17Chirchik State Pedagogical University Current Issues of Modern Philology and Linguodidactics
Staatliche Pädagogische Universität Chirchik Aktuelle Fragen der modernen Philologie und Linguodidaktik
^hjrchiqdavlat^edagGgika^niversiteti^^^^^^^Za
FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATIONAL
ENTERPRISE
Noila Rasul kizi Sharofova
Student of Chirchik State Pedagogical University of Toshkent region
sharofovanoila@gmail .com Supervisor: Sohila Abduxalimovna Aminova
ABSTRACT
There exist quite little emphasis on assessment in the instruction and expert development of teachers. In light of this and cutting-edge demands for comprehensive assessment amidst current theories of gaining knowledge of and motivation, this article tries to set up the rationale for the use of formative and summative assessment in instructional enterprise. The paper delved into the concept and typology of assessment, validity, reliability and manageability of assessment, functions and makes use of of assessment and the relationship between formative and summative assessment. The paper concludes that both formative and summative assessments are essential tools in each educational device because via them administrative decisions such as ability streaming, resolution and certification are taken.
Keywords: formative assessment, summative assessment, evaluation
The term "appraisal" pertains to assessments of individual school-level professionals like teachers and principals, while "evaluation" focuses on assessments of the effectiveness of schools, education systems, and policies. Both appraisal and evaluation involve the generation and interpretation of evidence, including decision-making, data collection, analysis, and communication of results. It is important to recognize that the evidence gathered represents only a portion of the data available. In this context, "assessment" is used to describe the process of assessing student learning outcomes, while "evaluation" pertains to assessing systems, materials, procedures, and processes in education. Evaluation of schools, systems and teaching approaches may make use of evidence of students' learning, but the judgement is about the value or success of other things such as school policies and programme rather than the learning of students, although this may be part of the evidence used in the evaluation. Although the terms assessment and testing are sometimes used interchangeably there is an important distinction between them. Testing may be regarded as a method of collecting data for assessment, thus assessment is a broader
April 23-24, 2024
766
Chirchik State Pedagogical University Current Issues of Modern Philology and Linguodidactics
Staatliche Pädagogische Universität Chirchik Aktuelle Fragen der modernen Philologie und Linguodidaktik
^hjrchiqdavlat^edagGgika^niversiteti^^^^^^^Za
term, covering other methods of gathering and interpreting data as well as testing (Dolin & Krogh, 2010). A closer look at what assessment involves helps to clarify this relationship and to identify other aspects of assessment involving words such as 'standards' and 'criteria'. According to Ertl (2006) all assessment of students' achievements involves the generation, interpretation, communication and use of data for some purpose. In just this simple statement there is room for an enormous range of different kinds of activity, but each will involve a) students being engaged in some activity, b) the collection of data from that activity by some agent, c) the judgement of the data by comparing them with some standard and d) some means of describing and communicating the judgement. There are several forms that each of the components of assessment can take.
Activities in which students are engaged can be, for example: their regular work, some written or practical tasks created by the teacher for the purpose of assessment and some written or practical tasks created externally. b) The data can be collected by: the teacher, the students, the teacher and students together and an external agent (examination board, qualifications authority, test developer). c) The data can be judged in relation to: norms, in which the standard of comparison is the performance of other students (norm-referenced), criteria, in which the standard of comparison is a description of aspects of performance (criterion referenced) and students' previous performance, in which an individual's performance is judged in relation to the student's other or earlier performance (student-referenced or ipsative). d) The judgements can be communicated as: a written or oral comment by the teacher, a mark or score or percentage, a profile of achievement, a level or grade and a ranking or percentile. Different assessment tools and procedures are created by different combinations of these various ways of collecting, judging and communicating data. For example, a standardized test comprises tasks created by an Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)Vol.5, No.20, 2014 112 external agency which will have trialed the test during development with a large sample of the appropriate population, so that an individual's score can be expressed in terms of comparison with the 'norm' for that population. The result will indicate whether a student's performance is above or below average but not what he or she can do (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). A criterion-referenced test differs from a norm-referenced test by being designed to give information about what a student can do in relation to specified outcomes. The items will be chosen for their relevance to the curriculum so that the results can be used in establishing, not how a student compares with others, but how his or her performance compares with the intended performance (Linn, 2000). The construct validity is a
