See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306392577

Rwanda’s New Competence-Based School Curriculum

Article · January 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6300-672-9_16

CITATIONS READS

14 38,659

2 authors:

Ernest Ngendahayo Helen Askell-Williams

Flinders University Flinders University
2 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS 109 PUBLICATIONS 1,017 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernest Ngendahayo on 06 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ERNEST NGENDAHAYO AND HELEN ASKELL-WILLIAMS

RWANDA'S NEW COMPETENCE-BASED SCHOOL

CURRICULUM: NEW APPROACHES TO
ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING NEEDED

Note: This is a pre-published version of the chapter

Full citation: Ngendahayo, E. & Askell-Williams, H. (2016). Rwanda's new competence-
based school curriculum: New approaches to assessing student learning needed. In D.
Curtis & J. Orrell (Eds), Publishing higher degree research: Making the transition from
student to researcher. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Rwanda has embarked on curriculum reform to improve the quality of education.

This is a crucial step in the direction of Rwanda’s ambition to “develop a
knowledge-based society and the growth of regional and global competition in the
jobs market” (REB, 2015). An important shift has been to move away from a
“knowledge-based curriculum” to a competence-based curriculum 1 and from
knowledge and skills acquisition to knowledge creation and application. The aim is
to develop students’ independent, lifelong learning habits; appropriate skills and
knowledge; and applications to real life situations. There is a growing recognition
of the potential of competence-based education, unlike traditional subject/content-
based education, to develop the capabilities/competencies that are deemed essential
for success in both academia and today’s knowledge-based economy (Darling-
Hammond, 2012; Scardamalia, Bransford, Kozma, and Quellmalz, 2012).

Rwanda’s proposed competence-based curriculum is similar to programs that

seek to develop generic capabilities, such as those discussed by Yeung, Ng and Liu
(2007) and McNeil et al. (2012). The competencies proposed for Rwanda’s
educational system include, critical and problem solving skills; creativity and
innovation; research; communication in official languages; cooperation, inter
personal management and life skills; and lifelong learning. As Rwanda has adopted
the term competence-based curriculum, the terms generic skills, generic
capabilities-based and competence-based education will be used interchangeably in
this chapter, using the acronym CBE.

––––––––––––––
1
The proposed “competence-based curriculum” is not to be confused with basic
skills types of “tick the box” certificate of competency checklists, (e.g., see DMP,
n.d.)
NGENDAHAYO AND ASKELL-WILLIAMS

ASSESSMENT AND COMPETENCE-BASED CURRICULUM

Testing culture vs Assessment culture

The value that students and teachers place upon various components of the new
curriculum will strongly be influenced by the components that are targeted for
evaluation. Two different evaluation cultures influence the curriculum: testing
culture and assessment culture (Birenbaum et al., 2006). In the testing culture, the
main focus is on the end results. The means that lead to the ends may be given little
or no consideration (Hamade, 2009). This culture is summative assessment and its
variants, such as assessment of learning or high-stakes assessment (e.g., Stiggins,
2002). Scardamalia et al. (2012) argued that summative assessment is the common
function that most people associate with assessment. Summative assessments are
usually administered after major events, such as at the end of a unit of study,
standardized tests, and final exams at the end of a course or before important events
like university entry tests (Shute & Becker, 2010). The tasks and items in
summative assessments come in different forms such as multiple choice tests and
other short answer questions, open-ended essays, and presentations by students.
Summative assessments play an essential role as an accountability mechanism
for schools, teachers, and students, but the information they generate is less timely
and useful for informing the day-to-day processes of teaching and learning
(Scardamalia et al., 2012). Grades or marks, perceived as ‘golden stars’, and
related decisions such as students’ ranking, serve as the primary incentive for
students (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Summative assessments pressure teachers to
teach to the test, which in turn results in a ‘narrowed curriculum’ (Popham, 2004).
Teachers may turn to transmission teaching styles with well-structured learning
activities (Harlen & Deakin, 2002) around what is tested or likely to be tested in
order to maximize their students’ scores on the tests (Popham 2001).
In contrast to a testing culture, a formative assessment culture focusses upon
assessment for learning and assessment as learning (e.g., Stiggins, 2002) with a
view to improving teaching and learning. According to Shute and Becker (2010),
formative assessments are embedded in the curriculum that is delivered in the
classroom, and generate real time information that can be used to revise instruction
to promote learning in a timely way. Teaching and learning in an assessment
culture emphasise what students can do (students’ performances), not simply what
they know (content) (Lachat, 1999).
Systems need summative types of assessments to monitor growth and identify
areas needing attention at meso and macro levels, whilst students and teachers need
formative assessment information to monitor individual student’s growth and
identify areas needing attention at micro levels (Atkin, Black, & Coffey, 2001).

THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT IN RWANDA

Curriculum and assessment in Rwanda have been fundamentally summative in

nature. These include, end of term/year examinations; national examinations at the
end of primary, end of lower secondary, and end of upper secondary school; and
school-based continuous assessments (e.g., homework, quizzes).
 COMPETENCE-BASED EDUCATION AND ASSESSMENT IN RWANDA

The assessment system is so centralised that teachers’ involvement is limited.

The national examinations are marked and moderated by selected teachers in
marking centres. Although some moderation exists in some schools, there is no
school-wide or system-wide moderation. Thus, teachers’ local contextual expertise
and knowledge of individual students barely influences assessment designs.
Rwandan school-based examinations are competitive and of high stakes for
schools, teachers, and students, informing selection, orientation to different types
of schools and sections/courses, certification, and promotion/retention. To some
extent, schools and teachers are held accountable for their students’ performances
in the national/external examinations. It appears that teaching and learning are
largely oriented toward increasing students’ scores on the external assessments,
with the possibilities of “teaching to the test” or even “teaching the test” emerging
as preferred practices. This may lead to unhealthy levels of competition between
and within schools and students (Sahlberg, 2010).
The high stakes testing approach is also typical of day-to-day classroom-based
assessment. Most classroom assessments are norm-referenced, meaning that at the
end of every term and year, students of every class are ranked from the first to the
last of each class according to students’ average score across all subjects. In most
cases, high performers are celebrated during proclamation of marks ceremonies at
schools, at home or in the larger community. Implicitly, and in some cases
explicitly, lower performers are personally blamed for their poor school results at
the end of the term or year. Such judgments may have very high consequences due
to their potential negative effects on students’ affect and emotions as well as their
academic achievements (Bandura, 2001).

A STUDY OF RWANDAN TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS OF ASSESSMENT

Teachers’ beliefs exert considerable influence on their practices (Patrick &

Pintrich, 2001). If educational reforms are to be achieved, one area that must be
addressed is teachers’ beliefs and conceptions about assessment. Assessment
conceptions are “systematic frameworks for understanding assessment and they
include people’s attitudes towards it” (Brown, Irving & Keegan, 2008, p. 1).
Teachers’ assessment related beliefs matter for how and why assessment is
implemented (Brown & Remesal, 2012). Such belief systems are context-specific
and therefore crucial to understand when making inferences about behaviour and
practice (Gebril & Brown, 2014).
The introduction of CBE will require better understanding about Rwandan
teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Thus, the remainder of this chapter reports
results from a study that investigated Rwandan secondary and primary school
teachers’ practices and conceptions of assessment.

Two research questions guided the study:

1. What practices do Rwandan teachers most associate with assessment?
2. What conceptions of assessment do Rwanda teachers have?
Ethics approvals: Permissions were obtained from the Principal of Rwanda Teachers
College and Head Teachers of schools to conduct the research. Participants were
NGENDAHAYO AND ASKELL-WILLIAMS

provided with Information Sheets. Participants’ were assured that their responses
were voluntary, anonymous and confidential.

Participants: Participants included primary and secondary school teachers

identified through convenience sampling. Participants came from a range of
schools and districts. Some of the participants were also enrolled in a two year
Diploma in Education program at Rwanda Teachers College.

Instrumentation: Brown’s (2004) Conceptions of Assessment (CoA-III)

questionnaire consisting of 27 items measuring four factors (school accountability,
student accountability, improvement, and irrelevance) was used for this study, with
each question written in English and Kinyarwanda. CoA III uses a six-point,
positively-packed rating scale (i.e., from 1=strongly disagree to 6 =strongly agree).
CoA-III also proposes a list of 12 common practices and asks teachers to indicate
each practice that comes to their mind when they think about assessment.

RESULTS
Five Hundred questionnaires were distributed, from which 417 were returned
(response rate: 83%). Poorly completed questionnaires were discarded. A final set
of 385 questionnaires was suitable for analysis (215 male; 156 female; 14 no
gender recorded). Participants taught across the range of primary and secondary
school subjects. Apart from one item which had 20% of missing data, missing data
per item ranged from 1% to 5% and was not replaced.

Perceived assessment practices: Participants were asked to indicate the practices

they have in mind when they think of assessment by selecting from 12 options. As
shown in Table 1, respondents mostly associated assessment with practices that
primarily serve summative purposes. The majority of teachers (78.3%) perceived
assessment as teacher made tests, while 80.1% and 72.6% perceived assessment as
student written work and marked homework, respectively.

Table 1: frequencies and percentages of the practices perceived as assessment

Assessment practices Yes: N (%) No: N (%)

Unplanned observation 25 (8.4) 273 (91.6)
Oral questions & answers 248 (83.5) 49 (16.5)
Planned observation 154 (50.8) 149 (49.2)
Student written work 241 (80.6) 58 (19.4)
Marked homework 220 (72.6) 83 (27.4)
Student self or peer assessment 228 (71.5) 91 (28.5)
Conferencing 46 (15.5) 251 (84.5)
Portfolio/scrapbook 30 (10.1) 268 (89.9)
Teacher made test 242 (78.3) 67 (21.7)
Standardised test 208 (68.0) 98 (32.0)
Essay test 217 (72.6) 82 (27.4)
1-3 hour examination 184 (62.0) 113 (38.0)
 COMPETENCE-BASED EDUCATION AND ASSESSMENT IN RWANDA

Conceptions of assessment: Principal Components Analysis of the CoA-III failed

to replicate Brown’s (2006) four factor structure. Three items did not achieve
criteria for inclusion and were removed from the analysis. A six factor structure,
with four items in each factor, accounted for 52.52% of the variance in the model
(KMO .814; alpha .73).
The frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations for the 24 items
are presented in Table 2. Participants mostly and strongly agreed that assessment
indicates quality and gives feedback to students. Participants also largely agreed
that assessment is a tool for accountability. Likewise, a large majority of
participants mostly or strongly agreed with the items that are related to the need for
cautious use of assessment information. Worth noting too is that a substantial
number of the teachers agreed that assessment measures students’ higher order
thinking skills.

Table 2: Frequencies, mean scores, and standard deviations for CoA III items

N Factors and Items Strongly & Slightly & Mostly & N Mean
mostly moderately strongly (SD)
disagree agree agree
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Factor 1: Assessment provides feedback to students
1 Assessment feeds back to 23 (6) 44 (12) 314 (82) 381 5.2 (1.3)
students their learning needs
2 Assessment establishes what 27 (7) 65 (17) 288 (76) 380 5.0 (1.3)
students have learned
3 Assessment is a way to 38 (10) 94 (25) 245 (65) 377 4.7 (1.5)
determine how much students
have learned from teaching
4 Assessment is assigning a mark 52 (14) 68 (18) 261 (61) 381 4.7(1.6)
or category (e.g. A, B+)
Factor 2: Assessment is irrelevant
5 Assessment interferes with 312 (83) 34 (9) 32 (8) 378 1.7(1.4)
teaching
6 Assessment is an imprecise 325 (87) 25 (7) 22 (6) 372 1.6 (1.2)
process
7 Assessment results are 305 (82) 33 (9) 33 (9) 371 1.8 (1.4)
consistent
8 Assessment results are filed & 305 (81) 32 (8) 40 (11) 377 1.9 (1.4)
ignored
Factor 3: Assessment should be used cautiously
9 Assessment results should be 44 (11) 110 (29) 228 (60) 382 4.5 (1.5)
treated cautiously because of
measurement error
10 Teachers should take into 76 (20) 114 (30) 188 (50) 378 4.2(1.6)
account the error and
imprecision in all assessment
11 Teachers conduct assessments 226 (60) 96 (26) 52 (14) 374 2.5 (1.6)
but make little use of the results
12 Assessment information modifies 9 (3) 46 (15) 254 (82) 309 5.2 (1.0)
ongoing teaching of students
Factor 4: Assessment is useful
13 Assessment results can be 56 (15) 111 (30) 207 (55) 374 4.3 (1.5)
depended on
14 Assessment helps students 5 (1) 47 (12) 327 (86) 379 5.4 (0.9)
improve their learning
 NGENDAHAYO AND ASKELL-WILLIAMS

15 Assessment allows different 33 (9) 99 (26) 254 (68) 376 4.8 (1.3)
students to be taught in different
ways
16 Assessment results are 45 (12) 178 (49) 144 (39) 367 4.0 (1.4)
trustworthy
Factor 5: Assessment is for accountability
17 Assessment is integrated with 13 (3) 37 (10) 322 (87) 372 5.4 (1.1)
teaching practice
18 Assessment places students into 25 (7) 49 (13) 305 (80) 379 5.2 (1.3)
categories
19 Assessment provides feedback 18 (5) 33 (9) 320 (84) 381 5.3 (1.2)
to students about their
performance
20 Assessment provides 35 (9) 84 (22) 258 (68) 377 4.8 (1.4)
information on how well schools
are doing
Factor 6: Assessment indicates quality
21 Assessment measures students’ 23 (6) 99 (11) 254 (68) 376 4.5(1.5)
higher order thinking skills
22 Assessment is a good way to 37 (10) 87 (30) 257 (67) 381 4.8(1.4)
evaluate a school
23 Assessment is an accurate 20 (5) 78 (20) 283 (74) 381 5.0 (1.3)
indicator of a school’s quality
24 Assessment determines if 29 (8) 43 (23) 297 (78) 379 5.1(1.3)
students meet qualifications
standards

Limitations: The sample available to this study was a convenience sample. Care
should be taken with any generalising statements.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings indicate that Rwandan teachers hold mixed conceptions of

assessment. They seem appreciative of the relevance of assessment with regard to
instruction and learning, including higher order learning. The teachers largely
agreed that assessment improves learning and teaching, and that assessment can be
used to hold schools and students accountable. Such conceptions are adequate for
the 21st century competencies envisaged in the Rwanda CBE. However, such
results are to be interpreted with caution, because research has shown that positive
attitudes and beliefs about CBE do not necessarily translate into relevant
assessment practices (e.g., Kafyulilo, Rugambuka & Moses, 2013). Particularly,
the results show a mismatch between the conceptions listed in Table 2, and the
perceived assessment practices listed in Table 1. The examination-dominated high
stakes assessment system that currently operates in Rwanda could partially account
for this mismatch, as similarly reported in research in Egypt by Gebril and Brown
(2014). The Rwandan approaches to assessment will need to undergo fundamental
changes if the assessment practices are to respond to the new goals and demands of
CBE (Ogan-Bekiroglu, 2009).

School-based continuous assessment: For the success of Rwanda’s CBE, a stronger

focus will need to be placed on classroom assessment and teachers’, and especially
students’, involvement in development of assessment goals and criteria, and in the
 COMPETENCE-BASED EDUCATION AND ASSESSMENT IN RWANDA

use of those criteria to monitor learning process in self-assessment and peer-

assessment (Darling-Hammond & Pecheone, 2009). Whereas the teachers in our
study mostly associated assessment with the traditional methods requiring recall of
factual knowledge, new practices should encompass assessment methods that
promote higher order learning such as portfolios, projects, problem solving, and
performances to collect timely information on students’ learning. In order to avoid
negative effects on students’ self-concept and perceived abilities to learn,
assessment in CBE should be more connected to individual student progress.
According to Darling-Hammond (2012), many countries are increasingly
emphasising such assessments because of their potential to strengthen teaching and
to support lifelong learning.

Effective use of assessment information: With the introduction of CBE, it is

expected that Rwanda’s education system will become more information rich than
before. District assessments and the assessment of achievement in Rwandan
schools anticipated in Rwanda’s CBE initiatives will add to the existing national
examinations and other school-based assessment practices to generate more
assessment information. Such information, usually used to regulate the education
system as whole, could also be used at school and classroom levels to improve
teaching and learning. Using summative assessment information for formative
purposes should become a critical skill for teachers (Shute & Becker, 2010). It is
essential that the teachers develop relevant skills and competencies to leverage
such information to promote students’ learning.

Assessment legislation: It is important that there is an enabling environment for a

new assessment culture to take root and to ensure the sustainability of its quality
and effectiveness (World Bank, 2010). The introduction of CBE provides an
exciting opportunity for a national assessment policy and guidelines based on the
curriculum content to be developed. This exercise should involve the participation
of the Rwanda’s education managers, assessment, learning and education
specialists and other key stakeholders.

Standardisation: Experiences from countries that have adopted CBE and formative
assessment indicate the need for standardisation of the regulations, curricula and
procedures (e.g., South Africa; Tanzania). At the heart of an assessment system
there should be the development of clear and understandable assessment standards
in addition to clearly defined, expected learning outcomes at each level of
education and for each subject. Involving teachers more actively in the
development and monitoring of standards would embed the latter more thoroughly
into teachers’ instructional habits (Adamson, 2011).

Pre-service and in-service teacher training: Effective assessment in CBE will

heavily rely on teachers’ professionalism. Pre-service and in-service teacher
training programs should address teachers’ ability to use assessment data to
identify students’ learning needs and teachers’ ability to respond to students’
needs. In fact, educators’ poor assessment literacy has been described as a
stumbling block to the implementation of CBE in African countries such as
NGENDAHAYO AND ASKELL-WILLIAMS

Tanzania and South Africa (e.g., Paulo & Tilya, 2014; Kafyulilo, et al., 2013). One
of the reported reasons behind this failure is the teachers’ misunderstanding of the
concepts of CBE (Kafyulilo, et al., 2013) and their failure to adopt the assessment
practices that are appropriate to the demands of CBE (Paulo, 2014). Such scenarios
could be somewhat alleviated by implementing a competence-based curriculum in
pre-service and in-service teacher training programs across Rwanda.

CONCLUSION

In the era when Rwanda has embarked on a competence-based reform process to

improve the quality of education, using assessment in the service of student
learning becomes an imperative and a crucial skill for teachers. The new CBE
curriculum requires that assessment will also be competence-based. The
competence-based assessment is described as tasks that present real-life
challenging situations to students and requires them to overcome those challenges
by applying acquired knowledge (REB, 2015). For this mission to be realised, there
is a need for, enabling legislation; standardization of policies, procedures and
curricula; alignment between curriculum, teaching, learning and assessment;
teachers’ professional development for improved school-based assessment; and
effective use of formative and summative assessment information. Teachers’
assessment practices highly depend on their conceptions of assessment. Therefore
their assessment belief systems, attitudes and competencies should be seriously
considered during professional development and other training programs.

REFERENCES
Adamson, B. (2011). Embedding assessment for learning. In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.),
Assessment reform in education, pp. 197-203. Dordrecht: Springer.
Atkin, J.M, Black, P. & Coffey, J. (2001). The Relationship Between Formative and Summative
Assessment—In the Classroom and Beyond. In J.M. Atkin, J., P. Black, & J. Coffey (Eds.).
Classroom assessment and the National Science Standards (pp. 59-77). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. Retrieved 24 June, 2015, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9847.html.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
1-26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
Birenbaum, M., Breuer, K., Cascallar, E., Dochy, F., Dori, Y., Ridgway, J., Wiesemes, R. (2006). A
learning integrated assessment system. Educational Research Review, 1, 61-67.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment.
Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–147.
Brown, G. T. L. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Implications for policy and professional
development. Assessment in Education, 11(3), 301-318.
Brown, G. T. L. (2006). Teachers’ conceptions of assessment: Validation of an abridged instrument.
Psychological Reports, 99(1), 166-170. doi:10.2466/pr0.99.1.166-170
Brown, G., Irving, S. E., & Keegan, P. J. (2008). An introduction to educational assessment,
measurement, and evaluation (2nd ed.). Auckland, NZ: Pearson Education.
Brown, G. T. L., & Remesal, A. (2012). Prospective teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A cross-
cultural comparison. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 75-89.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Pecheone, R. (2009). Reframing accountability: Using performance
assessments to focus learning on higher-order skills. In L. M. Pinkus, (Eds.), Meaningful
measurement: The role of assessments in improving high school education in the twenty-first
century, pp. 25-53, Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Policy Frameworks for New Assessments. In P. Griffin, B. McGraw &
E. Care (Eds.). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, (pp. 301-339). Dordrecht: Springer.
doi: 10.1080/07294360050020507
 COMPETENCE-BASED EDUCATION AND ASSESSMENT IN RWANDA

