CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 1

Continuous Assessment in Education

Name

Institution

Author’s note
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 2

3 LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1 Introduction

Based on a study by Xu and Brown (2016), it can be justified that continuous assessment

considers various forms and is mainly dependent on the final objective and competencies

required by the end of a teaching course. As such, continuous assessment depends on the

prerequisite knowledge required and what is targeted by specified learning objectives. Before an

assessment, there are various aspects that a teacher ought to be conversant with, including the

most effective means that need to be considered and the guiding principles of relevant

educational theories that aid in knowledge development. Assessment is a relevant aspect of the

teaching and learning process and occurs after learning (Hayes et al., 2020). Assessment is also

an approach included as a helper of students in learning, and further is a key insight mainly to

teachers in aiding with guiding on effective teaching approaches and whether learners understand

what is taught and expected of them (Abosalem, 2016; Tsingos-Lucas et al., 2017). The section

focuses on introducing various basic concepts of education, mainly focusing on theories of

learning, taxonomies of learning, approaches to learning, and assessment. These concepts form

the backbone of assessment, given that they play a role in defining prerequisite knowledge

required by an instructor before assessing learners.

3.2 Theories of Learning

When focusing on a continuous assessment in education, among the most considerable

roles is understanding the relevance of theories of learning. According to Deci and Ryan (2016),

many countries are always concerned about their international standing in achievement tests and

pressuring schools to improve, and this leads to teachers considering the relevance of researched

theories in motivating and enabling learning. Krajcik and Czerniak (2018), further in their study,
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 3

noted that theories of learning explicitly have relevance in providing a basis to understand the

efficacy of learning means hence explaining, analyzing, and predicting learning. As such, the

theories of learning have significance in informed decisions based on designing and developing

the delivery of learning, including assessment (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Additionally, as per

Harden and Laidlaw (2020), theories of learning have significance in guiding curriculum

development that focuses from entry to exit in the form of assessments. There are a variety of

theories of learning in the section focusing on behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism and

their influence on learning.

The first and most considerable theory of learning is the behaviorism theory. This is a

theory focusing mainly on the behavior being learned through interactions with the environment,

with innate, inherited aspects having very little influence (Egielewa et al., 2022; Pierce &

Cheney, 2017; Akdeniz et al., 2016). According to Saunders and Wong (2020), behavioral

theories mainly consider changing people’s behaviors by manipulating the environment,

encouraging and discouraging certain behaviors. To Pierce and Cheney (2017), this is

conditioning. Among the most famous conditioning is Pavlov’s dog (Bouton, 2018), which has

always been related closely to learning. As per Adams (2020), Pavlov demonstrated through

conditioning a dig with a sound of a bell being associated with food and eventually leading to

salivating for food. Another significant example is Skinner’s conditioning focusing on positive

and negative reinforcement (Amin et al., 2021). As per Clark (2018), to Skinner, this focuses on

teachers and parents encouraging certain behaviors through controlling the environment.

Regardless, there are various weaknesses of these theories where researchers ignore external

influences and ignore learners’ previous knowledge, thus being teacher-centered (Harinie et al.,

2017; Serin, 2018).

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 4

Secondly, is cognitivism, which Carroll (2016) noted was pioneered by Goerge Miller,

Ulric Neisser, and Naom Chomsky. Compared to behaviorists who focus on the environment,

this theory mainly focuses on mental processes (Muhajirah, 2020). According to Sweller et al.

(2019), to cognitivism, people acquire and store knowledge in long-term memory through

schema. Sweller (2016), in his previous research, had also noted that in cognitivism, knowledge

is stored in categories based on creating a connection, thus having a significance in creating a

connection across the schema, which aids in the retrieval of the information. As such, this can be

noted to play a significant role in organizing learning activities and how assessment occurs in a

continual manner. As per Saunders and Wong (2020), issues such as problem-based learning are

encouraged, promoting a continuous assessment in learning and promoting knowledge cognition

and processing. Regardless, researchers such as Tyng et al. (2017) noted that the theory is

attached to weaknesses of unaccountability of emotions in learning.

Lastly and significantly is constructivism. According to Aina (2017), constructivists

believe that students create knowledge through interacting with the world. Similar to cognitivism

and opposite to behaviorism, constructivism acknowledges the role of previous knowledge. In

his study, as acknowledged by Bormanaki and Khoshhal (2017), Piaget discussed the concept of

assimilation, accommodation, and disequilibrium in describing the creation of knowledge. This

considers both cognitive and constructivism. Additionally, in constructivism, in new situations,

people find new ways of dealing with the situations (Wang et al., 2020). Assimilation mainly

focuses on gaining and storing knowledge, with assimilating the knowledge in schemas

following and lastly, disequilibrium, which is of significance. As acknowledged by Pardo et al.

