20 psychological principles for teachers #18 Formative & summative assessment

//20 psychological principles for teachers #18 Formative & summative assessment
This is #18 in my series on the Top 20 Principles From Psychology for Teaching and Learning and the first of three posts examining how to assess students’ progress: “Formative and summative assessments are both important and useful but require different approaches and interpretations.”

As I’m sure everyone knows, summative assessments are made to establish what students have learned and to provide a quantitative measurement of achievement. Formative assessments, on the other hand, are intended to establish how students are progressing and provide them with the support needed to arrive at their intended destination. Summative assessment takes place after instruction while formative assessment is conducted before and during instruction. But despite their clear differences, the Top 20 report says their functions are basically the same in that they aim “to produce valid, fair, useful, and reliable sources of information.”

Clearly that is the aim of summative assessment, but can the same be said for its formative cousin? The greater part of formative assessment (or Assessment for Learning as it’s usually dubbed) is made up by teachers on the fly. There are various classroom practices, from the gimmicky (traffic lights, no hands-up questioning, exit passes) to the more conventional (marking books) all designed to allow teachers to judge whether students are on track and to make decisions about future teaching. The problem with all these approaches is that teachers will be making judgements based on current performance, rather than on learning.

I’ve argued before that learning is invisible; we can only ever infer learning from performance. We want the skills and knowledge we teach to be both durable and flexible. For learning to be worth the name it has to have resulted in a change in long-term memory so that students will both remember and be able to transfer what they’ve learned between different contexts. Unfortunately we can’t see whether students know something later or can do something somewhere else unless we assess them at different times and locations.

Like any abstraction we make up metaphors to help us better imagine what we’re discussing. These metaphors are powerful; they can be enormously useful ways of thinking about the world but they can also fatally constrain our thinking. Language is cluttered with dead metaphors – ways of thinking about the world that were once fresh and vital but have, over long use, been trampled into cliché. Most people are unaware that the idea that learning can be seen even is metaphorical; repeated, unexamined usage has tricked us into believing we can literally see inside another’s head. We cannot. Any attempt to assessment learning is an attempt to map a mystery with a metaphor.

Why does this matter? There are two reasons. First, if we make judgements on what students appear to have learned then very often we will mistake mimicry for learning. New and troublesome concepts take time to integrate into patterns of prior knowledge. If we rush students to give to ‘prove’ what they have learned they will, often, simply give us the answers they think we want to hear. If they look hesitant or confused we prompt them with eager nods and points at relevant display or previous work in books. All too often they know the answer we want them to give with little understanding of what the answer means. But, grateful, we accept these meagre offerings as evidence that learning has taken place. Current performance is a poor proxy for learning. Our inferences are routinely wrong.

Second, and more importantly, there’s a compelling body of evidence that reducing current performance actually increases long-term retention and transfer. The better students do in the here and now, the less likely they are to do well six months later in the exam hall. This is because strong current performance produces the ‘illusion of knowing’. We remember that we could do something once and fail to notice that the substance of what we think we can do is forgotten. But when students have to struggle and dredge their memories for answers they know that they don’t know; there is no comforting sense of familiarity to lull them in a false sense of security. Instead of acting to shore up our ability to retrieve in the short-term, making the conditions of recall more difficult helps strengthen and embed items in long-term memory. So formative assessments which tell us that students seem to know what we’ve just taught them tell us little of value. As we saw in Principle 2, revealing and managing misconceptions is much more useful, but there’s even good evidence that getting a wrong answer now, helps reduce the likelihood of making the same mistake in the future.

Summative assessment, on the other hand, is a much more reliable indicator of learning as students’ performance is usually judged at a later date and in a different place. We’re still only able to see current performance, but that performance will better demonstrate with knowledge and skills have been retained and transferred.

None of this is to argue that formative assessment is useless, just that its goal should be explicitly different to that of summative assessment. Rather than pretending that it can give us “valid, fair, useful, and reliable sources of information” we should see its purpose as building students’ storage of the skills and knowledge we wish them to remember and apply. The most useful way of doing this is, perhaps, to make use of the testing effect which I discuss in Chapter 14 of my new book:

Testing can (and should) include some of the tricks and techniques we’ve been misusing and misunderstanding as Assessment for Learning. In fact, it doesn’t really matter how we test students as long as our emphasis changes. Testing should not be used primarily to assess the efficacy of your teaching and students’ learning; it should be used as a powerful tool in your pedagogical armoury to help them learn.

Studying material once and testing three times leads to about 80 per cent improved retention over studying three times and testing once. The research evidence suggests that it doesn’t matter whether people are asked to recall individual items or passages of text – testing beats restudying every time. Now, we all know that cramming for a test works. However, these studies show that testing leads to a much increased likelihood that information will be retained over the long term. This implies that if we want our students to learn whatever it is we’re trying to teach them then we should test them on it regularly. And by regularly I mean every lesson. What if every lesson began with a test of what students had studied the previous lesson? Far from finding it dull, most students actually seem to enjoy this kind of exercise. If you explain to them what you’re up to, and why, they get pretty excited at seeing whether the theory holds water.

This flawed understanding of what formative assessment should actually be for, infects the advice given in the Top 20 report. The advice they offer is all designed to improve students’ current performance and “collect evidence on student learning.”

Some of the advice is unambiguously contradicted by research. For instance: “Keep the length of time between the formative assessment and subsequent interventions relatively short; this is when effects on student learning will be strongest.” In fact, “Numerous studies—some of them dating back decades—have shown that frequent and immediate feedback can, contrary to intuition, degrade learning.” (Soderstrom & Bjork, 2013)

This section of the report concludes by stating that “Teachers can make better use of both formative and summative assessments when they understand basic concepts related to educational measurement.” This is dead right, but not in the way the report’s authors assume. To best understand how to use formative assessment we need to know about the psychology of memory and forgetting.

References cited in the report

2015-06-29T13:55:30+00:00June 29th, 2015|psychology|


  1. klootme June 30, 2015 at 4:17 pm - Reply

    Formative assessment should inform planning and teaching. Summative assessment should summarise the independent application of skills and knowledge via tests or teacher assessment of independent tasks a few weeks after teaching. Summative should become formative to be most effective to pupil progress and remain summative for schools to be beaten over the head with.

  2. Rob Old June 30, 2015 at 11:56 pm - Reply

    It seems as if your sole focus here is on assessment as a tool to enhance the retention of knowledge. What about the use of formative assessment to identify, and subsequently correct, misconceptions?
    To take a concrete example, I once thought I’d explained the Doppler effect for light to a class. I then asked them to answer the following question on mini-whiteboards: “if a star shines with an orange light and moves away from us very quickly, what colour might it appear as we look at it through a telescope?”. It became apparent that they hadn’t understood it at all, so I had to try a different approach. To my mind, that’s formative assessment. The quote you offer in your penultimate paragraph seems to be referring not to the effect of the assessment itself upon learning but that of the intervention. In this case, I definitely didn’t want the students leaving the room with that misconception to recall at a later date, surely?

  3. chestnut July 2, 2015 at 6:42 pm - Reply

    I found this piece really interesting. Not necessarily because I agree with everything you have said but because of how it got me thinking. I have heard it said that ‘teacher assessment’ is less reliable than exams and what you have written here might be one reason why that is the case. I know myself that when students have to complete controlled assessments in the ‘hall’ rather than in my teaching room the marks are lower! I have often thought I should take some lessons in the hall where they do the exams to make it a more familiar place for them for my subject.

  4. […] 18. Formative and summative assessments are both important and useful but require different approaches a… […]

  5. […] posts on assessment which might be useful are here, here and here. I’ve also written extensively about feedback; maybe the two most useful posts […]

  6. […] can’t we judge learning from a book scrutiny? Because learning is invisible (David Didau writes about this). ‘Learning’ is about long-term retention. It’s impossible to gauge this properly through an […]

Constructive feedback is always appreciated

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: