View Content #25080

By Lindsay Marean, InterCom Editor

The distinction between formative and summative assessment was introduced over fifty years ago (Scriven, 1967). Formative assessment is based on evidence of student performance that is used to inform decisions by educators and learners about future steps in instruction and learning. For example, student performance on a vocabulary quiz tells the teacher if that content needs to be reinforced; student-submitted evidence in LinguaFolio Online scaffolds the process of learner reflection and goal-setting on the journey to higher levels of proficiency. Summative assessment rates student evidence of performance according to a desired final outcome or against the performance of peers; the goal of summative assessment is generally to render a decision regarding the outcome of a program of learning. For example, a teacher may assign a student a passing grade in Spanish I, allowing him/her to continue on to Spanish II in the following year, or a student may earn a specified score on a STAMP test to earn a Seal of Biliteracy along with a high school diploma.

It’s important to be able to distinguish between formative assessment and summative assessment, because formative assessment tends to increase intrinsic motivation and improve learning outcomes. However, these forms of assessment should not be considered dichotomous. For example, as we have discussed in the past, all assessments should be considered part of an ongoing learning process (Sykes, 2016), and even high-stakes assessments can serve as learning tools (Sykes, 2017).

I suggest the following three elements that maximize the learning gains not only with formative assessment, but with all assessment:

1. Clear Criteria. The NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Benchmarks are an example of standards-based statements in clear language that learners can relate to their own growth. Especially in summative contexts (passing grade, Seal of Biliteracy), learners need a clear idea of what they are working towards.
2. Feedback and the Opportunity to Respond to It. As students work toward language proficiency goals, they need feedback on their performance. This can come from teachers, peers, the world of language users (e.g. members of a local heritage community or an online forum on a topic of the learner’s interest), or the learner reflecting on his/her own performance. They also need time and opportunity to respond to feedback, both through reflection and with additional opportunities to demonstrate learning.
3. Learner Agency in Setting Goals. At the high end of a learner agency continuum, the learner chooses target proficiency levels, modes, and domains of interest. For example, an indigenous language learner may specifically want to learn to present a formal self-introduction in ceremonial settings. At the lower end, yet still important, one learner may prioritize mastering essential words and phrases over grammatically accurate delivery while another may strive for pronunciation identical to a pop star who sings in the target language. Feedback should incorporate learner goals rather than externally-imposed goals only.

Using these criteria, a tool designed explicitly for formative assessment, such as LinguaFolio Online, can be used in high-stakes summative contexts, such as earning a Seal of Biliteracy, and in the process positively impact learner experience and program quality. In this example, the tool is based on the Can-Do Benchmarks, which are themselves aligned with the ACTFL World Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. A criterion such as Intermediate Mid proficiency across all three modes is a clear target for students. The second element, feedback and the opportunity to respond to it, entails giving students time to work toward their goal of demonstrating Intermediate Mid proficiency. Over the course of one to four years, students could submit evidence that is reviewed and commented on by proficient speakers of the target language; students then have time to reflect on the feedback and focus their learning where it is most essential for meeting their goal. Meanwhile, program administrators will see where students are struggling most and have time to provide targeted supports exactly where they are needed, improving the program as they go. Finally, learner agency can be built into the process of demonstrating proficiency at a certain level in order to earn the certificate. Learners can select among different Can-Do Statements to demonstrate proficiency, matching their efforts to domains in their lives where they most value target language use. A program can incorporate more choice by asking that students demonstrate Intermediate High proficiency in at least one mode, while requiring a minimum of Intermediate Low for all domains; learners choose the mode most relevant to their lifetime language goals.

Rather than viewing formative and summative assessment dichotomously and sorting tools in the instruction design process into one type or the other, we can take elements of formative assessment that support learning and instruction and incorporate them throughout the instructional and program design process. From this perspective, not only are formative tools applicable in summative context, but their application can incorporate elements that lead to overall better program design.

References

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Stake, R. E. (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Sykes, J. (2016, October 3). Ensuring Summative Assessments Are Also Formative. CASLS InterCom. Available from http://caslsintercom.uoregon.edu/content/21919.

Sykes, J. (2016, June 5). High Stakes Assessment as a Learning Tool. CASLS InterCom. Available from http://caslsintercom.uoregon.edu/content/23293.