Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Importance of Assessment Literacy: Formative and Summative Assessment Instruments and Techniques

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Workgroups eAssessment: Planning, Implementing and Analysing Frameworks

Part of the book series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library ((ISRL,volume 199))

Abstract

Almost sixty years after Scriven and Bloom’s accurate description and differentiation between summative and formative assessment, it would be quite vain to make sure that educators nowadays fully understand and use these two types of evaluation in their practice. Besides, it would be riskier to expect educators to use programs or design AI algorithms to make appropriate decisions to select and design instruments to make accurate judgments about learning and performance results without considering the difficulties in learning evaluation practices that have arisen in different educational contexts. The understanding of paradigms, educational models, and beliefs of educators around assessment practices constitutes mandatory tasks to consider as a point of departure in the era of ICT for learning purposes. Thus, the main objective of this chapter is to review the importance of evaluation literacy towards the complex challenge of planning, designing instruments, and interpreting results derived from learning assessment. Then, a reflection on the advances and difficulties found by researchers in different countries on formative and summative practices and results in higher education mainly is discussed. By the end of this chapter, some recommendations related to educator's training for improving and reinforcing conceptual and instrumental assessment practices are envisaged.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Aboalela, R., & Khan, J. (2017). Model of learning assessment to measure student learning: Inferring of concept state of cognitive skill level in concept space (pp. 189–195).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahankari, S., & Jadhav, A. (2018). A novel approach of software based rubrics in formative and summative assessment of affective and psycomotor domains among the engineering under graduates: Focusing on accrediation process across pan India. In Proceedings—IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2018 (pp. 426–430). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Azawei, A., Baiee, W. R., & Mohammed, M. A. (2019). Learners’ experience towards e-assessment tools: A comparative study on virtual reality and moodle quiz. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14, 34–50. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i05.9998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alkharusi, H. (2008). Effects of classroom assessment practices on students’ achievement goals. Educational Assessment, 13, 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190802602509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational. Logman.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Antoniou, P., & James, M. (2014). Exploring formative assessment in primary school classrooms: Developing a framework of actions and strategies. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9188-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aydin, M., Baki, A., Köǧce, D., & Yildiz, C. (2009). Mathematics teacher educators’ beliefs about assessment. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences., 1, 2126–2130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 18, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G., & Hastings, J. T. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brookhart, S. M. (1997). A theoretical framework for the role of classroom assessment in motivating student effort and achievement. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1002_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., & Harnett, J. (2012). Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 968–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Castillo, M., Heredia, Y., & Gallardo, K. (2017). Collaborative work competency in online postgraduate students and its prevalence on academic achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18, 168–179. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.328949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cooper, P. A. (1993). From behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33, 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dobson, J. L. (2008). The use of formative online quizzes to enhance class preparation and scores on summative exams. American Journal of Physiology—Advances in Physiology Education, 32, 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90162.2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ellis, L., Marston, C., Lightfoot, J., & Sexton, J. (2015). Faculty professional development (pp. 69–80).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Febriani, I., & Irsyad Abdullah, M. (2018). A systematic review of formative assessment tools in the blended learning environment. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.11.20684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fischer, E., & Hänze, M. (2019). How do university teachers’ values and beliefs affect their teaching? Educational Psychology, 40, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1675867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Florian-Gaviria, B., Glahn, C., & Fabregat Gesa, R. (2013). A software suite for efficient use of the European qualifications framework in online and blended courses. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6, 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Giraldo, F. (2017). A diagnostic study on teachers’ beliefs and practices in foreign language assessment. Ikala, 23, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v23n01a04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Glazer, N. (2014). Formative plus summative assessment in large undergraduate courses: Why both? International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 26, 276–286.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guskey, T. (2005). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: theory, research, and implications. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Resaerch Association (pp. 1–11).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hancock, A. B., & Brudage, S. B. (2010). Formative feedback, rubrics, and assessment of professional competency through a speech-language pathology graduate program. Journal of Allied Health, 39, 110–119.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Harlen, W., & James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: Differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 4, 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594970040304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hattie, J., & Timperlay, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 44, 16–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03542.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Van Keer, H. (2008). Development of the beliefs about primary education scale: Distinguishing a developmental and transmissive dimension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hooshyar, D., Ahmad, R. B., Yousefi, M., Fathi, M., Horng, S. J., & Lim, H. (2016). Applying an online game-based formative assessment in a flowchart-based intelligent tutoring system for improving problem-solving skills. Computers and Education, 94, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Houston, D., & Thompson, J. N. (2017). Blending formative and summative assessment in a capstone subject: ‘It’s not your tools, it’s how you use them.’ Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice (JUTLP), 14, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hutchinson, A., Moskal, B., Dann, W., & Cooper, S. (2005). Formative assessment: An illustrative example using “Alice”. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (pp. 6521–6527).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Imrie, B. W. (1995). Assessment for learning: Quality and taxonomies. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602939508565719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. James, M. (2006). Assessment, teaching and theories of learning. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 47–60). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jingna, D. (2012). Application of humanism theory in the teaching approach. Higher Education of Social Science, 3, 32–36. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.hess.1927024020120301.1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jordan, M. I., & Mitchell, T. M. (2015). Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science, 80–(349), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4520.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Joyce, B., Calhoun, E., & Hopkins, D. (2009). Models of learning, tools for teaching. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kingston, N., & Brooke, N. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Knight, P. T. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220000662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lees, R., & Anderson, D. (2015). Reflections on academics’ assessment literacy. London Review of Education (LRE), 13, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.13.3.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Leiva-Brondo, M., Cebolla-Cornejo, J., Peiró, R. M., & Pérez-de-Castro, A. M. (2017). Collaborative work and outcome assessment: A good combination. In INTED2017 proceedings (pp 4950–4955).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Madaus, G. F., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (1984). Educational evaluation and accountability: A review of quality assurance efforts. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 649–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2006). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, SAGE Publication Company.

