formative and summative evaluation research

Skip navigation

World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience

Formative vs. summative evaluations.

July 28, 2019 2019-07-28

• Email article
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter

In the user-experience profession, we preach iteration and evaluation. There are two types of evaluation, formative and summative, and where you are in the design process determines what type of evaluation you should conduct.

Formative evaluations focus on determining which aspects of the design work well or not, and why. These evaluations occur throughout a redesign and provide information to incrementally improve the interface.

Let’s say we’re designing the onboarding experience for a new, completely redesigned version of our mobile app. In the design process, we prototype a solution and then test it with ( usually a few ) users to see how usable it is. The study identifies several issues with our prototype, which are then fixed by a new design. This test is an example of formative evaluation — it helps designers identify what needs to be changed to improve the interface.

Formative evaluations of interfaces involve testing and changing the product, usually multiple times, and therefore are well-suited for the redesign process or while creating a new product.

In both cases, you iterate through the prototyping and testing steps until you are as ready for production as you’ll get (even more iterations would form an even better design, but you have to ship at some point). Thus, formative evaluations are meant to steer the design on the right path.

Summative evaluations describe how well a design performs , often compared to a benchmark such as a prior version of the design or a competitor. Unlike formative evaluations, whose goals is to inform the design process, summative evaluations involve getting the big picture and assessing the overall experience of a finished product. Summative evaluations occur less frequently than formative evaluations, usually right before or right after a redesign.

Let’s go back to our mobile-app example. Now that we’ve shipped the new mobile app, it is time to run a study and see how our app stands in comparison to the previous version of the app. We can gather the time on task and the success rates for the core app functionalities. Then we can compare these metrics against those obtained with the previous version of the app to see if there was any improvement. We will also save the results of this study to evaluate subsequent major versions of the app. This type of study is a summative evaluation since it assesses the shipped product with the goal of tracking performance over time and ultimately calculating our return on investment . However, during this study, we might uncover some usability issues. We should make note of those issues and address them during our next design iteration.

Alternatively, another type of summative evaluations could compare our results with those obtained with one or more competitor apps or with known industry-wide data.

All summative evaluations paint an overview picture of the usability of a system. They are intended to serve as reference points so that you can determine whether you’re improving your own designs over time or beating out a competitor.

The ultimate summative evaluation is the go/no-go decision of whether to release a product. After all is said and done, is your design good enough to be inflicted on the public, or do we think that it will harm our brand so badly that it should never see the light of day? It’s actually rare for companies to have a formal process to kill off bad design, which may be why we encounter many releases that do more harm than good for a brand. If you truly embrace our proposition that brand is experience in the digital age, then consider a final summative evaluation before release.

In This Article:

Origin of the terms, when each type of evaluation is used, research methods for formative vs. summative evaluations.

The terms ‘formative’ and ‘summative’ evaluation were coined by Michael Scriven in 1967. These terms were presented in the context of instructional design and education theory, but are just as valuable for any sort of evaluation-based industry.

In the educational context, formative evaluations are ongoing and occur throughout the development of the course, while summative evaluations occur less frequently and are used to determine whether the program met its intended goals. The formative evaluations are used to steer the teaching, by testing whether content was understood or needs to be revisited, while summative evaluations assess the student’s mastery of the material.

Recall that formative and summative evaluations align with your place in the design process. Formative evaluations go with prototype and testing iterations throughout a redesign project, while summative evaluations are best for right before or right after a major redesign.

Great researchers begin their study by determining what question they’re trying to answer. Essentially, your research question is the same as the type of evaluation. Below is a list of possible research questions you might have and the corresponding evaluation. For that reason, this table is descriptive, not prescriptive.

After it is clear which type of evaluation you will conduct, you have to determine which research method you should use. There is a common misconception that summative equals quantitative and formative equals qualitative ­­— this is not the case.  

Summative evaluations can be either qualitative or quantitative. The same is true for formative evaluations.

Although summative evaluations are often quantitative, they can be qualitative studies, too. For example, you might like to know where your product stands compared with your competition. You could hire a UX expert to do an expert review of your interface and a competitor’s. The expert review would use the 10 usability heuristics as well as the reviewer’s knowledge of UI and human behavior to produce a list of strength and weaknesses for both your interface and your competitor’s. The study is summative because the overall interface is being evaluated with the goal of understanding whether the UX of your product stands up to the competition and whether a major redesign is warranted.

Additionally, formative evaluations aren’t always qualitative, although that is often the case. (Since it’s recommended to run an extended series of formative evaluations, it makes financial sense to use a cheaper qualitative study for each of them.) But sometimes big companies with large UX budgets and high level of UX maturity  might use quantitative studies for formative purposes in order to ensure that a change to one of their essential features will perform satisfactorily.  For instance, before launching a new homepage design, a large company may want to run a quantitative test on the prototype to make sure that the number of people who will scroll below the fold is high enough. 

Formative and summative evaluations correspond to different research goals. Formative evaluations are meant to steer the design on the correct path so that the final product has satisfactory user experience. They are a natural part of any iterative user-centered design process. Summative evaluations assess the overall usability of a product and are instrumental in tracking its usability over time and in comparing it with competitors.

Greenstein, Laura.  What Teachers Really Need to Know About Formative Assessment . ASCD, 2010.

Related Courses

Discovery: building the right thing.

Conduct successful discovery phases to ensure you build the best solution

User Research Methods: From Strategy to Requirements to Design

Pick the best UX research method for each stage in the design process

ResearchOps: Scaling User Research

Orchestrate and optimize research to amplify its impact

Related Topics

• Research Methods Research Methods

Learn More:

Please accept marketing cookies to view the embedded video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=730UiP7dZeo

Formative vs. Summative Usability Evaluation

Competitive Reviews vs. Competitive Research

Therese Fessenden · 4 min

15 User Research Methods to Know Beyond Usability Testing

Samhita Tankala · 3 min

Always Pilot Test User Research Studies

Kim Salazar · 3 min

Related Articles:

Open-Ended vs. Closed Questions in User Research

Maria Rosala · 5 min

Cognitive Mapping in User Research

Sarah Gibbons · 16 min

UX Research Methods: Glossary

Raluca Budiu · 12 min

Iterative Design of a Survey Question: A Case Study

Feifei Liu · 8 min

When to Use Which User-Experience Research Methods

Christian Rohrer · 9 min

You Are Not the User: The False-Consensus Effect

Raluca Budiu · 4 min

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation, what is the difference between formative and summative assessment, formative assessment.

The goal of formative assessment is to monitor student learning to provide ongoing feedback that can be used by instructors to improve their teaching and by students to improve their learning. More specifically, formative assessments:

• help students identify their strengths and weaknesses and target areas that need work
• help faculty recognize where students are struggling and address problems immediately

Formative assessments are generally low stakes , which means that they have low or no point value. Examples of formative assessments include asking students to:

• draw a concept map in class to represent their understanding of a topic
• submit one or two sentences identifying the main point of a lecture
• turn in a research proposal for early feedback

Summative assessment

The goal of summative assessment is to evaluate student learning at the end of an instructional unit by comparing it against some standard or benchmark.

Summative assessments are often high stakes , which means that they have a high point value. Examples of summative assessments include:

• a midterm exam
• a final project
• a senior recital

Information from summative assessments can be used formatively when students or faculty use it to guide their efforts and activities in subsequent courses.

CONTACT US to talk with an Eberly colleague in person!

• Faculty Support
• Graduate Student Support
• Canvas @ Carnegie Mellon
• Quick Links

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Comparing formative and summative simulation-based assessment in undergraduate nursing students: nursing competency acquisition and clinical simulation satisfaction

Oscar arrogante.

Fundación San Juan de Dios, Centro de Ciencias de la Salud San Rafael, Universidad de Nebrija, Paseo de La Habana, 70, 28036 Madrid, Spain

Gracia María González-Romero

Eva maría lópez-torre, laura carrión-garcía, alberto polo, associated data.

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Formative and summative evaluation are widely employed in simulated-based assessment. The aims of our study were to evaluate the acquisition of nursing competencies through clinical simulation in undergraduate nursing students and to compare their satisfaction with this methodology using these two evaluation strategies.

Two hundred eighteen undergraduate nursing students participated in a cross-sectional study, using a mixed-method. MAES© (self-learning methodology in simulated environments) sessions were developed to assess students by formative evaluation. Objective Structured Clinical Examination sessions were conducted to assess students by summative evaluation. Simulated scenarios recreated clinical cases of critical patients. Students´ performance in all simulated scenarios were assessed using checklists. A validated questionnaire was used to evaluate satisfaction with clinical simulation. Quantitative data were analysed using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 software, whereas qualitative data were analysed using the ATLAS-ti version 8.0 software.

Most nursing students showed adequate clinical competence. Satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher when students were assessed using formative evaluation. The main students’ complaints with summative evaluation were related to reduced time for performing simulated scenarios and increased anxiety during their clinical performance.

The best solution to reduce students’ complaints with summative evaluation is to orient them to the simulated environment. It should be recommended to combine both evaluation strategies in simulated-based assessment, providing students feedback in summative evaluation, as well as evaluating their achievement of learning outcomes in formative evaluation.

Clinical simulation methodology has increased exponentially over the last few years and has gained acceptance in nursing education. Simulation-based education (SBE) is considered an effective educational methodology for nursing students to achieve the competencies needed for their professional future [ 1 – 5 ]. In addition, simulation-based educational programs have demonstrated to be more useful than traditional teaching methodologies [ 4 , 6 ]. As a result, most nursing faculties are integrating this methodology into their study plans [ 7 ]. SBE has the potential to shorten the learning curve for students, increase the fusion between theoretical knowledge and clinical practice, establish deficient areas in students, develop communication and technical skills acquisition, improve patient safety, standardise the curriculum and teaching contents, and offer observations of real-time clinical decision making [ 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 ].

SBE offers an excellent opportunity to perform not only observed competency-based teaching, but also the assessment of these competencies. Simulated-based assessment (SBA) is aimed at evaluating various professional skills, including knowledge, technical and clinical skills, communication, and decision-making; as well as higher-order competencies such as patient safety and teamwork skills [ 1 – 4 , 10 ]. Compared with other traditional assessment methods (i.e. written or oral test), SBA offers the opportunity to evaluate the actual performance in an environment similar to the ‘real’ clinical practice, assess multidimensional professional competencies, and present standard clinical scenarios to all students [ 1 – 4 , 10 ].

The main SBA strategies are formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is conducted to establish students’ progression during the course [ 11 ]. This evaluation strategy is helpful to educators in improving students’ deficient areas and testing their knowledge [ 12 ]. Employing this evaluation strategy, educators give students feedback about their performance. Subsequently, students self-reflect to evaluate their learning and determine their deficient areas. In this sense, formative evaluation includes an ideal phase to achieve the purposes of strategy: the debriefing [ 13 ]. International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning (INACSL) defines debriefing as a reflective process immediately following the simulation-based experience where ‘participants explore their emotions and question, reflect, and provide feedback to one another’. Its aim is ‘to move toward assimilation and accommodation to transfer learning to future situations’ [ 14 ]. Therefore, debriefing is a basic component for learning to be effective after the simulation [ 15 , 16 ]. Furthermore, MAES© (according to its Spanish initials of self-learning methodology in simulated environments) is a clinical simulation methodology created to perform formative evaluations [ 17 ]. MAES© allows evaluating specifically nursing competencies acquired by several nursing students at the same time. MAES© is structured through the union of other active learning methodologies such as self-directed learning, problem-based learning, peer education and simulation-based learning. Specifically, students acquire and develop competencies through self-directed learning, as they voluntarily choose competencies to learn. Furthermore, this methodology encourages students to be the protagonists of their learning process, since they can choose the case they want to study, design the clinical simulation scenario and, finally, actively participate during the debriefing phase [ 17 ]. This methodology meets all the requirements defined by the INACSL Standards of Best Practice [ 18 ]. Compared to traditional simulation-based learning (where simulated clinical scenarios are designed by the teaching team and led by facilitators), the MAES© methodology (where simulated clinical scenarios are designed and led by students) provides students nursing a better learning process and clinical performance [ 19 ]. Currently, the MAES© methodology is used in clinical simulation sessions with nursing students in some universities, not only in Spain but also in Norway, Portugal and Brazil [ 20 ].

In contrast, summative evaluation is used to establish the learning outcomes achieved by students at the end of the course [ 11 ]. This evaluation strategy is helpful to educators in evaluating students’ learning, the competencies acquired by them and their academic achievement [ 12 ]. This assessment is essential in the education process to determine readiness and competence for certification and accreditation [ 10 , 21 ]. Accordingly, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is commonly conducted in SBA as a summative evaluation to evaluate students’ clinical competence [ 22 ]. Consequently, OSCE has been used by educational institutions as a valid and reliable method of assessment. OSCE most commonly consists of a ‘round-robin’ of multiple short testing stations, in each of which students must demonstrate defined clinical competencies, while educators evaluate their performance according to predetermined criteria using a standardized marking scheme, such as checklists. Students must rotate through these stations where educators assess students’ performance in clinical examination, technical skills, clinical judgment and decision-making skill during the nursing process [ 22 , 23 ]. This strategy of summative evaluation incorporates actors performing as simulated patients. Therefore, OSCE allows assessing students’ clinical competence in a real-life simulated clinical environment. After simulated scenarios, this evaluation strategy provides educators with an opportunity to give students constructive feedback according to their achieved results in the checklist [ 10 , 21 – 23 ].

Despite both evaluation strategies are widely employed in SBA, there is scarce evidence about the possible differences in satisfaction with clinical simulation when nursing students are assessed using formative and summative evaluation. Considering the high satisfaction with the formative evaluation perceived by our students during the implementation of the MAES© methodology, we were concerned if this satisfaction would be similar using the same simulated clinical scenarios through a summative evaluation. Additionally, we were concerned about the reasons why this satisfaction would be different using both strategies of SBA. Therefore, the aims of our study were to evaluate the acquisition of nursing competencies through clinical simulation methodology in undergraduate nursing students, as well as to compare their satisfaction with this methodology using two strategies of SBA, such as formative and summative evaluation. In this sense, our research hypothesis is that both strategies of SBA are effective in acquiring nursing competencies, but student satisfaction with the formative evaluation is higher than with the summative evaluation.

Study design and setting

A descriptive cross-sectional study using a mixed-method and analysing both quantitative and qualitative data. The study was conducted from September 2018 to May 2019 in a University Centre of Health Sciences in Madrid (Spain). This centre offers Physiotherapy and Nursing Degrees.

Participants

The study included 3rd-year undergraduate students (106 students participated in MAES© sessions within the subject ‘Nursing care for critical patients’) and 4th-year undergraduate students (112 students participated in OSCE sessions within the subject ‘Supervised clinical placements – Advanced level’) in Nursing Degree. It should be noted, 4th-year undergraduate students had completed all their clinical placements and they had to approve OSCE sessions to achieve their certification.

Clinical simulation sessions

To assess the clinical performance of 3rd-year undergraduate students using formative evaluation, MAES© sessions were conducted. This methodology consists of 6 elements in a minimum of two sessions [ 17 ]: Team selection and creation of group identity (students are grouped into teams and they create their own identity), voluntary choice of subject of study (each team will freely choose a topic that will serve as inspiration for the design of a simulation scenario), establishment of baseline and programming skills to be acquired through brainstorming (the students, by teams, decide what they know about the subject and then what they want to learn from it, as well as the clinical and non- technical skills they would like to acquire with the case they have chosen), design of a clinical simulation scenario in which the students practice the skills to be acquired (each team commits to designing a scenario in the simulation room), execution of the simulated clinical experience (another team, different from the one that has designed the case, will enter the high-fidelity simulation room and will have a simulation experience), and finally debriefing and presentation of the acquired skills (in addition to analysing the performance of the participants in the scenario, the students explain what they learned during the design of the case and look for evidence of the learning objectives).

Alternatively, OSCE sessions were developed to assess the clinical performance of 4th-year undergraduate students using summative evaluation. Both MAES© and OSCE sessions recreated critically ill patients with diagnoses of Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), acute coronary syndrome haemorrhage in a postsurgical, and severe traumatic brain injury.

It should be noted that the implementation of all MAES© and OSCEs sessions followed the Standards of Best Practice recommended by the INACSL [ 14 , 24 – 26 ]. In this way, all the stages included in a high-fidelity session were accomplished: pre-briefing, briefing, simulated scenario, and debriefing. Specifically, a session with all nursing students was carried out 1 week before the performance of OSCE stations to establish a safe psychological learning environment and familiarize students with this summative evaluation. In this pre-briefing phase, we implemented several activities based on practices recommended by the INACSL Standards Committee [ 24 , 25 ] and Rudolph, Raemer, and Simon [ 27 ] for establishing a psychologically safe context. Although traditional OSCEs do not usually include the debriefing phase, we decided to include this phase in all OSCEs carried out in our university centre, since we consider this phase is quite relevant to nursing students’ learning process and their imminent professional career.

Critically ill patient’s role was performed by an advanced simulator mannequin (NursingAnne® by Laerdal Medical AS) in all simulated scenarios. A confederate (a health professional who acts in a simulated scenario) performed the role of a registered nurse or a physician who could help students as required. Occasionally, this confederate could perform the role of a relative of a critically ill patient. Nursing students formed work teams of 2–3 students in all MAES© and OSCE sessions. Specifically, each work team formed in MAES© sessions received a brief description of simulated scenario 2 months before and students had to propose 3 NIC (Nursing Interventions Classification) interventions [ 28 ], and 5 related nursing activities with each of them, to resolve the critical situation. In contrast, the critical situation was presented to each work team formed in OSCE sessions for 2 min before entering the simulated scenario. During all simulated experiences, professors were monitoring and controlling the simulation with a sophisticated computer program in a dedicated control room. All simulated scenarios lasted 10 min.

