Formative and Summative Assessment
Formative and Summative Assessment
Formative and Summative Assessment
To cite this article: Dante D. Dixson & Frank C. Worrell (2016) Formative and
Summative Assessment in the Classroom, Theory Into Practice, 55:2, 153-159, DOI:
10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Dante D. Dixson
Frank C. Worrell
In this article, we provide brief overviews of the tary and the differences between them are often
definitions of formative and summative assess- in the way these assessments are used. We also
ment and a few examples of types of formative list several resources that may be useful for
and summative assessments that can be used in teachers who wish to know more about using
classroom contexts. We highlight the points that formative and summative assessments in their
these two types of assessment are complemen- classrooms.
153
Psychological Science at Work in Schools and Education
formative assessment at the whole-school level, vice versa. Moreover, the increased focus on
as a precursor to formal assessment, has led testing, as well as student and teacher account-
to teachers increasing their reliance on assess- ability, has resulted in a blurring of the low-
ment in general. This increased use of formative stakes/high-stakes distinction between formative
assessment has resulted in test publishers and summative assessment.
developing and validating formative assessments
that are based on national samples and that yield
more psychometrically robust scores than those Formative Assessment
typically developed and used by teachers.
Additionally, some summative assessment sys- Wiggins (1998) asserted, “The aim of
tems also have interim assessments, which are [formative] assessment is primarily to educate
intended to provide teachers with data that they and improve student performance, not merely to
can use as they are instructing the students in audit it” (p. 7). Formative assessment has been
preparation for the summative assessment (e.g., defined as “activities undertaken by teachers—
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, n.d.). and by their students in assessing themselves—
In this article, we review the traditional that provide information to be used as feedback
definitions of formative and summative assess- to modify teaching and learning activities”
ment and highlight the characteristics and use (Black & Wiliam, 2010, p. 82). Thus, formative
of both in classroom settings (see Table 1). assessment encompasses a whole host of tools
Importantly, the distinction between formative that provide feedback to teachers or students
and summative assessment is primarily related to to help students learn more effectively (see
the ways in which assessment results are used, Table 1). In addition to providing an ongoing
as many assessments developed for formative source of information to teachers about current
purposes can be used for summative purposes and student understanding so that teachers can
Table 1
Characteristics of Formative and Summative Assessments
Characteristic Formative Assessment Summative Assessment
154
Dixon and Worrell Formative and Summative Assessment
adjust instruction to maximize student learning the letters of the alphabet used in written words
(Faculty Development and Instructional Design represent phonemes or sounds in spoken words.
Center, n.d.), formative assessments are also Without a grasp of phonemic awareness—
used to develop interventions to improve student typically referred to as phonics—students will
learning (Shepard, 2006; Stiggins, 1994). not learn to read. First-grade teachers can assess
Formative assessments also inform students several aspects of phonemic awareness using
and those supporting the teacher and the students a single sheet of paper with the letters of the
(e.g., tutors, parents) about what the learning alphabet in random order and occurring more than
goal is, where the students are in relation to that once, and asking students to (a) name each letter
learning goal, and what can be done to improve (letter identification) and (b) to say the sound that
subsequent performance (Black & Wiliam, 2010; each letter makes (sound/symbol correspon-
Sadler, 1989). Although formative assessments dence). Students who are more advanced can be
can be graded (e.g., quizzes), evaluations of these asked to indicate which words in a set of words that
assessments usually are not factored into final the teacher reads aloud starts with the same sound
grades (i.e., summative assessments) because the (e.g., bird, gum, corn, bus), and which word in a set
focus is on assessing student understanding and begins with a different sound (e.g., head, hand,
teaching effectiveness (Faculty Development and tree, hut). Even more advanced students can be
Instructional Design Center, n.d.). asked to if they know what word the sounds, /m/ /o/
Formative assessments occur in two primary /p/ make (blending) or to indicate what sounds are
forms: spontaneous and planned (Cook, in the word bat (the correct answer is /b/ /a/ /t/).