    Google Scholar 

  44. McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2012). Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: An experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2011.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2018). Exploring teachers’ assessment literacy: Impact on learners’ writing achievements and implications for teacher development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Moshfeghi, Y., Huertas Rosero, A. F., & Jose, J. M. (2016). A game-theory approach for effective crowdsource-based relevance assessment. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 7, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2873063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and selfregulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Norman, W., & Steinaker, B. M. R. (1979). Experiential taxonomy: A new approach to teaching and learning. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pastore, S., & Andrade, H. L. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Patton, M. Q. (1996). A world larger than formative and summative. Evaluation Practice, 17, 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pombo, L., & Talaia, M. (2012). Evaluation of innovative teaching and learning strategies in science education: Collaborative work and peer assessment. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 43, 86–95.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pryor, J., & Torrance, H. (1997). Formative assessment in the classroom: Where psychological theory meets social practice. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009654524888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Raupach, T., Brown, J., Anders, S., Hasenfuss, G., & Harendza, S. (2013). Summative assessments are more powerful drivers of student learning than resource intensive teaching formats. BMC Medicine, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rolfe, I., & McPherson, J. (1995). Formative assessment: How am I doing? Lancet, 345, 837–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92968-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ruochen, L. R., Kitche, H., Bert, G., Richardson, M., & Fordham, E. (2019). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rushton, A. (2009). Formative assessment: A key to deep learning? Medical Teacher, 27, 509–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500129159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sadid-Zadeh, R., D’Angelo, E. H., & Gambacorta, J. (2018). Comparing feedback from faculty interactions and virtual assessment software in the development of psychomotor skills in preclinical fixed prosthodontics. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research, 4, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 144, 119–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 5, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Saeed, M., Tahir, H., & Latif, I. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions about the use of classroom assessment techniques in elementary and secondary schools. Bulletin of Educational Research, 40, 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sanusi, N. M., Kamalrudin, M., & Mohtar, S. (2019). Student engagement using learning management system in computer science education. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8, 743–747. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1121.0982S1119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Schmid, R. (2018). Pockets of excellence: Teacher beliefs and behaviors that lead to high student achievement at low achieving schools. SAGE Open, 8, 215824401879723. https://doi.org/10.1177/215824401879723s8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Scopus. (2020). Bibliometric data from Scopus database.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Simper, N. (2018). Rubric authoring tool supporting cognitive skills assessment across an institution. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 6, 10–24. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.6.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D., Yang, L. J., Warusavitarana, A., Dona, K. L., et al. (2016). International forum of educational technology & society technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century learning linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century learning. In International Forum of Educational Technology & Society is Collaborating with JSTOR to Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access to Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sridharan, B., Tai, J., & Boud, D. (2019). Does the use of summative peer assessment in collaborative group work inhibit good judgement? Higher Education, 77, 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0305-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Steffens, K., Bannan, B., Dalgarno, B., Bartolomé, A. R., Esteve-González, V., & Cela-Ranilla, J. M. (2015). Recent developments in technology-enhanced learning: A critical assessment. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12, 73. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i2.2453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stufflebeam, D. (2011). Meta-evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 7, 99–158.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The methodology of metaevaluation as reflected in metaevaluations by Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14, 95–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008198315521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment—Summative and formative—Some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Taras, M. (2008). Summative and formative assessment: Perceptions and realities. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787408091655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Taras, M., & Davies, M. S. (2017). Assessment beliefs of higher education staff developers. London Review of Education (LRE), 15, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.15.1.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tedesco, J. C. (2016). Ten notes on learning assessment systems.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tsai, F. H., Tsai, C. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2015). The evaluation of different gaming modes and feedback types on game-based formative assessment in an online learning environment. Computers and Education, 81, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Tünnermann, C. (2008). Modelos educativos y académicos. Managua, Nicaragua: Editorial Hispamer.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wang, T. H. (2008). Web-based quiz-game-like formative assessment: Development and evaluation. Computers and Education, 51, 1247–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Widiastuti, I. A. M. S., Mukminatien, N., Prayogo, J. A., & Irawati, E. (2020). Dissonances between teachers’ beliefs and practices of formative assessment in EFL classes. International Journal of Instruction, 13, 71–84. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.1315a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Hitchel, H. J., Claxton, H. L., Holmes, D. C., Ranji, T. T., Chalkley, J. D., Santos, C. P., et al. (2018). A trigger-substrate model for smiling during an automated formative quiz: Engagement is the substrate, not frustration. In ACM’s International Conference Proceedings Series (ICPS). https://doi.org/10.1145/3232078.3232084.

  82. World Bank. (2019). Classroom assessment: Taking the first steps towards improved teaching and learning in Tajikistan

    Google Scholar 

  83. Xiang, J., & Ye, L. (2009). A general software framework based on reform in formative assessment. Journal of Software, 4, 1076–1083. https://doi.org/10.4304/jsw.4.10.1076-1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023967026413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers and Education, 145, 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, México

    Katherina Gallardo

Authors
  1. Katherina Gallardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherina Gallardo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Porto Accounting and Business School, Polytechnic of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Rosalina Babo

  2. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, JIS University, Kolkata, India

    Nilanjan Dey

  3. Department of Electronics and Electrical Communications Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

    Amira S. Ashour

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gallardo, K. (2021). The Importance of Assessment Literacy: Formative and Summative Assessment Instruments and Techniques. In: Babo, R., Dey, N., Ashour, A.S. (eds) Workgroups eAssessment: Planning, Implementing and Analysing Frameworks. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 199. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9908-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation