An Analysis of Classroom Assessment Strategies Utilized by Secondary School Teachers: A Case of Selected Schools in Kabwe District, Zambia.

An Analysis of Classroom Assessment Strategies Utilized by Secondary School Teachers: A Case of Selected Schools in Kabwe District, Zambia.

Charity Katongo Mpanza¹, Madalitso K. Banja^2*

¹PhD Student, University of Zambia

²Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of Zambia

*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90400092

Received: 12 March 2025; Revised: 26 March 2025; Accepted: 28 March 2025; Published: 30 April 2025

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the classroom assessment strategies employed by secondary school teachers in selected schools within Kabwe District, Zambia. The primary objectives of the study were:

• To identify the assessment strategies utilized by teachers in selected secondary schools in Kabwe District.
• To explore the rationale behind teachers’ choice of assessment strategies and their implications for learner outcomes.

Adopting a descriptive survey design, the study employed a concurrent embedded mixed method approach, involving 250 teachers, 10 school head teachers, and 8 Senior Education Standard Officers (SESOs). Data were collected through self-administered questionnaires and in-depth interviews.

The findings revealed the following:

• The majority of teachers in public secondary schools predominantly use summative assessment strategies that do not align with curriculum recommendations. These strategies, such as quizzes, oral question-and-answer sessions, and multiple-choice tests, primarily focus on lower-order cognitive skills and do not effectively promote critical thinking.\
• Formative assessment strategies, which require higher-order cognitive skills, such as essays, debates, role-playing, teacher expositions, and discussions, are frequently avoided due to time constraints and perceived difficulty.
• The selection of assessment strategies is influenced by systemic challenges including large class sizes, inadequate resources, insufficient administrative support for teachers’ training, and an education system that prioritizes summative assessment over formative learning.

The study concluded that secondary school teachers in Kabwe District predominantly rely on lower-order assessment strategies within a teacher-centered approach. The primary constraints identified were large class sizes, time limitations, inadequate training, and limited resources, all of which contribute to teachers’ reliance on summative assessments. As a result, student learning outcomes are negatively impacted due to the lack of formative, higher-order cognitive assessments.

To improve classroom assessment practices, the study recommends measures such as reducing class sizes to a maximum of 40 students per class, increasing time allocated for assessments, enhancing teacher training programs to address knowledge gaps and strengthening administrative support from school management to fully implement formative assessments.

Keywords: Classroom assessment, assessment strategies, formative assessment, cognitive skills, summative assessment, embedded mixed method.

Definitions

• Systemic Challenges

Systemic challenges refer to obstacles or difficulties that are inherent in a system, process, or organization. These challenges are often predictable, recurring, and can be addressed through deliberate planning and intervention. For this research it refers to the challenges inherent in the education system.

• Classroom Assessment Strategies

Classroom assessment strategies refer to the methods and techniques used by teachers to evaluate student learning and understanding in the classroom. These strategies can include quizzes, tests, projects, observations, and self-assessments.

• Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs)

Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) are specific methods used to assess student learning and understanding in the classroom. Examples of CATs include concept maps, self-assessment rubrics, and minute papers.

• Higher Order Cognitive Assessment

Higher order cognitive assessment refers to the evaluation of complex cognitive skills such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and creation. These assessments require students to think critically, solve problems, and demonstrate deep understanding of subject matter. For this research it referred to all formative assessment strategies.

• Lower Order Cognitive Assessments

Lower order cognitive assessments refer to the evaluation of basic cognitive skills such as recall, recognition, and comprehension. These assessments typically require students to remember or reproduce information. For this research, it referred to all summative or objective type of assessments.

• Formative Assessment

Formative assessment refers to the ongoing evaluation of student learning and understanding during the learning process. The purpose of formative assessment is to provide feedback to students and teachers, identify areas for improvement, and adjust instruction accordingly.

• Knowledge Gap

A knowledge gap refers to the difference between what students currently know and understand, and what they need to know and understand to achieve a specific learning goal. In this research it refers to the difference between what teachers currently know and understand, and what they need to know and understand about teaching strategies, to attain their teaching goal.

• Classroom Assessment

Classroom assessment refers to the evaluation of student learning and understanding in the classroom. This can include both formal and informal assessments, as well as formative and summative evaluations.

• Cognitive Skills

Cognitive skills refer to the mental processes and abilities that enable us to perceive, process, and respond to information. Examples of cognitive skills include attention, memory, language, problem-solving, and critical thinking.

• Outcomes-Based

Outcomes-based refers to an approach to education that focuses on measuring student learning outcomes, rather than simply assessing student performance on tests and assignments. This approach emphasizes the achievement of specific learning goals and objectives.

• Embedded mixed method design

Embedded mixed method design is where you collect and analyze both types of data at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.

