FORMATIVE AND SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION: OPINIONS AND PRACTICES OF INSTRUCTORS

Hidayet Suha Yüksel, Nevin Gündüz

Abstract


The purpose of this study is to examine opinions of the instructors working in three different universities in Ankara regarding assessment in education and assessment methods they use in their courses within the summative assessment and formative assessment approaches.  The population is formed by instructors lecturing in School of Physical Education and Sport and Sports Sciences Faculties of three universities (Ankara, Gazi and Hacettepe Universities) located in Ankara in quantitative section of the survey. Its sample is formed of 61 instructors taking part in quantitative section and 27 instructors taking part in qualitative section. The research is a mixed research design including both quantitative and qualitative survey model. A questionnaire form, composed of three sections and developed by the researchers, has been used for qualitative data collection tool in the survey. As quantitative data collection tool, “semi-structured personal interviews” have been conducted. Descriptive statistics is used in the survey for qualitative results in analysis of data and results have been evaluated with frequencies, percentages and means in the tables. And for the quantitative survey, content analysis method has been used for the assessment of the interviews. It is identified according to the results of the survey that the participation percentage of the instructors to the opinions towards the inquiry questions related to assessment were high ( =4,48±0,34). It is determined that the methods most used by the instructors in applied courses are; skill tests (f: 26), performance assessment (f:19) and project (f:10) while in theoretical courses “multiple choice tests” (f: 39), “open ended questions” (f: 35) and “true-false questions” (f:28) were the methods used at most. In the result of qualitative data analysis of the survey, opinions of the instructors regarding assessment are assessed under formative and summative assessment categories. When we examined the opinions of the instructors related to the importance of assessment in education, it is concluded that the formative assessment characteristics as increasing motivation, self-assessment of the instructor, providing a chance to re-arrange the instruction process via feedback have been placed at the top of the list; however, in the implementation the assessments have been made by summative assessment methods rather than formative assessment methods. 

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


assessment, formative assessment, summative assessment, instructors, higher education

References


Aksu MB, Çivitçi A, & Duy B, 2008. Yükseköğretim Öğrencilerinin Öğretim Elemanlarının Ders Uygulamaları ve Sınıf İçi Davranışlarına İlişkin Görüşleri. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(16):17-42

Arslantaş Hİ, 2011. Student Views Regarding Teaching Staffs' Sufficencies In Teaching Strategies-Methods And Techniques, Communication. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8(15).

Savin-Baden M, & Major CH, 2013. Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice, Routledge.

Barr RB, & Tagg J, 1995. From teaching to learning—A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 27(6): 12-26. doi: 10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672

Bay E, Küçükoğlu A, Kaya Hİ, Gündoğdu K, Köse E, Ozan C, & Taşgın A, 2010. Öğretim elemanı ve öğretmen adaylarının ölçme-değerlendirmeye ilişkin görüşleri (Kazım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesi Örneği). Uluslararası Öğretmen Yetiştirme Politikaları ve Sorunları Sempozyumu II, 16-18.

Baykul Y, 1992. Eğitim Sisteminde Değerlendirme. H.Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 7(7): 85-94

Biggs J, 1996. Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff and educational demands. Assessment and evaluation in Higher Education, 21(1): 5-16. doi: 10.1080/0260293960210101

Black P, & Wiliam D, 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1): 7-74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102

Earl LM, 2004. Assessment as learning, California, Corwin Press, Inc.

Freeman M, 1995. Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(3): 289-300. doi: 10.1080/0260293950200305

Gibbs G, & Simpson C, 2005. Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and teaching in higher education 1: 3-31.

Lipnevich AA, McCallen LN, Miles KP, & Smith JK, 2014. Mind the gap! Students’ use of exemplars and detailed rubrics as formative assessment. Instructional Science, 42(4): 539-559.

Liu X, & Li L, 2014. Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3): 275-292. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.823540

McMillan JH, 2014. Classroom Assessment: Pearson New International Edition: Principles and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction, Pearson Higher Ed.

Nartgun Z, 2009. Student Views on the Assessment Practices of Instructors during Instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 9(4): 1807-1818.

Offerdahl EG, & Tomanek D, 2011. Changes in instructors' assessment thinking related to experimentation with new strategies. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7): 781-795. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.488794

Palmer S, 2004. Authenticity in assessment: reflecting undergraduate study and professional practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 29(2): 193-202. doi: 10.1080/03043790310001633179

Rodrigues F, & Oliveira P, 2014. A system for formative assessment and monitoring of students' progress. Computers & Education, 76: 30-41. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.001

Sambell K, McDowell L, & Brown S, 1997. “But is it fair?”: an exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4): 349-371. doi: 10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86215-3

Sinclair HK, & Cleland JA, 2007. Undergraduate medical students: who seeks formative feedback?. Medical education, 41(6): 580-582. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02768.x

Şad SN, & Göktaş Ö, 2013. Öğretim elemanlarının geleneksel ve çağdaş ölçme değerlendirme yaklaşımlarının incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2).

Tan Ş, 2012. Öğretimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (7.Baskı), Ankara, Pegem Akademi

Taras M, 2002. Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6): 501-510. doi: 10.1080/0260293022000020273

Taras M, & Davies MS, 2013. Perceptions and realities in the functions and processes of assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1):51-61. doi: 10.1177/1469787412467128

Torrance H, 2007. Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post‐secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. 1. Assessment in Education, 14(3): 281-294. doi: 10.1080/09695940701591867

Wiliam D, Lee C, Harrison C, & Black P, 2004. Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1): 49-65. doi: 10.1080/0969594042000208994

Williams P, 2014. Squaring the circle: a new alternative to alternative-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(5): 565-577. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2014.882894

Williams R, & Brennan J, 2004. Collecting and using student feedback Date: A guide to good practice, Learning and Teaching Support Network

Yıldırım A, & Şimşek H, 2013. Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (9. Genişletilmiş Baskı) Ankara, Seçkin Yayıncılık.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2015. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).