C.V.P. pedagogics & education. ISSN: 2241-4665

Αρχική σελίδα περιοδικού C.V.P. Παιδαγωγικής & Εκπαίδευσης

Σύντομη βιογραφία του συγγραφέα Anon N’Guessan

Κριτικές του άρθρου

Athens 30 August 2014

Assessment in Côte d’Ivoire Public Universities: An Analysis of Less Senior Teachers’ Practices.

By

Anon N’Guessan,

lecturer at IREEP/SHS/ Université Félix Houphouët Boigny

Abstract:

Evaluation is a very important step in the teaching learning process. Nevertheless it is often implemented with very little care in higher education, especially in our universities. In Côte d’Ivoire, as in most African countries, educational activities are largely performed by lecturers and senior lecturers for lack of very skilful rank teachers and excess of students (Université Félix Houphouët Boigny has 61,000 students and 1638 teacher-researchers) .

The aim of this study is to identify the practices of students’ assessment in public universities of Côte d'Ivoire. To achieve this goal we put out the following research hypothesis: evaluation practices in public universities of Côte d'Ivoire depend on teachers’ views on assessment. To test this hypothesis we collected data from a convenience sample comprising teacher-researchers of Université Félix Houphouët Boigny and Université Alassane Ouattara of Bouaké.

Our research revealed a misunderstanding of the formative and summative functions of assessment from the majority of our respondents. They revealed a lack of pedagogic units within the UFR as well as a low variation in assessment methods that are mainly oriented toward written examinations at the end of every academic year. Thus, it appears that teachers’ understanding of assessment affects their assessment practices. Explicitly, we note that teachers who attach great importance to summative assessment would favor year-end written examinations as students ’assessment mean.

Résumé

L’évaluation est une étape très importante dans le processus d’enseignement apprentissage. Mais elle est souvent mise en œuvre avec très peu de précaution dans l’enseignement supérieur et particulièrement dans nos universités. En côte d’Ivoire comme dans la plupart des pays d’Afrique les activités pédagogiques sont assurées en grande partie par les Assistants et Maîtres-Assistants à cause du déficit d’enseignants de rang magistral et du nombre pléthorique d’étudiants (l’Université Félix Houphouët Boigny d’Abidjan compte 61000 étudiants pour 1638 enseignants chercheurs).

L’objectif de cette étude est donc de connaitre les pratiques d’évaluation des acquis des étudiants dans les universités publiques de Côtes d’Ivoire. Pour atteindre cet objectif nous avons émis l’hypothèse de recherche suivante : les pratiques d’évaluation des apprentissages dans les universités publiques de Côte d’Ivoire dépendent des conceptions évaluatives des enseignants. Pour vérifier cette hypothèse nous avons collecté des données auprès d’un échantillon de convenance composé d’enseignants-chercheurs de l’université Félix Houphouët Boigny d’Abidjan et de l’Université Alassane Ouattara de Bouaké.

Les résultats de la recherche ont mis en évidence une méconnaissance des fonctions formative et sommative de l’évaluation des apprentissages de la plupart des enquêtés. Ils ont révélé une absence de cellules pédagogiques au sein des UFR et une faible variation des modes d’évaluation orientée essentiellement vers une utilisation des examens écrits en fin d’année. Ainsi, il en ressort que la conception évaluative des enseignants influe sur leur pratique d’évaluation des apprentissages. Plus précisément, l’on note que les enseignants qui accordent une grande importance à l’évaluation sommative utilisent beaucoup plus l’examen écrit en fin d’année comme mode d’évaluation des acquis des étudiants.

.

1. Introduction and Problem

Assessment is an important step in the teaching- learning process. It is a condition to students’ learning in a sense that it has an influence on their motivation as learners. Indeed, a good assessment is a guarantee of success even for non-gifted students in a sense that it promotes the establishment of control loops in the teaching-learning process, thus stimulating students’ metacognitive activities such as self-regulation, self -assessment, decentering ...