INTRODUCTION

In 2013, the Zambian education system implemented an outcomes-based curriculum that replaced the old content-based curriculum which focused on rote memorization of factual knowledge (Wangeleja, 2010). The outcomes-based curriculum was intended to equip learners with life skills, knowledge, and values, to enable the learners to live quality, productive, and profitable lives, at global level, after they graduated from institutions of learning (MoE, 2013). Therefore, the new curriculum required that teachers prepare and conduct classroom assessment tasks that could help learners to acquire relevant skills and competencies in their fields of study. The teachers were therefore required to utilize classroom assessment tasks that involved both individual learner activities, and participative activities. These teaching and learning activities generally include role-plays, debate, group-work, pair-work, and teacher exposition, which are formative based. According to the MoE (2013), higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy should be applied to teaching and learning to enable learners to have the ability to make appropriate use of knowledge, concepts, skills, and principles in solving various problems in daily life.

However, global evidence in research indicates that implementation of outcomes-based curriculum was problematic and not very practical (Kabombwe, 2019; Jansen, 1999; Brindley, 1998). For instance, according to Donnelly (2007) and Killen (2005), in Australia as well as in the United States of America, educators found outcomes-based assessments to be very time consuming. Jansen (1999) posited that the pressure of examinations compromised the logic of outcomes-based approaches in South Africa. Literature evidence in Tanzania and Zambia also reveals that teachers were still using traditional methods of assessment instead of outcomes-based assessment strategies (Kabombwe, 2019; Makunja, 2016; Komba & Mwandanji, 2015).

Classroom assessment plays a pivotal role in informing teaching, enhancing learning, and improving learner outcomes. Despite having extensive pedagogical knowledge, teachers must implement effective assessment strategies to ensure meaningful student learning. According to Simpson-Beck (2011), Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) provide formative feedback that enhances student learning. Goodrum, Heckling, and Rennie (2005) argue that assessment should enhance learning, provide feedback, and develop critical thinking skills. However, studies suggest that many secondary school teachers in Zambia predominantly use traditional assessment methods focused on low-level cognitive skills (Mpolomoka, Magasu, Mainde, & Mtonga, 2023). Such approaches limit meaningful feedback and fail to address students’ learning difficulties (Susuwele-Banda, 2005).

Problem Statement

The Zambian curriculum emphasizes learner-centered teaching and formative assessment strategies (MoE, 2013). However, studies indicate that most teachers in secondary schools predominantly employ summative assessments, limiting student engagement and critical thinking (Mulenga-Hagane, Daka, Msango, Mwelwa & kakupa, 2019; Mpolomoka et al., 2023). Classroom assessment practices in Zambia remain largely unexamined, raising concerns about their alignment with educational policy and their impact on learner outcomes. This study investigates the assessment strategies used by secondary school teachers in Kabwe District, examining the reasons behind their choices and their implications for student learning.

Objectives

1. To determine the assessment strategies utilized by teachers in conducting classroom assessment in selected secondary schools in Kabwe District.
2. To investigate the reasons for the choice of classroom assessment strategies and its implication on learner outcomes in selected secondary schools in Kabwe District.

Research Questions

1. What assessment strategies do teachers utilize in conducting classroom assessment in selected secondary schools in Kabwe District?
2. What are the reasons for teachers’ choice of classroom assessment strategies and how does it impact learners’ outcomes in Kabwe District?

Conceptual Framework

This study is guided by two frameworks:

1. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, which classifies learning objectives into six cognitive levels: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. It helps analyze assessment strategies based on their cognitive complexity and alignment with learning objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
2. Formative and Summative Assessment Framework, which distinguishes between formative assessments (ongoing feedback to improve learning) and summative assessments (final evaluations of student learning). Effective assessments should balance both approaches while aligning with learning objectives and providing meaningful feedback.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Chronicled below are research findings of studies conducted globally on classroom assessment strategies used by secondary school teachers. In a case study conducted in Botswana investigating the effects of teachers’ classroom questions on achievements Adedoyin (2010), the results revealed that students perceived that their teachers’ classroom questions do not have positive impact on their learning outcomes, performance, and achievements in mathematics. The above findings imply that the teachers most likely utilize lower order assessment strategies with resultant low-level impact on learner outcomes. Khan and Inamullah (2011) conducted a study to explore the ratio of lower and higher-order questions teachers asked at secondary level using Bloom’s Taxonomy in Pakistan. The findings indicated that teachers spent much time asking low level cognitive questions, and very little higher-order questions. Specifically, out of 267 questions, 67% were knowledge based, 23% comprehension based, 7% application based, 2% analysis based, 1% synthesis based and no question was evaluation based. In another study conducted by Alsarimi (2000) on classroom assessment and grading practices in the Sultanate of Oman revealed that teachers use mainly short answer, completion and oral examinations, extended answer, and multiple-choice item formats, meaning that most questions are lower order category. According to Kellaghan and Greaney (2003), one of the strongest analyses of African schooling is the model of an active teacher and passive students aligning with the findings by Mulenga et al. (2019) that in Zambia, classrooms as spaces of learning were dominated by teacher centred activities, with minimal learner participation. Perry (2013), in her new study review on formative assessment in Africa, observed that formative assessment in Africa was more linked to the concept of CA, which Kapambwe (2010), in his study of the Zambia 2006-2009 Continuous Assessment pilot project, explained that CA in Zambia consisted of two components, which are, the formative-based assessment, and a series of cumulative summative assessments. However, according to the MoE (2013), CA in Zambia was inconsistently utilized, stating that the only time the CA was dismally used in the school set up is the time when teachers would like to assess learners in their teaching and learning, like testing on a topic. The above observation in the MoE (2013) report means that teachers in Zambia are more focused on objective type of assessment. In a study conducted by Mpolomoka et al. (2023) to examine classroom assessment practices of secondary school teachers in Shiwang’andu District of Zambia, the results revealed that there were more secondary school teachers that use traditional assessment as compared to those that use contemporary assessments in the sampled schools. In another study, which ought to be a source of concern, conducted to compare the Zambian Senior Secondary History examination between the old and revised curriculum using Bloom’s Taxonomy, revealed that the analyzed exam papers lacked the higher-level cognitive skills contained in Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Reasons for Teachers’ Choice of Classroom Assessment Strategies and Implications for Learner Outcomes

