CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Of Study
Assessment of students’ progress and eventual level of achievement is a critical component of every educational system. Formative testing is used in the teaching and learning process by breaking down subject matter content or a course into smaller hierarchical units for instruction; specifying objectives for each unit; designing and administering validated formative tests; offering group-based remediation in areas where students are deficient before moving on to the next unit; and finally, administering a summative test at the conclusion of all units (Kolawole, 2010). Ajogbeje (2010) asserts that segmenting a subject or course into smaller units helps students to effectively prepare for periodic tests. Additionally, these periodic tests encourage students to become more interested and committed to the teaching-learning process, therefore improving their performance. Thus, the frequent assessment of students’ skills, as required by the “6-3-3-4” system of education, aids significantly in determining students’ performance and may also be utilized to promote learning. As Alonge (2004) asserts, the purpose of administering tests and other assessment instruments throughout the instructional process is to lead, direct, and monitor students’ learning and progress toward course goals. Additionally, teachers and learners cannot function efficiently or successfully without access to accurate information about a student’s current achievement and progress toward achieving instructional goals. Thus, periodic tests, referred to as continuous assessment tests, are intended to mitigate the threatening consequences of a single test (summative test), which is often administered at the conclusion of a course of study (Kolawole, 2010).
Additionally, several aspects of continuous assessment that are critical to teaching-learning outcomes include the frequency with which teacher-learner achievements are reported, the emphasis on providing immediate feedback on results in the teaching-learning situation, and the requirement that the results of these in-course assessments be combined with those of terminal assessments when effecting the individual learner’s final output. According to Bardwell (1981), feedback is the information that a teacher delivers to a student on his or her performance on a certain assignment or exam. He continued by arguing that when such information is presented, the student has a greater awareness of his or her skills and may even develop a different view of himself or herself. Feedback has been proven in studies to give both reinforcement and corrective information (Gronlund & Linn, 1990). (Bardwell, 1981; Gronlund & Linn, 1990). In light of this, Ajogbeje (2012a) said that the formative assessment process included providing students with feedback on their test results or performance. According to Kulharvy (1977), there are two circumstances in which feedback does not execute its facilitative function. To begin, if the learner has access to feedback prior to responding, and secondly, if the content being studied is very challenging for the learner, He continued by stating that in the absence of these circumstances, one may infer that studies based on both theories agree that performance feedback assists in confirming accurate replies as well as identifying and correcting mistakes. This corrective role is almost certainly the most critical feature of feedback, and if given the option, feedback after incorrect replies would almost certainly have the largest beneficial impact. Thus, feedback was employed in this research to effect correction and reinforce students’ learning.
A great method to start a conversation among educators is to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of any certain testing procedure. In an age of unparalleled change in the educational landscape, innovations in curriculum, novel methods to teaching and assessment, and a focus on process improvement have contributed to the development of an environment that is sometimes referred to as learning-centered (Ramaley & Leskes, 2002).
Additionally, the growth of remote education and the availability of genuine online degree and certification programs have heightened student interest and motivation. There has also been an increase in assessment concerning testing methodologies, addressing learning objectives, and assessing student performance in this dynamic educational environment (Yang & Cornelious, 2005). These realities, combined with the inevitable transition from traditional pencil-and-paper exams to computer-mediated exams, have prompted authors to examine a variety of different aspects of various new testing protocols, including test anxiety, preparation, and students’ perceptions of various exam modes (Alltizer & Clausen, 2008). There are often worries about cheating and plagiarism with alternative educational systems (Damast, 2007), and debate on how to solve them (Williams, 2006) continues as well. These transformational demands have also prompted educators to investigate into a number of improvement opportunities, including testing, assessment, and learning assurance. We believe that reviewing open-book examinations and making the findings available would inspire educators to investigate research and discover opportunities for educational process improvement.’
1.2Â Â Statement Of The Problem
Ajogbeje (2010) asserts that segmenting a subject or course into smaller units helps students to effectively prepare for periodic tests. Additionally, these periodic tests encourage students to become more interested and committed to the teaching-learning process, therefore improving their performance. Thus, this research is motivated by the inadequacy of secondary school students in certain subjects as a consequence of the method used to teach such subjects. Second, the majority of research has focused on alternative methods of teaching, but not a single study has examined the effect of periodic testing on the academic performance of secondary school students.
