Rethinking Classroom Assessment: Rural Nepalese Teachers’ Experiences with Formative Practices

Authors

  • Rajendra Kumar Shah Department of Foundation of Education,Faculty of Education,Tribhuvan University, Sanothimi Campus, Nepal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0533-1338 (unauthenticated)
  • Pradeep Kumar Bohara Department of Population, Faculty of Education, Tribhuvan University, Sanothimi Campus, Nepal
  • Rekha Raut Department of Population, Faculty of Education, Tribhuvan University, Sanothimi Campus, Nepal
  • Khadga Bahadur Katuwal Liverpool John Moores University UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69971/dss.1.2.2024.23

Keywords:

Formative assessment, CAS, evaluation, teaching, learning

Abstract


Formative assessment remains an evolving practice, and the Continuous Assessment System is widely recognized as one of the most effective pedagogical approaches globally, envisioned to enhance the learning process for students. However, its practical implementation remains limited in many developing nations, particularly in relation to their instructional methodologies. The gap between policy formulation and classroom practice is frequently overlooked, especially when considering the insights of a secondary-level teacher from Baghchaur Municipality, Nepal, whose reflections informed the understanding of CAS's effectiveness and the challenges impeding its application. This convergent mixed methods study employed a census-based sampling strategy, incorporating all 40 teachers from 20 secondary schools within municipalities offering subjects such as Health, Population, and Social Studies. The study utilized a combination of randomized open-ended and Likert-scale questions, with the instrument's reliability confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency distributions) and inferential statistical techniques, including independent samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA, both grounded in chi-square analysis. Thematic analysis was also applied to data from non-observation periods, which provided critical qualitative insights. One of the central findings indicated that teachers generally held positive perceptions of CAS, acknowledging its potential to enrich instructional opportunities. Furthermore, many educators believed that CAS could reduce purposeless absenteeism (M = 4.45, SD = 0.81), support consistent graduation rates (M = 4.40, SD = 0.78), and enhance both academic achievement and teaching licensure outcomes (M = 4.30, SD = 0.83). Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences based on gender or teaching experience (p > .05), indicating that challenges related to CAS implementation are commonly experienced across demographics. Thematic analysis identified three major barriers: acute shortages of resources and disproportionate student-teacher ratios; insufficient and ineffective professional development initiatives; and external systemic influences that are both unsupportive and underdeveloped. The study revealed that while experienced educators recognize the pedagogical value of CAS, its effective implementation is hindered by a persistent gap between policy and practice. CAS should be viewed as a flexible, evolving process requiring ongoing improvement. Achieving meaningful reform demands strategic resource allocation, sustained teacher development, and the integration of formative assessment into school culture.

Author Biography

  • Rajendra Kumar Shah, Department of Foundation of Education,Faculty of Education,Tribhuvan University, Sanothimi Campus, Nepal

    Dr. Rajendra Kumar Shah is an Associate Professor at Tribhuvan University, Nepal. He holds a Ph.D. from IASE, Lucknow University, India, and earned his BBA and M.Ed. in Curriculum and Evaluation from Tribhuvan University. Awarded the Nepal Bidhya Bhusan Padak in 2014, he has taught at various undergraduate and postgraduate institutions and held leadership roles such as Chair of the RMC, Thesis Evaluation Committee, and Subject Committee in Foundations of Education. Dr. Shah has authored several books and published over 200 research papers in national and international journals. His work focuses on learner-centered teaching, critical pedagogy, constructivism, curriculum development, and inclusive education. He has led and participated in numerous research projects and academic forums and has also served as a psychosocial counselor for various NGOs and INGOs.

References

Adhikari, Suresh and Shyam Trital. 2021. Examination-Oriented Education System in Nepal: A Critical Review. Journal of Educational Research and Innovation 1: 23-35. https://doi.org/10.3126/jeri.v1i1.40356

Barthakur, Abhinava, Vitomir Kovanović, Shane Dawson and Christopher C. Deneen. 2024. The Application of Curriculum Analytics for Improving Assessments and Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 40: 20-37. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.9383

Bhatta, Khim.2023. Quality Assurance Agenda in Nepali TVET System. Journal of Technical and Vocational Education and Training 17:74-81. https://doi.org/10.3126/tvet.v17i1.52423

Bhatta, Shiva Dev and Shankar Poudel. 2020. Practice and Challenges of the Continuous Assessment System at the Basic Level of Education in Nepal. Social Inquiry: Journal of Social Science Research 3:1-15. https://doi.org/10.3126/si.v3i1.33230.

Black, Paul, and Dylan Wiliam. 2009. Developing the Theory of Formative Assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21: 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.

Braun, Virginia and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Chalmers, R. Philip (as per journal attribution). 2007. Curriculum Mapping in Program Assessment and Evaluation. American Journal of Pharma-ceutical Education 71: 20. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj710220 9.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, CA: USA.

Dahal, Niroj. 2018. Teachers Understanding of Continuous Assessment in the Primary Schools of Nepal. Journal of Education and Research 8: 58-71. https://doi.org/10.3126/jer.v8i1.23456.

Darling-Hammond, Linda, Maria E. Hyler, and Madelyn Gardner. 2017. Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, Learning Policy Institute, CA: USA.

Hattie, John. 2012. Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. New York: Routledge.

Hattie, John, and Helen Timperley. 2007. The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research 77: 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

Heitink, Maaike C., Fabienne M. Van der Kleij, Bernard P. Veldkamp, Kim Schildkamp, and Wilma B. Kippers. 2016. A Systematic Review of Prerequisites for Implementing Assessment for Learning in Classroom Practice. Educational Research Review 17: 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002.

Joshi, Kumar Ratna, and Shree Krishna Ghimire.2019. The Promise and Practice of School Sector Reform in Nepal: A Critical Review of School Sector Development Plan (2016-2023). Journal of Education and Research 9: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3126/jer.v9i2.33642.

Kanjee, Anil. 2009. Enhancing the Use of Assessment for Learning in African Education Systems. In Assessment in the African Context, edited by Godfrey Ejuu, 141–64. Kampala: Fountain Publishers.

Looney, Janet W., Joy Cumming, Fabienne van der Kleij, and Karen Harris. 2018. Reaping the Benefits of Assessment for Learning: A Policy-maker’s Guide to Implementation in Southeast Asia. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264303835-en.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST). 2016. School Sector Development Plan (2016/17-2022/23). Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.

Nitko, Anthony J., and Susan M. Brookhart. 2011. Educational Assessment of Students. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2013. Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.

Panadero, Ernesto, Heidi Andrade, and Susan Brookhart. 2018. Fusing Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Research Agenda. Educational Psychology Review 30: 651-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9414-8.

Priestley, Mark, Gert Biesta, and Sarah Robinson. 2015. Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Rahman, Fahmida. 2021. Continuous Assessment in Bangladesh: Policy versus Practice. Issues in Educational Research 31: 591-610.

Shah, R. K. 2019. Effective Constructivist Teaching Learning in the Classroom. Shanlax International Journal of Education 7:1–13.

Shah, R. K. 2020. Pedagogical Reform at Primary Schools in Nepal: Examining the Child Centred Teaching. Shanlax International Journal of Ed-ucation 8: 57–75.

Shah, R. K. 2021. Conceptualizing and Defining Pedagogy. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education 11: 06–29.

Stiggins, Richard J. 2017. The Perfect Assessment System. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

UNESCO. 2020. Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and Education: All Means All. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

William, Dylan. 2011. Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Wyatt-Smith, Claire, and Val Klenowski. 2014. The Primacy of Teacher Judgement in Assessment. In Designing Assessment for Quality Learning, edited by Claire Wyatt-Smith, Val Klenowski, and Peta Colbert, 1–22. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5902-2_1.

Downloads

Published

2025-01-27

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Rethinking Classroom Assessment: Rural Nepalese Teachers’ Experiences with Formative Practices. (2025). Digital Social Sciences, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.69971/dss.1.2.2024.23