(2018), instructors facilitate accommodation through effective conditions hence allowing

exploration by learners.
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 5

3.3 Taxonomies of learning

Apart from theories of learning, different theorists further ventured into taxonomies of

teaching and learning that Kadambaevna (2020) identified that for an effective teacher,

understanding the varying levels of cognition have a significance in teaching strategies

considered by a teacher. Additionally, as to Suskie (2018), they help in matching assessments.

As such, the section mainly considers a brief analysis of Bloom’s taxonomy, Revised Bloom’s

Taxonomy, SOLO taxonomy, and Fink’s taxonomy.

Originally published n 1956, Hadzhikoleva et al. (2019) noted that Bloom’s taxonomy is

a hierarchical model that categorizes objectives of learning into different complexity levels, from

basic knowledge and comprehension to advanced evaluation criteria. Handayani et al. (2021)

noted that Bloom’s taxonomy is mainly based on three domains of learning, including cognitive,

affective, and psychomotor, with each domain being ranged from simple to more complex

aspects. According to Mitchell and Walton-Fisette (2022), the cognitive domain is mainly based

on mental skills or knowledge, the affective domain basing on feelings and emotional growth

areas, including attitude, and the psychomotor domain mainly focuses on physical skills done by

students. Bloom’s taxonomy is significantly explained in figure 1 based on Bloom’s original

proposal and other researchers involved in shaping how evaluation from a simple to a more

complex can be done, hence promoting efficacy in learning.

Later on, a revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy was proposed further. According to

Jayraj and Joseph (2019), Lorian Anderson, a former student of Bloom and David Krathwoli,

revisited the cognitive domain mainly and changed crucial elements that they considered were

not effectively addressed by Bloom. Wilson (2016) and Villareal (2017), in their study, identified

that the main aspects that were changed in the cognitive domain mainly based on changing the
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 6

names in the domain, as from figure 1 depicted in figure 2, from nouns to relating verbs for a

more efficient form. Setyowati et al. (2020) also noted that these researchers further rearranged

the chart to a simpler and more effective form, as depicted in figure 2. Lastly, Urgo et al. (2019)

noted further that they also created a process and level of knowledge matrix. To Jayraj and

Joseph (2019), the changes were mainly based on advancing the levels of earning in a manner

that literacy programs meet the learning objectives mainly in assessment.

Another significant taxonomy is the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO)

taxonomy which is a model describing the levels of increase in complexity in the understanding

of a student in different subjects (Pisanpanumas & Yasri, 2018; Yıldız Durak & Atman, 2022).

As per Lucander et al. (2010) and further depicted in figure 3, the levels mainly explain

knowledge gaining. The pre-structural level is where an answer given is wrong, the unistructural

level depicts a string to the answer, the multistructural level depicts multiple unrelated strings,

the rational level consisting multiple related strings, and the extended abstract showing

knowledge construction (Kaharuddin & Hajeniati, 2020; Fathonah et al., 2022; Wasolowski et

al., 2018).

Lastly is Fink’s taxonomy which Starr-Glass (2020) and Branzetti et al. (2019) noted

focuses on significant learning experiences. DeLuca et al. (2021) added that to Fink, there are

significant changes to a learner during learning, and when there are no changes, then there is no

learning. Fink’s taxonomy is depicted further in figure 4, which explicitly explains the main

aspects.

Considering these taxonomies, the main consideration for the research based on its

application and relevance will be the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, given its simplicity in

application in assessment. This will mainly be considered as the methodology or the research.
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 7

3.4 Approaches of Learning

There are vast considerations when focusing on approaches to learning. From a study by

Jing and Tian (2020), research into learning indicates that learning processes often involve a

specific depth, and further, Crosswaite and Asbury (2019) acknowledged that there are

individual differences in learners. Ohtani and Hisasaka (2018) stated that when considering a

specific aspect of teaching and learning, it is crucial to note that there are different levels of

learners’ intelligence, and this ought to be considered in the efficacy of the teaching-learning

process. The section mainly discusses the vast approaches to learning: surface learning and deep

learning.

3.4.1 Surface Learning

When focusing on surface learning, various aspects need to be considered. Ahmed and

Ahmed (2017) stated that surface learning is an approach emphasizing on rote learning. Murphey

(2017) and Frey et al. (2017) also noted that surface learning focuses on memorization and lower

cognitive abilities such as reflection. It is an approach that mainly concentrates on lower-order

cognitive skills such as recalling rather than higher-order skills (Schulz & FitzPatrick, 2016;

Tillmanns, 2020). Dolmans et al. (2016) noted that this learning approach is mainly concerned

with engaging with materials to be learned with a specific focus on completing specific tasks

such as completing a problem or passing an examination.

3.4.2 Deep Learning

As an alternative to surface learning, deep learning is an effective approach

recommended by most researchers (Delgado et al., 2018; Dyer & Hurd, 2016). In this approach,

students, in most instances, immerse themselves in studying the subject with an internal desire

for more knowledge and understanding and going beyond the required curricula and assessments
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 8

(Hughes & Wilson, 2017; Yu et al., 2018). Furthermore, Hattie et al. (2016) noted that deep

learning is a period where students consolidate their understanding, applying and extending

surface learning knowledge through idea extension, pattern detection, and providing critical

arguments and evidence. As such, as can be noted from a study by Hu and Yeo (2020), students

in deep learning overall perform better.

3.5 Assessment

Definition

Before delving further into the definition of assessment, it is crucial to consider that

assessment is much different from evaluation based on education. As Ali (2018) noted,

assessment is much different from evaluation given that assessment is continuous and

individualized compared to evaluation which is more judgmental. Regardless, van Groen and

Eggen (2019) noted that both require consideration of a specified criterion in measuring and

providing evidence despite the differences. The section mainly considers the purpose and

perspectives of assessment before defining assessment based on different definitions considered

by various authors.

Based on the most common perspectives of instructors, the assessment considers the

purpose of gathering relevant information regarding students’ progress (Brookhart & McMillan,

2020; Winstone & Boud, 2022). This, as per Villarroel et al. (2020), considers making a

judgment regarding the learning of students. Benton and Young (2018) added that apart from

gaining information and making justified judgments, assessment has a role in providing feedback

to a teacher on the efficacy of the teaching methods considered. Additionally, it promotes a

continuous aspect of feedback, thus identifying the weaknesses notable in learners and enabling a
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 9

teacher to intervene in case of any challenges and issues noted along with the teaching-learning

processes (Shepard, 2019).

Based on the purposes and perspectives of assessment, authors in education defined

assessment as systematically making inferences about learning and the development of students.

Widana et al. (2018) further stated that assessment is a process that focuses on defining,

selecting, designing, collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the development of learners, thus

considered a procedural aspect. Lastly, as defined by Chassignol et al. (2018) and Tartavulea et

al. (2020), assessment is viewed as a variety of methods that teachers utilize in evaluating,

measuring, and documenting the readiness of learners academically, the progress of learning,

acquisition of skills, and the critical educational needs of students.

3.6 Types of Assessment

From a study by Stroebe (2020), assessing students has a substantial impact, the author

noting that assessment has an impact on the motivation and empowerment of these students, thus

promoting learning. As such, McClain et al. (2018) added that it is relevant for teachers to

understand the available types of assessment. The section briefs on some of the types of

assessments available, including evaluative, norm referencing, criterion referencing, self-

assessment, and peer assessment.

Evaluative assessment, just as the name suggests, primarily focuses on providing teachers

with curricular feedback (EwEns, 2018). Cagaanan (n.d.) stated that evaluative assessment is

mainly concerned with an overview of the whole system. It targets evaluating students with the

aim of judging the preparedness of their capability for a learning program. Voinea (2018) further

added that an evaluative assessment aims to grade candidates. Additionally, Kadiyono et al.

(2020) stated that evaluative assessment is among the pillars of curriculum planning, providing
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 10

relevant information to stakeholders on accountability and monitoring. The relevance of

evaluative assessment to a teacher provides insights into effective teaching methods to consider

for a particular group of students (Lo, 2021).

Secondly is diagnostic assessment which Nikmard and Tavassoli (2020) noted has the

main objective of identifying strengths on an individual basis. From research by Palmer et al.

(2018), the authors also noted that among the objectives of diagnostic assessment is identifying

areas needing improvement. This form of assessment has relevance in guiding steps considered

by a teacher in specific students factoring in the strengths and weaknesses of each learner. As

identified by Chafouleas et al. (2021), this form of assessment is much different from evaluative

assessment, given that it does not aim at grading students but rather aiding in diagnosing

particular issues after which a teacher takes relevant actions and steps to address the noted issues.

