Differences Between Formative and Summative Assessment - Assignment Example

?Formative and summative assessment for primary schools in UK I. Summative and formative assessment Jessup (2007, p. 5) pointed out that assessments can be classified based on intended use. If an assessment intended to find out the results of student learning then the assessment is called summative assessment (Jessup 2005, p. 5). The typical objective of such an assessment is to find out how much the student has learned from instructions or interaction with educational resources (Jessup 2005, p. 5). Harlen (2003, p. 10) described summative assessment as valuable for “recording and reporting student achievements”. Summative assessments are generally obtained by giving tests but test data “cannot reflect the full range of goals of learning”. Jessup reported that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has discovered in 2005 that summative assessments improve attendance to instructions and promote retention of learning (2007, p. 7). Citing the study of Stiggins (2004, p. 2), Jessup also reported that summative assessments benefit low-performing students and the feature can help reduce the learning gaps among minorities and peoples. Formative assessments are used to “inform instructions by providing the students with vital insights and understanding of their own learning needs and styles” (Jessup 2005, p. 6). There are several objectives associated with formative assessments. One objective pertains to the need to assess the gains from using or availing a mode of instructions or education program (Jessup 2005, p. 6). Another possible objective for formative assessment is associated with the need to improve the “equity of student outcomes” (Jessup 2005, p. 7). Jessup observed that not only are the schools that have employed formative assessments experienced academic gains; students who were previously underachieving or lagging behind also experienced academic (2005, p. 7). II. Summative and formative assessment at the primary level in UK In the experience of the United Kingdom covering students at the primary level, Wilmut (2005, p. 47) said that the term “formative assessment” has been in use for more than 30 years but recently the term has been “displaced for by the more self-evident ‘assessment for learning’ to distinguish it from summative assessment that may be seen to be ‘assessment of learning’”. The Wilmut material focused on summative assessment but covered formative assessment as well. Further, the Wilmust assessment covered the primary as well as the high school levels in the United Kingdom. Quoting Stobart (2003), Wilmut (2005, p. 47) said that the United Kingdom Assessment Reform Group adopted a definition of formative assessment as, “the process of seeking and interpreting evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there.” Wilmut (2005, p. 47) pointed out that in the experience of the United Kingdom, there is a strain between formative and summative assessment because when a school-based teacher assessment is to be used for summative purposes, the student-teacher relationship is strained. Citing the work of Black and William, Wilmut (2005, p. 48) said that another UK experience is that the “tension” between summative and formative assessment arises when teachers become responsible for both summative and formative assessment. Wilmut said that there has been a debate in the United Kingdom on the wisdom of combining the two roles or covering the responsibilities for formative and summative assessment by teachers. According to Wilmut (2005, p. 48), those who assert that the roles pertaining to summative and formative assessments can both be done by the same person or teacher argue that “it can be done and indeed must be done to escape the dominance of external summative testing”. Nevertheless, the dominant view is that it is best to keep the roles of summative and formative evaluations apart although a good working relationship between the two must be established (Wilmut 2005, p. 48). Another experience in the United Kingdom with regard to formative assessment is that “continuous assessment” cannot function formatively when the assessment is cumulative because “the practice tends to produce in students the mindset that if a piece of work does not contribute towards the total, it is not worth doing” (Wilmut 2005, p. 48). In highlighting the importance of formative assessments, Harlen (2003, p. 10) pointed out that we must find a way of ensuring that formative assessment is given at least the attention and resources devoted to summative assessment. III. Summative and formative assessment applied for reading classes Applied for reading classes, summative assessment can be “usefully divided” into “summing up” or “creating a final record” and “checking up” or “establishing what has been attained at the end of a programme segment” (Wilmut 2005, p. 47). According to Wilmut (2005, p. 12), one lesson in the experience of the United Kingdom with regard to summative assessment is that “one-off practical examination” is a weak assessment instrument. As interpreted by Wilmut (2005, p. 12), UK’s experience with practical examination is that it is an inadequate measure compared to teachers’ check-up on individual performance. In the UK experience, the assessment of practical work often involves teachers observing students working in groups (Wilmut 2005, p. 12). Perhaps, this is a point for