DMP (n.d.) Application for a Winding Engine Driver’s Certificate. Department of Mines and
Petroleum, Government of Western Australia. Retrieved 24 June, 2015, from,
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/Forms/MSH_COC_F_WindingEngine.pdf.
Gebril, A. & Brown, G.T. L. (2014). The effect of high-stakes examination systems on teacher beliefs:
Egyptian teachers’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 21(1), 16-33.
Hamade, S. (2009, November). Competency based classroom assessment in vocational English
teaching (VET)). Paper presented at the First Regional Conference on Program and Learning
Assessment in Higher Education, Lebanese American University.
Harlen, W. & Deakin, C. R. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and
tests on students’ motivation for learning (EPPI-Centre Review), In: Research Evidence in
Education Library, 1. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Kafyulilo, A.C., Rugambuka, I.B. & Moses, I. (2013). Implementation of Competency Based Teaching
in Morogoro Teachers’ Training College, Tanzania. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 4(2),
311-326. doi: 10.4314/majohe.v4i2.13 Field Code Changed
Lachat, M. A. (1999). What policymakers and school administrators need to know about assessment
reform for English language learners. Brown University: Education Alliance.

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2009). Assessing assessment: Examination of pre-service physics teachers’

attitudes towards assessment and factors affecting their attitudes. International Journal of Science
Education, 31(1), 1–39.
Patrick, H., & Pintrich, P. R. (2001). Conceptual change in teachers’ intuitive conceptions of
learning, motivation, and instruction: The role of motivational and epistemological beliefs. In
B. Torff & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Understanding and teaching the intuitive mind: Student and
teacher learning (pp. 117-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paulo, A. & Tilya, F. (2014). The 2005 secondary school curriculum reforms in Tanzania: Disjunction
between policy and practice in its implementation. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(35), 114-
122.
Paulo, A. (2014). Pre-service teacher’s preparedness to implement competence-based curriculum in
secondary schools in Tanzania. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(7), 219-230.
Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the test. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16–20.
Popham, W. J. (2004). Curriculum, instruction, and assessment: amiable allies or phony friends?
Teacher College Record, 106, 417–428.
REB (2015). Competence-based curriculum: Curriculum framework: Pre-primary to upper secondary
2015. Kigali: Rwanda Education Board.
Sahlberg, P. (2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change,
11(1), 45-61. Doi 10.1007/s10833-008-9098-2
Scardamalia, M., Bransford, J., Kozma, B. & Quellmalz, E. (2012). New assessments and environments
for knowledge building. In P. Griffin, B. McGraw & E. Care. (Eds.). Assessment and teaching of 21st
century skills, (pp. 231-300). Dordrecht: Springer.
Shute, V. J. & Becker, B. J. (2010). Assessment for the 21st Century. In V. J. Shute & B. J. Becker
(Eds.), Innovative Assessment for the 21st Century: Supporting Educational Needs, (pp. 1-11).
New York: Springer.
Stiggins. R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83, 758-765.
World Bank (2010). Russia Education Aid for Development (READ) Trust Fund Annual Report
2009.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Yeung, A .S., Ng, C., Liu, W. P. (2007, ). Generic Capabilities for Lifelong Education:
Conceptualization and Construct Validity. Paper presented at the Australian Association for
Research in Education, Fremantle, November 2007. Retrieved 24 June, 2015, from,
http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2007/yeu07420.pdf.
 NGENDAHAYO AND ASKELL-WILLIAMS

Ernest Ngendahayo MEd

College of Education
University of Rwanda, Rwanda

And

Helen Askell-Williams PhD

School of Education
Flinders University, Australia

View publication stats