After each clinical simulated scenario was concluded, a debriefing was carried out to give students feedback about their performance. Debriefings in MAES© sessions were conducted according to the Gather, Analyse, and Summarise (GAS) method, a structured debriefing model developed by Phrampus and O’Donnell [ 29 ]. According to this method, the debriefing questions used were: What went well during your performance?; What did not go so well during your performance?; How can you do better next time? . Additionally, MAES© includes an expository phase in debriefings, where the students who performed the simulated scenario establish the contributions of scientific evidence about its resolution [ 17 ]. Each debriefing lasted 20 min in MAES© sessions. In contrast, debriefings in OSCE sessions lasted 10 min and they were carried out according to the Plus-Delta debriefing tool [ 30 ], a technique recommended when time is limited. Consequently, the debriefing questions were reduced to two questions: What went well during your performance?; What did not go so well during your performance? . Within these debriefings, professors communicated to students the total score obtained in the appropriate checklist. Each debriefing lasted 10 min in OSCE sessions. After all debriefings, students completed the questionnaires to evaluate their satisfaction with clinical simulation. In OSCE sessions, students had to report their satisfaction only with the scenario performed, which took part in a series of clinical stations.

In summary, Table  1 shows the required elements for formative and summative evaluation according to the Standards of Best Practice for participant evaluation recommended by the INACSL [ 18 ]. It should be noted that our MAES© and OSCE sessions accomplished these required elements.

Required elements for formative and summative evaluation according to the Standards of Best Practice for participant evaluation recommended by the International Nursing Association for Clinical Simulation and Learning (INACSL, 2016)

Instruments

Clinical performance.

Professors assessed students’ clinical performance using checklists (‘Yes’/‘No’). In MAES© sessions, checklists were based on the 5 most important nursing activities included in the NIC [ 28 ] selected by nursing students. Table  2 shows the checklist of the most important NIC interventions and its related nursing activities selected by nursing students in the Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) simulated scenario. In contrast, checklists for evaluating OSCE sessions were based on nursing activities selected by consensus among professors, registered nurses, and clinical placement mentors. Nursing activities were divided into 5 categories: nursing assessment, clinical judgment/decision-making, clinical management/nursing care, communication/interpersonal relationships, and teamwork. Table  3 shows the checklist of nursing activities that nursing students had to perform in COPD simulated scenario. During the execution of all simulated scenarios, professors checked if the participants perform or not the nursing activities selected.

Formative evaluation: Checklist of the most important NIC interventions and its related nursing activities [ 28 ] selected by nursing students in Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) simulated scenario

Summative evaluation: Checklist of nursing activities performed by nursing students in Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) simulated scenario

Clinical simulation satisfaction

To determine satisfaction with clinical simulation perceived by nursing students, the Satisfaction Scale Questionnaire with High-Fidelity Clinical Simulation [ 31 ] was used after each clinical simulation session. This questionnaire consists of 33 items with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. These items are divided into 8 scales: simulation utility, characteristics of cases and applications, communication, self-reflection on performance, increased self-confidence, relation between theory and practice, facilities and equipment and negative aspects of simulation. Cronbach’s α values for each scale ranged from .914 to .918 and total scale presents satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α value = .920). This questionnaire includes a final question about any opinion or suggestion that participating students wish to reflect after the simulation experience.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 software for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics were calculated to interpret the results obtained in demographic data, clinical performance, and satisfaction with clinical simulation. The dependent variables after the program in the two groups were analyzed using independent t-tests. The differences in the mean changes between the two groups were analyzed using an independent t-test. Cohen’s d was calculated to analyse the effect size for t-tests. Statistical tests were two-sided (α = 0.05), so the statistical significance was set at 0.05. Subsequently, all students’ opinions and comments were analysed using the ATLAS-ti version 8.0 software (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany). All the information contained in these qualitative data were stored, managed, classified and organized through this software. All the reiterated words, sentences or ideas were grouped into themes using a thematic analysis [ 32 ]. It should be noted that the students’ opinions and comments were preceded by the letter ‘S’ (student) and numerically labelled.

A total of 218 nursing students participated in the study (106 students were trained through MAES© sessions, whereas 112 students were assessed through OSCE sessions). The age of students ranged from 20 to 43 years (mean = 23.28; SD = 4.376). Most students were women ( n  = 184; 84.4%).

In formative evaluation, professors checked 93.2% of students selected adequately both NIC interventions and its related nursing activities for the resolution of the clinical simulated scenario. Subsequently, these professors checked 85.6% of students, who participated in each simulated scenario, performed the nursing activities previously selected by them. In summative evaluation, students obtained total scores ranged from 65 to 95 points (mean = 7.43; SD = .408).

Descriptive data for each scale of satisfaction with clinical simulation questionnaire, t-test, and effect sizes (d) of differences between two evaluation strategies are shown in Table  4 . Statistically significant differences were found between two evaluation strategies for all scales of the satisfaction with clinical simulation questionnaire. Students´ satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher for all scales of the questionnaire when they were assessed using formative evaluation, including the ‘negative aspects of simulation’ scale, where the students perceived fewer negative aspects. The effect size of these differences was large (including the total score of the questionnaire) (Cohen’s d values > .8), except for the ‘facilities and equipment’ scale, which effect size was medium (Cohen’s d value > .5) [ 33 ].

Descriptive data, t-test and effect sizes (d) of differences between two evaluation strategies for scales of clinical simulation satisfaction ( n  = 218)

Table  5 shows specifically descriptive data, t-test, and effect sizes (d) of differences between both evaluation strategies for each item of the clinical simulation satisfaction questionnaire. Statistically significant differences were found between two evaluation strategies for all items of the questionnaire, except for items ‘I have improved communication with the family’, ‘I have improved communication with the patient’, and ‘I lost calm during any of the cases’. Students´ satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher in formative evaluation sessions for most items, except for item ‘simulation has made me more aware/worried about clinical practice’, where students informed being more aware and worried in summative evaluation sessions. Most effect sizes of these differences were small or medium (Cohen’s d values ranged from .238 to .709) [ 33 ]. The largest effect sizes of these differences were obtained for items ‘timing for each simulation case has been adequate’ (d = 1.107), ‘overall satisfaction of sessions’ (d = .953), and ‘simulation has made me more aware/worried about clinical practice’ (d = -.947). In contrast, the smallest effect sizes of these differences were obtained for items ‘simulation allows us to plan the patient care effectively’ (d = .238) and ‘the degree of cases difficulty was appropriate to my knowledge’ (d = .257).

Descriptive data, t-test and effect sizes (d) of differences between two evaluation strategies for each item of clinical simulation satisfaction questionnaire ( n  = 218)

In addition, participating students provided 74 opinions or suggestions expressed through short comments. Most students’ comments were related to 3 main themes after the thematic analysis: utility of clinical simulation methodology (S45: ‘it has been a useful activity and it helped us to recognize our mistakes and fixing knowledge’, S94: ‘to link theory to practice is essential’), to spend more time on this methodology (S113: ‘I would ask for more practices of this type‘, S178: ‘I feel very happy, but it should be done more frequently’), and its integration into other subjects (S21: ‘I consider this activity should be implemented in more subjects’, S64: ‘I wish there were more simulations in more subjects’). Finally, students´ comments about summative evaluation sessions included other 2 main themes related to: limited time of simulation experience (S134: ‘time is short’, S197: ‘there is no time to perform activities and assess properly’) and students´ anxiety (S123: ‘I was very nervous because people were evaluating me around’, S187: ‘I was more nervous than in a real situation’).

The most significant results obtained in our study are the nursing competency acquisition through clinical simulation by nursing students and the different level of their satisfaction with this methodology depending on the evaluation strategy employed.

Firstly, professors in this study verified most students acquired the nursing competencies to resolve each clinical situation. In our study, professors verified that most nursing students performed the majority of the nursing activities required for the resolution of each MAES© session and OSCE station. This result confirms the findings in other studies that have demonstrated nursing competency acquisition by nursing students through clinical simulation [ 34 , 35 ], and specifically nursing competencies related to critical patient management [ 9 , 36 ].

Secondly, students’ satisfaction assessed using both evaluation strategies could be considered high in most items of the questionnaire, regarding their mean scores (quite close to the maximum score in the response scale of the satisfaction questionnaire). The high level of satisfaction expressed by nursing students with clinical simulation obtained in this study is also congruent with empirical evidence, which confirms that this methodology is a useful tool for their learning process [ 6 , 31 , 37 – 40 ].

