The overarching question for this study is: to what extent are teachers using summative assessment data in a formative way? A survey research design study was implemented to address this question. A web-based survey was administered to elementary, middle, and high school teachers in a large, suburban school division in central Virginia. The survey data were used to determine the frequency with which teachers administered specific types of summative assessments, analyzed student summative assessment data, made changes in their instructional practice as a result of their analysis, and the level of teachers’ assessment literacy. The results of this study suggest teachers are administering a variety of summative assessments, with varying frequencies, throughout the year and analyzing data on a regular basis. Teachers’ formative use of summative assessment data is most often demonstrated through analysis using central tendency statistics. Disaggregating data by content standards or student subgroups is not as frequently attempted. Regardless of the methods of data analysis, an overwhelming majority of teachers reported using assessment data results to evaluate their instructional practice and make changes to enhance student learning. The assessment literacy level of teachers did not appear to have any influence on the extent to which they use summative assessments in a formative way. However, assessment literacy scores did differ across teacher characteristics. High school teachers had a higher assessment literacy score than elementary school teachers, and teachers with graduate degrees scored higher than those with a bachelor’s degree. Experience mattered as well; more experienced teachers had a higher assessment literacy score than beginning teachers. Finally, science and mathematics teachers had a higher assessment literacy score than elementary teachers. The findings of this study give building administrators and staff development leaders insight into current instructional practices of teachers. Additionally, a general measure of assessment literacy establishes a baseline from which educational leaders can develop future training to raise the assessment literacy of teachers

Doctor of Education / Department of Educational Leadership / Sarah Jane Fishback / This qualitative case study sought to understand in what formative ways instructors in one teaching department of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) used common summative assessments and what similar practices instructors used as a result of common summative assessments. This research analyzed data from semi-structured interviews with purposefully selected participants, instructors in the Department of Army Tactics at CGSC, a representative mixture of civilian and active duty. This research confirmed that the formative use of summative assessments was typical among Department of Army tactics instructors and that continued or expanded formative use of summative assessments will increase student learning. Because so much of assessment is context dependent, this research will add to the body of knowledge in a particular area that the current literature did not fully address; the formative use of common summative assessments in higher education. Four conclusions were drawn from analysis of this research. First, the formative use of common summative assessments, especially feedback given to students, was typical of the Department of Army Tactics instructor, essentially a normal part of the assessment process. Second, DTAC instructors did not have a common understanding of the difference between summative and formative assessment, how they used the information gathered was more important than what the instrument was labeled. Third, “teaching to the curriculum” instead of “teaching the test” was typical in DTAC, an indication that the instructors saw their role beyond just preparing students for upcoming assessments. Fourth, the stratification of students during the grading process was typical, with the unintended consequence of students not being judged on quality of work alone.

This study analyzed the required inclusion of school test scores in the yearly evaluation of school principals within the current school reform and standards and accountability movements of both the federal and state departments of education. Extant data from a single school district in Oregon was used for this study, and included: (a) district-wide elementary principal summative performance evaluation scores, (b) district-wide fourth and fifth grade fall and spring reading curriculum-based measures scores curriculum-based measures, (c) 2013 and 2014 spring reading scores from the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS-R), and (d) student demographic variables. The student non-academic predictor variables (demographic risk factors) included in the study were (a) attendance, (b) English Language Proficiency (ELP), (c) Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS), (d) percent Other-than-White, and (e) Special Education. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine which assessment and/or non-assessment factors accounted for differences between principals’ summative evaluation scores. The results indicated that Summative Principal Ratings are poor predictors of the academic success of all students whether using large-scale summative assessment (OAKS-R) or formative assessments (easyCBM), with all measures only accounting for a miniscule portion of the Summative Principal Rating variance. However, demographic variables were slightly more related to the Summative Principal Rating. Practical implications of using student test scores to hold principals accountable for the academic results of all students are discussed in relation to district administrative policy and placement procedures for administrators and teachers, examining the behaviors and practices of teachers’ whose students have shown the most gains, and using these successful teacher practices a basis for teacher-to-teacher district-wide professional development. Finally, suggestions for future research in the areas of improving principal evaluation systems and the study of direct and indirect impacts principals have on student success and achievements are discussed.