Assessment functions have improved with time. Indeed, in the early 60s it essentially aimed at ensuring that learner’s productions were in compliance with the teacher’s demanding. Over time, another form of assessment whose purpose was to ensure that the training facilities provided by the system were adapted to the individual characteristics of students had been developed. Thus, a prognostic function in access to a training program and summative at the end of education, it also assumes a formative role in providing information that enables an adaptation of teaching to learners’ individual differences. Assessment does not just amount to rating students which focuses mainly on performance criteria of the learner and / or product success. It goes beyond because it regulates the teaching and learning activities. It also involves approaches to learning and / or performing products. Unfortunately, current practices in universities include weaknesses that can have a negative impact on their operation. Indeed, these practices are marked by their lack of uniformity even within the same forming structure. This is manifested in the implementation modalities of learning assessment of students and rubrics developed by teachers for students' work as well die and the same level of training. Most teachers are often lonely when designing learning assessment tools and the conceived instruments are not submitted to any control by any knowledgeable person who could ensure a minimum quality level. As pointed out by Marc Romainville (2002) «L’hétérogénéité est sans doute leur premier trait dominant: on observe en effet une absence de standardisation des dispositifs, des procédures, des exigences et des critères sur la base desquels les acquis des étudiants sont appréciés».Since measurement is an important component of the assessment process, the instruments should be calibrated to avoid large fluctuations between the results. Besides, measurement refers to the notion of reference units thus calibration the used instruments. For Osman (accessed 2013), it is difficult to achieve valid measurements in education. Besides, this problem is compounded by the lack of well-validated instruments. This lack of well-validated instruments is a source of suspicions in respect of assessment. These suspicions are due to the high heterogeneity of assessment methods that can partially be explained by the degree of autonomy of University teachers as noted by Marc Romainville (2002) « l’enseignant-chercheur, puisqu’il dispose d’une importante marge d’autonomie, organise l’évaluation des acquis de ses étudiants selon son profil personnel d’évaluateur. »

Nonetheless the expertise of higher education teachers in assessment is not established and it remains a source of questions that have not yet been answered as pointed out by Pellen Marie (2010) « La question de l’expertise des évaluateurs est régulièrement invoquée et alimente les débats autour de la légitimité des évaluations et des pratiques de certains évaluateurs ». As we can see, assessment is surely far more complex than a mere measurement. Etymologically, the term assessment means “determine the value of something." For HADJI C. (1990) assessment is a particular reading of reality. Thus, appraising efficiently requires skills and competence. It also demands "a set of behaviors based on the mobilization and efficient use of a set of resources," Indeed, skill development is learning and therefore training even missiles to mobilize resources results are not necessarily the product of an education or training. As Bernier (1999) said, training, both initial and continuous, is an essential tool for developing the skills of the workforce, and thereby the competitiveness of organizations. The following are his exact terms” «La formation, qu’elle soit initiale ou continue, représente alors un outil essentiel au développement des compétences de la main d’œuvre et, par le fait même, de la compétitivité des organisations.». Assessment requires skills, so it involves professionalism on the part of key actors such as teachers, because it always results in a decision whose consequences go beyond schools and universities. This is the reason why quality assessments are required. However as pointed out by Mark Romainville (2012) this significant heterogeneity of practices is detrimental to the fidelity and validity of assessment. « Cette importante hétérogénéité des pratiques nuit à la fidélité et à la validité de l’évaluation. » That is why OSMAN (accessed 2013) advises that every educational decision should be made as logically and objectively as possible. « chaque décision pédagogique devrait être prise logiquement et objectivement, et devrait se baser sur les données les plus pertinentes, et ce, dans la mesure du possible ». To summarize, instructional decisions are not as easy to make as it is observed in practice. In this sense, BOUVIER A. (1998) assumes that for an external observer of teachers’ actions, the difficulty in tracking their decisions lies in the abundance and the suddenness of the said actions.».
University teachers of Côte d' Ivoire, as in most universities in the world, are recruited after their doctoral thesis defense. No particular pedagogic training is requested from them and this has surely some consequences on the teaching quality and by extension on students’ assessments. Due to the insufficiency of professors and the great number of students, most education activities are performed by less senior lecturers whose responsibilities are the following:

- Ensure the teaching task in the form of lectures, and/or tutorials or practical work,
-Conceive a new course or improve the existing one

Grading exam copies;

- Taking part in exam deliberations

- Taking Part in pedagogic meetings and activities

-Coaching students

For having received no teacher training, we are deemed to question the professional quality of these young teachers in general and particularly in students’ assessments. Thus, this research will attempt to provide answers to the following questions:
• What is less senior teachers’ perception of assessment?