Global research has demonstrated that teachers’ selection of classroom assessment strategies is influenced by multiple factors. The following studies provide insights into this phenomenon:

Dhingra, Manhas, and Sethi (2007, p. 1262) found that teachers often “sacrifice learning for drilling students for things in which they will be held accountable.” This suggests that the primary concern for teachers in the classroom is frequently achieving high-stakes examination results, as they are held accountable for student performance. These findings align with Jansen (1999), who argued that examination pressures compromised the efficacy of outcome-based education in South Africa. Similarly, Lumadi (2013) posited that teachers experiencing high workloads and inadequate systemic support struggle to meet learners’ educational objectives. The researcher states further that to cope with the assessment challenges, teachers often by-pass the principle of utilizing diverse assessment methods and instead design objective tests that allow for quick and reliable grading. Hegazy (2019) further concluded that time constraints are a key impediment to the effective and consistent implementation of formative assessment practices. Based on these studies, it can be inferred that time limitations encourage the use of lower-order cognitive assessment strategies, which in turn negatively affect learner outcomes.

A study conducted in Malawi, focusing on teachers’ perceptions of classroom assessment practices, revealed that teachers predominantly viewed classroom assessment as periodic tests administered at specific intervals (Susuwele-Banda, 2005). Consequently, they demonstrated limited ability to employ diverse assessment methods and tools during instruction. Given that tests are primarily summative, they tend to emphasize lower-order cognitive skills, such as memorization and recall, rather than fostering critical thinking (Susuwele-Banda, 2005).

Research on classroom environments in Namibia by Nirashnee (2015) highlighted that teacher experienced high levels of stress due to inadequate classroom space. As a result, teacher-student interactions were constrained, limiting teachers’ ability to implement diverse and interactive assessment methods.

In Zambia, Mulenga (2015), as cited in Banja (2020), found that 60% of University of Zambia students pursuing a Bachelor of Education degree reported that the curriculum was not aligned with the knowledge and skills required for secondary school teaching. This suggests that teachers enter the profession with significant gaps in assessment knowledge and skills, which likely hinder their ability to implement effective classroom assessment strategies. Consequently, many teachers may resort to simple, objective-type assessments due to their ease of administration and grading.

Given that classroom assessment in Zambia remains predominantly teacher-centred and relies extensively on lower-order assessment strategies, further research is warranted to examine the assessment strategies employed by secondary school teachers in Kabwe District.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a descriptive survey design, with a concurrent embedded mixed methods approach to investigate assessment strategies implemented by secondary school teachers in Kabwe District, focusing on classroom assessment practices. The research targeted a population of 1,450 teachers from all public and grant-aided secondary schools in Kabwe District, along with 34 school head teachers and 11 Senior Education Standard Officers (SESOs). According to Kasonde (2013), a research sample constitutes a subset of the broader population, representing a specific segment from which data is collected. In this study, the sample comprised 10 secondary schools, comprising seven public and three grant-aided schools, yielding a total of 268 respondents, categorized as follows: 250 teachers, 10 head teachers, and eight SESOs. The sample was selected using a combination of random sampling and purposeful sampling techniques. Specifically, 250 teachers were randomly chosen from the 10 selected secondary schools, while 10 head teachers were purposively selected from the same schools, and eight SESOs were purposively selected from the Provincial Education Officer’s Office in Kabwe District.

The research instruments included self-administered questionnaires for the 250 teachers, and in-depth interview guides for the head teachers and SESOs. The data gathered from the teachers’ questionnaires were analyzed thematically using a framework approach to qualitative data analysis, as described by Ritchie and Spencer (1994). This approach involved identifying recurring themes and categorizing them according to the cognitive levels outlined in Bloom’s Taxonomy. In a similar manner, the interview transcripts from the head teachers and SESOs were analyzed and classified into themes that aligned with Bloom’s Taxonomy, which enabled the researcher to distinguish between higher-order and lower-order cognitive processes. Responses related to summative assessments were categorized as lower-order cognitive processes, while those pertaining to formative assessments were classified as higher-order cognitive processes, in accordance with Bloom’s framework. The analysis involved graphical representation and tabulation of the themes for ease of interpretation.

