Formative, Summative and Confirmative Evaluation - Assignment Example

? Formative, Summative and Confirmative Evaluation: Similarities and Differences This paper will cover thethree different types of evaluation processes namely: formative, summative and the confirmative evaluation. The context of this paper will be the discussion of these three different types as well as the discussion on the similarities and differences of each type. The discussion made in the context of this paper is a result of various readings from articles that define the three different processes of evaluation and was used to put up an analysis of the author based from the readings used. This paper is deemed to provide readers with a clear understanding on the similarities and differences of the three evaluation types. Key words: evaluation process, formative evaluation, summative evaluation, confirmative evaluation Formative, Summative and Confirmative Evaluation: Similarities and Differences Education has always been a concern of the society because its impact is unquestionable and a lot of designs are being developed and tested to develop a better educational system to go even further in the learning system today. An instructional design is a systematic process in which instructional materials are designed, developed, and delivered while evaluation design is finding out what the design is capable of or what it lacks. There are three types of evaluation of instructional design, namely; formative, summative, and confirmative evaluation. These designs similarly evaluate the effectiveness of such instructional design but still vary in some degrees of each usage. Formative evaluation is more diagnosis focused. It focuses on the program while it is being developed or while the process is ongoing that provides information for improvement (Van Tiem et al., 2000, p. 157) While summative evaluation focuses on the outcome or the effectiveness of the program. It is used to measure effectiveness of a performance intervention or evaluates if the interventions during the process have resulted into an effective outcome (Van Tiem et al., 2000, p. 157). Summative evaluation as the name suggests summarizes the result after the whole process was made by assessing whether the object can be said to have caused the outcome; determining the overall impact of the causal factor beyond only the immediate target outcomes; and, estimating the relative costs associated with the object (Trochim, 2006). On the contrary, confirmative evaluation, unlike the first two focuses on determining the adequacy of competence of the learners. Confirmative Evaluation is applied to analyze long-term performance by collecting, examining and interpreting data and information in order to determine the continuing competence of learners or the continuing effectiveness of instructional materials (Van Tiem et al., 2000, p.157-158). Compare and Contrast The benefits of using the formative evaluation include enabling the teachers to assess the students with what they need to do and adjusting in order to have a better lessons and activities. It also allows them to know if their program is working, and they allow students to know their own progress. Students are more motivated because they learn to assess themselves (Boston, 2002). Summative evaluation’s benefits are the teachers are able to determine where the student’s weak area is and they can provide a better solution. It also measures the success of their training program and it makes the students gain confidence knowing that their progress is good (Boston, 2002). Confirmative evaluation’s benefit is that it analyzes long term performance and it is able to measure whether the learners are competent and whether the materials used are effective. Formative and summative evaluation provides a fast solution while confirmative provides a solution after a period of time. Teachers are faced with the challenge of developing their own assessments and it’s often a challenge especially for new teachers to understand the differences between the types of instructional design. Formative evaluations should always be provided with a new materials and ideas that would assess the student’s standards. Among the many challenges of the teachers in developing the formative evaluation is developing tasks for the students with different standards and abilities. Because Summative evaluation’s challenge is that it is an after the process method, the challenge of the teachers in using this evaluation is that it only provides an opportunity to fix the problem after the whole assessment and it is said that students who gets a low score in summative evaluation often has low self confidence unlike the students who gets a high score. The Problem faced with developing confirmative evaluation is that it requires more time to actually assess the impact and the effectiveness of the programs that can take 3 to 12 months after the implementation (Dessinger, 2003, p. 11). These evaluation programs require certain procedures that will help them be effective. A formative evaluation needs to be assessed at the beginning of the program and it needs feasibility studies that will determine whether the program is worth the time. Summative Evaluation examines the effects of the materials used, assess the impact of the program and it then determine the effectiveness of the program. On the other hand, confirmative method determines the effectiveness of the program used by collecting, analyzing and interpreting the behaviors of the students which will also determine whether the student is competent. (Trochim, 2006) There are certain similarities between the three types of evaluation; all three are capable of enhancing competencies and the student’s motivation to learn. The differences between the three are formative evaluation does not keep scores while summative evaluation keeps scores to assess the student’s progress. They also differ in the time they are being conducted, formative is being used while the program is in process, summative is when the program has been implemented and it has been intervened to see the impact while confirmative is when several programs has been implemented. Formative and Summative evaluation focuses on the materials and the effectiveness of the program while Confirmative focuses on the competency of the learners (Dessinger & Mosely, 2006). Cost analysis in evaluation process Though evaluation process is a helpful tool in the development of an educational program, ways of evaluation can be seen by organizations as an added cost of expenditure as well as time to know whether it is feasible to continue a deemed program. On this aspect, full-scope evaluation is viewed in terms of how much the additional time, money, and other resources will cost or is it beneficial and worth the cost to continue. Cost analysis is important because it can provide estimates of what a program's costs and benefits are likely to be, before it is implemented. It may also improve understanding of program operation, and tell what levels of intervention are most cost-effective and may reveal unexpected costs (Sewell & Marczak). The cost associated in each type evaluation will vary since the timing of each evaluation process differs. On a personal point of view the cheapest evaluation is the formative evaluation since it is done during the beginning of a process and usually covers a small group of participants such as in pilot testing. Next costly evaluation process would be the summative type because the evaluation would have to be during or at the end of the program evaluated hence will cover more time. While the confirmative process is the least cost effective for it covers continues evaluation of a program over time hence more expenses will be put in use as the evaluation process is going on. The Holistic evaluation approach All mentioned processes plays a significant and effective role in assessing the efficacy of a program at different time levels. Though these evaluation processes are used differently on different programs, the integrated use of all types can holistically contribute to the evaluation of an instructional design. An instructional design can be evaluated on three different levels using all three types of evaluation program. For example in evaluating a teaching strategy, the formative evaluation will be on the first level. By this it means that the formative evaluation will be used while a program is still on the draft from that will focus on the needs of the learner and the developer. Level two of the holistic evaluation will cover the summative form that will continue monitoring the efficacy of the program while being implemented. This means that the evaluation is focused on the needs of the learners and if whether the objectives are being met. And lastly to evaluate on the third level is to assess using the confirmative evaluation to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of the program and make changes to meet the objectives if necessary (Dessinger, 2003, p.7). The integrated use of the three evaluation process will pave way for the holistic and continuous evaluation of the efficacy of a program from the time it was thought of from the time it was fully implemented. Hence the use of all three evaluations can be a holistic basis to improve and continue on a program if objectives are being met and revise if not. References: Boston, Carol (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9 Dessinger J. (2003) Full Scope Evaluation: Raising the bar. pp. 3-21. Retrieved from http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/06/07879650/0787965006.pdf Dessinger, J. & Moseley, J. L. (2006). The Full scoop on full-scope evaluation. In J. S. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology: Principles, practices, and potential (3rd ed., pp. 312-330). San Francisco: Wiley/ISPI. Sewell M. & MArczak M. (n.d.) Using Cost Analysis in Evaluation. University of Arizona, Institute for Children, Youth and Families. Retrieved from http://ag.arizona.edu/sfcs/cyfernet/cyfar/Costben2.htm Trochim W. (2006) Introduction to Evaluation. Web Center for Social Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intreval.htm Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J., & Dessinger, J. (2000). Fundamentals of performance technology: A guide to improving people, process, and performance. Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement. Pp. 157-158 Read More