April 23-24, 2024
767
broader concept, reflecting the full range of outcomes of learning in a particular subject domain (Pedder & James, 2012). The important requirement is that the assessment samples all aspects-but only those aspects-of students' achievement relevant to the particular purpose of the assessment. The notion of validity that takes into account not just how well the assessment samples the construct it is intended to assess but what is claimed on the basis of the results, is one that relates to the inferences drawn from the results. It was formally expressed in a widely quoted definition of validity by Pryor, Triggs, Broadfoot, Mcness and Osborn (2000) that validity is an integrative evaluative judgement of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores or other modes of assessment. Reliability: The reliability of an assessment refers to the extent to which the results can be said to be of acceptable consistency or accuracy for a particular use (Tymms, 2009). This may not be the case if, for instance, the results are influenced by who conducts the assessment or they depend on the particular occasion or circumstances at a certain time. Thus, reliability is often defined as, and measured by, the extent to which the assessment, if repeated, would give the same result. Reliability has meaning mostly in the case of summative assessment and particularly for tests. When assessment is used formatively, it involves only the students and the teachers and the notion of making a repeatable judgement and treating all students in the same way is not relevant. No judgement of grade or level is involved; only the judgement of how to help a student take the next steps in learning, so reliability in this formal sense is not an issue. For formative assessment what is important is 'the quality of information that is gathered and provided in feedback'. However, high reliability is necessary when the results are used by others and when students are being compared or selected. Resources and Manageability: The resources required to provide an assessment ought to be commensurate with the value of the information for users of the data. The resources may be teachers' time, expertise and the cost both to the school and to external bodies involved in the assessment. In general there has to be a compromise, particularly where a high degree of accuracy is required. There is a limit to the time and expertise that can be used in developing and operating, for example, a highly reliable external test or examination. Triple marking of all test papers would clearly bring greater confidence in the results; observers visiting all candidates would increase the range of outcomes that can be assessed externally; training all teachers to be expert assessors would have great advantages - but all of these are unrealistic in practice. Balancing costs and benefits raises issues of values as well as of technical possibilities (Ertl, 2006).The cost of formative assessment is negligible once it is incorporated into
April 23-24, 2024
768
practice. The process of introducing it may well be considerable in terms of teachers' Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.orglSSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)Vol.5, No.20, 2014 113 time for professional development .Good formative assessment requires not only mastery of certain classroom strategies but knowledge of routes of progression in aspects of learning and examples of teachers and students using evidence to identify next steps in learning. These costs, however, are integral to efforts to improve learning. Summative assessment requires resources in terms both of teachers' and students' time. When tests developed by agencies outside the school or by commercial publishers are used, there is considerable cost. Even if national tests and examinations are provided free to schools, the cost has to be borne by the system and can be surprisingly large.
Formative assessment is not something that happens occasionally; it is integral to the process of making decisions that is happening all the time in teaching. The activities represented by A, B, and C are directed towards the goals of the lesson, or series of lessons on a topic. These goals, shared with the students by the teacher, are expressed in specific terms; for example, in a science lesson they might be 'to plan and to carry out an investigation of the conditions preferred by woodlice'. The students' work in activity A, directed to the goals, provides opportunity for both teacher and students to obtain evidence of progress towards the goals .In order to interpret the evidence, in this example both teacher and students need to know what 'good planning' means, so students need to have some understanding of the criteria to apply in assessing their work (Is the planned investigation taking account of all relevant variables? What and how will evidence be gathered?) The judgement leads to the decision about the relevant next steps which may be to intervene or simply to move on .As Wiliam (2009) points out, 'formative assessment need not alter instruction to be formative - it may simply confirm that the proposed course of action is indeed the most appropriate'. Activity B is the result of this decision and the source of evidence in a further cycle of eliciting and interpreting evidence.