Some of the qualitative data were quantified and subjected to statistical analysis using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23. Prior to data collection, the research instruments underwent a pre-test through a pilot study and were reviewed by subject matter experts at the University of Zambia to ensure their validity and reliability. Furthermore, to enhance the credibility of the interview data, the transcripts were subjected to member checks, wherein participants reviewed the findings to confirm the accuracy of their responses. Triangulation of data was achieved through the integration of multiple data sources—teacher’s questionnaires, head teachers’ interviews, and SESOs’ interviews—which provided a comprehensive understanding of the assessment strategies employed in secondary schools. As noted by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007), triangulation enhances the validity of research findings by cross-referencing data from various sources.

By employing both semi-structured interviews and unstructured questionnaires, the researcher was able to cross-verify data from multiple stakeholders, which minimized potential researcher bias. The use of diverse instruments and the inclusion of multiple stakeholder perspectives, senior education officials, head teachers, and teachers, provided a multifaceted view of the assessment strategies in practice. Senior education officials contributed policy and administrative insights, head teachers provided operational and leadership perspectives, while teachers offered firsthand accounts of classroom dynamics and assessment strategies in secondary schools within Kabwe District.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the findings and discussion of the study concerning the strategies utilized by secondary school teachers. The discussion is in line with the objectives, which were: (1) to determine the assessment strategies utilized by teachers in conducting classroom assessment in selected secondary schools in Kabwe District, and (2) to investigate the reasons for the choice of classroom assessment strategies and its implication on learner outcomes in selected secondary schools in Kabwe District. The two objectives are broken down into the following themes in order to gain deeper insight into the research phenomena: (i) teachers’ preferred types of classroom assessment; (ii) teachers’ recognition of officially permitted classroom assessment types; (iii) teachers’ reasons for preferred assessment types and (iv), teachers’ compliance to the demands of classroom assessment.

Teachers’ preferred types of classroom assessment

The study sought to establish the types of classroom assessment teachers actually preferred to utilize in their teachings. The teachers were asked to tick against any one or any combination from the four major classroom assessment types namely: formative (FA); summative (SA); diagnostic (DA); and continuous assessment (CA). From the responses, those that indicated the use of formative, summative, continuous, and diagnostic assessment were 98 (45.58%); those that utilized formative, summative and continuous assessment were 63 (29.3%); the teachers that preferred summative and continuous assessment were 44 (20.47%) and lastly, only 10 (4.65%) respondents indicated a preference for formative and summative assessment types. The figure below illustrates the results.

Data source: Fieldwork

Interviews with the head teachers revealed that teachers generally utilized different combinations of assessment types, according to their abilities and prevailing circumstances at the time. For instance, the teachers from the grant aided schools used more of formative and the continuous assessment combination whereas teachers in public schools opted for the easiest combination to administer, mainly the summative and continuous assessment combination, the latter being wrongly conducted as continuous tests. Formative classroom assessment was more challenging to public school teachers because it was more demanding on time, and required them to be more innovative and resourceful since the resources to carry out classroom assessments were scarce. A few innovative teachers are able to improvise through the use of local materials to substitute the unavailable materials/equipment. One head-teacher stated:

‘Some of these clever teachers are able to use “tutoli-toli” in place of Bunsen burners in the laboratory to heat up reagents in test tubes’. ‘Tu toli-toli’ refers to locally made, open flame, kerosene lamps.

However, the results from the SESOs concerning the types of assessment utilized by teachers were as follows: the teachers only utilized the classroom assessments that were easy to administer. The most popular were the test-based type such as simple written classroom exercises, quizzes, oral question and answer, group work without proper supervision, and homework which is rarely marked.

SESO 1 said:

“Group-work, classroom exercise and homework normally accompany every lesson. Pair work is less frequently used because it is a challenge for teachers, especially in classrooms involving very large number of pupils. Group work is most favoured because the teacher simply arranges learners in very large groups and then gets their feedback. Most learners in the groups benefit very little, except the intelligent ones who dominate the discussions.”

SESOs 2 said:

“Teachers prefer question and answer types of assessments, mostly administered orally. They also use quizzes and group work.”

SESO 3 said:

“Group work is the teachers’ favourite though they lack the necessary skill to administer this type of classroom assessment. He quipped, “I’m afraid that group-work for most learners is not beneficial because they are just dormant passengers, merely escorting the smart learners. I don’t blame them because the teachers are forced to make large groups which end up defeating the purpose of group-work.”

SESO 4 said:

” Teachers usually take the class through a question-and-answer session after the lesson. Group work is also preferred in most classroom sessions.”   

