oy

“Sy

VOLUME XV, NUMBER 26

8 INNOVATION ABSTRACTS

PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD), COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN « WITH SUPPORT FROM THE W. K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION AND THE SID W. RICHARDSON FOUNDATION

 

Formative vs. Summative Evaluation

Faculty often voice concerns about end-of-term
course evaluations. To begin with, many instruments
used in the evaluative process do not clearly discern
between instructor and course evaluations. Even more
important, perhaps, most institutions administer such
devices at the termination of the quarter /semester, and
so the feedback is history, a postmortem.

I always have felt some remorse for those students I
failed to touch, as well as remorse for myself for not
having been more perceptive and proactive in the
intervention process. The unfortunate part of this saga,
of course, is that it is too late—too late for anything
except a firm resolve for the future.

Remember evaluation classes? Remember terms like
summative and formative? With summative, the name
says it all—“sum.” It is very effective for providing
final statistics regarding the nature of a program and
accountability assessments; unfortunately, it does not
do much good for the ongoing process. On the other
hand, evaluation courses also posit formative evalua-
tion as a technique which can provide continuing
feedback. Stufflebeam, a noted evaluation expert,
divided the evaluative dimension into goals, design,
process, and product. We as educators can actually
control all four dimensions of our courses if we decide
upon this alternate means of gathering information

regarding our process, our product, our design, and our |

oals.
; For me, it started this way. | wanted to know how
well students were assimilating the information | was
teaching. I also was interested in getting some feedback
from students on my facilitation process. Moreover, I
was interested in whether students were meeting their
end of the “educational contract.”

To achieve this goal, I devised a feedback sheet or
what I called a “progress report.” | used this term
because I did not want students to get caught up in the
jargon of evaluation, yet | wanted the whole process,
my role, their role, to be reconsidered before the term
moved along too far. I simply asked them to supply me
with four bits of information.

22628

The first section of the questionnaire asked students
to list or identify some things they had learned over that

period. | felt this was a useful query since it would
reinforce in the minds of the students what they had
been responsible for during that time. In addition, it
would let me know if what I perceived as “information
to be learned” was indeed the same as the perceptions
of the students. Many students listed objective, quanti-
fiable bits of information, such as syntax; a few spoke of
more sophisticated cognitive achievements. As the
instructor, you have the option of asking for specific or
general principles.

The second portion of the questionnaire asked
students if they had learned up to their potential and what, if
anything, the instructor could have done to facilitate the
learning process. From my perspective, this is the most
important part of the report. If we are interested in
intervention and dealing with potential problems,
chances are students will respond to this question in a
way which will provide much guidance for the instruc-
tor. Comments such as, “I’m linear; please do more
book work” and “Could we do more of this, or more of
that” and many other requests that students view as
possible solutions to their learning impediments. One
student candidly suggested that I do less talking. Using
student comments, I try to alter and modify my teach-
ing to more effectively meet learning needs.

The third question asked what they as students could
have done to enhance the learning process. | envisioned this
statement as a moment when the student could be
honest and make a leveling comment in terms of their
involvement in the course. Obviously, I want students
to ask themselves the questions, “Am I working to the
best of my ability?” and “Am trying as hard as I can?”
and “What more could I do?” This portion of the
questionnaire might sound like a dose of reality
therapy. It is. Some students just admit that they have
not worked up to their standards; others respond by
saying, “I’m doing as much as I can, and I’m satisfied
with it.” But others are not satisfied with their effort,
and they pledge to reform.

As a matter of record and also as another mini-dose
of reality therapy, I asked students to indicate how
many classes they had missed and how often they had
arrived late to class. | used this information to cross-
check my official attendance roster and to remind

 

 

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (NISOD)
Community College Leadership Program, Department of Educational Administration
College of Education, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712