As educators, we often fall into a trap that we know what’s best for our students. As a result, we often give them assessments (e.g. homework, activities) to hone their knowledge or skills and gauge their progress, and then we often give additional assessments to ensure they have met the learning objectives. Do students benefit from all these assessments?
Educational Demands
Students today engage in many activities outside the classroom; they work, participate in internships, shadowing, extracurricular activities, and have full course schedules. To top it off, we tack on additional “work” we see as beneficial. But we need to ask ourselves, are these assessments beneficial, or necessary for everyone? We, as professors, are busy with all our obligations. How do we react when we are given “tasks” that seem unimportant or that have no direct value to us? If you are tech-savvy and are proficient using your learning management system, how would you feel being asked to go to training on basic usage, like how to log on? So, if we as professionals dislike tasks with no added benefit specific to us, why would we expect our students to feel any different? If a student can tell you the full history of the development of the declaration of independence, why should they have to complete an assessment intended to guide their learning of its development? While that formative assessment may be beneficial to the learning process for some, for others, it may be viewed as trivial and unhelpful.
Looking Back
The idea of formative and summative assessments was first used in reference to education by Bloom (1969), who proposed that formative assessments were to provide feedback to guide the learning process whereas summative assessments were used to judge the learners’ achievements. Much discussion regarding formative and summative assessments has taken place in higher education, and some have argued that their differences and roles in education have become “confused” in practice (Harlen and James, 2006). We argue that discrete definitions and use in practice are based on assumptions about how students learn and that all students need to learn in the same way. These assumptions devalue the independence of students. We postulate that assessments can vary in nature and not every student has to follow a standard progression model of lecture 🡪formative assessment 🡪summative assessment to be successful.
Blending the Two
In practice, formative assessments tend to focus on the learning process with students gaining feedback on their work to guide their next steps in that process and are more frequently assigned throughout an academic period than summative assessments. This typically involves multiple mediums for students to do some form of activity for feedback on their overall grasp of a learning objective. Summative assessments are used for reporting purposes and to collect evidence on student performance and achievement of multiple learning objectives. Depending on the approach, some faculty may focus on the formative assessment, some on the summative assessment, or some a mixture of both. For example, a faculty member may require students to complete weekly activities (formative assessment focus), whereas another may focus on midterm and final exams (summative assessment focus). Some approaches involve the use of both, and some employ the blending of lines between them such as allowing students retakes on exams (use of summative assessments for formative purposes).
While there are insurmountable amounts of data in support of the validity of each in practice (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Shute, 2008; Taras, 2008; Bennett, 2011; Shepard, 2000), there is a prominent level of assumption that all students are equal in their approach to any given class. In one of our courses, the use of the two types of assessments has been completely blended, and students have, anecdotally, had an increase in preparedness and engagement. There is a summative assessment in the form of a quiz which is frequently assigned throughout an academic period (weekly). This quiz is used as evidence of student performance, thus, by definition, it can be considered a summative assessment. However, if students do not receive an A on the assessment, they are required to complete an additional assignment to help hone their knowledge. Students are given options on the follow-up assessment designed around learning objectives included in the module. Therefore, students can pick the objective that they believe will benefit them the most from gauging their understanding of the different objectives from their performance on the quiz. Students thus use the quiz as feedback to guide their future learning of the subject matter. In this instance, the quiz thus serves as a formative assessment.
Opportunities for Students
Blending formative and summative assessments may provide an opportunity for students to focus on what THEY need to focus on or advance in the content if they are ready. If students can develop an understanding of the material at a level that is appropriate to the learning outcomes of the course (i.e., excellent performance on the summative assessment) without additional interaction with course material, why should they be forced to do formative assessments? If we truly value our students’ time, they should be allowed to allocate it in a way that is most beneficial to them so long as they are meeting the learning outcomes of the course. Furthermore, by using specific formative assessments, we are operating under an assumption that every student will equally benefit from the assessment. If a student needs help with understanding objective 1 but has a firm grasp of objective 2, and the formative assessment focuses on objective 2, what benefit does the assessment have for that student? The alternative is to have all students do formative assessments that cover ALL the objectives, which is not feasible. Additionally, these formative assessments also assume that the type of activity created is beneficial for all students equally. We assume the study techniques we suggest are the best for each student, which ignores the individuality of our students.
Bringing it all Together
As educators we strive to use data-backed practices when developing structure for courses. However, we should also recognize that true dichotomies in approaches and definitions, especially as they relate to practice, create assumptions that are not student centric. We should provide students with flexibility in their own approach to learning and be respectful of their time and overall dedication to their studies. Students should be able to advance and focus on the things they need to rather than being bogged down with what may be “busy work”, just because WE think it is valuable to the learning process for THEM. The blended approach in which the assessments in practice can be formative and summative simultaneously accomplishes the “harmony” called on by Lau (2014) and gives a true student centric approach to learning that can be varied and tailored to each student. We must give students the opportunity to succeed on their own while simultaneously providing guidance in their learning as they transition into a world of independence.
Abby L. Kalkstein is an assistant professor of biology and co-director of the Honors Program at the University of Findlay. Her work focuses on evolution of pathogens infecting both invertebrates and vertebrates, and research that enhances understanding of the learning process and student outcomes in higher education.
Justin L. Rheubert is an assistant professor of teaching in biology and co-director of the honors program at the University of Findlay. His research interests include anatomy and physiology, comparative anatomy, histology, herpetology and pedagogical approaches to enhance student learning.
References
Bennett, Randy Elliot. Formative Assessment: A Critical Review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18, no. 1 (2011): 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Nicol, David J., and Debra Macfarlane-Dick. “Formative Assessment and Self-regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice.” Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 2 (2006): 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.
Shepard, Lorrie A. “The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture.” Educational Researcher 29, no. 7 (2000): 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004
Shute, Valerie J. “Focus on Formative Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 78, no. 1 (2008): 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Taras, Maddalena. “Summative and Formative Assessment: Perceptions and Realities.” Active Learning in Higher Education 9, no. 2 (2008): 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787408091655