• What are their assessment procedures?
• How do these teachers design their students’ assessment instruments?
• Are students’ assessments valid, fair, and faithful in our public universities characterized by a lack of teaching resources and teacher training?

The above questions lead to the objectives of the present research.

General Objective:

The general objective of this study is to identify assessment practices in use in Cote d’Ivoire public universities and their impact on students’ learning. This general objective generates the following specific objectives:

Specific Objectives:
More specifically , this study was conducted to :
- determine Côte d' Ivoire university teachers’ social representation of assessment

- Describe the evaluation procedures implemented by Côte d' Ivoire university teachers
- Describe how teachers design assessment tools

- Analyze assessment procedures implemented by teachers and their possible impact on the teaching- learning process.

In order to provide answers to the above questions we will try to verify the following assumptions:
Hypotheses
- Assessment practices in use in Cote d’Ivoire public universities are related to teachers’ social representation of this important activity.
We deduce the following null hypothesis H0:

- Assessment practices in use in Cote d’Ivoire public universities have no connection with teachers’ social representation of assessment.
Thus, the alternative hypothesis H1:
- Assessment practices in use in Cote d’Ivoire public universities depend on teachers’ social representation of assessment

· The above assumptions highlight the following study variables :
- Dependent variable: " assessment practices in public universities "
- Independent Variable: " evaluative conceptions of teachers '
Evaluative conceptions of teachers are reflected in this study by the position of teachers in relation to formative and summative functions of assessment in the teaching -learning process. They are related to the results of the analysis of teachers' responses to the items related to the control function and the function of assessment certification. They have a link with the answers to the following questions:

· Does, yes or no, the teacher give an importance to formative assessment?

· Does, yes or no, the teacher give an importance to summative assessment?

Thus, these questions generate the following minor hypotheses:
Assessment practices of teachers are not related to the position of the teacher in relation to formative assessment
Assessment practices of teachers are not related to the position of the teacher in relation to summative assessment.
To check these hypotheses, we collected data through a questionnaire issued for teachers of Côte d' Ivoire public universities.

1.1 Methodology

As we mentioned, this study is to verify the null hypothesis H0. To do this we will determine the population, present the appropriate sampling method and data collection instruments.

1.2 Research Population

Our research population consists of all less senior public universities teachers of Côte d' Ivoire. Nevertheless, faced to difficulties in accessing all of them, we decided to base this research on some teachers of Universite Félix Houphouët Boigny and Universite Alassane Ouattara of Bouaké.

a) Method of Sampling

For a better representation of the research population, we wished to conduct a random sampling, but given the difficulties of implementing such a type of sampling (lack of basic updated survey of teachers, unavailability of some of them for study tours and various works) we opted for an empirical sampling. With difficulties to convince teachers to participate in this survey we chose a convenience sample. This raises the issue of the representativeness of the sample study from the mother population.

b) Sample

Our sample was made of 110 teachers among which 85 from Universite Félix Houphouët Boigny and 25 from Universite Alassane Ouattara of Bouaké. We recall that this is a sample available.

c) Data Collection Instruments

For our data collection, we used a structured survey questionnaire into four parts: the first part covers the main reasons why the assessment is used in the second part there are issues related to evaluation procedures, the third part is devoted to different phases of design assessment instruments and finally the last part includes items relating to information relating to the respondents. Most questions are closed. There are however open-ended questions to allow respondents to explain some answers or speak freely about some issues.
e) Administration of the Questionnaire
The main difficulty we faced was teachers’ lack of will in participating in this survey. Indeed the vast majority of contacted teachers subtly got rid of this task. Thus, we were forced to take advantage of teacher training seminars for teachers to distribute the questionnaires to participants who are mostly assistants and lecturers having at most two and 6 years of teaching practice. With this mode of administration, we have achieved a return rate of 89%.

1.

2. Results

The results of the research are mainly the teachers' knowledge about the functions of assessment, evaluation methods and building assessment tools. These results also apply to distributions of respondents according to the «kind» and "the University of origin."
It should be noted that 110 questionnaires we validated 98. Which corresponds to a satisfactory rate of return (98/110 = 0.89 or 89 %)

2.