The students are in the centre of the process, since it is they who do the learning. In formative assessment, judgements about progress and decisions about next steps take into account the circumstances, previous studying and effort of individual students as properly as what they are able to do in relation to the dreams of the work at a particular time. Thus, the judgements are each student-referenced and criterion-referenced. This strategy helps studying a long way greater than applying the equal requirements to all students, which would be demotivating for lower accomplishing students, and is viable considering that no comparisons are made between college students in formative assessment. Implementing formative
April 23-24, 2024
769
assessment skill that not the whole lot in a lesson can be deliberate in advance. By definition, if students' current thoughts are to be taken into account, some sel ections will depend on what these ideas are. Some ideas can be anticipated from teachers' experience and from research findings built into Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)Vol.5, No.20, 2014 114 curriculum materials, but not all. What the teacher needs is not prescribed lesson content but a set of strategies to deploy according to what is found to be appropriate on particular occasions. The key component practices of formative assessment include the following:
Students being engaged in expressing and communicating their understandings and skills through classroom dialogue, initiated by open and person-centred questions. Students understanding the goals of their work and having a grasp of what is good quality work.
Feedback to students that provides advice on how to improve or move forward and avoids making comparisons with other students.
Students being involved in self-assessment so that they take part in identifying what they need to do to improve or move forward.
Dialogue between teacher and students that encourages reflection on their learning.
Teachers using information about on-going learning to adjust teaching so that all students have opportunity to learn. Feedback is an essential feature of formative assessment. The two-way feedback, from teacher to students and students to teacher, implies a view of learning as a process in which understanding is actively constructed by students:
Feedback from instructor to students offers students records to assist them take the vital steps to enhance their appreciation or skills. The shape and focal point of the comments has to be cautiously judged by way of the teacher. The center of attention of the feedback influences what college students pay interest to and the form it takes determines whether it can be used to advance learning. In a view of mastering in which getting to know is equated with 'being taught' feedback to the scholar from the trainer is about the nice or success of the students' work as an alternative than how to improve it. Formative assessment sincerely has no role in getting to know viewed this way. Feedback into teaching, from students to teachers, is vital so that teachers can modify the challenges they provide for students to be neither too demanding, making success out of reach, nor too simple to be engaging. Using feedback from observations of students and their work to choose the students' capacity to take sure steps with help of the sector of manageable development which is a complex and
April 23-24, 2024
770
Chirchik State Pedagogical University Current Issues of Modern Philology and Linguodidactics
Staatliche Pädagogische Universität Chirchik Aktuelle Fragen der modernen Philologie und Linguodidaktik
^hjrchiq^avlat^edagogjka^niVBBiitiii^^^^^^^^lSlll^
challenging challenge for teachers. Many instructors need a correct deal of help with this undertaking if they are to use comments to alter instructing in order to optimize learning. The importance of formative evaluation lies in the evidence of its effectiveness in enhancing learning. Empirical research of school room evaluation have been the challenge of several lookup reviews.
The review by Black and Wiliam (1998) attracted attention world-wide partly because of the attempt to quantify the impact of using formative assessment. Since then there have been a number of other reviews and investigations which have justified the considerable claims made by Leahy and Wiliam (2004): The general finding is that across a range of different school subjects, in different schools, and for learners of different ages, the use of formative assessment appears to be associated with considerable improvements in the rate of learning. Estimating how big these gains might be is difficult... but it seems reasonable to conclude that use of formative assessment can increase the rate of student learning by some 50 to 100%. Stobart (2008) however, strikes a note of caution, pointing out that, apart from a study by William (2004) of the impact of their action research project on student achievement, 'there is, as yet, little direct empirical evidence of the impact of formative assessment on achievement'. He notes that most evaluation studies have focused on the extent of change in teachers' practice and in students' attitudes and involvement rather than in students' conceptual learning. Nevertheless ,it can be argued that such changes are necessary steps towards improved learning. Moreover, the number of influences on students' measured learning, other than what may seem rather subtle changes in pedagogy when formative assessment is implemented, makes its impact difficult to detect. Indeed, William (2004) point out that the comparisons on which they base their claims are 'not equally robust'. Summative Assessment Formative assessment is viewed as having a positive role in learning, there