Evaluation (Summative & Formative) vs. Assessment

The resources available in this section will pursue to explain and describe both complementary functions of evaluation: Formative and Summative. Formative evaluation is commonly conducted during the pre-implementation and development or improvement of a program or course. Summative evaluation calls upon rigid professional judgments about the efficacy and accuracy of a program or course at its final stage or conclusion. Further on, we will discuss both of these evaluations in comparison to Assessment.

*Formative Evaluation*Formative Evaluation has been generally described as a more complicated mechanism of fundamental thought than summative evaluation. Formative Evaluation is commonly applied with a small group of peers to “test run” or evaluate different approaches to a specific instructional material. For instance, designing and/or developing a website with a vision or purpose is different in that you may want to include someone with a background knowledge on the subject to serve, not as an editor, but just as a rationale judge on the main components of an efficient website. These components may include graphics, color design, content, sound, video, and fluency of the main subject.

Others describe Formative evaluation as a process of ongoing feedback on performance. The purposes are to identify aspects of performance that need to improve and to offer corrective suggestions. Be generous with formative evaluation. Share your observations and perceptions with the student. You might simply share your observation and then ask the student if (s)he can think of a better approach for the next time. Formative evaluation need not make a judgment. When giving formative feedback, offer some alternatives to the student, e.g., "That procedure will be more comfortable for the patient if you?." If you observe unsafe or questionable practices, address those directly and immediately with the student.

Use the student's patient management documentation as well as your observations of performance to offer formative evaluation. The student's charting reveals organizational skills, priorities, thought process, and judgment. Over the duration of the student's experience with you, point out improvement to the student.

Here are some different author's definitions of Formative Evaluation that will help explore the different meanings provided through educational research:

Scriven, (1991)

"Formative evaluation is typically conducted during the development or improvement of a program or product (or person, and so on) and it is conducted,often more than once, for in-house staff of the program with the intent to improve. The reports normally remain in-house; but serious formative evaluation may be done by an internal or an external evaluator or preferably, a combination; of course, many program staff are, in an informal sense, constantly doing formative evaluation."

Weston, Mc Alpine, and Bordonaro, (1995)

"The purpose of formative evaluation is to validate or ensure that the goals of the instruction are being achieved and to improve the instruction, if necessary, by means of identification and subsequent remediation of problematic aspects."

Worthen, Sanders, and Fitzpatrick, (1997)

"Formative evaluation is conducted to provide program staff evaluative information useful in improving the program."

Robert Stakes

"When the cook tastes the soup, that’s formative; when the guests taste the soup, that’s summative."

Scriven, (1996)

• "is research-oriented vs. action-oriented"
• "evaluations are intended - by the evaluator - as a basis for improvement"
• "the summative vs. formative distinction is context dependent"

How to do formative training evaluation

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/ahold/isdmap.jpg

***Summative Evaluation***

!

Summative evaluation seeks as its main objective to understand the product’s implementation and/or efficacy. Is it doing what it was intended to do? Are the learners achieving higher concepts of thought as the module was projected to do? Are the learners able to find connections throughout the module for concept understanding and concept implementation in a real life setting? If so, are the learners able to construct and deconstruct what was just learned?

In addition, Summative evaluation uses a quantitative approach to the criteria by providing numeric or letter grades whenever there is an assessment to a learner achievement. Summative evaluation is a process of identifying larger patterns and trends in performance and judging these summary statements against criteria to obtain performance ratings. The faculty assumes responsibility for completing the summative evaluation at the end of the course. However, faculty rely upon your evidence and perceptions to justify ratings.

The table below compares formative and summative evaluation according to the kind of information provided and the timing:

!

!

Image downloaded from: http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514265513/html/graphic2121.png

!

!

Summative Evaluation and Learner Assessment:

While both may in fact analyze and critique the same data, a Learner Assessment is more concerned with individuals as one by one and how a specific individual learned on a specific task. A Summative Evaluation, however, seeks to analyze larger data on a specific task from a specific group, and not just one individual. Furthermore, large groups aid instructional designers to ‘evaluate the learning materials and learning process’. While, the main objective may indeed be the learner as an individual, Summative Evaluation eases the developing process of a project by minimizing the large amount of data which the instructional designer would have to go through to acquire materials and learning theories.

Image downloaded from:

http://electronicportfolios.org/blog/floor-levels.gif

External Links:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/edtech/etc667/proposal/evaluation/summative_vs._formative.htm

http://www.sru.edu/Pages/6423.asp

http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/ReferenceMaterials/GlossaryOfLiteracyTerms/WhatIsFormativeEvaluation.htm

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/formative_evaluation/

References:

1 Scriven, Michael. "Beyond Formative and Summative Evaluation." In In M.W. McLaughlin and ED.C. Phillips, eds., Evaluation and Education: A Quarter Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

2 Quoted in Scriven, Michael. "Beyond Formative and Summative Evaluation." In M.W. McLaughlin and ED.C. Phillips, eds., Evaluation and Education: A Quarter Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991: p. 169. Reported in Patton, Michael Quinn, Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Edition 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997: p. 69.