examination whether the same principle applies for reading classes. Harlen (2005, p. 31) pointed out that the aim of summative assessment is “to summarize learning achieved at a particular time in a readily communicable form. Thus, the amount of detail about various aspects of achievement is necessarily limited” (Harlen 2005, p. 31). Harlen (2005, p. 31) pointed out, however, that summative assessments do not have direct influence on student learning in the same way that formative assessments have. Impacts from summative assessment only takes place over a longer term and the summative assessment process is not cyclical like the formative assessment. Similarly, the same can be applied for reading classes. A summative assessment may focus on what the student have achieved in reading. Reading achievements can be measured through measures in reading comprehension. Formative assessments consist of three approaches: benchmark tests, efficient data management, and assessment for learning (Jessup 2007, p. 6). Benchmark tests and data management inform teachers on the status of student achievement but the assessments for learning inform students as well on learning (Jessup 2007, p. 6). Assessment for learning “turns the classroom assessment process and its results into an instructional intervention designed to increase, not merely monitor, student learning” (Jessup 2007, p. 7). Thus, assessments for leaning can convert a classroom sessions into assessment workshops with students. The teacher can consult hold workshops with students in which each student can self-assess himself or herself with regard to his or her reading achievements and provide suggestions on how she or he can improve further his or her reading performance. The teacher can enlist the participation of students identify reading materials that can be part of their reading list and which can be part of their reading program. In the formative assessments, the teacher can enlist the cooperation of students in identifying areas of weakness in his or her reading performance. Despite the role of students in inputting into the formative assessment objectives, Harlen (2003, p. 20) describes that the assessment process in Figure 1 reflects a strong role for teachers despite student participation in the formative assessment. In Figure 1, the teacher’s role in the formative assessment cycle is manifold: teacher collects evidence relating to goals, teacher interprets evidence, teacher decides on the appropriate next steps, and teacher decides how to advance forward. Thus, enlistment of student participation in formative assessment should not imply that classroom leadership is surrendered to students. It is clear in Figure 1 that formative assessment does not emasculate the role of the teacher in the classroom. Figure 1. Formative assessment cycle Source: Harlen (2007, p. 20) In highlighting student participation in formative assessment, Harlen (2005, p. 21) defined assessment for learning or formative assessment as “a procedure for regulating teaching so that the pace of moving toward a goal is adjusted to ensure the active participation of students”. Harlen (2005, p. 21) elaborated that as there is a feedback system in all regulated processes, there is also a feedback system in the formative assessment cycle and that feedback is provided to both teachers and students. Harlen (2005, p. 21) said that feedback to the teachers is also provided so that he or she can decide the appropriate next steps and the action that will help students reach learning goals. Similarly, in reading classes the same should be applied. One way to do this is to promote class discussion on the readings. In contrast with Figure 1, summative assessment is depicted in Figure 2 on the next page. Figure 2 indicates that teachers play a main role in the summative assessment. Note that in Figure 2, nowhere are students depicted to be fulfilling a key role in the summative assessment process. Note further that, unlike Figure 1, Figure 2 is not a cycle. Harlen (2005, p. 21) pointed out that that the use of feedback system in the formative assessment cycle implies that the process of formative assessment is a continuous one and that the various parts of the cycle can be visualized as a repeating cycle of events. The stress of summative assessment is to gather evidence whether students have been progressing as planned. In reading classes, the summative assessment can focus on whether comprehension scores in reading materials are acceptable. In can also mean attempting to measure students’ reading capabilities as well as their level of vocabulary. Figure 2 Summative assessment Source: Harlen 2005, p. 31 References Black, P. and William, D., 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7-74. Jessup, S., 2007 Common formative and summative assessments: A brief overview of what research says. The Educational Partners LLC. Harlen, W., 2003. Enhancing inquiry through formative assessment. San Francisco: Institute for Inquiry. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2005. Policy Brief: Formative Assessment: Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/31/35661078.pdf Stiggins, R., 1999. Assessment, student confidence, and school Success. Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (3), 191-8. Wilmut, J., 2005. Experiences of summative teacher assessment in the UK. A review conducted for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Read More