Formative and non-formative evaluation

Formative and non-formative evaluation are examined from the viewpoints of adaptation to improve individual performance and maintenance to preserve an existing system. Distinctions are made in terms of the experimental method, criterion-referenced measures, accessible events, and individual behavior. The functions of other distinguishing features are also examined, such as the quantification of weak and indirect variables for active maintenance. A case is made for the advantages and disadvantages of both types of evaluations. An increased role for formative evaluation is advocated as well as a deliberate rather than an accidental use of non-formative evaluation.     

Formative assessment of teachers in the context of an online learning environment

This case study looked at how an assessment strategy designed for an online learning environment can support teachers’ professional development. More specifically, we intended to evaluate how a particular online assessment design can help the participating in-service teachers to recognize the added value of formative assessment, and promote their own use of formative assessment in their professional classroom practices. The presented assessment design consists of a combination of different, non-standard assessment methods in an online environment. We analysed data from 494 questionnaires, the participants’ critical reflections about their learning and the participants’ produced artefacts. The findings illustrate the participants’ recognition of the formative character of the proposed assessment design, reflected not only by the high scores reported in seven of the eight themes explored, but also from the qualitative analysis of the participants’ reflections and artefacts. Suggestions are offered for the improvement of the proposed assessment design, so as to better promote the formative character of assessment. In particular, implications for the development of formative assessment in online professional development are discussed taking into account its potential to promote the participants’ self-regulatory learning processes.     

Formative evaluation of instructional development

Summary In this paper we have tried to describe the research pertinent to the activity of formative evaluation. While the number of good examples of formative evaluation is expanding, the level of research into the process is relatively limited. Perhaps a compromise to the difficult task of accumulating research data on formative evaluation might be suggested. When formative evaluation activities have been successful in terms of program effects and staff satisfaction, then detailed technical reports might be made available to the evaluation public. Formative evaluation might improve as a consequence of the technology developed in the course of finding solutions to development data problems. Both the increase in technology as a result of dissemination of successful procedures and the pursuit of experimental research on the process of evaluation might ultimately remove formative evaluation recommendations from the realm of seers and clairvoyants and thrust it closer to, if not into, the domain of scientific application. This article is the second ERIC/AVCR Annual Review Paper, preparation of which was supported by the ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) Clearinghouse on Media and Technology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. The authors acknowledge with appreciation the assistance of Laura Spooner and Bea Kass.     

Formative evaluation applied to a learning hierarchy

A formative evaluation method applicable to learning hierarchies is described which simplifies data collection by employing results from a posttest. Relations among pairs of lower and higher elements of a portion of a previously formulated hierarchy for graphic skills in kinematics were tested by means of data obtained from a posttest given to 148 secondary-school students. Results were compared with those previously obtained for the same hierarchy by a rigorous validation method. Correspondence of the two sets of results was high. Examination of test responses for discrepant instances yielded further information of value. Results additionally indicate hierarchical relationships to be the same in retention as they were for learning.     

Formative and summative evaluation in the faculty peer review of teaching

If the process of the faculty peer review of teaching is to overcome institutional marginalization, then its formative and summative components must employ rules, criteria, and standards for the identification of effective teaching that have been agreed to within a peer conversation among the faculty members of a scholarly unit. This conversation serves to collectively clarify the unit's expectations for its curriculum, teaching, and student learning. Only such a process can produce the credibility necessary to regularly effect the faculty development and personnel decisions of a unit.Dr. Ronald R. Cavanagh holds a doctorate from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, a Master of Divinity from Moravian College and the Moravian Theological Seminary in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and a B.A. in English. Since coming to Syracuse University in 1967, Dr. Cavanagh has served as a faculty member in and chairperson of the Department of Religion, Associate Dean, and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and he is presently the University's Vice President for Undergraduate Studies. In 1995, he was a participant in the Institute for Educational Management at Harvard Univesity, Boston, Massachusetts.     

Problems in the context evaluation of individualized courses

From 1970 to 1974 an Individualized Study System (ISS) for mathematics courses for first year engineering students was developed. Because of changes in the curriculum, new courses had to be developed from August 1974. The context evaluation of these new courses (ISS-calculus) consisted mainly of the evaluation of the mathematics courses developed during the preceding years. After a year the Department decided to suspend ISS as a teaching system for calculus partly because of dissatisfaction of the teachers with ISS-calculus.This paper consists of two parts. Part one (sections 1,2) is a case study and summarizes the development of the system from 1970 to 1975. It examines in detail the problems encountered in this development with special attention to the role of the executive teacher. The organization of an ISS-course and the planning decisions to be taken become more complex according to the number of executive teachers. In part two (sections 3,4) we provide a classification of ISS courses to illustrate the complexity of the system and we offer some general advice on the management of individualized study systems.     

Gender performance in an out-of-school science context

Cultural Studies of Science Education - This article examines how school students perform gender during a visit to a science centre where they programme Lego cars. The focus is on how students...     

Observing instructional quality in the context of school evaluation

Observational measures of instructional quality are used in both research and evaluation contexts. In European school evaluation systems, one main intended use of classroom observation results is to inform schools' instructional improvement efforts. This study examined the quality of such diagnostic information in the context of a school evaluation system in Germany. The factor analytic results indicate that the empirical structure of the observation instrument lacks correspondence with its original normative model but does mirror a five-factor model based on recent literature, including classroom management, two different aspects of student orientation, cognitive activation, and classroom assessment. The generalizability analyses show that both indicators and observers represent important sources of measurement error. Additionally, their magnitude is larger for shorter observations (lesson segments). At least two, sometimes three, observers and between five and ten indicators per dimension are needed to achieve sufficiently reliable results, but results importantly depend on which dimension of instructional quality is being assessed.