Aspirations in the Margins: Institutional Barriers to the Adoption of Alternative Assessment Tools for Higher-Order Thinking in Tanzanian Secondary Science and Mathematics Classrooms

Abstract

Aims: Secondary school science and mathematics teachers in Tanzania widely endorse alternative assessment methods (AAAM), including portfolios, rubrics, concept maps and project-based tasks, as valid evidence of higher-order thinking (HOT), yet rarely use them in practice. This study quantifies the aspiration-practice gap and identifies the mechanisms that sustain it. Study Design: A cross-sectional survey was conducted within a post-positivist paradigm, combining a dominant quantitative analysis of structured questionnaire data with a supporting qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses. Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted in public secondary schools in the Lindi, Mtwara and Njombe regions of Tanzania from February to April 2025. Methodology: A total of 225 in-service Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics teachers (83.3% response rate from 270 distributed questionnaires) were recruited through stratified random sampling by region, subject and years of experience. Teachers reported their use of 12 assessment tools spanning traditional, transitional and alternative categories, indicated which tools they would use under ideal professional and institutional conditions, and answered open-ended questions on non-use. Tool-use patterns were tested using chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, Spearman's correlation and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests; open-ended responses (n = 178) were analysed using Krippendorff's (2004) content-analysis framework, with inter-rater reliability (Cohen's κ) = 0.76 (p < .001). Results: Traditional tools dominated assessment use: tests/examinations (96.9%), homework (87.6%) and quizzes (74.7%), whereas alternative tools were rarely used (portfolios, 12.9%; concept maps, 11.6%; self-assessment, 9.3%). Preference closely matched practice for traditional tools (mean preferred-but-unused = 3.4%) but diverged sharply for alternative tools (mean = 43.6%; Wilcoxon Z = −11.47, p < .001, r = .54). Four interlocking mechanisms explained non-use across 178 open-ended responses: examination backwash (82.0%), a professional skills gap in rubric construction (68.5%), the workload arithmetic of open-ended marking in large classes (65.6%), and an institutional legitimacy gap between school-based alternative evidence and NECTA-recognised marks (54.5%). Science teachers used marginally more alternative tools than mathematics teachers (Mann-Whitney U = 5,234, p = .04), driven almost entirely by laboratory reports; teaching experience had a weak positive association with alternative-tool use (rs = .29, p < .001). Conclusion: The gap is not attitudinal but structural. Alternative HOT assessment tools that teachers already endorse will not enter mainstream practice without coordinated changes to the examination system, sustained subject-specific training in rubric design, formal recognition of school-based assessment evidence, and workload conditions that make open-ended marking feasible.