Effect of Assessment for Learning (Afol) on Mathemetics Performance Among Senior Secondary School Students in Port Harcourt Metropolis, Nigeria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.910.13258Keywords:
Assessment, Assessment for Learning, Performance, Mathematics.Abstract
The study investigated Effect of Assessment for Learning (AfoL) on Mathematics Performance among Senior Secondary School Students in Port Harcourt Metropolis. The study adopted the quasi-experimental research design. The population of the study comprised of 3,234 SS2 students drawn across all public secondary schools in Port Harcourt metropolis. A sample of 60 SS2 students across two schools was drawn for the study using purposive sampling technique. Intact class was used without random assignment. The researcher classified the students into the experimental and the treatment groups using the two schools (School A & B) with school A being the experimental group (AfoL) and B (AoL) the control group. These are the assessment for learning group as school A and the control group. The research instrument used for the study was “Mathematics Performance Test” (MPT) which served as pre-test and a reshuffled version serving as the posttest. Table of specification (ToS) was used to determine content and validity of the instrument while KR20 was used to determine a reliability coefficient of 0.91. Mean and standard deviation, t-test and 2-Way ANOVA were used in the analysis. Results showed that there is a significant difference (p=0.000<0.05) in the effect of AfoL on mathematics performance of senior secondary school students in Port Harcourt metropolis as compared between their pretest and posttest scores. There was also a significance difference (p=.021<.05) in the effect of AfoL on mathematics performance of senior secondary school students in Port Harcourt metropolis as compared between the experimental and control groups. On the other hand, there was no significant difference (p=.80>.05) in the effect of AfoL and AoL on mathematics performance of male and female senior secondary school students in Port Harcourt metropolis. Based on this, recommendation among others was that classroom teachers and evaluators should from time to time assess their students (AfoL) instead of waiting till the end of the term (Summative assessment).
References
Bangert-Drowns, R.L.,. Kulik, C.-L.C., Kulik, J.A. & Morgan, M. (1991) The instructional effect of feedback in testlike events. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2) 213-238
Black, P..J. & Wiliam, D. (2010) The formative purpose: assessment must first promote learning. Chicago. Chicago Press.
Brown, G. T. L. (2019) Is Assessment for Learning Really Assessment? Front. Educ. 4:64. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.0006.
Brown, G. T. L., & Ngan, M. Y. (2010). Contemporary Educational Assessment: Practices, Principles, and Policies. Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia.
Burns, M. (2005). ‘Looking at how students reason’ Educational Leadership. 63(3); 26-31.
Chigonga, B. (2020). Formative Assessment in Mathematics Education in the Twenty-First Century, Theorizing STEM Education in the 21st Century, Kehdinga George Fomunyam, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.88996. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/books/theorizing-stem-education-in-the-21st-century/formativeassessment-in-mathematics-education-in-the-twenty-first-century
Dempster, F.N. (1992) Using tests to promote learning: A neglected classroom resource. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25 (4) 213-217.
Elshout-Mohr, M. (1994) Feedback in self-instruction. European Education, 26 (2) 58-73.
Ernest, H. (2014) Assessment for Learning In Secondary Mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270822789_ASSESSMENT_FOR_LEARNING_IN_SECONDARY_MATHEMATICS
Fuchs, L.S. & Fuchs, D. (1986) Effects of systematic formative evaluation-A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53 (3) 199-208.
Gravett, S. (2005) Adult Learning: Designing and Implementing Learning Events: A Dialogic Approach. Pretoria: Van Schaik;
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Meta-Analyses in Education. London: Routledge.
Jablonka, E. (2012). Boredom in mathematics classrooms from Germany, Hong Kong and the United States. Retrieved from:http://cerme8.metu.edu.tr/wgpapers/WG11/WG11_Jablonka.pdf
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment minute by minute, day by day. Educ. Leadersh. 63, 19–24. Available online at: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/nov05/vol63/num03/Classroom-Assessment@-Minute-by-Minute,-Day-by-Day.aspx
Learnalberta (2008) Assessment in Mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.learnalberta.ca/content/mewa/html/assessment/types.html
McNamee, G.D. & Chen, J. (2005) Dissolving the line between assessment and teaching. Educational Leadership, 72-77
Murray, S. (2011). Declining participation in post-compulsory secondary school Mathematics Education, 13(3), 269–285.
Wiliam, D. (2011) What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37 (1), 3-14 241
Tunstall, P. & Gsipps, C. (1996). Teachers feedback to young children in formative assessment: a typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4); 389-404.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Ijeoma Margaret Opara, Idongesit Victor Uwah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