is a tendency to consider it as the 'good ' face of assessment, with summative assessment, which has a different role, as the 'bad' face.This is unfortunate in quite a few respects. First, whilst summative evaluation is now not supposed to have direct influence on learning as it takes place, as does formative assessment, it nonetheless can be used to assist getting to know in a much less direct but crucial way as, for example, in imparting a summary of students' learning to inform their next trainer when students go from one classification or college to another. Second, it permits teachers, mother and father and colleges to keep tune of students' learning, both as people and as members of positive businesses (such as those who are high achievers and those who need exceptional help). Third, it gives facts which, together with contextual factors, can be used for school evaluation and improvement. The bad reputation of summative assessment arises from
April 23-24, 2024
771
Chirchik State Pedagogical University Current Issues of Modern Philology and Linguodidactics
Staatliche Pädagogische Universität Chirchik Aktuelle Fragen der modernen Philologie und Linguodidaktik
^hirchiq^avlat^edagGgika^njVejiitSii^^^^^
inappropriate use of data which do not fully reflect the goals of learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Summative Journal of Education and Practice www.iiste.orgISSN 2222-1735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online)Vol.5, No.20, 2014 115 assessment is the name given to assessment that is carried out for the purpose of reporting achievement at a particular time. It may, and often does, have some impact on learning and the outcome may be used in teaching, but that is not its main rationale. The evidence derives from tests, special tasks or regular activities and can be collected by a range of means from different sources: written answers, artifact constructed by students, portfolios, observation of actions, discussion or presentations of work. Clearly the collection of evidence about performance in relation to all relevant understanding and competences is the most important part of the process, for without it the final report on achievement is unlikely to provide dependable information about students' achievement of the goals of learning. The evidence is interpreted by comparison with criteria or standards relating to overall goals, rather than the goals relating to specific lessons or topics, as in the case of formative assessment. This marking or scoring can be carried out by the teacher or by an external agency, as in the case of some national tests and examinations. Only in the most casual study room checks do students typically have a position in this process. Students are all judged with the aid of the equal criteria, or mark schemes (rubrics), whereas, as mentioned earlier, in formative evaluation standards may also be ipsative, or student-referenced in order to assist college students recognize their development from one of a kind starting points. The interpretation always reduces the richness of the proper performance to a score, class or mark that represents it; thus, a superb deal of information is lost. Depending on the use to be made of the result, the manner of interpretation will encompass some manner for increasing reliability of the result. Where consequences are used to evaluate students, specially the place excessive stakes decision or grading is involved, steps are taken to test marking and moderate judgements by instructors or examiners. When the summative evaluation is truly classroom-based and in the palms of the teacher there is the attainable for evidence to be accumulated and used about a vast vary of types of achievement. The key component practices of summative assessment encompass the following:
1. Students might also be concerned in exceptional duties or exams as section of, or in addition to, regular work.
2.Takes location at sure times when fulfillment is to be reported, not a cycle taking location as a everyday section of learning.
3.Relates to achievement of vast dreams expressed in normal phrases alternatively than the desires of precise mastering activities.
April 23-24, 2024
772
4.Involves the fulfillment of all students being judged in opposition to the same standards or mark scheme.
5.Requires some measures to guarantee reliability.
6.Provides limited possibilities for student self-assessment.
However, the importance of preserving the distinction lies in the role of assessment in helping learning for if this is not consider then all assessment may become summative.
REFERENCES
Anikweze, C.M. (2013). Measurement and evaluation for teacher education (3nd ed.) Ibadan: Malijoe Soft Print. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (2009).
Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21 (1). 5-13.
Crossouard (2012) Absent presences: the recognition of social class and gender dimensions within peer assessment interactions.
British Educational Research Journal, 38 (5) 731-748. Dolin, J., & Krogh, L. B. (2010): The Relevance and Consequences of Pisa Science in a Danish Context. London: Sage, pp 33-48. Pollard, A and Triggs, P. (2000) Policy, Practice and Pupil Experience.
Primary Connections http://science.org.au/primaryconnections Pryor, J. and Lubisi, C. (2001) Reconceptualising educational assessment in South Africa -testing times for teachers, International Journal for Educational Development, 22 (6), 673-686. Roderick, M. and Engel, M. (2001) The grasshopper and the ant: motivational responses of low achieving pupils to high stakes testing.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23: 197-228. Stobart, G. (2008) Testing Times: The uses and abuses of assessment.
773
April 23-24, 2024