Abbreviations: Formative Assessment (FA), Summative Assessment (SA), Continuous Assessment (CA)

Teachers’ recognition of officially permitted classroom assessment types

This study was done to determine the classroom assessment types that teachers recognized as being officially permitted by the management.  The teachers were asked to simply state the classroom assessment type(s) that they believed were officially permitted. The responses revealed the following: formative, summative, continuous and diagnostic assessment scored 145 (67.44%); formative, summative, and continuous assessment scored 35 (16.28%); summative and continuous assessment had 22 (10.23%); and lastly formative and summative assessment only scored 13 (6.05%). The graph below is an illustration of the results.

Data source: Fieldwork

The head teachers stated that officially permitted classroom assessment types were the formative, summative and continuous assessments. However, the tendency for most teachers was to use the easiest classroom assessment procedures which simply serve as tests to gauge the learners’ knowledge attained after lessons. Great effort is required to compel teachers to comply with curriculum prescribed classroom assessment procedures.

When the SESOs were interviewed regarding the permitted classroom assessment types, they responded that it was the formative type of assessment, which is learner centred. In Zambia, a combination of the daily classroom teacher prepared assessments, and CA which are administered fortnightly or monthly, is what teachers are supposed to utilize, except for end of topic or end of term when summative assessments are conducted.

SESO 1 said:

“All these teachers know that learner centred classroom assessments are the officially approved assessments but it is just that the odds are against them regarding suitable teaching facilities. However, the few experienced and innovative ones are able to manage somehow, even with overcrowded classrooms.”

SESO 2 said that the teachers in grant aided secondary schools are able to administer formative classroom assessments because:

“Their conditions are more favourable compared to public schools. They have smaller class sizes, teaching materials are readily available, laboratories and Home Economics rooms well equipped, and generally very good school infrastructure and surroundings.”

SESO 3 said:

 “It is one thing to tell teachers to use learner centred approach but without providing them with the necessary support it is a sheer waste of time. We are, indirectly, merely training teachers to be experts at devising means to deceive supervisors that they are fulfilling the prescribed classroom assessment approach when in fact not.”

Teachers’ reasons for preferred assessment type

The aim of the study was to determine the reasons why teachers preferred particular types of classroom assessment. The results were as follows: A total of 97 (45%) teachers said their choice was based on the fact that the assessment helped them to gauge the understanding of the pupils. In other words, the assessment served the purpose of tests only. The teachers who chose assessment type because it helped learners to understand concepts, promote critical thinking and yield results suitable to be modified for future teaching were 33 (15%). The teachers who based their preference on the assessment’s simplicity to administer were 28 (13%). A total of 25 (12%) teachers stated that their choice of assessment type was solely because it was required of them by the authorities. The teachers who said their choice of assessment type was based on the fact that it helped them to prepare pupils for examinations were 17 (8%). Lastly, 15 teachers (7%) said their choice of classroom assessment type was on the basis that it helped them to gauge the learners’ prior knowledge of concepts before assessments were prepared and administered.

Data source: Fieldwork

Contrary to majority teachers’ submissions that their preference for assessment type was because the assessment enabled them to gauge the level of learner understanding, the head teachers in public secondary schools were unanimous in their assertion that teachers’ choice of classroom assessment type mainly hinges on the simplicity to administer the work. Head teachers in grant aided schools however said that it was not up to the teachers to choose but simply to comply.

The SESOs, in agreeing with the head teachers of public secondary schools, went even further by stating that the teachers’ preference for assessment type that were simple to conduct made them opt for group-work, simple question and answer exercises, quizzes, and homework, which largely remain unmarked. The aspect of gauging learner understanding therefore, as stated by majority of teachers, is not a priority since feed-back is almost non-existent.

Teachers’ compliance to the demands of classroom assessment  

The teachers were asked to indicate yes or no to the question of whether or not they always followed official guidelines when conducting classroom assessment. From the total responses received, 132 (61%) said they always complied whilst 83 (39%) said they did not always comply. The teachers who did not answer in the affirmative attributed their failure to comply to a number of reasons, the major ones being: heavy work-load which involved marking and giving feed-back to stake-holders, interaction with learners after classroom lessons for remedial work and other engagements with each pupil at a personal level. This forces the teachers to deliberately give less work than prescribed. The second reason advanced for failure to comply was inadequate time allocated for classroom assessment, coupled with distractions due to numerous unplanned staff meetings. Thirdly, inadequate know-how to utilize certain teaching strategies forces teachers to use short-cuts. The fourth reason was the lack of adequate support from the administration coupled with poor monitoring of teachers’ compliance levels. Lastly, unforeseen circumstances sometimes obstruct the planned classroom assessment programmes, for instance, climate change related disruptions involving power outages, failure to supply clean water leading to temporally school closures, and damage to school infrastructure due to stormy weather.

Data source: Fieldwork

Interviews with the head-teachers yielded the following results: The three head teachers from the grant aided schools stated that only a few teachers were not complying fully because they had strict compliance regulatory systems in place. They however indicated that lapses by supervisors could open doors to non-compliance by teachers.  One head teacher said:

“Most teachers tend to compromise when they are not held accountable.”