2.1 Variables’ Descriptive Analysis by "Gender" and "University of Origin"

Type of respondent

Table 1: Distribution According to Gender

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage
Male	73	74,5	83,9
Female	14	14,3	16,1
Total	87	88,8	100,0
No response	11	11,2
Total	98	100,0

According to Table 1, the vast majority (74.5 %) of respondents consists of male teachers. One can also observe a minority (14, 3 %) of female teachers. However, there is 11.2 % of no response to this question. The strong dominance of men in the sample population reflects the reality of the staff and the explanation can be rooted in the low education rate of girls in primary school.

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents According To the University of Origin..

	Number	Percentage
ENS; Université FHB	79	80,6
Université Alassane Ouattara	19	19,4
Total	98	100,0

Table 2 shows that the vast majority of our respondents consist of teachers of Université Félix Houphouët Boigny 80.6%. Teachers from Université Alassane Ouattara are the minorities.

1.

2.

2.2 Assessment in the Learning Process

In order to acquire information on the state of teachers’ knowledge about assessment, the proposed items are: "Getting to know students," " Get an index of education quality "," Motivating students "," Assign marks to learners , "" Meet administrative requirements "," facilitate the grouping of students according to ability "," Adapting education to learners’ needs and expectations” , “identify the best students " " Involve more students in their learning".
Respondents were asked to indicate which of the above variables constitute the three main reasons for assessment in the teaching-learning process.
We then classified these items into two subsets according to whether they exemplify a formative or summative function. As observed by Renée Forgette -Giroux , Marielle Simon , Micheline Bercier - Larivière (1996), assessment generally involves making pedagogic (formative assessment) and administrative ( summative assessment ) decisions. The following are their exact words: « En général, l’évaluation des apprentissages implique des décisions d’ordre pédagogique (évaluation formative) et d’ordre administratif (évaluation sommative) ». Pedagogic decisions are rather oriented towards the diagnostic functions of assessment, (regulation, information or grouping abilities (Cardinet , 1992; Hargreaves and Earl , 1990; Wilson, 1989). As for administrative decisions, they aim at the satisfaction the certification functions of assessment (of studies , selection and communication with parents ( Dorr- Bremme 1983; Hoge and Coladarci , 1989; Stiggins , Frisbie , and Griswold, 1989).

2.3 Formative Assessment Function or Teaching-Learning Regulation Function

Table 3 "Getting to Know Students”

Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Number	Percentage
Is not a Reason for its use	72	73,5
Is the Main Reason	8	8,2
Is the Second Reason	7	7,1
Is the Third Reason	11	11,2
Total	98	100,0

Knowing students better will allow the teacher to suggest activities that can help students in difficulties, and more complex activities to the efficient students. This is the role of formative assessment. According to Table 1, the vast majority (73.5 %) of surveyed teachers asserted that assessment is not made to understand students better. Thus, only 26.5% think that understanding students better is one of the reasons for assessment in the teaching-learning process.

• Table 4 «Motivating Students»

Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Number	Percentage
is the main reason	68	69,4
is the main reason	4	4,1
e is the second reason st la deuxième raison	15	15,3
is the third reason	11	11,2
Total	98	100,0

Motivation is required to initiate and sustain any project. For Pantanella (1992 ), motivation is " an energy that makes us run ." The same way, Auger and Bouchelart (1995) view motivation as what creates the conditions that lead to action, what stimulates and gives movement. Learning being an activity that requires a commitment, it is difficult to keep his one’s commitment without motivation. Indeed, a motivated student perseveres despites difficulties. He shows all his interests in the proposed classroom activities. He participates actively. For Perrenoud (1998) the purpose of assessment is to identify sufficiently the achievements and ways of thinking of each student to help him progress. In other words, assessment has a motivation role. However the results in Table 2 show that a good majority (69.4 %) of surveyed teachers alleged that assessment does not aim at motivating learners. Only 4.1% of them assumed that motivation is the main reason for which assessment is used. For 15.3 % of our respondents, motivation is the second reason for the use of assessment is used in the teaching-learning process. To end with this point, 11.2 % of our respondents find motivation as the third reason for which assessment is used. In one word, only a minority of teachers think that we assess in order to motivate the learner.

• Table 5 "Involve more Students in their Learning "

Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage
is not a reason	79	80,6	81,4
is the main reason	5	5,1	5,2
Is the second reason	7	7,1	7,2
is the third reason	6	6,1	6,2
Total	97	99,0	100,0
Missing	1	1,0
Total	98	100,0

Among the factors that influence students’ motivation, those related to the class constitute for a teacher the “gateway” for intervention with students who are experiencing learning difficulties. This consists in developing students’ skills in peer and self-assessment, and helping them develop appropriate strategies for learning to learn. For Charles Hadji (2012) the best way to perform one’s task as a teacher is to enhance students' ability to self-regulation. This implies the need to put assessment at the core of learning. The results in table 3 indicate that for the vast majority (80.6%) of surveyed teachers, the role of assessment is not to involve students better in their own learning. Only (5.1%) of them believe that this is the main reason for which assessment is used. For (7.1 %) of our respondents, involving students better in their own learning is the second reason why assessment is used while for ( 6.1%) of them, it is the third reason.

•Table 6 "Adapting one’s Teachings to Learners’ Needs and Expectations"

Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Effectifs	Pourcentage
is not a reason	53	54,1
is the main reason	9	9,2
Is the second reason	22	22,4
is the third reason	14	14,3
Total	98	100,0

According to Lawrence Talbot (2009), formative assessment is a set of procedures, more or less formalized by the teacher, with the aims to adapt his teaching on the learners’ progress or difficulties. Formative assessment is an instrument of learners’ differentiation. Table 4 reveals that for the majority of our surveyed teachers (54.1%), assessment does not consist in adapting their teachings to learners ’needs and expectations. Dissimilarly, a minority (9.2%) of the same respondents declares to assess primarily to meet learners’ needs and expectations. Respectively, 22.4 % and 14.3 % asserted that adapting one’s teachings to learners’ needs and expectations constitutes the second and third reason why teachers use assessment.

Table 7 Assessment as a Clue of Teaching Quality

Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Effectifs	Pourcentage
is not a reason	27	27,6
is the main reason	45	45,9
Is the second reason	18	18,4
is the third reason	8	8,2
Total	98	100,0

Assessment plays an important role in improving the quality of teaching decisions. Indeed, this activity enlightens teachers on the degree of mastery of a concept by their learners. , it allows them to plan and guide instruction while providing useful feedback to students. Thus, students’ learning results is an indication of the quality of the instruction given by a teacher. This position is shared by 45.9 % of our surveyed teachers who stated that using assessment as a clue of teaching quality is the main reason for which assessment is used. Likewise, respectively 18.4 % and 8.2 % of our respondents assert that using assessment as a clue of teaching quality constitute the second and third reason why assessment is used in the teaching- learning process. Contrary to this position, a significant proportion (27.6%) of surveyed teachers stated that "using assessment as a clue of teaching quality" is not a reason for which assessment is used.

2.4 The Summative Function of Assessment

•Table 7 "Assign marks to learners"

Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Effectifs	Pourcentage
is not a reason	75	76,5
is the main reason	8	8,2
Is the second reason	7	7,1
is the third reason	8	8,2
Total	98	100,0

Summative assessment is characterized by the habit to assign grades to students at the end of every teaching session. This is what is in use in most universities in the world. Thus, Côte d' Ivoire university teachers are not an exception to this practice inherited from traditional pedagogy. Surprisingly, the great majority of our respondents (76.5 %) asserted that awarding marks is not a reason for the use of assessment in the teaching- learning process. Respectively, only 8.2%, 7.1% and 8.2 % of them proclaimed that the grading of students is respectively the first, second and third reason why assessment is used.

•Table 8 «Facilitate Grouping According to Ability and Identify the Best Students»

	Facilitate grouping according to abilities		Identify the best students
Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
is not a reason	94	95,9	74	75,5
is the main reason			8	8,2
Is the second reason	2	2,0	5	5,1
is the third reason	2	2,0	10	10,2
Total	98	100,0	97	99,0
Missing	0	0	1	1,0
Total	98	100	98	100,0

Normative assessment, closely related to summative assessment, aims to classify or select, guide and identify a group of students going through learning difficulties in order to help them individually or identify very good students for an additional training in order to give them a new coordination. Consequently, this assessment facilitates learners’ grouping according to abilities while enabling to identify the best students. According to Table 8, almost all (95.9 %) of our respondents alleged that they are not using assessment to facilitate grouping according to abilities when 75.5% of them assumed that it is not made to identify the best students either. Thus, only 24.5 % of the surveyed teachers acknowledged that "identifying the best students" is a reason for which assessment is made.