2009). Spontaneous formative assessments are Importantly, these types of assessments can be
impromptu, such as (a) when a teacher reads done using one-minute probes, and the students’
misunderstanding in the body language of students errors provide the assessment data on which
during a class session and queries the student about additional instruction is based. For example, does
her understanding, (b) when a teacher calls on a the student know the letter names and sounds? Can
student to provide an example of a concept just students identify which of the spoken words start
covered, or (c) when question-and-answer sessions with the same sound?
are conducted during a lesson. These activities The exit ticket is another formative assessment
provide information about student learning in real methodology (Cornelius, 2013). It consists of the
time. Planned formative assessments include teacher posing a question, which can vary in
activities such as quizzes and homework exercises difficulty, to students at the end of the day based
that are assigned to assess student progress. on the day’s lesson. Students have to write down a
Regardless of the actual type of formative response to the question and hand it in to the
assessment being administered (see Table 1), teacher as they leave the classroom; the written
these strategies are all intended to improve student response is their exit ticket (Wylie, Lyon, & Goe,
learning (Dwyer & Wiliam, n.d.) and help to 2009). The teacher then reviews the responses for
answer the underlying questions of formative student understanding and creates small discus-
assessments: “What is working,” “What needs to be sion groups the next day based on students’
improved,” and “How can it be improved,” answers, putting students with a stronger grasp of
(Wiliam & Thompson, 2007, p. 64)? the evaluated concepts in groups with students
who have a less firm grasp of the concepts. After
students are in groups, the teacher reviews the
Formative Assessment in the Classroom concept that students were evaluated on the day
before, highlighting the areas where students were
We now briefly describe several formative unclear before letting the students discuss the
assessments that teachers can employ in their topic. The teacher also identifies a student with a
classrooms. The first of these is phonemic strong grasp of the concept as the topic leader
awareness, which means an understanding that for each group based on student responses, and
155
Psychological Science at Work in Schools and Education
monitors the discussions of the students to ensure 2010). In the classroom, summative assessments
that students understand the concept being taught. should not only give students the chance to
The exit ticket provides the teacher with demonstrate their conceptual understanding, but
knowledge of students’ current levels of under- also give students the opportunity to think
standing on a given topic—in essence, how critically as they apply their understanding
effective the lesson on the topic was—and under novel conditions to solve new problems
positions students to self-reflect on their own or to explain novel phenomena (National
level of understanding on the given topic (Wylie Research Council, 2001).
et al., 2009). Moreover, the teacher’s brief review
and the small group discussion provide students
who need remediation with an additional oppor- Summative Assessment in the Classroom
tunity to learn the assessed concept; students who
already understand the concepts also get the chance The following paragraphs contain descriptions
to develop a deeper understanding of the assessed of several common summative assessments in
concepts by explaining them to their peers. school settings (see Table 1). Perhaps one of the
most common summative assessments used in
schools are the mandated tests by the state. These
Summative Assessment tests go through periodic revisions, with one of the
most recent iterations being the Smarter Balanced
Summative assessments are “cumulative Assessments (n.d.), which are based on the
assessments . . . that intend to capture what a Common Core Standards (2014) that have been
student has learned, or the quality of the learning, adopted by more than half of the states in the
and judge performance against some standards” United States. These tests are designed to be
(National Research Council, p. 25). Unlike administered during the last 3 months of the
formative assessments, which are generally used school year in Grades 3– 8 and 11, with the
for providing feedback to students and teachers, following summative goals:
summative assessments are generally high-stakes
assessments and used to get a final assessment . [To] accurately describe both student
of how much learning has taken place—that is, achievement and growth of student learning
how much does a student know (Gardner, 2010). as part of program evaluation and school,
Summative assessments are almost always district, and state accountability systems;
graded, are typically less frequent, and occur at . [To] provide valid, reliable, and fair
the end of segments of instruction. Examples of measures of students’ progress toward, and
summative assessments are final exams, state attainment of the knowledge and skills
tests, college entrance exams (e.g., GRE, SAT, & required to be college- and career-ready; and
LSAT), final performances, and term papers. . [To] capitalize on the strengths of computer
Typically, if a student performs satisfactorily, adaptive testing—efficient and precise
no more formal learning on the assessed subject measurement across the full range of
occurs after a summative assessment, except in achievement. (Smarter Balanced Assess-
the case of a cumulative final examination. ments, n.d.)