Norm-referenced assessment is another type of assessment that teachers mainly use in

evaluating to determine the students’ position against a predefined group on specified traits

(Kozlowska & Wisniewski, 2018). As the name comes from normative, which basically focuses

on comparing against, the norm-referenced assessment focuses on comparing students’

performance based on specific aspects. As stated by Lockwood et al. (2022), the primary goal of

this type of assessment is to determine the performance of a learner on the basis of better or

worse than other students hence determining the knowledge retention of the tested students.

Criterion-referenced is another type that, compared to norm-referenced, the main target is

focused on assessing students to determine their performance based on a specific set of pre-

determined and agreed-upon criteria (Pereira et al., 2018). Furthermore, compared to norm-

referenced, this form of assessment mainly considers the provision of the correctness of the
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 11

answer rather than the efficacy of the answer compared to another student’s answer (Miyahara,

2020).

Panadero et al. (2019) also noted the significance of a self-assessment which they defined

as a learner’s involvement in judging their learning achievement and outcomes. The authors

further identified that this form of assessment is effective, especially when considered

formatively. Generally, the main goal of self-assessment is the knowledge of the extent to which

a student’s abilities have changed over time.

Lastly, peer assessment is a kind of assessment done by individuals of equal status as the

person being assessed (Topping, 2018; Babaii & Adeh, 2019). This form of assessment considers

reflecting upon each other’s work and highlights areas needing improvement along with the

strengths. As stated by To and Panadero (2019), the main aim of peer assessment is critique and

feedback, thus enabling a lifelong skill of assessment to guide self-assessment and understanding

from peers.

3.7 Functions of Assessment

The section analyses formative assessment, summative assessment, assessment of

learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning based on assessment functions.

Formative assessments, as stated by Kerekovic (2021), are in-process evaluations of the

learning of students and are always administered multiple times during a course or an academic

program. As noted by Dahal (2019), the primary function of formative assessment is giving a

teacher in-process feedback concerning what students are learning or not learning, thus

advancing and modifying teaching materials, instructional approaches, and support materials.

On the other hand, summative assessments, as Bhat and Bhat (2019) pointed out, are used

at the conclusion of an instruction period, mainly a course, program, or academic year. Chen
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 12

(2020) further added that the main aim of this form of assessment is determining whether

students learned and achieved what they were expected during the defined instruction periods.

This, in most cases, is done through graded tests (Ishaq et al., 2020).

Assessment of learning is also considerable, and as stated by Shavelson et al. (2018), this

kind of assessment has the purpose of evidence of achievement provision to parents and

educators. Assessment of learning, in most instances, is done at the end of a task, with results

being done in the form of statements or symbols regarding the performance of students. These

assessments frequently contribute to pivotal decisions hence influencing the future of students

(Padmanabha, 2021; Schelleken et al., 2021).

Assessment for learning, just as formative, occurs during learning and is done more than

once (Chen, 2020). This makes students understand what they are to learn and what is expected

of them through feedback mechanisms. The primary function of assessment for learning, as

noted by Pace (2018) and is that it is used as an investigative tool by teachers to collect as much

information as possible from students. This leads to identifying confusions, gaps, and

preconceptions, thus guiding their steps (Grover, 2021; Meresa, 2020).

Lastly is assessment as learning, where Padmanabha (2021) stated that through the

processes involved in assessment, students are able to become metacognitive. Through

assessment as learning, students have the ability to reflect on their work, thus guiding their future

learning perspectives (Lee et al., 2019). In most instances, in assessment as learning based on

monitoring metacognition, students mainly question the purposes of learning the concepts taught,

their knowledge of the topics and course, strategies that might be considered effective in gaining

required knowledge, their understanding, criteria for improvement and set goals accomplishment

among others.
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 13

REFERENCES

Abosalem, Y. (2016). Assessment techniques and students’ higher-order thinking

skills. International Journal of Secondary Education, 4(1), 1-11.

Adams, M. (2020). The kingdom of dogs: Understanding Pavlov’s experiments as human-animal

relationships. Theory & Psychology, 30(1), 121-141.

Ahmed, A., & Ahmed, N. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Rote Learning on High and Low

Achievers in Graduate and Undergraduate Programs. Journal of Education and

Educational Development, 4(1), 111-129.

Aina, J. K. (2017). Developing a constructivist model for effective physics

learning. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 1(4).

Akdeniz, C., Bacanlı, H., Baysen, E., Çakmak, M., Çeliköz, N., Doğruer, N., ... & Yalın, H. İ.

(2016). Learning and Teaching. Ankara: Çözüm Eğitim Yayıncılık.

Ali, L. (2018). The Design of Curriculum, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education with

Constructive Alignment. Journal of Education and e-learning Research, 5(1), 72-78.

Amin, S. F. M., Sharif, S., Madjapuni, M. N., Taat, M. S., & Mariappan, M. (2021).

Implementation of Positive Reinforcement and Negative Reinforcement in the

Development of Rms Prayer’s Pillars Gamification. Review of International

Geographical Education Online, 11(7), 103-111.

Babaii, E., & Adeh, A. (2019). One, two,..., many: The outcomes of paired peer assessment,

group peer assessment, and teacher assessment in EFL writing. Journal of Asia

TEFL, 16(1), 53.

Benton, S. L., & Young, S. (2018). Best Practices in the Evaluation of Teaching. IDEA Paper#

69. IDEA Center, Inc.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 14

Bhat, B. A., & Bhat, G. J. (2019). Formative and summative evaluation techniques for

improvement of learning process. European Journal of Business & Social Sciences, 7(5),

776-785.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in education:

Principles, policy & practice, 25(6), 551-575.

Bormanaki, H. B., & Khoshhal, Y. (2017). The Role of Equilibration in Piaget’s Theory of

Cognitive Development and Its Implication for Receptive Skills: A Theoretical

Study. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 8(5).

Bouton, M. E. (2018). Conditioning and learning. General Psychology FA18, 90.

Branzetti, J., Gisondi, M. A., Hopson, L. R., & Regan, L. (2019). Aiming beyond competent: the

application of the taxonomy of significant learning to medical education. Teaching and

learning in medicine, 31(4), 466-478.

Brookhart, S. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2020). Classroom assessment and educational

measurement (p. 296). Taylor & Francis.

Cagaanan, J. C. A. RESEARCH COMPETENCY AMONG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

TEACHERS: AN EVALUATIVE ASSESSMENT FOR SCHOOL-BASED ACTION

RESEARCH (SBAR). Review, 1.

Carroll, D. W. (2016). Cognition in Historical Perspective. Psychological Specialties in

Historical Context, 189.

Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Iovino, E. A. (2021). School-Based

Behavioral Assessment: Informing Prevention and Intervention. Guilford Publications.

Chassignol, M., Khoroshavin, A., Klimova, A., & Bilyatdinova, A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence

trends in education: a narrative overview. Procedia Computer Science, 136, 16-24.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 15

Chen, H. (2020). A Contrastive Analysis of Classroom-Based Language Assessments. English

Language Teaching, 13(5), 110-114.

Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: behaviorism. Radiologic Technology, 90(2), 172-175.

Crosswaite, M., & Asbury, K. (2019). Teacher beliefs about the aetiology of individual

differences in cognitive ability, and the relevance of behavioural genetics to

education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 95-110.

Dahal, B. (2019). Formative Assessment and Achievement of Mathematics Students in

Community Schools of Nepal. Social Inquiry: Journal of Social Science Research, 1(1),

75-93.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and

pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In Building autonomous learners (pp.

9-29). Springer, Singapore.

Delgado, Á. H. D. A., Almeida, J. P. R., Mendes, L. S. B., Oliveira, I. N. D., Ezequiel, O. D. S.,

Lucchetti, A. L. G., & Lucchetti, G. (2018). Are surface and deep learning approaches

associated with study patterns and choices among medical students? A cross-sectional

study. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 136, 414-420.

DeLuca, C., Searle, M., Carbone, K., Ge, J., & LaPointe-McEwan, D. (2021). Toward a

pedagogy for slow and significant learning about assessment in teacher

education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, 103316.

Dolmans, D. H., Loyens, S. M., Marcq, H., & Gijbels, D. (2016). Deep and surface learning in

problem-based learning: a review of the literature. Advances in health sciences

education, 21(5), 1087-1112.
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 16

Dyer, S. L., & Hurd, F. (2016). “What’s going on?” Developing reflexivity in the management

classroom: From surface to deep learning and everything in between. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 287-303.

Egielewa, P., Idogho, P. O., Iyalomhe, F. O., & Cirella, G. T. (2022). COVID-19 and digitized

education: Analysis of online learning in Nigerian higher education. E-Learning and

Digital Media, 19(1), 19-35.

