Discussions on continuous assessment

Continuous assessment is a term that sometimes surfaces in relation to reforming qualifications.

The phrase evokes ideas of flexibility, learner-centred design, and the potential for more authentic assessment experiences. Yet, despite its prominence in international discourse and its theoretical appeal, Qualifications Wales does not use the term “continuous assessment” in its regulatory or reform work.  

Research scope
This blog uses research on continuous assessment produced for us by AlphaPlus to explore and consider this approach to assessment, especially in relation to high-stakes qualifications such as GCSEs and A levels. 

The research by AlphaPlus, explored the potential benefits and challenges of implementing (digitalised) continuous assessment in qualifications like GCSEs and vocational qualifications.  

Potential confusion
Continuous assessment could be seen as being similar to aspects of current GCSE design, including non-examination assessment and unitisation, where assessments happen before the exams at the end of Year 11. However, those assessments tend to happen at discrete points in time or within short windows. A continuous assessment model would likely be quite different to current GCSE design, for example, by leading to more assessment points throughout the course (as implied by the word “continuous”). A continuous assessment approach would be more like coursework, as implemented in the original GCSEs delivered during the 1980s and 1990s, rather than current non-examination assessments. 

Modelling scenarios
The findings of the research were nuanced. While continuous assessment can offer flexibility and support self-paced learning, it also raises significant questions about reliability, manageability (especially in terms of workload for learners and teachers) and equity. 

Three scenarios were developed in the research to illustrate possible models of continuous assessment implementation. Each scenario brought trade-offs – between learner autonomy and system control, between formative richness and summative rigour. 

The ideas in these scenarios are interesting and not just for the qualifications system, for example how designing formative assessments could align with qualification assessments in the same or similar subjects. 

Regulatory approach
Our current regulatory framework does not include continuous assessment as a defined or operationalised model for qualifications, and we do not intend to change this based on the research findings. This intention is partly a reflection of the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the term. 

In high-stakes assessment contexts like GCSEs and A levels – where assessment outcomes influence progression or access to further opportunities – we think a regulatory focus on continuous assessment could be problematic. We would risk conflating assessment with learning, potentially increasing assessment burden and undermining clarity of purpose. 

Moreover, the term itself is inconsistently used across different contexts. In some assessment systems, it refers to teacher-led, classroom-based judgements; in others, it refers to modular or portfolio-based models. Without a shared understanding of the concept, it becomes difficult to regulate or reform using the term in a clear way. 

High-stakes assessment 
Continuous assessment places emphasis on the frequency of assessment, rather than on the quality, purpose, or design of those assessments. In high-stakes contexts, this emphasis could be risky. The more consequential the outcomes of assessment – for learners, schools, and the system – the greater the potential for unintended consequences when assessment is perceived as constant or unrelenting. It is unclear whether this approach would reduce or increase learner anxiety about assessment. 

Rather than focus primarily on the frequency of assessment, we think it is better to think carefully about how best to integrate different modes of assessment. The challenge is to design assessment systems that are both responsive and robust – flexible enough to support diverse learners, but structured enough to maintain transparency, generate useful information for users and promote public confidence. 

Looking ahead
While we are not currently pursuing continuous assessment as a regulatory or reform concept, we remain open to its potential for rethinking assessment. The research has helped us clarify the conditions under which continuous assessment might be more viable and valuable. It has also highlighted the importance of digital technology in enabling different assessment models. 

Continuous assessment may yet have a role to play in our work and thinking – but only if we can define it clearly, implement it well, and ensure it supports the uses of the assessment outcomes.