Between formative and summative assessments (2-2)

 prof/Walid El-Gohary

English supervisor

Designing and Writing Summative Assessments

Contrast this to how a team would design and write a summative assessment. They would first discuss what it would look like to be proficient on the standards they’re assessing. Consider this sixth-grade science standard: “Develop and use a model to describe the function of a cell as a whole and the ways parts of the cells contribute to the function” (NGSS Lead States, 2013). To show proficiency on this standard, the student must develop a model for this concept. A summative assessment, then, would require students to complete this task. When teachers supply students with a model, they are short-circuiting the thinking that students need to engage in to be proficient.

In this case, the summative assessment might include having students create such a product. We recommend that teams begin this conversation as they are unwrapping the standard and be especially conscious that not all summative assessments have to be a final test. Summative assessments are, therefore, designed to show that students can put all of the smaller learning targets together to be proficient on the standard.

Using Summative Assessment Data Formatively

When teachers ask us if they can use summative assessment data in a formative way, the answer is a bit more complex. Most  assessments are designed around standards and don’t tell us with enough detail where student learning is breaking down. We get back a list of students who are below proficiency but little detail about why this is happening. Unfortunately, we have seen many schools that design their interventions around the cut points of their state test. They have a group of students far below proficiency, another who are approaching proficiency, a group who are proficient, and a group who are beyond proficient. The problem is that all students who are in the far-below-proficiency group don’t have the same needs. This data helps teams identify students who need time and support but cannot tell them what that time and support should look like.

Putting It All Together

High-performing teams value both formative and summative data and  are clear about what decisions they can make using both. Formative assessments are most helpful in identifying students who are having difficulty on this year’s essential standards while they are still being taught.  Teams provide immediate help while these learning targets are still being taught. If students are still unable to master these targets or are unable to put them together to master the standard, the students are moved into another support. At the same time, high-performing teams are identifying students who have more significant learning issues because they haven’t learned last year’s essential standards—or even those from the year before. These students are provided intensive (third  ) support. An effective intervention system also allows these students to access the other two levels of support if needed.

When teams have good data and use it effectively, they are able to diagnose student learning needs. Just as all students in support one don’t have the same learning issues, neither do the students in support 2 or suppoort three. Effectively identifying these needs starts with understanding how each type of assessment is designed and how the data should be used. High-performing teams learn together about the assessments they use and write, and how they can continually get better at identifying and responding to student needs.

References:

Bailey, K. & Jakicic, C. Common formative assessment: A toolkit for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). “Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.” Washington, DC: Authors. Accessed at www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%Standards.pdf on January 4, 2013.

NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

Webb, N. L. (2005). “Web alignment tool.” Wisconsin Center of Educational Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Accessed at http://wat.wceruw.org/index.aspx on September 9, 2018.

Wiliam, D. (2011) Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.