared with
those who were teaching Language (M =1.4), social science (M
=1.07) and Aesthetics (M =1.042). To identify participants of
which category significantly differ, a post hoc tests also called post
hoc comparison was run (Tukey).
Post-hoc comparison using Tukey HSD indicated that the
mean score of language (M=1.4, SD =.496) was significantly
different from the Natural science (M = .742, SD= .444) with a
mean difference of .6580 and the mean scores of social science (M
= 1.07, SD = .813) was significantly different from the mean score
of natural 8science (M = .742, SD = .444) with a mean difference of
0.328. But the mean score for aesthetics (M = 1.042, SD=.624) did
not have mean difference with any of the department
The analysis employed ANOVA (Table 4) and subsequent post
hoc comparison (Table 5) have clearly indicated that participants
who were teaching Language and/or Social Science subjects were
found significantly different from those who were teaching Natural
Science and/or aesthetics as regards formative assessment
implementation. Further analysis of post hoc comparison revealed
that mean score of language and Social Science teachers were also
significantly higher than the mean score of Natural Science and
aesthetics (Table 6).
This difference might be found its root in the way curriculum
materials were organized in the subjects considered. It was found
that Language and Social science teachers mark on students’
exercise books more frequently than Natural science and
aesthetics teachers. Thus, it is certain that the organization of
curriculum material helped Language and Social science teachers
implementing formative assessment through homework, class
work, assignment, etc.
In this section, in the process of multiple regression analysis,
the association between the dependent variable and the predictor
variables has been estimated using Pearson correlation coefficient.
The results of the analysis made are presented in (Table 7) below.
As a result, shown in (Table 7) above, teachers’ awareness,
attitude, and commitment are correlated positively and
significantly with formative assessment practices (r=.148, .126,
and .106, respectively) at .05 level. But department and age
were negatively correlate (-.096 and -.132) with the dependent
variable. The remaining variables like sex and teachers’ work
experience showed not statistically significant relationship with
the criterion variable. Tabachnick & Fidell  suggest that
including two independent variables with absolute value of a
bivariate correlation of .70 or more in the same analysis violates
multi-colinearity assumption. In line with this, in the study the
maximum correlation is .906 (Table 7), which is greater than .70;
therefore, all variables were taken.
In order to identify a more predictive independent
variable(s) that brought significant variation (contribution) on
implementation of formative assessment, a regression analysis
was used on the selected predictor variables. Hence, formative
assessment practice was taken as a dependent variable to be seen
in relation to the independent variables impact on implementation
of formative assessment. In the foregoing correlation analysis,
the association between the dependent variable and seven
independent variables has been estimated. In effect department
and age patterns showed statistically not-significant relationship
with practices of formative assessment implementation in
the present study. The remaining variables (sex, experience,
awareness, attitude and, commitment) are significantly associated
with formative assessment practice implementation. It is of
interest in this study to further distinguish the combined effects
of these independent variables on the dependent variable using
multiple regression models. A regression method brings out the
relationships between variables whose relation is imperfect.
Thus, in the regression estimation for dependent variable, seven
predictor variables listed above under correlation (Table 7)
which are expected to affect practices of formative assessment
implementation were included in the model.
(Table 8) depicts the relationship between practices of
formative assessment implementation and various predictor
variables were estimated. The combination of the predictor
variables as estimated from the coefficient of multiple R (.375)
and F test i.e. the practice of formative assessment implementation
variation with an ANOVA F-ratio of F (7, 115) = 2.693, p < .05
was statistically significant. The coefficient of determination R2
indicates that about 14.1% of the variation accounted for in the
dependent variable is due to the combined effect of the seven
mentioned predictor variables. The goodness of the model also
shows that, the adjusted R2 (unbiased estimate of the variance)
was .089. This reveals that, about 8.9% of the variation for
the dependent variable was due to the combined effect of the
mentioned predictor variables included in the model.
From the total of seven predictor variables specified for
practices formative assessment of implementation, the measure of
relative importance of each variable (shown under “Beta” column)
revealed that, five variables were found to be best describing the
variability of formative assessment practices in the study area
and statistically significant at .05 level. These variables are sex,
experience, awareness, attitude and commitment. Moreover,
(Table 8) depicts that experience was found to have the highest
(the maximum Beta coefficient = .366) significant positive effect
in predicting formative assessment practices as rated by the
respondents and followed by commitment, attitude, sex and
awareness. The “beta coefficient” for the remaining predictor
department and age did not show significant effects on practices
of FA implementation at .05 levels. Therefore, these variables might not be significantly contributing to the regression equation
when used in combination with other variables. The sign of the
regression variables was also not similar with the predetermined
hypothesis made. The negative sign of beta coefficient for
department and age shows that when predictor variables increase
the criterion variable decreases.
Note: * the effect is significant at the .05. α =.05
The results from interview questions displayed that, formative
assessment practices in the research were found far from the
students. The results assured that, the majority of the participants
were do not use appropriate time for assessment related tasks,
assess their students less frequently, limited the scope of formative
assessment to its final component dominantly through tests
and exams, did not provide remedial and enrichment activities
sufficiently, and did not make students’ learning improvement.