•Table 9 Meet Administrative Requirements

Is this a Reason for the Use of Assessment?	Number	Percentage
is not a reason	76	77,6
is the main reason	1	1,0
Is the second reason	1	1,0
is the third reason	20	20,4
Total	98	100,0

Summative assessment leads to administrative decisions because education institutions rely on ratings provided by teachers from summative assessments to select, classify learners, and undertake reforms to meet modern demands. Thus, beyond pedagogic requirements, assessment is usually organized to meet administrative necessities. However the great majority (77.6 %) of the surveyed teachers indicated that assessment is not organized to meet administrative requirements. Only a weak proportion of the surveyed teachers (1%) identified that “meeting administrative requirements” is the main reason why summative assessment is used in the teaching-learning process. This weak proportion of our respondents are followed by 20% of them for whom meeting administrative requirements is the third reason for the use of assessment.

The results of the present surveys reveal serious gaps deficiencies in teachers’ understanding of the assessment functions. Indeed, the majority of the surveyed teachers assumed that none of the following statements: "understand students better", "Adapting education to learners’ needs and expectations", "get a hint of the teaching quality", " involve students in their own learning" "assign grades"," Facilitate grouping according to abilities and identify the best students" constitute reasons for which assessment is used in the teaching-learning process"

2.5 Descriptive Analysis of Assessment Modes

Table 10: the Use of Quizzes during the Academic Year

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	49	50,0	50,0	50,0
Rarely	43	43,9	43,9	93,9
Often	6	6,1	6,1	100,0
Total	98	100,0	100,0

The above table shows that almost all (93.9%) of our surveyed teachers among which50% confessed to never make use of quizzes, 43% asserted to do it rarely) of our respondents rarely or never use quizzes. Only an insignificant minority (6.1%) asserted to often use this mode of assessment during the teaching-learning process.

Table 11: Lab Report or Practical Work Observation

	Number	Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	51	52,0	52,0
Rarely	17	17,3	69,4
Often	18	18,4	87,8
Always	12	12,2	100,0
Total	98	100,0

Lab reports are not sufficiently used by surveyed teachers as a mean of learners’ assessment. Indeed, only 30 % of surveyed teachers asserted to often or always evaluate from laboratory reports. This can be explained by the fact that very few teachers among the surveyed are from the UFR of Science where lab reports are essential in students’ training.

Table 12: Research

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	2	2,0	2,1	2,1
Rarely	7	7,1	7,2	9,3
Often	67	68,4	69,1	78,4
Always	21	21,4	21,6	100,0
Total	97	99,0	100,0
No response	1	1,0
Total	98	100,0

A great number of teachers used research work to assess their students. Indeed, 88.6% of our respondents reported to always or often use research works to assess their students. We are satisfied with these figures that show the importance awarded to research by most university teachers. Maybe the time has come to remind that research and training are the two main functions of our universities.

Table 13: Classroom Assessment (exercise, problem, abstract)

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	4	4,1	4,1	4,1
Rarely	44	44,9	45,4	49,5
Often	49	50,0	50,5	100,0
Always	97	99,0	100,0
No response	1	1,0
Total	98	100,0

Classroom assessment in the form of exercises, problem solving and reading abstracts are widely used by teachers in assessing students. Indeed, 94.9 % of our respondents acknowledge to often or always use this assessment mode. However, few teachers (4.1%) say they rarely use this assessment mode.

Table 14: Observation of Classroom Activities

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	13	13,3	13,5	13,5
Rarely	26	26,5	27,1	40,6
Often	40	40,8	41,7	82,3
Always	17	17,3	17,7	100,0
Total	96	98,0	100,0
No response	2	2,0
Total	98	100,0

The observation of students’ classroom activities is regularly used by the majority (58.1%) of the surveyed teachers. However a significant proportion (39.8 %) of our respondents asserted the contrary.

Table 15: the Portfolio

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	76	77,6	98,7	98,7
Rarely	1	1,0	1,3	100,0
Often	77	78,6	100,0
No response	21	21,4
Total	98	100,0

The portfolio is almost entirely absent in students’ assessment. Indeed, 78.6% of our surveyed teachers asserted to have never used it. There is also a significant proportion (21.4%) of non-response regarding this assessment mode. This could point out teachers’ complete ignorance for this assessment mode.

