A Beaker of Summative, A Beaker of Formative
Laboratory – cc licensed ( BY NC SA ) flickr photo by tk-link
I admit that I am a fan of what I only know to call a meta-lesson, when content or concept reflects back on itself and the experience is more than a representation or illustration but is the lesson.
One of my favorite examples of this kind of thing is Francis Christensen’s explanation of cumulative sentence, using a cumulative sentence.
The additions placed after it move backward, as in this sentence you are now reading, to modify the statement of the base clause or more often to explain it or add examples or details to it, so that the sentence has a flowing and ebbing movement, advancing to a new position and then pausing to consolidate it.
I just love the cleverness of doing things like this. An even more elaborate version would be John Hollander’s extraordinary text Rhyme’s Reason. I am sure that there is a term for the phenomenon that is a better articulation than my wobbly attempt, but I don’t know it.
Reviewing the Module
Similarly, Dr. Bernard Bull has crafted a module on formative and summative assessment wherein completing the lesson requires the use and application of both kinds of assessment.
For some quick clarification, here is a short example of the two contrasting types:
Formative Assessment is a label for a range of informal and diagnostic methods to improve teaching and learning activities during the experience. They typically involves a variety of potential feedback, as well as additional opportunities for improvement. It is assessment for learning.
Summative Assessment is a label for more formal methods of monitoring achievement of desired outcomes and accountability at the end of teaching and learning experience. It may involve qualitative feedback but feedback may also be limited or simply some kind of score. It is assessment of learning.
Examining a Summative Assessment
For the open course, badges have served as the main summative assessment for each unit or module. The fact that the badge serves as a credential of achievement and demonstration of the understanding a lesson or module’s content makes it summative in nature. Of course, as established in the lesson any summative assessment can be made into a formative one with ease.
While I did not need to repeat any submissions, I suspect that were anyone to falter in meeting the criteria for a badge they would be afforded a subsequent submission. In fact, the feedback provided in the badge management service Credly suggests a recursive, even formative, aspect to essentially summative tasks. Certainly time has its limitations for repeated review, but everyone managing the badge review has been extraordinarily responsive and kind.
Thus, the primary summative task to achieve the badge for this particular module is reviewing the lesson itself. Yet, this analysis is immediately made formative by nature of the second instruction that requires soliciting “feedback on [the critique] from someone in the face-to-face world.”
Additionally, as with every badge opportunity in the class, students are encouraged to share their thoughts with the online community set up for the course on Google+ or their personal learning network on Twitter. All of these suggestions to “consider” are ways to gain valuable, quick feedback to further and fine-tune understanding.
Moving from Summative to Formative Assessment
Still, in the ways mentioned, nearly every summative assessment presented in the course is easily modified into a formative one with only the slightest of modifications. While this interplay and overlap between the two types of assessment can be slightly confusing with only superficial understanding, a review of the concepts, especially the explanations in the introductory and Wormeli videos, can quickly clarify.
Formative Feedback at Work
Already built into the module are number of types of formative feedback. Upon completion and submission for the badge, Instructor Feedback is made available in Credly. There is an invitation to seek Peer Feedback by sharing with the Google+ community and additional an PLN. Another recommendation is soliciting feedback from “someone in the face-to-face world,” which qualifies as Outside or Mentor or Advisor Feedback. This does not leave many forms of feedback left to be added only deepened or enhanced.
One missing type is Computer-Generated Feedback. Adding a quick review task for the videos or readings to serve as a check for understanding could be put to use with a set of questions or quiz that was automatically scored.
While the actual development of the lesson critique to be submitted for the badge could be considered a kind of Self Feedback, it might be a bit of a stretch. So another missing type is Self Feedback. Adding some kind of final reflective component could enhance the Self Feedback aspect and remove all doubt that it is part of the module.
Also, requiring some kind of collaboration between participants in the course could be a way to ensure Peer Feedback. In general, soliciting Peer Feedback has always been a recommendation more than a requirement for a badge. Another possibility could be the typical “respond to two peers posts” method that has become a staple of so many online learning experiences, albeit one in need a refresh.
The Outside Advisor Feedback I received helped me refine and clarify my analysis. I gave the my reviewer the protocol that I used for the Peer Feedback module and badge, which guided their feedback and targeted it more specifically. This made the need for establishing greater clarity of terms for someone unfamiliar with the context of the course, assessment, or concepts, which would be helpful to an reader that happened upon the page.
Haas | Learning 