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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
References
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic thinking: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). York: Dialogos.
Alonzo, A. C., & Gotwals, A. W. (Eds.). (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
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.
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.
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education, 18(1), 5–26.
Bennett, R. E. (2015). The changing nature of educational assessment. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 370–407.
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.
Black, P. (2015). Formative assessment – An optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice., 22(1), 161–177.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 101–116.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2014). Constitutive effects of performance indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review., 16(7), 969–986.
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.
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.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Harlen, W., & Deakin Crick, R. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 20(2), 169–207.
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.
Johnson, S. (2012). Assessing learning in the primary classroom. London: Routledge.
Linn, M. C., & Chiu, J. L. (2011). Combining learning and assessment to improve science education. Research and Practice in Assessment, 5, 5–14.
McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement 3 rd edition (pp. 13–103). Washington, DC: America Council on Education.
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.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education (p. 41). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
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.
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).
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
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.
Pearson. (2005). Achieving student progress with scientifically based formative assessment: A white paper from Pearson. Referenced in Bennett 2011.
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.
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.
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing times. The uses and abuses of assessment. London: Routledge.
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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Process.
Webb, M., & Jones, J. (2009). Exploring tensions in developing assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(2), 165–184.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dolin, J., Black, P., Harlen, W., Tiberghien, A. (2018). Exploring Relations Between Formative and Summative Assessment. In: Dolin, J., Evans, R. (eds) Transforming Assessment. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63248-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63247-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63248-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)