Educational Assessment: Formative, Summative & School Reform

Schools as Learning Organizations

Bowen, Ware, Rose, and Powers (2007, p. 199) point out that many people calling for school reform have discussed the need for schools to function as "learning organizations," where faculty and staff form a partnership to solve problems and take part in team learning. The authors clearly state what they perceive as the central problem: schools tend to operate on "autopilot" (Bowen et al., p. 200) after rules and strategies have been in place for a while. When this is the case, everyone tends to follow in lockstep, and the changes that are so desperately needed do not take place. Bowen et al. assert their belief that "understanding schools as learning organizations offers the potential to unlock the creative and dynamic processes that schools require to undergo fundamental and significant change initiatives" (p. 200).

A review of current literature supports the need for the project undertaken by Bowen et al. In addition to citing information about achievement gaps, the researchers also cite evidence that change must start at the top — meaningful change for students comes only after faculty and staff make changes themselves. Coleman (1997, cited in Bowen et al., p. 199) noted that "the highly bureaucratic nature of public schools stifles creative problem solving." Senge et al. (2000, cited in Bowen et al., p. 199) call for solving problems through networking and team learning. Finally, the authors cite several components in the U.S. Department of Education's Comprehensive School Reform program that align directly with models of schools as learning organizations (p. 200).

Review of Literature on School Reform

The researchers used an assessment instrument they designed: the School Success Profile Learning Organization (SSP-LO). They wanted to assess not only the six action dimensions of learning organizations they had identified, but also components on the "softer" side of organizational functioning that relate to emotions and attitudes. The six action dimensions include team orientation, innovation, involvement, information flow, tolerance for error, and results orientation. The six sentiment dimensions include common purpose, respect, cohesion, trust, mutual support, and optimism (Bowen et al., p. 202).

The SSP-LO was administered to employees of eleven North Carolina public middle schools and included faculty and staff ranging from administrators to cafeteria employees. The researchers reported that 761 employees completed surveys, a response rate of over eighty percent. Teachers comprised the majority of the respondent population at 60.3 percent. The researchers felt that results were credible since teachers are the ones "in the trenches" with students. Bowen et al. reported a consistent pattern of positive interrelationships between actions and sentiments and personal and school outcomes. When faculty and staff felt strongly positive about the organization's support of teamwork, open-mindedness, and clear lines of communication, they felt more empowered to make the kinds of changes that would impact students' achievement.

The SSP-LO Instrument and Study Findings

Though Bowen et al. studied middle schools in North Carolina, the survey could easily be replicated anywhere in the United States. As the researchers point out, school reform needs more than a focus on students. Faculty and staff must work together in new ways, moving away from "the done thing" and developing different strategies to promote and reinforce innovation and teamwork. The article presents valid arguments in favor of fostering a climate for school employees that will help bring about meaningful changes for students. Unless teachers truly believe they are stakeholders in the process — beyond simply being held accountable for high-stakes testing results — meaningful change for students cannot take place. For personal career goals, it is important to understand that the culture and climate of the workplace make a real difference. Fostering an environment of trust and collaboration in schools should be a priority for all educators.

Instructors use different types of assessments depending on their purpose. Summative assessments provide information about student achievement at the end of a learning experience, which may be a weekly spelling unit or a full semester's worth of study. This information is useful to teachers and administrators for instructional design; decisions about curriculum and content can be made and revised based on these results. Formative assessment, by contrast, gives teachers the opportunity to provide students with feedback in time to improve their learning.

Formative vs. Summative Assessment

Fluckiger, Vigil, Pasco, and Danielson (2010) describe several techniques to provide formative feedback to students more frequently and to involve them more fully in the process. Although their techniques were developed specifically to enhance the learning experiences of postsecondary students across a variety of disciplines, teachers at all levels can adapt the ideas to their classrooms. Their goals are to "give feedback in time for revisions to occur, provide scaffolding for learners, inform instruction, and most importantly, involve students as partners in assessment" (Fluckiger et al., p. 140). The researchers believe their techniques result in improved instruction, enhanced student learning, and better student products, and that they help build a productive classroom climate in which the emphasis is on learning rather than on grades. Instructors can strengthen their practice by incorporating both formative and summative assessments into their instruction.

"[F]eedback given only at the end of a learning cycle is not effective in furthering student learning" (Bollag, 2006, cited in Fluckiger et al., p. 136). Formative feedback gives students an opportunity to change learning behaviors and ultimately improve learning outcomes. Effective formative feedback puts students in charge of their learning and places the focus on the learning process rather than on end-products and grades. It can also alleviate student anxiety by measuring progress along the learning path.