In order to meet the learning needs of each student, the
various assessment methods must be incorporated in the lesson
plan. The use of assessment during teaching learning on going as
a major technique of evaluation in active learning at secondary
school level is a policy consideration since 1994 in Ethiopia.
Therefore, teachers are supposed to present many things to
teach their students. In such activity the teacher is a coach and
facilitator to guide the process and to give regularly and timely
assessment in order to evaluate students’ progress in learning.
However, depending on the nature of the subject, the assessment
techniques to be used vary from one subject to the other even in
the same subject between different contents or the same teachers
on the same contents. In support of this, Gary et al.  on their
part argues that there are a number of types of assessments which
can be appropriate for different assessment purposes.
From the interview questions, on what problems primary
school teachers faced in formative assessment practices reveals
that, almost all of them responded that, formative assessment
practices are difficult and unmanageable under their school
contexts. Most of them were, number of students in the classroom,
teachers’ additional work (department head, unit leader, director,
different members of committee), teachers work load (overloaded
for example, 20-38 periods), large class size (60-97 students
in one class), teachers’ unsuitability, lack of support from the
leaders(Directors, school supervisors, Nekemte town Education
Bureau and others), incompatibility of classroom, lack of different
teaching materials, lack of time, assessment biased and others.
a) Based on the independent sample t-test observed
between the male and female group of teachers, one may
conclude that there was no difference in practicing of formative
assessment implementation among teachers.
b) Similarly, results obtained from the teachers’ department,
teachers who teach Language and social science subjects were
more practicing formative assessment implementation than
teachers who teach natural science and aesthetics subjects.
c) Regarding the teachers’ work experiences, there was
no statistically significant difference teacher’s experiences in
formative assessment practice implementation.
d) The proportion of the variance in formative assessment
practices that were independent accounted together
(awareness, attitude, sex, department and commitment) is
R2 = 14.1%. Therefore, these variables are essential for the
implementation of formative assessment.
e) The major factors that hinder the practices of formative
assessment implementation were number of students,
teachers’ unsuitability, large class size, lack of administrative support, complexity of assessment tools, lack of time, unequal
contribution of group members in group works, etc.
a) To raise the level of awareness of teachers towards
formative assessment and its implementation and thereby
to positively influence the attitude of teachers towards the
system, intensive trainings on the concepts and roles of
assessment (especially formative assessment). Example, on the
job trainings, workshops, seminars and in-service programs.
In addition to this, the Continues Professional Development
(CPD) program in primary schools should address all the
teachers with the knowledge and skills of assessment.
b) To ensure effective formative assessment practices in the
schools or in the classrooms, the concerned bodies (Teachers,
Students, Students’ families, School Principals, Nekemte town
education bureau, Oromia Education Bureau and others)
should work on it,
c) Lack of required educational resources and facilities
were the main hindering factors in the implementation of
formative assessment. Therefore, Nekemte town Education
Bureau should be allocating it timely.
d) Finally, it was also recommended that, further research
should be carried out by using more other methods, improving
instruments used in the present study and including other
McMillan JM (2004) Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school administrators: In Caulley KM, Linder F, McMillan H (eds) Educational psychology. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, A division of McGraw-Hill Companies. USA.
USAID/BEP (2006b) A concise manual for developing and implementing continuous assessment in teacher education institutions and primary schools of Ethiopia: Addis. Ethiopia.
Linn, Robert L, Gronlund E Norman (2005) Measurement and assessment in teaching. (8th edn), India; Baba Barkha Nath Printers. India.
Airasian PW (1991) Classroom assessment. McGraw- Hill, New York.
FAST SCASS (2008) Attributes of effective formative assessment. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. USA.
Little A, Wolf A (1996) Assessment in transition: Learning, mentoring and selection, international perspective. New York: Elsevier Science. Ltd. Maid. American Psychologist. New York.
Njabili AF (1999) Practical guide for classroom measurement and testing: The basic essentials (3rd edn), Dares Selam: Muture Publisher. East Africa.
MOE (2002) The Educational and training policy and its implementation: Addis Ababa: MOE. Ethiopia.
TGE (1994) Education and training policy: Addis Ababa: Educational materials production and Distribution Agency. Ethiopia.
Miske S, Schmidt S, Santhe E (2003) Findings from an exploratory study of teachers’ beliefs and practices about pupils’ assessment in Malawi, improving educational quality (IEQ) Project: The University of Pittsburgh: Juarret and Associates, Inc. USA.
USAID/BEP (2007) Ethiopian second national learning assessment of grade students: Addis Ababa (unpublished). Ethiopia.
Mulu Nega (2005) The quantity Vs quality dilemma in the expansion of higher education in Ethiopia: Implications for further directions. In: Daniel et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the national conferences held in SGS 21-22 October 2005 on where Ethiopia’s higher education should be going and how might it change to meet the country’s development needs. Ethiopia.
Robson C (199S) Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwel!
Ajuonuma JO (2006) Competences possessed by teachers in the assessment of students in the universal basic education Program. An Annual National Conference of the department of paper presented at the 2nd Educational Foundations, Enugu State University.
Adebowale DF, Alao KA (2008) Continuous assessment policy implementation in selected local government areas of Ondo State (Nigeria): Implications for successful implementation of the UBE program, KEJP Journal of educational.
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics. (4th edn), New York: HarperCollins.