Table 16: Written Exam

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	11	11,2	11,7	11,7
Rarely	83	84,7	88,3	100,0
Often	94	95,9	100,0
No response	4	4,1
Total	98	100,0

Written examinations at the end of the year is the most popular assessment method used in our universities. Indeed, almost all (95.9 %) of our respondents declared to use this assessment mode inherited from traditional pedagogy whose first concern is students’ selection and the submission to administrative requirements.

Table 17: Oral exam

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	20	20,4	24,4	24,4
Rarely	22	22,4	26,8	51,2
Often	22	22,4	26,8	78,0
Always	18	18,4	22,0	100,0
Total	82	83,7	100,0
No response	16	16,3
Total	98	100,0

Contrary to the written exam, the oral examination, the oral exam at the end of the year is less used as an assessment method in our universities. Indeed, the results of our descriptive analysis indicate that less than half (40.8%) of our respondents regularly use this assessment method while 42.8% say the contrary. We also observed 16.3% of non-response concerning this evaluation mode.

Table 18: Presentations by Students

	Number	Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	6	6,1	6,1
Rarely	13	13,3	19,4
Often	46	46,9	66,3
Always	33	33,7	100,0
Total	98	100,0

Oral presentations by students on a given topic decided in class also appears as an assessment mean frequently used by (80.6 %) of the surveyed teachers.

Table 19: Academic Projects

	Number	Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Never	33	33,7	33,7
Rarely	46	46,9	80,6
Often	18	18,4	99,0
Always	1	1,0	100,0
Total	98	100,0

We can observe that a great number (80.6 %) of our surveyed teachers do not use this assessment mode. Only a small proportion of them, (18, 4%) acknowledge to use it.

The preceding pages have shown a variety of assessment modes more or less used in our universities. However, as pointed out by Martine Ferguson (December 2005), « Pour mieux tenir compte de la personnalité et de la diversité de nos élèves, il convient de varier les modes d’évaluation en diversifiant les types d’exercices qu’on leur propose tant à l’écrit qu’à l’oral, individuellement ou en groupe. » To summarize we would write that to better reflect the personality and diversity of our students , it is appropriate to vary our assessment modes by diversifying the types of exercises they are given, both in writing and orally, individually or in groups. Our results have shown frequently used assessment modes such as research work , written tests, reading abstracts, year-end written examinations etc. and seldom assessment modes such as portfolio, written and oral quizzes etc.

For a better appraisal of the importance and the weight given to student work in relation each assessment mode, we are pleased to present the following statistics through the next two tables.

Table 20 : About the Existence of a Pedagogic Cell in Every School

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage
Yes	47	48,0	69,1
No	21	21,4	30,9
Total	68	69,4	100,0
No Response	30	30,6
Total	98	100,0

Table 21 : About the Contribution of Pedagogic Cells in Assessment Instrument Issuance

	Number	Percentage	Valid Percentage
Yes	18	18,4	41,9
No	25	25,5	58,1
Total	43	43,9	100,0
No Response	55	56,1
Total	98	100,0

2.6 Proportion of Each Assessment Mode in Students’ Assessment per Academic Year.

The results indicate the average weight given to the different assessment modes for a full academic year. Thus, we got the following average proportions: homework (3.01 %) , quizzes during the year (0.61 % ), lab reports or observation ( 3.88% ) classroom written tests ( 6.12% ) , research ( 6.07% ), anecdotal test (0% ), the portfolio (0.05%) , year-end written examination ( 70.51 %) , year-end oral exam ( 5.99% ), project (1.17 %) , class work (5.38 %). We can observe that the year-end written examination is the most common assessment mode in use in most universities. This is distantly followed by classroom written test. In contrast to these, anecdotal test and the portfolio are absent from the records of teachers’ assessment practices.

Besides, the medians show that at least 50 % of our respondents think that, the year-end written examination represents at least 70 % of students’ final work, while the other assessment modes are not used by at least 50 % of our surveyed teachers. It also appears that the minimum weight of the year-end written examination varies 50% to 100 %. This means that some teachers use only this evaluation mode. It derives from the preceding the question of whether these results are related to teachers’ assessment perception.

2.7 Checking Our Research Hypotheses.

It must be reminded that dependent variables are qualitative and dichotomous for, they contain two terms that are the answers to questions related to the position of teachers in relation with the importance of formative assessment and the importance of summative assessment in the teaching -learning process.

