Reading Questions - Assignment Example

Due: Reading Questions Introduction In a forty-five page, there came an influential, ic and coherent account about the evaluation domain, “The Methodology of Evaluation” published in 1967, to draw distinctions of formative from the summative evaluation. This is after Michael Scriven disagreed with an educational psychologist Lee Cronbach in published paper, “Course Improvement through Evaluation”, in which he had argued that evaluation should be aimed at improving the programs. Michael had not distinguished between these two terms but rather their very roles that this evaluation plays.

Michael (1967) defines formative evaluation as a constructive process of evaluation where a great emphasis is laid on the inputs put in the systems that later determine the processes’ quality and the system’s outputs. For instance, in an academic institution, the administration of continuous assessment Tests (CATS) is a pertinent example that can be used to explain; in system design, it used to test each and every stage’s performance, judge whether each state is performing according to specifications.

It indicates how the system is performing-the content, the teaching methods, the financing and general administration of education in schools or any other academic institutions. On the other hand, summative evaluation is an evaluation process that determines the ‘worth’ of the entire program or measure against the stated objectives at the beginning of the program or course. A good example is an exam or a series of exams administered at the end of a course or a program. These exams are meant to judge whether the program is effective and reliable, valid content, effective administration or even the pedagogical issues related to teaching processes.

The paper has attempted to discuss two of the fallacies or ‘errors of interpretations’ concerning these two fundamental evaluation processes. It will examine the first and second fallacy respectively.Question 1 The first fallacy states that both terms were introduced to play different roles for evaluation. This distinction between them concerns the relation of the evaluative information to its environment and use that relate to matters of client and the context. The author further notes that there is no essential difference in their properties themselves, for example, between their causal and correlational claims; measures of efficiency and measures of effectiveness.

Both formative and summative are different in their functions they serve to determine the extent to which each one them goes. The author points out that formative evaluation is an evaluation designed, done, and implemented with an intention of improving the process while summative evaluation may be carried out by any interested persons to judge the conclusions for any other reasons besides development or rather influences or trends for the case of a researcher. In addition, both methods employ different designs depending on the context, the exact need of the client, the constraints of resources and the audience being targeted.

Inclusions in this type of inquiry on formative evaluation like explanations, prescriptions bring out a confusion which makes people to believe that it is not true. In formative evaluation, the author continues to draw out examples of where it can be applied. First and foremost, Authors and inventors continually evaluate their products in the process of revising them thought of as in a zero-phase level. These processes are mostly separated from them very people that carry them up. For instance, there is an in-house testing of products by those who manufactured these products.

This is known as alpha testing and examples is testing of a car by the manufacturers in the factory. Next, there are field trials by the marketing department, supervised by representatives to test whether it is working or otherwise widely known as hot-phase phase. The products are taken into remote areas. Lastly, there is full-scale commissioned evaluation that is carried out by experts in structured experiments to customers. These are examples that depict to what extend formative evaluation can go up to.

I strongly disagree with the author that there is no difference between formative and summative evaluation. This is because, like the author introduced, formative evaluation is likened to testing the the soup by the chef while testing the same soup by the Guest indicates summative evaluation. The former test how effective each stage in the process is as contrasted by the latter which tests how efficient and effective the entire process is to meeting the aims of the system.(pg 58) Question 2 In end the author notes that “if one doesn’t master there methodological foundations, the chance of a successful is reduced”.

Devoid of such conception will lower the quality of products and service offered as one may not be aware of the need content, aims and methodological frameworks that are essential to a successful implementation of the process to achieve the aims of the firm or a given organization. The second fallacy notes that evaluation is formative in nature. This however, is an erroneous conception as there is not evidence to back these allegations. A pertinent example is the consumer’s publications which are read by consumers, either for fun or for enjoyment and what they actually read is heavily influenced by the content and the markets happens to be aware of that and ninety nine percent is summative evaluation.

Consumers without the knowledge of both the formative and summative, might not be able to evaluate the problems, might fail top separate facts from merely opinions and might fail to accurately establish the cause-effect relationship between different actions, conjectures or occurrences. It is further noted in the article that programs such as product development, budgets prepared from political offices are all summative in nature as they describe the intentions, conclusions and judgments against the aims set.

In contrast, formative evaluation can be applied at every stage in the process of preparation of these critical documents, to asses whether the course of preparing this document is valid and reliable. For example, is the team or committee sticking to the rules, policies and timeframes set? In personnel evaluation that is carried out by the Human Resource Department, ‘serious ‘ summative evaluation on applicants and candidates for the jobs is carried out for purposes of promotions and retentions.

Similarly, most product development programs and process, however vague, notes the author, are still summative in nature. In total contrast, the process of product development consists of stages and formative evaluation becomes imperative in describing and assessing how each stage seems to be faring on so that, incase the team proves that it is diverting from the correct course of action, then any improvements or corrections can be administered in time to remedy the situation and allow the process to proceed smoothly.

The author has also highlighted how the United States history is taught as a result of concrete deliberations on summative results from the committee commissioned to carry out the research and recommend on the type of evaluation approach that should be adopted. However, formative evaluation could be used to test the methodology of data collection, tabulations and interpretations, and the kind of personnel on the team. This is because, this stage evaluations have a great influence on the final outcome though themselves are the end results.

Evaluation of this programs notes that formative evaluation is half-effective and not as fun as it carries equal costs similar to that of summative evaluation. He also notes that the market supports such programs (formative evaluation) as the state is reluctant to take up such programs due to inefficiency and costly nature. This can be illustrated from how Tests are carried. Tests are valid though how they are administered is flawed which make this type of evaluation costly and less effective.

Conbach, a psychologist, says that they should have a uniform evaluation approach across all discipline from product design all the way to education and even into politics. This is inconsistency and therefore fallacious. Michael draws a caution that employing formative approach alone will not only mislead students besides wasting their resources but will also weaken efforts to improve the society. Finally, without a thorough knowledge of the methodologies and procedures administered, it is less likely that one will succeed in identifying and differentiating symptoms from the real causes in real life situations.

In education is very essential to master these foundations as one will be ready to handle any situation in both academic and non-academic successfully. .Disruptive activities like strikes in schools, go-slows and strikes in companies are some of the anomalies that can be avoided with proper mastery of the se very essential conceptions of evaluation. With the above grounds, I strongly agree to the above statement.Work Cited:Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation.