Continuous assessment: Pitfalls and opportunities

As had become the norm with many public employees, there has been accumulating sloth with many teachers who have even found it fit to short-change learners by angling for extra lessons which provided an opportunity to earn that extra dollar.

THE year 2017 saw the launch of a new curriculum which triggered mixed reactions among Zimbabweans with some describing it as punitive, while others saw progressive elements in it. One thing for certain, it brought an increased workload on learners and teachers by incorporating a widened list of learning methods which included continuous assessment.

Continuous assessment is the evaluation of a pupil`s progress throughout a course of study done through specific tasks, projects and assignments.

In the Zimbabwean context, it meant that pupils would have their grasp of concepts measured not only through termed examinations but also incorporate how they can apply those ideas in practice.

The idea was meant to ensure that the grading system for learners did not anchor on controlled examinations but also left room for those with skills to get a fair claim at marks.

There is no homogeneity within learners and continuous assessment was to come as a refreshing addition to the way merit is measured.

Some students who failed to impress under strict examination conditions which are intimidating by nature would get a chance to exhibit their ingenuity in less stringent conditions.

Experts who supported this move said it was an important turnaround to the country`s approach to academics which has been criticised for producing theoretically sound graduates that are deficient in practice.

While it has documented benefits, it seems the way the idea was introduced made it difficult to appraise its success or lack thereof.

Firstly, the idea came pre-packaged within a curriculum resented by parents with some even calling for its total abandonment.

A problem was to arise out of a situation of this nature as continuous assessment requires collaborative effort between parents and educators.

Once one part of the support system (parents) were not forthcoming, it meant that the success rate would be limited.

Reality is that parents usually are the ones who provide the knowledge as well as resource support for projects and assignments which go beyond the classroom walls.

The previous leadership within the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education did not take time to ensure parents bought into the idea, which gave rise to discontent and misinterpretation of what it entailed.

Resultantly, parents were not ready to play a part in their children`s learning processes by becoming apathetic.

Another factor which proved detrimental to the idea and may need attention is the readiness of teachers to implement new ideas.

Most teachers had devised a methodical approach to their teaching and had rested in the comforts of being mechanical.

It comes as no surprise that the strongest criticism of the new curriculum came from teachers` associations.