Exploring Relations Between Formative and Summative Assessment

  • Jens Dolin
  • Paul Black
  • Wynne Harlen
  • Andrée Tiberghien
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)

Abstract

This chapter characterises the two key purposes of assessment, formative and summative, within a general model of assessment of student learning. It discusses reliability and validity issues in relation to the two purposes and considers formative and summative purposes as related and can be brought together in developing a dependable approach to summative assessment using evidence collected and used in formative assessment. The third purpose of assessment, accountability, is dealt with as a special use of summative assessment. Some examples from the ASSIST-ME project illustrate the variety of approaches to assessment and the overlapping relations between formative and summative use of assessment.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic thinking: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (Eds.). (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. ARG (Assessment Reform Group). (2002). Assessment for learning: Ten principles. http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/Eng_DVD/doc/Afl_principles.pdf Accessed 27 August 2016.
  4. Baird, J.-A., & Black, P. (2013). Test theories, educational priorities and reliability of public examinations in the England. Research Papers in Education, 28(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education, 18(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, R. E. (2015). The changing nature of educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 370–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, R. E., & Gitomer, D. H. (2009). Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability testing, formative assessment, and professional support. In C. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st century (pp. 43–61). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment – An optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice., 22(1), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, P. (2016). The role of assessment in pedagogy – And why validity matters. Ch.45, pp. 725–739 in D. Wyse, L. Hayward & J. Pandya (eds.) The Sage Handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. London U.K.: Sage see particularly pp. 733–734. Google Scholar
  10. Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, M., & Serret, N. (2011). Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning? Assessment in Education., 18(4), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Butler, R. (1987). Task involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2014). Constitutive effects of performance indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review., 16(7), 969–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolin, J., & Krogh, L. B. (2010). The relevance and consequences of Pisa science in a Danish context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 565–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Editorial: Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 606–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2011). Education and Training in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe COM 902 final, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0902:FIN:EN:PDF.
  19. Harlen, W. (2010). What is quality teacher assessment? In J. Gardner et al. (Eds.), Developing teacher assessment (pp. 29–52). London: Open University McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Harlen, W. (2012). On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 87–102). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment and inquiry-based science education: Issues in policy and practice. Trieste: IAP. Available for free download from http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=21245. Accessed on 22 September 16.
  22. Harlen, W. (2015). Working with big ideas of science education. Trieste: IAP SEP. Available for free download in English from http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=26736 and in Spanish from http://interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=28260
  23. Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 20(2), 169–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. James, M. (2012). Assessment in harmony with our understanding of learning: Problems and possibilities. In (ed.) J. Gardner. Assessment and learning, 2ndnd edn. London: Sage 187 – 205.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, S. (2012). Assessing learning in the primary classroom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Linn, M. C., & Chiu, J. L. (2011). Combining learning and assessment to improve science education. Research and Practice in Assessment, 5, 5–14.Google Scholar
  27. McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).Google Scholar
  28. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement 3 rd edition (pp. 13–103). Washington, DC: America Council on Education.Google Scholar
  29. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education (p. 41). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen, J. A. (2015). Assessment of innovation competency: A thematic analysis of upper secondary school teachers’ talk. The Journal of Educational Research, 108, 318–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nielsen, A. M. & Lagermann, L. C. (2017). Stress i gymnasiet - Hvad der stresser gymnasielever og hvordan forebyggelse og behandling virker med ‘Åben og Rolig for Unge. DPU, Aarhus Universitet. (In Danish. Title in English: Stress in upper secondary – what stresses high school students and how to prevent and treat).Google Scholar
  33. OECD. (2013). Synergies for better learning: An international perspective on evaluation and assessment. OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing: Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en
  34. Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S.-y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 821–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pearson. (2005). Achieving student progress with scientifically based formative assessment: A white paper from Pearson. Referenced in Bennett 2011.Google Scholar
  36. Shepherd, L. A. (2008). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 279–303). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications for children’s learning for assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1–98.Google Scholar
  38. Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times. The uses and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Timmis, S., Broadfoot, P., Sutherland, R., & Oldfield, A. (2016). Rethinking assessment in a digital age: Opportunities, challenges and risks. British Educational Research Journal, 42, 454–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Process.Google Scholar
  41. Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(2), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgement practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education., 17(1), 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jens Dolin
    • 1
  • Paul Black
    • 2
  • Wynne Harlen
    • 3
  • Andrée Tiberghien
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.School of Education, Communication and SocietyKing’s CollegeLondonUK
  3. 3.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  4. 4.University of Lyon and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, ICAR (CNRS)LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations