Terminal assessment is carried out at the end of a course or a major unit thereof, e.g. by sitting an examination, undergoing a practical or situational assessment of some sort, or submitting a major item or collection of work. Terminal assessment is almost invariably carried out for summative purposes, e.g. to determine whether students can proceed to the next stage of the course, to determine whether they should be accredited with having satisfactorily completed the course unit being assessed, or to contribute to their final mark, grade or degree classification. Continuous assessment, on the other hand, is carried out on an on-going basis while students are actually working their way through a course or major unit thereof.

Terminal and continuous assessment can be thought of as two contrasting paradigms of assessment. The former is based on the premise that it is best to wait until the end of a course or course unit before carrying out the ultimately recorded part of the assessment, since it is only then that it is possible to form a realistic overall picture of what each student has achieved by working through the course or course unit. To carry out important assessment (other than for progression-control purposes) before this time is, it is argued, unfair to the students, for it does not allow them to develop to their full potential, and may well disadvantage students who only “pull things together” as they near the end of a programme of instruction. This was certainly the paradigm that dominated higher education assessment in the past, particularly in the case of honours degrees. Typically, these culminated in a lengthy diet of “final examinations”, which often covered the entire course curriculum, and were generally truly ‘final’ .

Continuous assessment is based on a radically different premise, namely, that the best and fairest way to assess students’ performance is to assess each stage of a course as soon after it has been completed as possible, or in some cases, while the work is actually being carried out. This, it is argued, is much more useful to the students, since it provides them with on-going feedback on their performance, helps them to become more self-critical, and encourages them to attempt to master material as they actually work through a course or course unit rather than leaving the real learning process to the very end. It is also much fairer, in that it allows students to demonstrate their ability and development on an on-going basis, so that the student who works steadily and consistently well but is not very good at sitting examinations is not placed at a disadvantage compared with the lazy student who does the minimum amount of work needed to pass such examinations, or the student who is skilful at the ‘examination game’ but otherwise not particularly competent.

In practice, most course teams now operate assessment schemes that fall somewhere in between these two extreme paradigms, employing what could be described as ‘mixed-mode’ assessment. Certainly, virtually all course teams now make use of continuous assessment for formative purposes, since it is universally recognised that providing students with regular feedback on how they are doing is an essential part of the education process. Where course teams differ is in the extent to which they use continuous assessment for summative purposes, i.e., in the position that they take up on the terminal assessment/continuous assessment spectrum.

Their position depends on a wide variety of factors – e.g., the nature of the course or course unit, the level and background of the students, historical precedent, any constraints or pressure imposed by validating and/or professional bodies, and – of course – their own inclinations and preferences. And, there are several disadvantages associated with continuous assessment:

Students undergoing continuous assessment may feel that they are continually under surveillance, and that every error that they make along the way can count against them. This can give rise to a different type of stress from that which students experience as a result of terminal assessment

Unless continuous assessment is carefully planned and coordinated, there is a very real danger that students may be grossly over-assessed – particularly at certain times of the year, when several teachers are asking simultaneously for home work to be handed in.

Attempts to broaden the scope of a course may be frustrated by students gearing their study solely to the requirements of the assessment procedures, thus putting students who carry out extension studies or “read round” their subject at a disadvantage. By itself, continuous assessment does not prevent either “strategic” or “surface” learning.

Continuous assessment can, if not properly managed, adversely affect the relationship between students and their teachers, with the latter being regarded with suspicion and (in some extreme cases) enmity and occasionally even introducing malpractice, as in imposing penalties for seeking help.

Students may suffer from unequal availability of resources, something that is becoming increasingly important now that they are carrying out much of their work on personal computers or “at a distance”.

With continuous assessment, there is the perennial problem of enforcing uniform procedures such as completion dates and dealing with students who do not comply with these in a way that is seen to be fair without being either too draconian or too lax. Continuous assessment requires just as much planning as terminal assessment – more in many cases.

Assessment schemes that are claimed to be based on “continuous assessment” may turn out to be nothing more than a series of tests or “mini examinations”. If so, such assessments remain “unnatural” and fail to optimise problem-solving opportunities.

Teachers need to have a high level of experience in assessment to enable them to make creative and effective use of continuous assessment (although the same could be said of terminal assessment!)

Is continuous assessment worthwhile?

In view of these various possible disadvantages, is continuous assessment worthwhile on balance? In most cases, the answer is probably ‘yes’, since all the problems listed above can be overcome or obviated by careful planning and good practice. But is it applicable to all three sectors of education? Primary, secondary and tertiary? It is high time that all the stakeholders of the education sector take a decision in the interest of ‘l’enfant mauricien’. And that we have the best decision as far as the primary sector is concerned as it is definitely the critical base for any educational process.

<B>Avinash RAMCHARAN,</B> ICT Wing Leader, GTU</I>