However, satisfaction with clinical simulation was higher when students were assessed using formative evaluation. The main students’ complaints with summative evaluation were related to reduced time for performing simulated scenarios and increased anxiety during their clinical performance. Reduced time is a frequent complaint of students in OSCE [ 23 , 41 ] and clinical simulation methodology [ 5 , 6 , 10 ]. Professors, registered nurses, and clinical placement mentors tested all simulated scenarios and their checklist in this study. They checked the time was enough for its resolution. Another criticism of summative evaluation is increased anxiety. However, several studies have demonstrated during clinical simulation students’ anxiety increase [ 42 , 43 ] and it is considered as the most disadvantage of clinical simulation [ 1 – 10 ]. In this sense, anxiety may influence negatively students’ learning process [ 42 , 43 ]. Although the current simulation methodology can mimic the real medical environment to a great degree, it might still be questionable whether students´ performance in the testing environment really represents their true ability. Test anxiety might increase in an unfamiliar testing environment; difficulty to handle unfamiliar technology (i.e., monitor, defibrillator, or other devices that may be different from the ones used in the examinee’s specific clinical environment) or even the need to ‘act as if’ in an artificial scenario (i.e., talking to a simulator, examining a ‘patient’ knowing he/she is an actor or a mannequin) might all compromise examinees’ performance. The best solution to reduce these complaints is the orientation of students to the simulated environment [ 10 , 21 – 23 ].

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the diversity in the satisfaction scores obtained in our study could be supported not by the choice of the assessment strategy, but precisely by the different purposes of formative and summative assessment. In this sense, there is a component of anxiety that is intrinsic in summative assessment, which must certify the acquisition of competencies [ 10 – 12 , 21 ]. In contrast, this aspect is not present in formative assessment, which is intended to help the student understand the distance to reach the expected level of competence, without penalty effects [ 10 – 12 ].

Both SBA strategies allow educators to evaluate students’ knowledge and apply it in a clinical setting. However, formative evaluation is identified as ‘assessment for learning’ and summative evaluation as ‘assessment of learning’ [ 44 ]. Using formative evaluation, educators’ responsibility is to ensure not only what students are learning in the classroom, but also the outcomes of their learning process [ 45 ]. In this sense, formative assessment by itself is not enough to determine educational outcomes [ 46 ]. Consequently, a checklist for evaluating students’ clinical performance was included in MAES© sessions. Alternatively, educators cannot make any corrections in students’ performance using summative evaluation [ 45 ]. Gavriel [ 44 ] suggests providing students feedback in this SBA strategy. Therefore, a debriefing phase was included after each OSCE session in our study. The significance of debriefing recognised by nursing students in our study is also congruent with the most evidence found  [ 13 , 15 , 16 , 47 ]. Nursing students appreciate feedback about their performance during simulation experience and, consequently, debriefing is considered as the most rewarding phase in clinical simulation by them  [ 5 , 6 , 48 ]. In addition, nursing students in our study expressed they could learn from their mistakes in debriefing. Learn from error is one of the most advantages of clinical simulation shown in several studies  [ 5 , 6 , 49 ] and mistakes should be considered learning opportunities rather than there being embarrassment or punitive consequences  [ 50 ].

Furthermore, nursing students who participated in our study considered the practical utility of clinical simulation as another advantage of this teaching methodology. This result is congruent with previous studies [ 5 , 6 ]. Specifically, our students indicated this methodology is useful to bridge the gap between theory and practice [ 51 , 52 ]. In this sense, clinical simulation has proven to reduce this gap and, consequently, it has demonstrated to shorten the gap between classrooms and clinical practices  [ 5 , 6 , 51 , 52 ]. Therefore, as this teaching methodology relates theory and practice, it helps nursing students to be prepared for their clinical practices and future careers. According to Benner’s model of skill acquisition in nursing [ 53 ], nursing students become competent nurses through this learning process, acquiring a degree of safety and clinical experience before their professional careers [ 54 ]. Although our research indicates clinical simulation is a useful methodology for the acquisition and learning process of competencies mainly related to adequate management and nursing care of critically ill patients, this acquisition and learning process could be extended to most nursing care settings and its required nursing competencies.

Limitations and future research

Although checklists employed in OSCE have been criticized for their subjective construction [ 10 , 21 – 23 ], they were constructed with the expert consensus of nursing professors, registered nurses and clinical placement mentors. Alternatively, the self-reported questionnaire used to evaluate clinical simulation satisfaction has strong validity. All simulated scenarios were similar in MAES© and OSCE sessions (same clinical situations, patients, actors and number of participating students), although the debriefing method employed after them was different. This difference was due to reduced time in OSCE sessions. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the two groups of students involved in our study were from different course years and they were exposed to different strategies of SBA. In this sense, future studies should compare nursing students’ satisfaction with both strategies of SBA in the same group of students and using the same debriefing method. Finally, future research should combine formative and summative evaluation for assessing the clinical performance of undergraduate nursing students in simulated scenarios.

It is needed to provide students feedback about their clinical performance when they are assessed using summative evaluation. Furthermore, it is needed to evaluate whether they achieve learning outcomes when they are assessed using formative evaluation. Consequently, it should be recommended to combine both evaluation strategies in SBA. Although students expressed high satisfaction with clinical simulation methodology, they perceived a reduced time and increased anxiety when they are assessed by summative evaluation. The best solution is the orientation of students to the simulated environment.

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the collaboration of nursing students who participated in the study.

STROBE statement

All methods were carried out in accordance with the 22-item checklist of the consolidated criteria for reporting cross-sectional studies (STROBE).

Authors’ contributions

OA: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision; GMGR: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Writing - Review & Editing; EMLT: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing; LCG: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Writing - Review & Editing; AP: Conceptualization, Data Collection, Formal Analysis, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors have no sources of funding to declare.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

The research committee of the Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud San Rafael-Nebrija approved the study (P_2018_012). According to the ethical standards, all participants received written informed consent and written information about the study and its goals. Additionally, written informed consent for audio-video recording was obtained from all participants.

Not applicable.

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Enroll & Pay

Taking our Programs to the End-Zone: Formative v. Summative Evaluation

Wed, 12/31/1969.

Lauren Coleman-Tempel

So, you have been tasked with creating a formative evaluation plan for your program. Your supervisor mentions way that there are some old summative evaluations that you could look at to inform this endeavor. What the heck?! Where do you start? Here, of course!

In this post, we will walk through these two kinds of evaluations together and give you the skillset needed to accomplish the aforementioned task, as well as the foundational knowledge to impress your colleagues.

Let’s get started with a brief rundown of terms and why we should care.

• Formative evaluations (or formative assessments) have one simple overarching goal: improve outcomes.
• Summative evaluations (or summative assessments) can also be boiled down to another goal: describe what happened.

These two methods of evaluating your programs should be used in tandem because they do different things. If we only used formative evaluations, we would never gain a comprehensive look back at the program’s outcomes. If we only utilized summative evaluations, we would be leaving opportunities for improvement on the table.

Let’s take a deeper dive into some examples of each method of evaluation using an analogy from an increasingly controversial American pastime: football!

Formative evaluations happen early in the “drive”, meaning that these evaluations happen while there is still time to change the outcome. The earlier and more consistently you conduct formative evaluations within your programs, the better chance you have at changing the course of the program. Let’s say your team is at the 30-yard line, or in the middle of the first year of their 5-year grant. Conducting a formative evaluation, possibly an audit of all activities that have taken place so far will allow program staff to see where holes in the service plan might lie. If staff wait until they are at the 10-yard line, or the final year of the grant, there is very little time to make changes to the program model.

Other examples of beneficial formative evaluations are semester and yearly reports, focused interviews or process evaluations, and even the Annual Performance Report (APR). For GEAR UP and TRIO programs, the APR is a report that feeds into the Final Performance Report, or the FPR. You can improve upon each year’s APR; the FPR is written in stone.

Summative evaluation is just as it sounds – it is a summary of what has happened in your program. It is a summation of outcomes and performance indicators that have happened over a set period of time, which in your case is generally a grant cycle. This is similar to the final score and stats report from a football game. How many rushing yards did each team have? How many touchdowns did each quarterback pass? What was the percentage of your students who enrolled in a postsecondary program straight from high school?

These evaluations are frequently guided by your program’s objectives – both set at the federal level, as well as your internal objectives written into each grant. At the end of the project, a summative evaluation helps us paint a picture of the final scoreboard. They inform your audiences of how you measured up against your goals.

Now that we have discussed the differences between formative and summative evaluations, we will close with an example of how one program used each to build a robust evaluation plan. The following is a diagram of a 5-year-grant’s evaluation plan.

As you can see, each year’s formative evaluations varied depending on program needs. These are flexible and can be as formal as each program wishes to accomplish its goals. These formative evaluations lead into the summative evaluation, which is a thorough report covering what happened during the 5 years of grant funding.

I would love to dig deeper into how both of these methods can be utilized to evaluate individual initiatives within a project, but that’s a 30-yard pass for another game…I mean, blog post.

Contributed By Lauren Coleman-Tempel

Lauren Coleman-Tempel, Ph.D.  is the assistant director of  Research, Evaluation & Dissemination  for the University of Kansas Center for Educational Opportunity Programs (CEOP). She oversees multiple federally funded equity-based program evaluations including GEAR UP and TRIO and assists with the supervision of research and evaluation projects.

Follow  @CEOPmedia  on Twitter to learn more about how our Research, Evaluation, and Dissemination team leverages data and strategic dissemination to improve program outcomes while improving the visibility of college access programs. 

Ohio State nav bar

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Find People
• Search Ohio State

Search form

• Enhance Learning Through Design
• Enhance Learning Through Assessment and Evaluation
• Enhance Learning Experiences with Technology
• Refine and Advance Your Teaching Practices
• Learning Tools and Strategies
• Success in the DVM Program

Formative versus Summative Evaluation

Thomas J. Tobin and his colleagues provide this excellent distinction between formative and summative evaluation in chapter 4 of their book,  Evaluating Online Teaching: Implementing Best Practices.  

Formative Evaluations

Formative evaluations are designed to provide information to help instructors improve their instruction. Formative evaluations may be conducted at any time throughout the instructional process to monitor the value and impact of instructional practices or to provide feedback on teaching strengths and challenges. ... This feedback enables instructors to modify instructional activities midstream in light of their effectiveness, impact, and value. Because formative evaluations are designed to guide the teaching process – and are not used as outcome indicators – they are generally individualized evaluations that are under the control of the instructor and target specific instructional issues or concerns. Unlike the more general summative evaluations, formative evaluations may include any targeted attempt to gain feedback for the purposes of enhancing instruction during the teaching and learning process.

Formative evaluations provide the following:

• Insight on pedagogical strengths and challenges in relation to specific course concepts
• Guidance to improve teaching strategies
• A means of monitoring progress or growth in teaching effectiveness
• Diagnostic information concerning the impact of instructional practices
• A nonthreatening environment to identify and correct challenges in instruction (Chatterji, 2003)

For formative evaluation to be effective, it must be goal-directed with a clear purpose, provide feedback that enables actionable revisions, and be implemented in a timely manner to enable revisions within the active teaching-learning cycle. Formative evaluations are most effective when they are focused on a specific instructional strategy or concern. Focused formative evaluations produce more specific, targeted feedback that is amenable to actionable change.

Summative Evaluations

Summative evaluations are designed to measure instructor performance following a sustained period of teaching with the focus on identifying the effectiveness of instruction. Summative evaluations provide a means of accountability in gauging the extent to which an instructor meets the institution’s expectations for online teaching. Because summative evaluations are a central component of gauging instructional effectiveness at most institutions, the high-stakes nature mandates that these evaluations are valid and reliable.

Summative evaluations provide the following:

• Information concerning instructor adherence to teaching expectations
• A basis for comparing instructor performance to reference groups and external performance criteria
• A means of determining the effectiveness of instructional activities
• Objective information for determining course assignments
• Comparative data to determine employment decisions (continuation, tenure, promotion, etc.)
• Diagnostic information about strengths and weaknesses in instructor performance
• Data to determine achievement of departmental or curriculum performance expectations

From  Evaluating Online Teaching: Implementing Best Practices  is available from Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Copyright © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. 

• CRLT Consultation Services
• Consultation
• Midterm Student Feedback
• Classroom Observation
• Teaching Philosophy
• Upcoming Events and Seminars
• CRLT Calendar
• Orientations
• Teaching Academies
• Provost's Seminars
• For Faculty
• For Grad Students & Postdocs
• For Chairs, Deans & Directors
• Customized Workshops & Retreats
• Assessment, Curriculum, & Learning Analytics Services
• CRLT in Engineering
• CRLT Players
• Foundational Course Initiative
• CRLT Grants
• Other U-M Grants
• Provost's Teaching Innovation Prize
• U-M Teaching Awards
• Retired Grants
• Staff Directory
• Faculty Advisory Board
• Annual Report
• Equity-Focused Teaching
• Preparing to Teach
• Teaching Strategies
• Testing and Grading
• Teaching with Technology
• Teaching Philosophy & Statements
• Training GSIs
• Evaluation of Teaching
• Occasional Papers

Formative and Summative Evaluation

The resources in this section compare the two, complementary functions of evaluation. Formative evaluation is typically conducted during the development or improvement of a program or course. Summative evaluation involves making judgments about the efficacy of a program or course at its conclusion.

Formative vs. Summative Evaluation (Northern Arizona University)

Questions Frequently Asked About Student Rating Forms: Summary of Research Findings

Related topics under teaching strategies:

Evaluation of Student Learning, (Testing, Grading, and Feedback)

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

back to top

Contact CRLT

location_on University of Michigan 1071 Palmer Commons 100 Washtenaw Ave. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2218

phone Phone: (734) 764-0505

description Fax: (734) 647-3600

email Email: [email protected]

Connect with CRLT

directions Directions to CRLT

group Staff Directory

markunread_mailbox Subscribe to our Blog

An introduction to formative and summative assessment

Many people assume that ‘assessment’ means taking a test, but assessment is broader than that. There are two main types of assessment: summative assessment and formative assessment. These are sometimes referred to as assessment of learning and assessment for learning, respectively. At some level, both happen in almost all classrooms. The key to good assessment practice is to understand what each type contributes and to build your practice to maximise the effectiveness of each.

Summative assessment

Summative assessment sums up what a pupil has achieved at the end of a period of time, relative to the learning aims and the relevant national standards. The period of time may vary, depending on what the teacher wants to find out. There may be an assessment at the end of a topic, at the end of a term or half-term, at the end of a year or, as in the case of the national curriculum tests, at the end of a key stage.

A summative assessment may be a written test, an observation, a conversation or a task. It may be recorded through writing, through photographs or other visual media, or through an audio recording. Whichever medium is used, the assessment will show what has been achieved. It will summarise attainment at a particular point in time and may provide individual and cohort data that will be useful for tracking progress and for informing stakeholders (e.g. parents, governors, etc.).

Formative assessment

Formative assessment takes place on a day-to-day basis during teaching and learning, allowing teachers and pupils to assess attainment and progress more frequently. It begins with diagnostic assessment, indicating what is already known and what gaps may exist in skills or knowledge. If a teacher and pupil understand what has been achieved to date, it is easier to plan the next steps. As the learning continues, further formative assessments indicate whether teaching plans need to be amended to reinforce or extend learning.

Formative assessments may be questions, tasks, quizzes or more formal assessments. Often formative assessments may not be recorded at all, except perhaps in the lesson plans drawn up to address the next steps indicated.

It is possible for a summative assessment to be complemented with materials that help teachers to analyse the results to inform teaching and learning (therefore also having formative benefits). For example, the NFER spring teacher guides include ‘diagnostic guidance’ with analysis of common errors and teaching points.

For more on the effective use of assessment, head over to the NFER Assessment Hub where you'll find a host of free guidance and resources. You can also sign up to our monthly  assessment newsletter for exclusive assessment-related content delivered direct to your inbox.

For more information on NFER’s popular range of termly standardised assessments for key stage 1 and 2, visit www.nfer.ac.uk/tests.

Formative vs. Summative Evaluation in Education: Key Differences Explained

Table of Contents

Have you ever wondered how teachers decide what grades to give, or how students understand what they need to improve on? The answer lies in the world of assessment , an integral part of the education system. There are two main types of assessment that educators use to measure student learning — formative and summative. While they may seem similar, they serve very different purposes and have distinct impacts on how students learn and how teachers instruct. In this blog post, we’ll explore the key differences between formative and summative evaluation in education, shedding light on how each approach contributes to the learning process.

What is formative evaluation ?

Formative evaluation is like a coach giving feedback during practice; it’s all about improvement and growth. This type of evaluation is ongoing and occurs during the learning process. It aims to monitor student learning and provide ongoing feedback that can be used by instructors to improve their teaching and by students to enhance their learning.

Characteristics of formative evaluation

• Continuous interaction : Formative evaluation involves regular, often daily, assessment and conversations between the teacher and students.
• Feedback-driven : The primary objective is to provide constructive feedback that students can use to improve their understanding and skills.
• In formal methods : It often uses informal assessment methods such as quizzes, group work, and class discussions.
• Adaptive teaching : Teachers use the information gathered to adapt their teaching strategies to meet the needs of their students.

Benefits of formative evaluation

• Encourages active learning : Students are involved in their learning process and can see their progress over time.
• Identifies learning gaps : It helps in pinpointing areas where students are struggling, allowing for timely intervention.
• Reduces anxiety : With ongoing assessments, the pressure of a single high-stakes exam is reduced.
• Personalized feedback : Students receive individualized feedback, which is more effective in addressing specific needs.

What is summative evaluation?

Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is like the final game of the season. It assesses the knowledge, skills, and competencies that students have gained over a period of time. This type of evaluation typically occurs at the end of a unit, term, or academic year and is used to assign grades or certify student achievement.

Characteristics of summative evaluation

• Periodic : Summative evaluation is not continuous but occurs at specific points in the academic calendar.
• Grading and certification : The results are often used for grading, reporting, and certifying student achievement.
• Formal methods : It includes formal assessments such as standardized tests, final projects, and exams.
• Less emphasis on feedback : While feedback may be provided, it is not the primary focus of summative evaluation.

Benefits of summative evaluation

• Measures achievement : It evaluates how well students have met the learning objectives set at the beginning of the course.
• Benchmarking : Summative evaluation helps in comparing educational outcomes across different institutions or regions.
• Accountability : It holds students and teachers accountable for the learning that has or has not taken place.
• Qualifications : Summative assessments often lead to qualifications that are necessary for further education or employment.

Comparing formative and summative evaluation

While both formative and summative evaluations are crucial to the educational process, they differ significantly in purpose and implementation. Let’s delve into a comparison that highlights their unique roles and effects on teaching and learning.

Timing and frequency

Formative evaluation is embedded into the daily learning process, providing real-time insights into student understanding. It’s frequent and informal, allowing for quick adjustments. Summative evaluation is periodic , marking the culmination of a learning cycle, and is more structured and formal in nature.

Feedback versus grading

The feedback provided in formative evaluation is diagnostic and meant to guide students on how to improve. In contrast, summative evaluation often concludes with a grade or score that summarizes a student’s performance but may not provide detailed insights for improvement.

Impact on learning

Formative evaluation fosters a learning environment where mistakes are part of the learning process, helping to build a growth mindset . Summative evaluation, while necessary, can sometimes create a fixed mindset where students focus on the final grade rather than the learning journey.

Striking a balance

For optimal learning outcomes, educators must strike a balance between formative and summative evaluations. A combination of both provides a comprehensive picture of student learning, with formative evaluation shaping the learning process and summative evaluation measuring its end results.

Integrating formative and summative evaluation

Teachers can integrate the insights from formative assessments to prepare students for summative evaluations. Conversely, the results of summative evaluations can inform future formative practices, creating a cyclical and dynamic approach to assessment.

In conclusion, formative and summative evaluations are not rivals but partners in the educational journey. Both are necessary to provide a full picture of a student’s academic progress and mastery of content. As we navigate the complexities of teaching and learning, understanding the differences and leveraging the strengths of each type of evaluation will empower educators to better support their students and elevate the educational experience.

What do you think? How do you see formative and summative evaluations impacting your learning or teaching experiences? Can you think of a time when formative feedback changed your approach to a subject?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 3

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Assessment for Learning

1 Concept and Purpose of Evaluation

• Basic Concepts
• Relationships among Measurement, Assessment, and Evaluation
• Teaching-Learning Process and Evaluation
• Assessment for Enhancing Learning
• Other Terms Related to Assessment and Evaluation

2 Perspectives of Assessment

• Behaviourist Perspective of Assessment
• Cognitive Perspective of Assessment
• Constructivist Perspective of Assessment
• Assessment of Learning and Assessment for Learning

3 Approaches to Evaluation

• Approaches to Evaluation: Placement Formative Diagnostic and Summative
• Distinction between Formative and Summative Evaluation
• External and Internal Evaluation
• Norm-referenced and Criterion-referenced Evaluation
• Construction of Criterion-referenced Tests

4 Issues, Concerns and Trends in Assessment and Evaluation

• What is to be Assessed?
• Criteria to be used to Assess the Process and Product
• Who will Apply the Assessment Criteria and Determine Marks or Grades?
• How will the Scores or Grades be Interpreted?
• Sources of Error in Examination
• Learner-centered Assessment Strategies
• Question Banks
• Semester System
• Continuous Internal Evaluation
• Choice-Based Credit System (CBCS)
• Marking versus Grading System
• Open Book Examination
• ICT Supported Assessment and Evaluation

5 Techniques of Assessment and Evaluation

• Concept Tests
• Self-report Techniques
• Assignments
• Observation Technique
• Peer Assessment
• Sociometric Technique
• Project Work
• School Club Activities

6 Criteria of a Good Tool

• Evaluation Tools: Types and Differences
• Essential Criteria of an Effective Tool of Evaluation
• Reliability
• Objectivity

7 Tools for Assessment and Evaluation

• Paper Pencil Test
• Aptitude Test
• Achievement Test
• Diagnostic–Remedial Test
• Intelligence Test
• Rating Scales
• Questionnaire
• Inventories
• Interview Schedule
• Observation Schedule
• Anecdotal Records
• Learners Portfolios and Rubrics

8 ICT Based Assessment and Evaluation

• Importance of ICT in Assessment and Evaluation
• Use of ICT in Various Types of Assessment and Evaluation
• Role of Teacher in Technology Enabled Assessment and Evaluation
• Online and E-examination
• Learners’ E-portfolio and E-rubrics
• Use of ICT Tools for Preparing Tests and Analyzing Results

9 Teacher Made Achievement Tests

• Understanding Teacher Made Achievement Test (TMAT)
• Types of Achievement Test Items/Questions
• Construction of TMAT
• Administration of TMAT
• Scoring and Recording of Test Results
• Reporting and Interpretation of Test Scores

10 Commonly Used Tests in Schools

• Achievement Test Versus Aptitude Test
• Performance Based Achievement Test
• Diagnostic Testing and Remedial Activities
• Question Bank
• General Observation Techniques
• Practical Test

11 Identification of Learning Gaps and Corrective Measures

• Educational Diagnosis
• Diagnostic Tests: Characteristics and Functions
• Diagnostic Evaluation Vs. Formative and Summative Evaluation
• Diagnostic Testing
• Achievement Test Vs. Diagnostic Test
• Diagnosing and Remedying Learning Difficulties: Steps Involved
• Areas and Content of Diagnostic Testing
• Remediation

12 Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation

• Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation: Concepts and Functions
• Forms of CCE
• Recording and Reporting Students Performance
• Students Profile
• Cumulative Records

13 Tabulation and Graphical Representation of Data

• Use of Educational Statistics in Assessment and Evaluation
• Meaning and Nature of Data
• Organization/Grouping of Data: Importance of Data Organization and Frequency Distribution Table
• Graphical Representation of Data: Types of Graphs and its Use
• Scales of Measurement

14 Measures of Central Tendency

• Individual and Group Data
• Measures of Central Tendency: Scales of Measurement and Measures of Central Tendency
• The Mean: Use of Mean
• The Median: Use of Median
• The Mode: Use of Mode
• Comparison of Mean, Median, and Mode

15 Measures of Dispersion

• Measures of Dispersion
• Standard Deviation

16 Correlation – Importance and Interpretation

• The Concept of Correlation
• Types of Correlation
• Methods of Computing Co-efficient of Correlation (Ungrouped Data)
• Interpretation of the Co-efficient of Correlation

17 Nature of Distribution and Its Interpretation

• Normal Distribution/Normal Probability Curve
• Divergence from Normality

Share on Mastodon

• Understanding Summative Evaluation: Definition, Benefits, and Best Practices
• Learning Center

This article provides an overview of summative evaluation, including its definition, benefits, and best practices. Discover how summative evaluation can help you assess the effectiveness of your program or project, identify areas for improvement, and promote evidence-based decision-making. Learn about best practices for conducting summative evaluation and how to address common challenges and limitations.

Table of Contents

What is Summative Evaluation and Why is it Important?

Summative evaluation: purpose, goals, benefits of summative evaluation, types of summative evaluation, best practices for conducting summative evaluation, examples of summative evaluation in practice, examples of summative evaluation questions, challenges and limitations of summative evaluation, ensuring ethical considerations in summative evaluation, future directions for summative evaluation research and practice.

Ready to optimize your resume for a better career? Try Our FREE Resume Scanner!

Optimize your resume for ATS with formatting, keywords, and quantified experience.

• Compare job description keywords with your resume.
• Tailor your resume to match as many keywords as possible.
• Grab the recruiter’s attention with a standout resume.

Summative evaluation is a type of evaluation that is conducted at the end of a program or project, with the goal of assessing its overall effectiveness. The primary focus of summative evaluation is to determine whether the program or project achieved its goals and objectives. Summative evaluation is often used to inform decisions about future program or project development, as well as to determine whether or not to continue funding a particular program or project.

Summative evaluation is important for several reasons. First, it provides a comprehensive assessment of the overall effectiveness of a program or project, which can help to inform decisions about future development and implementation. Second, it can help to identify areas where improvements can be made in program delivery, such as in program design or implementation. Third, it can help to determine whether the program or project is a worthwhile investment, and whether it is meeting the needs of stakeholders.

In addition to these benefits, summative evaluation can also help to promote accountability and transparency in program or project implementation. By conducting a thorough evaluation of the program or project, stakeholders can be assured that their resources are being used effectively and that the program or project is achieving its intended outcomes.

Summative evaluation plays an important role in assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project, and in informing decisions about future development and implementation. It is an essential tool for promoting accountability, transparency, and effectiveness in program or project implementation.

Summative evaluation is an approach to program evaluation that is conducted at the end of a program or project, with the goal of assessing its overall effectiveness. Here are some of the key purposes and goals of summative evaluation.

Purpose of Summative Evaluation

• Assess effectiveness: Summative evaluation is focused on assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project in achieving its intended goals and objectives.
• Determine impact: Summative evaluation is used to determine the impact of a program or project on its intended audience or stakeholders, as well as on the broader community or environment.
• Inform decision-making: Summative evaluation is used to inform decision-making about future program or project development, as well as resource allocation.

Goals of Summative Evaluation

• Measure program outcomes: Summative evaluation is used to measure program outcomes, including the extent to which the program achieved its intended goals and objectives, and the impact of the program on its intended audience or stakeholders.
• Assess program effectiveness: Summative evaluation is used to assess the overall effectiveness of a program, by comparing program outcomes to its intended goals and objectives, as well as to similar programs or initiatives.
• Inform program improvement: Summative evaluation is used to inform program improvement by identifying areas where the program could be modified or improved in order to enhance its effectiveness.

Summative evaluation is a critical tool for assessing the overall effectiveness and impact of programs or projects, and for informing decision-making about future program or project development. By measuring program outcomes, assessing program effectiveness, and identifying areas for program improvement, summative evaluation can help to ensure that programs and projects are meeting their intended goals and making a positive impact on their intended audience or stakeholders.

Summative evaluation is an important tool for assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project. Here are some of the benefits of conducting summative evaluation:

• Provides a Comprehensive Assessment: Summative evaluation provides a comprehensive assessment of the overall effectiveness of a program or project, which can help to inform decisions about future development and implementation.
• Identifies Areas for Improvement : Summative evaluation can help to identify areas where improvements can be made in program delivery, such as in program design or implementation.
• Promotes Accountability and Transparency: Summative evaluation can help to promote accountability and transparency in program or project implementation, by ensuring that resources are being used effectively and that the program or project is achieving its intended outcomes.
• Supports Evidence-Based Decision-Making : Summative evaluation provides evidence-based data and insights that can inform decisions about future development and implementation.
• Demonstrates Impact : Summative evaluation can help to demonstrate the impact of a program or project, which can be useful for securing funding or support for future initiatives.
• Increases Stakeholder Engagement : Summative evaluation can increase stakeholder engagement and ownership of the program or project being evaluated, by involving stakeholders in the evaluation process and soliciting their feedback.

Summative evaluation is an essential tool for assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project, and for informing decisions about future development and implementation. It provides a comprehensive assessment of the program or project, identifies areas for improvement, promotes accountability and transparency, and supports evidence-based decision-making.

There are different types of summative evaluation that can be used to assess the overall effectiveness of a program or project. Here are some of the most common types of summative evaluation:

• Outcome Evaluation: This type of evaluation focuses on the outcomes or results of the program or project, such as changes in behavior, knowledge, or attitudes. Outcome evaluation is often used to determine the effectiveness of an intervention or program in achieving its intended outcomes.
• Impact Evaluation: This type of evaluation focuses on the broader impact of the program or project, such as changes in the community or society. Impact evaluation is often used to assess the overall impact of a program or project on the target population or community.
• Cost-Benefit Evaluation: This type of evaluation focuses on the costs and benefits of the program or project, and is often used to determine whether the program or project is a worthwhile investment. Cost-benefit evaluation can help to determine whether the benefits of the program or project outweigh the costs.

The type of summative evaluation used will depend on the specific goals and objectives of the program or project being evaluated, as well as the resources and data available for evaluation. Each type of summative evaluation serves a specific purpose in assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project, and should be tailored to the specific needs of the program or project being evaluated.

Conducting a successful summative evaluation requires careful planning and attention to best practices. Here are some best practices for conducting summative evaluation:

• Clearly Define Goals and Objectives : Before conducting a summative evaluation, it is important to clearly define the goals and objectives of the program or project being evaluated. This will help to ensure that the evaluation is focused and relevant to the needs of stakeholders.
• Use Valid and Reliable Measures: The measures used in a summative evaluation should be valid and reliable, in order to ensure that the results are accurate and meaningful. This may involve selecting or developing appropriate evaluation tools, such as surveys or assessments, and ensuring that they are properly administered.
• Collect Data from Multiple Sources : Data for a summative evaluation should be collected from multiple sources, in order to ensure that the results are comprehensive and representative. This may involve collecting data from program participants, stakeholders, and other relevant sources.
• Analyze and Interpret Results : Once the data has been collected, it is important to analyze and interpret the results in order to determine the overall effectiveness of the program or project. This may involve using statistical analysis or other techniques to identify patterns or trends in the data.
• Use Results to Inform Future Development : The results of a summative evaluation should be used to inform future program or project development, in order to improve the effectiveness of the program or project. This may involve making changes to program design or delivery, or identifying areas where additional resources or support may be needed.

Conducting a successful summative evaluation requires careful planning, attention to detail, and a commitment to using the results to inform future development and improvement. By following best practices for conducting summative evaluation, stakeholders can ensure that their programs and projects are effective and relevant to the needs of their communities.

Summative evaluation is an important tool for assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project. Here are some examples of summative evaluation in practice:

• Educational Programs : A school district may conduct a summative evaluation of a new educational program, such as a reading intervention program. The evaluation may focus on the program’s outcomes, such as improvements in reading skills, and may involve collecting data from multiple sources, such as teacher assessments, student tests, and parent surveys.
• Health Interventions : A public health agency may conduct a summative evaluation of a health intervention, such as a vaccination campaign. The evaluation may focus on the impact of the intervention on health outcomes, such as reductions in disease incidence, and may involve collecting data from multiple sources, such as healthcare providers, patients, and community members.
• Social Service Programs: A non-profit organization may conduct a summative evaluation of a social service program, such as a job training program for disadvantaged youth. The evaluation may focus on the impact of the program on outcomes such as employment rates and job retention, and may involve collecting data from multiple sources, such as program participants, employers, and community partners.
• Technology Products : A software company may conduct a summative evaluation of a new technology product, such as a mobile app. The evaluation may focus on user satisfaction and effectiveness, and may involve collecting data from multiple sources, such as user surveys, user testing, and usage data.
• Environmental Programs : An environmental organization may conduct a summative evaluation of a conservation program, such as a land protection initiative. The evaluation may focus on the impact of the program on environmental outcomes, such as the protection of natural habitats or the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and may involve collecting data from multiple sources, such as program participants, community members, and scientific data.

Summative evaluation can be used in a wide range of programs and initiatives to assess their overall effectiveness and inform future development and improvement.

Summative evaluation is an important tool for assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project. Here are some examples of summative evaluation questions that can be used to guide the evaluation process:

• Did the program or project achieve its intended outcomes and goals?
• To what extent did the program or project meet the needs of its intended audience or stakeholders?
• What were the most effective components of the program or project, and what areas could be improved?
• What impact did the program or project have on its intended audience or stakeholders?
• Was the program or project implemented effectively, and were resources used efficiently?
• What unintended consequences or challenges arose during the program or project, and how were they addressed?
• How does the program or project compare to similar initiatives or interventions in terms of effectiveness and impact?
• What were the costs and benefits of the program or project, and were they reasonable given the outcomes achieved?
• What lessons can be learned from the program or project, and how can they inform future development and improvement?

The questions asked during a summative evaluation are designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact and effectiveness of the program or project. The answers to these questions can inform future programming and resource allocation decisions and help to identify areas for improvement. Overall, summative evaluation is an essential tool for assessing the overall impact and effectiveness of a program or project.

Summative evaluation is an important tool for assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project. However, there are several challenges and limitations that should be considered when conducting summative evaluation. Here are some of the most common challenges and limitations of summative evaluation:

• Timing: Summative evaluation is typically conducted at the end of a program or project, which may limit the ability to make real-time improvements during the implementation phase.
• Resource Constraints: Summative evaluation can be resource-intensive, requiring significant time, effort, and funding to collect and analyze data.
• Bias: The data collected during summative evaluation may be subject to bias, such as social desirability bias, which can affect the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results.
• Difficulty of Measurement: Some outcomes of a program or project may be difficult to measure, which can make it challenging to assess the overall effectiveness of the program or project.
• Difficulty of Generalization: The results of a summative evaluation may not be generalizable to other contexts or settings, which can limit the broader applicability of the evaluation findings.
• Limited Stakeholder Involvement: Summative evaluation may not involve all stakeholders, which can limit the representation of diverse perspectives and lead to incomplete evaluation findings.
• Limited Focus on Process: Summative evaluation typically focuses on outcomes and impact, which may not provide a full understanding of the program or project’s implementation process and effectiveness.

These challenges and limitations of summative evaluation should be considered when planning and conducting evaluations. By understanding these limitations, evaluators can work to mitigate potential biases and limitations and ensure that the evaluation results are accurate, reliable, and useful for program or project improvement.

While conducting summative evaluation, it’s imperative to uphold ethical principles to ensure the integrity and fairness of the evaluation process. Ethical considerations are essential for maintaining trust with stakeholders, respecting the rights of participants, and safeguarding the integrity of evaluation findings. Here are key ethical considerations to integrate into summative evaluation:

Informed Consent: Ensure that participants are fully informed about the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the evaluation before consenting to participate. Provide clear and accessible information, allowing participants to make voluntary and informed decisions about their involvement.

Confidentiality and Privacy: Safeguard the confidentiality and privacy of participants’ information throughout the evaluation process. Implement secure data management practices, anonymize data whenever possible, and only share findings in aggregate or de-identified formats to protect participants’ identities.

Respect for Diversity and Inclusion: Respect and embrace the diversity of participants, acknowledging their unique perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences. Ensure that evaluation methods are culturally sensitive and inclusive, avoiding biases and stereotypes, and accommodating diverse communication styles and preferences.

Avoiding Harm: Take proactive measures to minimize the risk of harm to participants and stakeholders throughout the evaluation process. Anticipate potential risks and vulnerabilities, mitigate them through appropriate safeguards and protocols, and prioritize the well-being and dignity of all involved.

Beneficence and Non-Maleficence: Strive to maximize the benefits of the evaluation while minimizing any potential harm or adverse effects. Ensure that evaluation activities contribute to the improvement of programs or projects, enhance stakeholders’ understanding and decision-making, and do not cause undue stress, discomfort, or harm.

Transparency and Accountability: Maintain transparency and accountability in all aspects of the evaluation, including its design, implementation, analysis, and reporting. Clearly communicate the evaluation’s objectives, methodologies, findings, and limitations, allowing stakeholders to assess its credibility and relevance.

Equitable Participation and Representation: Foster equitable participation and representation of diverse stakeholders throughout the evaluation process. Engage stakeholders in meaningful ways, valuing their input, perspectives, and contributions, and address power differentials to ensure inclusive decision-making and ownership of evaluation outcomes.

Continuous Reflection and Improvement: Continuously reflect on ethical considerations throughout the evaluation process, remaining responsive to emerging issues, challenges, and ethical dilemmas. Seek feedback from stakeholders, engage in dialogue about ethical concerns, and adapt evaluation approaches accordingly to uphold ethical standards.

By integrating these ethical considerations into summative evaluation practices, evaluators can uphold principles of integrity, respect, fairness, and accountability, promoting trust, credibility, and meaningful impact in program assessment and improvement. Ethical evaluation practices not only ensure compliance with professional standards and legal requirements but also uphold fundamental values of respect for human dignity, justice, and social responsibility.

Summative evaluation is an important tool for assessing the overall effectiveness of a program or project. Here are some potential future directions for summative evaluation research and practice:

• Incorporating Technology: Advances in technology have the potential to improve the efficiency and accuracy of summative evaluation. Future research could explore the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other technologies to streamline data collection and analysis.
• Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement: Future research could explore ways to enhance stakeholder engagement in summative evaluation, such as by involving stakeholders in the evaluation planning and implementation process.
• Increasing Use of Mixed Methods: Future research could explore the use of mixed methods approaches in summative evaluation, such as combining qualitative and quantitative methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding of program or project effectiveness.
• Addressing Equity and Inclusion: Future research could focus on addressing issues of equity and inclusion in summative evaluation, such as by ensuring that evaluation methods are sensitive to the needs and experiences of diverse stakeholders.
• Addressing Complexity: Many programs and projects operate in complex and dynamic environments. Future research could explore ways to address this complexity in summative evaluation, such as by developing more adaptive and flexible evaluation methods.
• Improving Integration with Formative Evaluation: Summative evaluation is typically conducted after a program or project has been completed, while formative evaluation is conducted during program or project implementation. Future research could explore ways to better integrate summative and formative evaluation, in order to promote continuous program improvement.

These future directions for summative evaluation research and practice have the potential to improve the effectiveness and relevance of summative evaluation, and to enhance its value as a tool for program and project assessment and improvement.

David Ndiyamba

Quite comprehensive Thank you

Fation Luli

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

How strong is my Resume?

Only 2% of resumes land interviews.

Land a better, higher-paying career

Jobs for You

Project assistant – close out.

• United States (Remote)

Global Technical Advisor – Information Management

• Belfast, UK
• Concern Worldwide

Intern- International Project and Proposal Support – ISPI

• United States

Budget and Billing Consultant

Manager ii, budget and billing, program analyst, team leader, senior finance and administrative manager, data scientist.

• New York, NY, USA
• Everytown For Gun Safety

Energy Evaluation Specialist

Senior evaluation specialist, associate project manager, project manager i, deputy director of projects, services you might be interested in, useful guides ....

How to Create a Strong Resume

Monitoring And Evaluation Specialist Resume

Resume Length for the International Development Sector

Types of Evaluation

Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL)

LAND A JOB REFERRAL IN 2 WEEKS (NO ONLINE APPS!)

Sign Up & To Get My Free Referral Toolkit Now:

Explainer: what’s the difference between formative and summative assessment in schools?

Senior Lecturer in Educational Assessment, Macquarie University

Disclosure statement

Rod Lane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Macquarie University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

The recent Gonski report argues Australia needs assessment and reporting models that capture both achievement progress and long-term learning progress. This, according to the review panel, involves low-stakes, low-key, and regular formative assessments to support learning progressions. The report used international evidence on individualised teaching to demonstrate ongoing formative assessment and feedback is fundamental to supporting students to do better in school.

The NSW Education Minister, Rob Stokes, has called for NAPLAN to be replaced in “haste” with less high stakes tests. Mark Scott, the secretary of the NSW Department of Education, echoed Stokes’ remarks. He stated :

I think [NAPLAN] will become obsolete because the kinds of information that the new assessment schemes will give us will be richer and deeper and more meaningful for teachers, for parents and for education systems.

So, what’s the difference between formative and summative assessment? And when should each be used? Formative and summative assessment have different purposes and both have an important role to play in a balanced assessment program.

Formative assessment

Formative assessment includes a range of strategies such as classroom discussions and quizzes designed to generate feedback on student performance. This is done so teachers can make changes in teaching and learning based on what students need.

It involves finding out what students know and do not know, and continually monitoring student progress during learning. Both teachers and students are involved in decisions about the next steps in learning.

Read more: Marking answers with a tick or cross won't enhance learning

Teachers use the feedback from formative tasks to identify what students are struggling with and adjust instruction appropriately. This could involve re-teaching key concepts, changing how they teach or modifying teaching resources to provide students with additional support. Students also use feedback from formative tasks to reflect on and improve their own work.

Regular classroom tasks, whether formal (for example, traditional pen and paper tests) or informal (such as classroom discussions), can be adapted into effective formative tasks by:

making students aware of the learning goals/success criteria using rubrics and carefully tracking student progress against them

including clear instructions to guide students through a series of activities to demonstrate the success criteria. A teacher might, for example, design a series of activities to guide students through an inquiry or research process in science

providing regular opportunities for feedback from the teacher, other students or parents (this feedback may be face-to face, written, or online)

making sure students have opportunities to reflect on and make use of feedback to improve their work. This may involve asking students to write a short reflection about the feedback on their draft essay and using this to improve their final version.

There are many advantages of formative assessment:

feedback from formative assessment helps students become aware of any gaps between their goal and their current knowledge, understanding, or skill

tasks guide students through the actions necessary to hit learning goals

tasks encourage students to focus their attention on the task (such as undertaking an inquiry or research process) rather than on simply getting the right answer

students and teachers receive ongoing feedback about student progress towards learning goals, which enables teachers to adjust their instructional approach in response to what students need

students build their self-regulation skills by setting learning goals and monitoring their progress towards them

results of formative assessments can also be used for grading and reporting.

Summative assessment

This includes end of unit examinations and the NSW Higher School Certificate (HSC) examination.

Summative assessment provides students, teachers and parents with an understanding of the pupil’s overall learning. Most commonly thought of as formal, time-specific exams, these assessments may include major essays, projects, presentations, art works, creative portfolios, reports or research experiments. These assessments are designed to measure the student’s achievement relative to the subject’s overall learning goals as set out in the relevant curriculum standards.

The design and goals of summative assessments are generally standardised so they can be applied to large numbers of students, multiple cohorts and time periods. Data collected on individual student, cohort, school or system performance provides schools and principals with a tool to evaluate student knowledge relative to the learning objectives. They can also compare them with previous cohorts and other schools.

Read more: Evidence-based education needs standardised assessment

The measurement and evaluation of student achievement this way gives us necessary information about how we can continuously improve learning and teaching.

There are a number of limitations of summative assessment. While formative assessments usually provide feedback for the student to review and develop their learning, summative assessments are rarely returned to students. When assessments provide only a numerical grade and little or no feedback, as the NSW HSC does, it’s hard for students and teachers to pinpoint learning needs and determine the way forward.

Additionally, being a form of “high stakes” assessment, results may be perceived as a way of ranking students. For high achieving students there is recognition and reward, while for the lower performing students there is potential embarrassment and shame. Neither of these things should be associated with an equal opportunity education system.

The author would like to acknowledge the work of David McDonald, a PhD student at Macquarie University in assessment, in writing this article.

• School assessment

Service Delivery Consultant

Newsletter and Deputy Social Media Producer

College Director and Principal | Curtin College

Head of School: Engineering, Computer and Mathematical Sciences

Educational Designer