In addition to their role in determining a
student’s level of success or proficiency at a These summative assessments will include not
particular time, summative assessments are also only multiple-choice questions, but also extended
used to determine eligibility for special programs response items, and technology-enhanced items,
(e.g., gifted and talented education), to assess as well as performance tasks (described sub-
if a student should advance to the next grade sequently), so that students can demonstrate
level, to provide career guidance, or to assess problem-solving and critical thinking in addition
qualifications for awards (Harlen & Gardner, to retained knowledge, with the ultimate goal of
156
Dixon and Worrell Formative and Summative Assessment
preparing students “to succeed in entry-level should complement each other, as they serve
careers, introductory academic college courses, related purposes (National Research Council,
and workforce training programs” (Common 2001). Formative assessment should be used
Core Standards, 2014). during instruction to help students learn material
Another common type of summative assess- initially and throughout the learning process.
ment is performance-based assessment. Perform- Summative assessments can be used at the end
ance-based assessments include any activity that of a unit, chapter, quarter, or semester to assess
provides an opportunity for students to demon- and evaluate how much learning students have
strate their learning or knowledge (National gained and retained. Additionally, on occasion,
Research Council, 2001), such as it may make sense to use a formative assessment
summatively or a summative assessment forma-
(a) Product-assessments that result in tangible tively, depending on the use of the outcome of the
indicators of knowledge that resemble final
assessment (National Research Council, 2001). For
products that would be produced in the real
example, a teacher can give his class a test (usually
world, such as a 3D model in a drafting class,
a summative assessment) to evaluate the topics that
a short story in an English Literature class, or
still need to be covered or retaught, rather than
a timeline in a history class;
to calculate a final grade. In sum, any assessment
(b) Performance-assessments that involve tea-
chers directly observing the application of of understanding for feedback is formative (assess-
taught skills or information, such as a teacher ment for learning) and any assessment used to
observing a final speech in a public speaking get an evaluation of the student’s knowledge at a
class; and point in time is summative (assessment of learning;
(c) Process-focused assessments, through which Gardner, 2010). Finally, it is important for teachers
teachers can evaluate the process of learning to be mindful of the goals of their assessment
as well as the outcome, such as when a and how they plan to use assessment results, so
teacher has students show their work or think that they choose the best tools to accomplish the
out loud as they answer questions. (see goal at hand.
McTighe & Ferrara, 1998)
157
Psychological Science at Work in Schools and Education
inclusive classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Chil- National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assess-
dren, 45(5), 14 – 21. ment and the National Science Education Stan-
Dwyer, C., & Wiliam, D. (n.d.). Using classroom data dards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press
to give systematic feedback to students to improve Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9847/
learning. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/edu- classroom-assessment-and-the-national-science-
cation/k12/classroom-data.aspx. education-standards.
Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub.
(n.d.). Formative and summative assessment. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425, (2002).
Retrieved from https://www.azwestern.edu/learn- Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the
ing_services/instruction/assessment/resources/ design of instructional systems. Instructional
downloads/formative%20and_summative_assess- Science, 18, 119– 144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714.
ment.pdf. Shepard, L. A. (2006). Classroom assessment.
Gardner, J. (2010). Developing teacher assessments: In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement
An introduction. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, (pp. 623– 646). Westport, CT: Praeger.
L. Hayward, G. Stobart, & M. Montgomery Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (n.d.).
(Eds.), Developing teacher assessment (pp. 1 – 11). Smarter balanced assessments. Retrieved from
New York, NY: Open University Press. http://www.smarterbalanced.org/smarter-balanced-
Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the response- assessments/.
to-intervention concept: Empirical foundations Stiggins, R. J. (1994). Student-centered classroom
and recent developments. In S. R. Jimerson, assessment. New York, NY: Merrill.
M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Design-
Handbook of response to intervention: The science ing assessments to inform and improve student
and practice of assessment and intervention performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
(pp. 10 – 24). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating
1007/978-0-387-49053-3_2. assessment with instruction: What will it take to
Harlen, W., & Gardner, J. (2010). Assessment to support make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future
learning. In J. Gardner, W. Harlen, L. Hayward, of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning
G. Stobart, & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Developing (pp. 53 – 82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
teacher assessment (pp. 15 – 28). New York, NY: Wylie, E. C., Lyon, C. J., & Goe, L. (2009, March).
Open University Press. Teacher professional development focused on
McTighe, J., & Ferrara, S. (1998). Assessing learning formative assessment: Changing teachers, changing
in the classroom. Burlingame, CA: National schools. ETS Research Report Series, doi:10.1002/
Education Association. j.2333-8504.2009.tb02167.x.
158
Dixon and Worrell Formative and Summative Assessment
159