It derives from the above results that teachers’ assessment practices are essentially characterized by the weight given to different assessment modes. In other words, assessment practices are characterized by the year-end written exam.

The independent variable is therefore quantitative and as each of these two variables related to teachers’ assessment conception is qualitative dichotomous, the appropriate statistical test to verify this hypothesis is the Student t test for independent samples.

Table 21: Group Statistic Table

	importance of formative assessment	N	Average	Deviation	standard error average
Year-end Written Exam Proportion	Devote few importance to formative assessment	16	71,88	19,397	4,849
	Devote Great importance to formative Assessment	81	68,77	19,438	2,160

According to the above table teachers who give little importance to formative assessment and those who devote great importance to this type of assessment attribute equal importance to the year-end written examination. However, one can notify that the first ones devote a little more weight to the year-end written examination than the second ones. Indeed, for the first group, this activity represents an average of 71.88 % while for the latter it represents 68.77 % of students’ yearly results. The Student's t calculated is 0.585 while the value of t tabulated at 5 % to 95 degree of freedom is 1.9867. The calculated t is less than this value; we cannot reject the hypothesis H0. In another word, the position of the teacher regarding the importance or not of formative assessment does not affect its assessment practices.

Table 22: Summative Evaluation Statistic Group

	Summative Assessment Representation	N	Average	Deviation	standard error average
Year-end Written Exam Proportion	importance of formative assessment	58	65,26	19,611	2,575
	Devote few importance to formative assessment	39	74,23	17,265	2,765

Unlike the previous table, the teachers who give little importance to summative assessment attribute less weight (65.26 %) to year-end written exam, while those who attach great importance to summative assessment attribute more weight (74.23 %) to year-end written examination. The test of Student, with 95 degree of freedom at 5 % certifies that the difference between the two proportions is significant. Indeed, the calculated t is 2.316, while the value of t is tabulated is 1.9867. Consequently, we note that the calculated t is greater than the tabulated t . We can thus reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis which states that assessment practices are related to the position of the teacher in relation to summative assessment. In other words, the more a teacher attaches an importance to summative assessment, the more weight he gives to year-end written examinations. These results indicate a high risk of poor reliability in the assessments generally performed by assistants and lecturers teaching in Côte d' Ivoire public universities.

3. Conclusion

This study aims to provide some information about Côte d' Ivoire public university less senior teachers’ assessment practices. It has revealed that some teachers experience some difficulties in the implementation of assessment activities which constitute a crucial step in the teaching -learning process. Indeed, the results of this study revealed serious weaknesses in the surveyed teachers’ knowledge of the (formative and summative) functions of assessment. Their daily pedagogic practices reveal a weak variation in their assessment modes which are primarily oriented towards year-end written exams that count for over 70% in the calculation of students’ annual average of. The test of student showed a significant correlation nearing 5 % and 95 degree of freedom between the primacy that less-senior teachers give to summative assessment in their teaching and supervisory practices, and the important role given to year-end written examination in students’ assessment.

4. References

PELLEN M. (2010) Évaluation et enseignement supérieur, le calendrier des lettres et sciences humaines

A. REY, (Mars 2000) « Le Robert. Dictionnaire historique de la langue française »,.

HADJI C.( 1990) « L’évaluation, règles du jeu », Ed ESF,.

BERNIER, C. (1999). « Vers une formation continue de la main-d’œuvre au Québec ? » Relations industrielles/, vol. 54, no 3, 489–502.

BOUVIER A. (1998) Faut-il, au sein des organisations, substituer le pilotage à l’évaluation ?In L’évaluation institutionnelle de l’éducation, Montréal, Éditions de l’AFIDES, pp. 137-150.

PERRENOUD P. (1998). L’évaluation des élèves. De la fabrication de l’excellence à la régulation des apprentissages. Entre deux logiques. Bruxelles, Paris, De Boeck Université.

HADJI C. (2012), Comment impliquer l'élève dans ses apprentissages, ESJ Éditeur,

Talbot L.(2009). L’évaluation formative. Comment évaluer pour remédier aux difficultés d’apprentissages. Paris Armand Colin

FERGUSON M. (décembre 2005) N°438 - Dossier "L’évaluation des élèves" http://www.cahiers-pedagogiques.com/Une-evaluation-respectueuse-des-individualites

© Copyright-VIPAPHARM. All rights reserved