However, the head teachers in public secondary schools were of a different view in that they generally believed that compliance to classroom assessment demands was at various levels, due to numerous factors at play, the major ones being as follows: shortage of teachers, increased work-load especially for those with large classes, that is, 70 and above pupils, and in addition the teacher has to teach 44 periods in a week, whereas a normal situation is where a teacher has only a maximum of 40 pupils in class and takes not more than 30 periods in a week. Teachers are hence forced to compromise on standards when they are overwhelmed and stressed. Time constraint is another contributing factor which forces teachers to avoid learner centred teaching and also opt for simple tests, quizzes, question and answer sessions and home-works which are even rarely marked. Lastly, lazy supervisors contribute to poor compliance by teachers despite safeguards such as scrutinizing learners’ scripts; random monitoring of teachers to check on accuracy of lesson plans; check teacher records fortnightly; randomly check on teachers as they are teaching and finally consult pupils for teachers’ compliance.

 One head teacher said:

“Pupils are honest mwe! You see, learners are the beneficiaries of properly conducted learner-centred teaching and they will not protect any erring, non-compliant teacher.”

Similar results were obtained from interviews with SESOs concerning compliance to classroom assessment.  The overall response was mixed because the majority of the SESOs said that there was almost 100% compliance among the teachers in grant aided schools whilst the compliance in public schools was low and quite discouraging. The following are typical statements recorded verbatim:

SESO 1 said:  

 “Some of these problems of failure to comply by teachers are foundational. Teachers from colleges and universities are poorly mentored when they are starting work. They lack confidence in practical application skills and hence rarely adhere to official classroom assessment guidelines. Assessments are usually not in line with the syllabus and are made without due regard to expected outcomes.”

SESO 2 said:

“Aside from the challenging teaching and learning conditions in most schools, the quality of training in classroom assessment in the training institutions lives much to be desired. There is therefore rampant setting of out of syllabus classroom assessments. Even though teaching is done, the feed-back is rare.”     

SESO 3 said:

 “Assessments are usually over-simplified to reduce on work-load because of time constraints. Because the learner-centred classroom assessments are viewed as too demanding, most teachers in public secondary schools reduce the number of weekly assessments and then ‘cook’ results for the fictitious assessments.”

SESO 6 said:

 “Teachers need serious retraining in classroom assessments apart from these internal CPDs. Non-compliance is not always due to unfavorable conditions obtaining in schools but it is also because the teachers are not up to date with latest assessment techniques, which act as confidence boosters, as they endeavour to practice what they have learnt.

Concerning the teachers’ preferred types of classroom assessment, results illustrated in figure 4.1, show that teachers prefer to utilize different combinations of the four major types of classroom assessment, which are formative, summative, continuous assessment and diagnostic assessment. The results revealed that 45.6%, close to half of the teachers, prefer to utilize all the four types of assessment, embracing both the higher order and lower order assessment strategies. The remaining teachers also prefer to utilize different but less combinations of classroom assessment types. However, it is worth noting that the teachers’ preference does not necessarily reflect what actually takes place in the classroom, as per the findings by Ndalichako (2015) that sometimes teachers reported favorable perceptions of classroom assessment but they seem to face a conflict in effective assessment in their classrooms. It is possible therefore that though the teachers may prefer to utilize the correct type of classroom assessment and strategies, certain factors that impact classroom assessment may cause them to use a wrong approach, as suggested in the revealed literature,

The findings from the interviews with the school head teachers revealed that teachers do utilize different assessment strategies. However, they mainly opted for those that were easy to administer, the summative type, which are in the lower cognitive level according to Bloom’s Taxonomy, as illustrated in Table 1. The wrong choice of classroom assessment strategies, according to the head teachers, is mainly due to time constraint, which is consistent with the research findings by Hegazy (2019), that time was the underlying factor that hindered the effective implementation of formative assessment practices.

Similar results were obtained from the interviews with the SESOs, as illustrated in Table 2, concerning teachers’ actual utilization of classroom strategies. The SESOs indicated that teachers mainly utilized assessment types and strategies that were easy to prepare and administer. The most preferred were the test based, such as simple written classroom exercises, simple quizzes, oral question and answer sessions, rarely marked home works, and poorly conducted group work, especially in large classes and overcrowded classrooms, which according to the conceptual framework are generally ranked in the lower cognitive level. These findings are in line with evidence in literature by Alsarimi (2000), that teachers mainly utilized lower-level cognitive questions in the Sultanate of Oman.

Concerning the teachers’ recognition of officially permitted classroom assessment types, the results in figure 4.2 reveal that the majority of teachers, 67.44%, are able to recognize all the assessment types.

However, according to the findings from head teacher interviews, the teachers’ ability to recognize the different types of assessment did not reflect in their classroom practice because the tendency for most teachers was to utilize the easiest classroom assessment type and strategies. The observation by the head teachers that teachers in public secondary schools have to be compelled to use formative assessment strategies suggests that there could be underlying factors that hinder teachers from doing what is right in classroom assessment.

The SESOs results also brought out observations in line with the findings from the head teachers, that even though the teachers may recognize the official assessment strategies, it is not obvious that they will use them in practice. Though this is not a comparative study, the SESOs were able to make reference to grant aided schools as being in a better position regarding teaching facilities.