Eunice, O. A., Prince, K., Vivian, N., & Senyefia, B. A. Evaluation of Assessment Strategies

Used by Basic School Teachers in Ghana: The Case of Assessment for Learning.

EwEns, T. (2018). 4 Using assessment accurately and productively. Themes and Issues in

Primary Education, 62.

Fathonah, D., Desyanti, S. S., Hardiyana, A. D., & Firmasari, S. (2022, January). Respon Siswa

Terhadap Penggunaan Soal-Soal Berbasis Taksonomi SOLO Materi SPLDV.

In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Matematika (SNPM) (Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 329-

333).

Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Hattie, J. (2017). Surface, deep, and transfer? Considering the role of

content literacy instructional strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(5),

567-575.

Grover, S. (2021, March). Toward a framework for formative assessment of conceptual learning

in K-12 computer science classrooms. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical

Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 31-37).

Hadzhikoleva, S., Hadzhikolev, E., & Kasakliev, N. (2019). Using peer assessment to enhance

higher order thinking skills. Tem Journal, 8(1), 242-247.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 17

Handayani, I., Mukhaiyar, M., & Syarif, H. (2021). The cognitive, affective, and psychomotor

domain on English lesson plan in school based curriculum. IJMURHICA: International

Journal of Multidisciplinary Research of Higher Education, 1(1), 32-44.

Harden, R. M., & Laidlaw, J. M. (2020). Essential skills for a medical teacher: an introduction

to teaching and learning in medicine. Elsevier Health Sciences.

Harinie, L. T., Sudiro, A., Rahayu, M., & Fatchan, A. (2017). Study of the Bandura’s social

cognitive learning theory for the entrepreneurship learning process. Social Sciences, 6(1),

1-6.

Hattie, J., Fisher, D., Frey, N., Gojak, L. M., Moore, S. D., & Mellman, W. (2016). Visible

learning for mathematics, grades K-12: What works best to optimize student learning.

Corwin Press.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2020). Teachers & schooling making a

difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Routledge.

Hu, X., & Yeo, G. B. (2020). Emotional exhaustion and reduced self-efficacy: The mediating

role of deep and surface learning strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 44(5), 785-795.

Hughes, G., & Wilson, C. (2017). From transcendence to general maintenance: Exploring the

creativity and wellbeing dynamic in higher education.

Ishaq, K., Rana, A. M. K., & Zin, N. A. M. (2020). Exploring Summative Assessment and

Effects: Primary to Higher Education. Bulletin of Education and Research, 42(3), 23-50.

Jayraj, A., & Joseph, S. (2019). From Hierarchical to Lateral Knowledge Flows: Teaching-

Learning Relationships. Humanising Language Teaching, 21(5).

Jenkins, D. M. (2011). Exploring instructional strategies and learning goals in undergraduate

leadership education. University of South Florida.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 18

Jing, L., & Tian, Y. (2020). Self-supervised visual feature learning with deep neural networks: A

survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 43(11), 4037-

4058.

Kadambaevna, K. N. (2020). Using Strategies For Teaching With Bloom’s Taxonomy. Кронос,

(3 (42)), 72-73.

Kadiyono, A. L., Sulistiobudi, R. A., & Abdurrohman, M. F. (2020). Employability factor to

improve readiness for changes. In Emerging Trends in Psychology, Law, Communication

Studies, Culture, Religion, and Literature in the Global Digital Revolution (pp. 83-89).

Routledge.

Kaharuddin, A., & Hajeniati, N. (2020). An Identification of Students’ Responses Based on Solo

Taxonomy in Mathematics Learning Toward Learning Activities and Learning

Outcomes. Al-Jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 11(2), 191-200.

Kerekovic, S. (2021). Formative Assessment and Motivation in ESP: A Case Study. Language

Teaching Research Quarterly, 23, 64-79.

Kozlowska, A., & Wisniewski, Z. (2018, July). Methods for Assessing the Effectiveness of

Language Learning–A Comparative Study. In International Conference on Applied

Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 97-106). Springer, Cham.

Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle school: A

project-based learning approach. Routledge.

Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM

education. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1-11.

Lee, I., Mak, P., & Yuan, R. E. (2019). Assessment as learning in primary writing classrooms:

An exploratory study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 72-81.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 19

Lo, N. P. K. (2021). Teaching creativity and pedagogical practice. Journal of Communication

and Education, 5(1), 93-103.

Lockwood, A. B., Farmer, R. L., Schmitt, M., Sealander, K., Lanterman, C., & Adkins, M.

(2022). The course on norm‐referenced academic assessment: A survey of special

education faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 59(2), 398-412.

Lucander, H., Bondemark, L., Brown, G., & Knutsson, K. (2010). The structure of observed

learning outcome (SOLO) taxonomy: a model to promote dental students’

learning. European Journal of Dental Education, 14(3), 145-150.

McClain, L., Gulbis, A., & Hays, D. (2018). Honesty on student evaluations of teaching:

effectiveness, purpose, and timing matter!. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education, 43(3), 369-385.

Meresa, K. B. (2020). The Practice of Assessment for Learning in Three Selected Primary

Schools of Adigrat Woreda with Particular Reference to Grade 8 English Language

Teachers.

Mitchell, S. A., & Walton-Fisette, J. L. (2022). The essentials of teaching physical education:

Curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Human Kinetics.

Miyahara, M. (2020). Physical literacy as a framework of assessment and intervention for

children and youth with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A narrative critical

review of conventional practice and proposal for future directions. International Journal

of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4313.

Muhajirah, M. (2020). Basic of Learning Theory:(Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism,

and Humanism). International Journal of Asian Education, 1(1), 37-42.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 20

Murphy, P. E. (2017). Student approaches to learning, conceptions of mathematics, and

successful outcomes in learning mathematics. In Success in higher education (pp. 75-93).

Springer, Singapore.

Nikmard, F., & Tavassoli, K. (2020). The effect of diagnostic assessment on EFL learners’

performance on selective and productive reading tasks. Journal of Modern Research in

English Language Studies, 7(1), 79-104.

Noe, N. (2013). Creating and maintaining an information literacy instruction program in the

twenty-first century: An ever-changing landscape. Elsevier.

Ohtani, K., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: a meta-analytic review of the

relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic

performance. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 179-212.

Padmanabha, C. H. (2021). Assessment for Learning, Assessment of Learning, Assessment as

Learning: A Conceptual Framework. Assessment of Learning, Assessment as Learning,

Conceptual Framework (August 1, 2021).

Palmer, L., Levett-Jones, T., & Smith, R. (2018). First year students’ perceptions of academic

literacies preparedness and embedded diagnostic assessment. Student Success, 9(2), 49-

62.

Panadero, E., Broadbent, J., Boud, D., & Lodge, J. M. (2019). Using formative assessment to

influence self-and co-regulated learning: the role of evaluative judgement. European

Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(3), 535-557.

Pardo, A., Bartimote, K., Shum, S. B., Dawson, S., Gao, J., Gašević, D., ... & Vigentini, L.

(2018). OnTask: Delivering data-informed, personalized learning support

actions. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(3), 235-249.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 21

Pereira, A. G., Woods, M., Olson, A. P., Van Den Hoogenhof, S., Duffy, B. L., & Englander, R.

(2018). Criterion-based assessment in a norm-based world: how can we move past

grades?. Academic Medicine, 93(4), 560-564.

Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C. D. (2017). Behavior analysis and learning: A biobehavioral

approach. Routledge.

Pisanpanumas, P., & Yasri, P. (2018). SOLO taxonomy: increased complexity of conceptual

understanding about the interconnection between convection and natural disasters using

hands-on activities. PSAKU International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 7(2).

Saunders, L., & Wong, M. A. (2020). Learning Theories: Understanding How People

Learn. Instruction in Libraries and Information Centers.

Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H. G., de Jong, L. H., van der Schaaf, M. F., Kremer, W. D., & van der

Vleuten, C. P. (2021). A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL),

Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in

Educational Evaluation, 71, 101094.

Schulz, H. W., & FitzPatrick, B. (2016). Teachers’ understandings of critical and higher order

thinking and what this means for their teaching and assessments. Alberta Journal of

Educational Research, 62(1), 61-86.

Serin, H. (2018). A comparison of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches in

educational settings. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational

Studies, 5(1), 164-167.

Setyowati, Y., Heriyawati, D. F., & Kuswahono, D. (2020). The Implementation of “Test of

Evaluating” and” Test of Creating” in the Assessment of Learning by EFL Lecturers in

Pandemic Era.
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 22

Shavelson, R. J., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., & Mariño, J. P. (2018). International performance

assessment of learning in higher education (iPAL): Research and development.

In Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education (pp. 193-214). Springer, Cham.

Shepard, L. A. (2019). Classroom assessment to support teaching and learning. The ANNALS of

the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 683(1), 183-200.