3 Nan, Susan Allen. "Formative Evaluation." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: December 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/formative_evaluation/>.

4 Posavac, Emil J. and Raymond G. Carey. Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies, 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, May 28, 2002.

5 Patton, Michael Quinn. Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, February 1997.

There is no clear distinction between formative evaluation and summative evaluation. It

is possible that information gathered during the formative evaluation activities may be

reported in summative reports, especially during the early development of new programs,

in order to determine how the program is responding to challenges along the way toward

intended outcomes. Moreover, some programs evolve continuously, seldom reaching a

stage of completion, therefore prolonging formative evaluation activities.

Defining Formative and Summative Assessments

The terms "formative" and "summative" do not have to be difficult, yet the definitions have become confusing in the past few years. This is especially true for formative assessment. In a balanced assessment system, both summative and formative assessments are an integral part of information gathering. Depend too much on one or the other and the reality of student achievement in your classroom becomes unclear.

Summative Assessments are given periodically to determine at a particular point in time what students know and do not know. Many associate summative assessments only with standardized tests such as state assessments, but they are also used at and are an important part of district and classroom programs. Summative assessment at the district/classroom level is an accountability measure that is generally used as part of the grading process. The list is long, but here are some examples of summative assessments:

State assessments

District benchmark or interim assessments

End-of-unit or chapter tests

End-of-term or semester exams

Scores that are used for accountability for schools (AYP) and students (report card grades).

The key is to think of summative assessment as a means to gauge, at a particular point in time, student learning relative to content standards. Although the information that is gleaned from this type of assessment is important, it can only help in evaluating certain aspects of the learning process. Because they are spread out and occur after instruction every few weeks, months, or once a year, summative assessments are tools to help evaluate the effectiveness of programs, school improvement goals, alignment of curriculum, or student placement in specific programs. Summative assessments happen too far down the learning path to provide information at the classroom level and to make instructional adjustments and interventions during the learning process. It takes formative assessment to accomplish this.

Formative Assessment is part of the instructional process. When incorporated into classroom practice, it provides the information needed to adjust teaching and learning while they are happening. In this sense, formative assessment informs both teachers and students about student understanding at a point when timely adjustments can be made. These adjustments help to ensure students achieve, targeted standards-based learning goals within a set time frame. Although formative assessment strategies appear in a variety of formats, there are some distinct ways to distinguish them from summative assessments.

One distinction is to think of formative assessment as "practice." We do not hold students accountable in "grade book fashion" for skills and concepts they have just been introduced to or are learning. We must allow for practice. Formative assessment helps teachers determine next steps during the learning process as the instruction approaches the summative assessment of student learning. A good analogy for this is the road test that is required to receive a driver's license. What if, before getting your driver's license, you received a grade every time you sat behind the wheel to practice driving? What if your final grade for the driving test was the average of all of the grades you received while practicing? Because of the initial low grades you received during the process of learning to drive, your final grade would not accurately reflect your ability to drive a car. In the beginning of learning to drive, how confident or motivated to learn would you feel? Would any of the grades you received provide you with guidance on what you needed to do next to improve your driving skills? Your final driving test, or summative assessment, would be the accountability measure that establishes whether or not you have the driving skills necessary for a driver's license—not a reflection of all the driving practice that leads to it. The same holds true for classroom instruction, learning, and assessment.

Another distinction that underpins formative assessment is student involvement. If students are not involved in the assessment process, formative assessment is not practiced or implemented to its full effectiveness. Students need to be involved both as assessors of their own learning and as resources to other students. There are numerous strategies teachers can implement to engage students. In fact, research shows that the involvement in and ownership of their work increases students' motivation to learn. This does not mean the absence of teacher involvement. To the contrary, teachers are critical in identifying learning goals, setting clear criteria for success, and designing assessment tasks that provide evidence of student learning.

One of the key components of engaging students in the assessment of their own learning is providing them with descriptive feedback as they learn. In fact, research shows descriptive feedback to be the most significant instructional strategy to move students forward in their learning. Descriptive feedback provides students with an understanding of what they are doing well, links to classroom learning, and gives specific input on how to reach the next step in the learning progression. In other words, descriptive feedback is not a grade, a sticker, or "good job!" A significant body of research indicates that such limited feedback does not lead to improved student learning.

link:

video http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=eunEnhgEUfk&feature=related">http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=eunEnhgEUfk&feature=related