Regarding teachers’ reasons for preferred classroom assessment type, the results obtained from the teachers’ questionnaires show that the teachers’ choice of classroom assessment type is not based on improving learners’ outcomes since only a minority 25.2% of teachers indicated preference for utilization of higher cognitive assessment strategies, see figure 4.3. This implies that the other 84% of the teachers made their choices for classroom assessment based on the lower-level cognitive strategies.

The head teachers’ interview results revealed that the majority of teachers’ choice of classroom assessment, in public secondary schools, was based more on how simple the assessment was to prepare and administer in class than on how the assessment would enhance the learners’ outcomes. The head teachers in grant aided schools on the other hand stated that it was not up to the teachers to choose but to simply comply, in line with the MoE (2013) directive that teachers should adopt a learner-centred approach in their classroom assessment, which involve formative assessment strategies.

The results from the SESOs interviews largely agreed with the results from the public-school head teachers’ interviews, which showed that the teachers’ reasons for their choice of simple classroom assessment strategies was based on simplicity to prepare and administer. In addition, the SESOs’ general assertion that teachers specifically opted for group-work, simple oral question and answer sessions, quizzes, rarely marked home-work exercises, and that feed-back was almost non-existent is in line with the findings by Kellaghan and Greaney (2003), that classroom assessment in Africa is deficient and not designed to develop standard higher order cognitive skills.

This implies that the majority of learners in secondary schools within Kabwe District are only assessed using low order strategies, with resultant poor outcomes.

Lastly, concerning the results of the teachers’ compliance to classroom assessment, the results in figure 4.4 indicated that the majority, (61%) of teachers claimed that they always complied with curriculum recommended guidelines, whereas only 39% said they did not comply due to various teaching challenges. However, analysis of the reasons given by the teachers that failed to comply casts doubt on the credibility of the answers given by those teachers that claimed to comply. The reason is that all the teachers faced the same daunting challenges such as large class sizes; time constraints; and inadequate administrative support which compel teachers to compromise their classroom assessment standards, as concluded by various researchers. Research evidence shows that teachers that face the above constraints tend to resort to drilling of students instead of conducting formative assessments. They also point out that teachers design simple objective tests and limited application of various instructional methods, (Dhingra et al., 2007; Lumadi, 2013; & Nirashnee, 2015).

Results from the head-teachers’ interviews revealed that majority of public secondary school teachers did not always comply with curriculum guidelines and that this could be attributed to numerous challenges as mentioned above. The results also show that because of the time constraints, teachers are compelled to adopt low order simple summative type assessment   strategies, agreeing with the findings by Hegazy (2019) that time was the underlying factor that hindered the effective and consistent implementation of formative assessment practices.

The results of the interviews with the SESOs were in line with the findings from the head-teachers’ interview results, which showed that the majority of teachers in public secondary schools did not comply with the recommended curriculum guidelines in their assessment preparation and practice in class. In addition, the SESOs stated that the teachers were deficient in knowledge to conduct classroom assessments, which agrees with the contention by Mulenga (2015), cited in Banja (2020) that 60% of University of Zambia students pursuing the Bachelor of Education Degree reported that the content of the degree was not related to the knowledge and skills needed for teaching in secondary schools.

CONCLUSION

(i) The majority of teachers in public secondary schools predominantly use summative assessment strategies that do not align with curriculum recommendations. These strategies, such as quizzes, oral question-and-answer sessions, and multiple-choice tests, primarily focus on lower-order cognitive skills and do not effectively promote critical thinking.

(ii) Formative assessment strategies, which require higher-order cognitive skills, such as essays, debates, role-playing, teacher expositions, and discussions, are frequently avoided due to time constraints and perceived difficulty.

(iii) The selection of assessment strategies is influenced by systemic challenges, major ones being large class sizes, inadequate teaching resources, insufficient administrative support for teachers’ training, and an education system that prioritizes summative assessment over formative learning.

The study concluded that secondary school teachers in Kabwe District predominantly rely on lower-order assessment strategies within a teacher-centred approach. The primary constraints identified were large class sizes, time limitations, inadequate training, and limited resources, all of which contribute to teachers’ reliance on summative assessments. As a result, student learning outcomes are negatively impacted due to the lack of formative, higher-order cognitive assessments.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations were made:

1. Large classes to be reduced to recommended maximum of forty learners to avoid overcrowding and allow for productive learner-teacher interaction.
2. Teachers to be accorded more time to allow for conducting of assessment using formative assessment strategies.
3. The schools should implement robust in-service training for teachers such as CPD programmes and also effective mentoring of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) to eliminate the teachers’ classroom assessment knowledge gap.

REFERENCES

1. Adedoyin, O. O. (2010). Factor – analytic study of teachers’ perceptions on self-efficacy in Botswana junior secondary schools: Implications for educational quality. European            Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2), 139-155.
2. Alsarimi, A.M. (2000). Classroom assessment and grading practices in the Sultanate of Oman: Unpublished dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
3. Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. (1^st).         Longman.
4. Banja, M, K. (2020). Centrality of the teacher in mentorship and implementation of school curriculum in Zambia. Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research,17(4), 1-18. eISSN: 1813-2227.
5. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook: The cognitive domain. David McKay.
6. Bloom, B.S. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Center for the study of evaluation of instructional programs, 1-12. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1.
7. Brindley, G. (1998). Outcomes-based assessment and reporting in language programs: A review of the issues. Language Testing, 15(1), 45–85.
8. Dhingra, R., Manhas, S. Sethi, N. (2007). Involvement of Parents in School Related Activities. Journal of Social Sciences,15(2).
9. Donnelly, R. (2007). Online problem-based learning approach in higher education. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Online and distance learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and    Information Science Reference.
10. Ewing, J.C. & Whittington, N.S. (2007). Types and Cognitive Levels of Questions Asked By Professors during College of Agriculture Class Sessions. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 91-99.
11. Goodrum, D., Heckling, M., & Rennie, L. (2005). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian Schools. Camberra Department of Education: Training and Youth Affairs.
12. Hegazy, H. (2019). Teachers’ perceived understanding of formative assessment and how it impacts their classroom practice: A case study investigation. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 19(2).
13. Jansen, J., & Christie, P. (1999). Changing curriculum: Studies on outcomes-based education in South Africa. Juta & Co.
14. Kabombwe, Y. M., & Mulenga, I. M. (2019). Implementation of the competency-based curriculum by teachers of history in selected secondary schools in Lusaka district,           Yesterday and Today, 22, 19–41. https://doi.org/10.17159/2223-     0386/2019/n22a2
15. Kabombwe, Y., Machila, N., & Sikayomya, P. (2021). A comparative analysis of the Zambian senior secondary history examination between the old and revised curriculum using Bloom’s taxonomy. Yesterday and today, 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/22230386/2021/n25a2
16. Kapambwe, W.M. (2010). The implementation of school based continuous assessment (CA) in Educational Research and Reviews, 5(3), 99.
17. Kasonde-Ng’andu, S. (2013). Writing a research proposal in educational research. Lusaka: UNZA Press.
18. Kellaghan, T. & Greaney, V. (2003). Monitoring Performance: Assessment and Examination in Africa: Washington DC, World Bank. P46.
19. Khan, N.G. & Inamullah, M.H. (2011). Effects of Team Achievements Division (ETAD) on Academic Achievement of Students. Asian Social Science, 7, 211-215.
20. Lumadi, M.W. (2013). Challenges Besetting Teachers in Classroom Assessment: An Exploratory Perspective. Journal of Social Sciences.
21. Mainde, D., Mtonga, D.E., Magasu, O., & Mpolomoka, D.L. (2023). Examining Civic Education Learning and Assessment Strategies in Selected Secondary Schools in Zambia. Asian journal of education and social studies, 49(1), 42-52.
22. Makunja, G. (2016). Challenges facing teachers in implementing competence-based curriculum in Tanzania: The case of community secondary schools in Morogoro International Journal of Education and Social Science, 3, 30–37.
23. Ministry of Education. (2012). 30^th Education Policy Guidelines and Instructions. Ministry of Education.
24. Ministry of Education. (2013). The Zambia Education Curriculum Frame-work., Lusaka: Curriculum Development Centre.
25. Ministry of Education. (2013). The Zambia education curriculum framework. Curriculum Development Centre.
26. Mulenga, I. M. (2015). Preparing quality teachers-challenge of contemporary teacher education curriculum designing. Distance Education and teachers’ Training in Africa            (DETA). Conference Book of Abstracts.
27. Mulenga-Hagane, M., Daka, H., Msango, H.J., Mwelwa, K. & Kakupa, P. (2019). Formative Assessment as a means of Improving Learner Achievement: Lessons from Selected     Primary Schools of Lusaka, Zambia. Journal of Lexicography and Terminology,3 (1).
28. Ndalichako, J. L. (2015). Secondary School Teachers’ Perceptions of Assessment: International Journal of Education Technology, 5(5), 326-330.
29. Nirashnee, M. (2015). Teachers’ experiences with overcrowded classrooms in a mainstream University of KwaZulu-Natal.
30. Perry, L. (2013). Review of Formative Assessment Use and Training in Africa, International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 1(2), 94-101
31. Scott, T. (2003). Bloom’s taxonomy applied to testing in computer science classes. Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 19(1), 267–274.
32. Simpson-Beck, V. (2011). Assessing classroom assessment techniques. Active learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 125-132.
33. Susuwele-Banda, W.J. (2005). Classroom Assessment in Malawi: Teachers’ Perceptions and The Curriculum Journal, 16 (2), 207-223.
34. Wangeleja, M. (2010). The teaching and learning of competency-based mathematics curriculum: A paper presented at the Annual Seminar of the Mathematical Association of Tanzania at Mazimbu Campus. Morogoro: Sokoine University of Agriculture.