Starr-Glass, D. (2020). Significant learning experiences and implied students. On the Horizon.

Stroebe, W. (2020). Student evaluations of teaching encourages poor teaching and contributes to

grade inflation: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 42(4), 276-294.

Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. John Wiley & Sons.

Sweller, J. (2016). Working memory, long-term memory, and instructional design. Journal of

Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 360-367.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional

design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.

Tartavulea, C. V., Albu, C. N., Albu, N., Dieaconescu, R. I., & Petre, S. (2020). Online Teaching

Practices and the Effectiveness of the Educational Process in the Wake of the COVID-19

Pandemic. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(55), 920-936.

Tillmanns, T. (2020). Learning sustainability as an effect of disruption. Environmental

Education Research, 26(1), 14-26.

To, J., & Panadero, E. (2019). Peer assessment effects on the self-assessment process of first-

year undergraduates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 920-932.

Topping, K. J. (2018). Using peer assessment to inspire reflection and learning. Routledge.

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 23

Tsingos-Lucas, C., Bosnic-Anticevich, S., Schneider, C. R., & Smith, L. (2017). Using reflective

writing as a predictor of academic success in different assessment formats. American

journal of pharmaceutical education, 81(1).

Tyng, C. M., Amin, H. U., Saad, M. N., & Malik, A. S. (2017). The influences of emotion on

learning and memory. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1454.

Urgo, K., Arguello, J., & Capra, R. (2019, September). Anderson and krathwohl’s two-

dimensional taxonomy applied to task creation and learning assessment. In Proceedings

of the 2019 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information

Retrieval (pp. 117-124).

van Groen, M. M., & Eggen, T. J. (2019). Educational test approaches: The suitability of

computer-based test types for assessment and evaluation in formative and summative

contexts. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 21(1), 12-24.

Villareal, I. P. (2017). Practical Numeric and It Skills Maths Component Summary Notes: A

Content Analysis. International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and

Applied Sciences, 6(7), 1-11.

Villarroel, V., Boud, D., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., & Bruna, C. (2020). Using principles of

authentic assessment to redesign written examinations and tests. Innovations in

Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 38-49.

Voinea, L. (2018). Formative assessment as assessment for learning development. Revista de

Pedagogie, 66(1), 7-23.

Volaric, T., Brajkovic, E., & Sjekavica, T. (2014). Integration of FAHP and TOPSIS methods for

the selection of appropriate multimedia application for learning and

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 24

teaching. International journal of mathematical models and methods in applied

sciences, 8, 224-232.

Wang, Y., Liu, C., Zhao, Y., Huang, W., You, B., & Lin, J. (2020, October). The New Theory of

Learning in the Era of Educational Information 2.0—Connected Constructivism.

In BenchCouncil International Federated Intelligent Computing and Block Chain

Conferences (pp. 417-428). Springer, Singapore.

Wesolowski, B. C., Athanas, M. I., Burton, J. S., Edwards, A. S., Edwards, K. E., Goins, Q.

R., ... & Thompson, J. E. (2018). Judgmental standard setting: The development of

objective content and performance standards for secondary-level solo instrumental music

assessment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 66(2), 224-245.

Widana, I. W., Parwata, I., & Sukendra, I. K. (2018). Higher order thinking skills assessment

towards critical thinking on mathematics lesson. International journal of social sciences

and humanities, 2(1), 24-32.

Wilson, L. O. (2016). Anderson and Krathwohl–Bloom’s taxonomy revised. Understanding the

New Version of Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Winstone, N. E., & Boud, D. (2022). The need to disentangle assessment and feedback in higher

education. Studies in higher education, 47(3), 656-667.

Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A

reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149-162.

Yahya, A. A. (2019). Swarm intelligence-based approach for educational data

classification. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information

Sciences, 31(1), 35-51.
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 25

Yıldız Durak, H., & Atman Uslu, N. (2022). Investigating the effects of SOLO taxonomy with

reflective practice on university students’ meta-cognitive strategies, problem-solving,

cognitive flexibility, spatial anxiety: an embedded mixed-method study on 3D game

development. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-23.

Yu, S., Chen, B., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). Chinese education

examined via the lens of self-determination. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 177-

214.
 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 26

APPENDIX

Figure 1: Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Levels (Yahya, 2019).

Figure 2: Revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Noe, 2013).

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 27

Figure 3: The SOLO taxonomy (Lucander et al., 2010)

 CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION 28

Figure 4: Taxonomy of Significant Learning (Jenkins, 2011).