The purpose of the qualitative study titled An Investigation of Formative and Summative Portfolio Assessment Methods, is to explore the experiences of a self-described eclectic, primarily constructivist writing instructor who employs portfolio assessment methods in post-secondary writing classes taught to pre or in-service writing teachers. This Action Research study focuses retrospectively on the experiences of the instructors formative and summative assessment of post-secondary writing portfolios. The study also explores theoretical grounding of which educators are often not consciously aware and adds insight into the existing body of knowledge on portfolio assessment practices.<p>The research question is as follows: How does a post-secondary writing instructor employ formative and summative portfolio assessment methods within a constructivist writing community and how does s/he describe the teaching/learning relationship that consequently develops? <p>The goal of the study is to explore in depth one instructors experiences in post-secondary writing courses. I used the following questions as a guideline. <br> to discover how the instructor uses a formative portfolio assessment process of teaching to positively affect the development of writerly skills in a constructivist writing community<br> to discover how the instructor uses summative portfolio assessment of writing to provide accountable end-of-term numerical ranking of student achievement for educational institutions<br> to describe the perspective of a constructivist writing instructor on the use of formative and summative portfolio assessment practices at the post-secondary level<br> to discover the effect formative and summative processes and the constructivist writing community has on the teacher/student relationship <p>Upon analysis of the interview transcripts, I found that teaching, for my participant, is a colourful tapestry that stands alone as her well-crafted teaching practice, but can also be viewed as 4 distinct panels that fit seamlessly together. These four themes are: <br>1. Portfolio evaluation of writing provides for the Constructivist conditions for learning as identified by Driscoll (2000).<br>2. Portfolio evaluation is most effective when built on a foundation of Community within a group of writing students.<br>3. Portfolio evaluation promotes balanced transactional experiences that result in transformation for both student and teacher.<br>4. Portfolio evaluation of writing, as a teaching practice, shows promise for the successful education of marginalized students. <p> I also found that this research has only rippled the surface of a pool of anecdotal knowledge that invites full immersion. I am drawn to further exploration, discussion, development, implementation and assessment of models of formative evaluation that will benefit our students of writing. To this end I have included recommendations for further study specifically aimed at exploring the promising practices of portfolio evaluation for marginalized peoples, most particularly First Nations, Métis and Inuit students, at various levels of education, including primary, secondary and post-secondary levels.

The purpose of the qualitative study titled An Investigation of Formative and Summative Portfolio Assessment Methods, is to explore the experiences of a self-described eclectic, primarily constructivist writing instructor who employs portfolio assessment methods in post-secondary writing classes taught to pre or in-service writing teachers. This Action Research study focuses retrospectively on the experiences of the instructors formative and summative assessment of post-secondary writing portfolios. The study also explores theoretical grounding of which educators are often not consciously aware and adds insight into the existing body of knowledge on portfolio assessment practices.<p>The research question is as follows: How does a post-secondary writing instructor employ formative and summative portfolio assessment methods within a constructivist writing community and how does s/he describe the teaching/learning relationship that consequently develops? <p>The goal of the study is to explore in depth one instructors experiences in post-secondary writing courses. I used the following questions as a guideline. <br> to discover how the instructor uses a formative portfolio assessment process of teaching to positively affect the development of writerly skills in a constructivist writing community<br> to discover how the instructor uses summative portfolio assessment of writing to provide accountable end-of-term numerical ranking of student achievement for educational institutions<br> to describe the perspective of a constructivist writing instructor on the use of formative and summative portfolio assessment practices at the post-secondary level<br> to discover the effect formative and summative processes and the constructivist writing community has on the teacher/student relationship <p>Upon analysis of the interview transcripts, I found that teaching, for my participant, is a colourful tapestry that stands alone as her well-crafted teaching practice, but can also be viewed as 4 distinct panels that fit seamlessly together. These four themes are: <br>1. Portfolio evaluation of writing provides for the Constructivist conditions for learning as identified by Driscoll (2000).<br>2. Portfolio evaluation is most effective when built on a foundation of Community within a group of writing students.<br>3. Portfolio evaluation promotes balanced transactional experiences that result in transformation for both student and teacher.<br>4. Portfolio evaluation of writing, as a teaching practice, shows promise for the successful education of marginalized students. <p> I also found that this research has only rippled the surface of a pool of anecdotal knowledge that invites full immersion. I am drawn to further exploration, discussion, development, implementation and assessment of models of formative evaluation that will benefit our students of writing. To this end I have included recommendations for further study specifically aimed at exploring the promising practices of portfolio evaluation for marginalized peoples, most particularly First Nations, Métis and Inuit students, at various levels of education, including primary, secondary and post-secondary levels.

At Mississippi State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, a standardized multiple-choice departmental final examination (SMCDF) was administered at the end of the Calculus I mathematics course. This practice was abolished at the end of the spring 1997 semester. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in students¡¯ success in subsequent calculus courses as measured by a student¡¯s grade. If there was a difference, was it consistent along varying levels of students¡¯ ACT mathematics scores. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run on the data. The variables were the five student ACT Mathematics Standards for Transition ranges, and the two groups of students, those required to take a SMCDF examination and those required to take a teacher generated final examination. The results showed there was a significant difference in the mean grades at the Calculus II level (p=.006), suggesting the SMCDF examination in Calculus I improved their level of success in Calculus II. In the Calculus III and IV courses no significant differences were found. When descriptive statistics were analyzed, an unusual number of F grades were found in one group due to a university audit policy that was abolished in the fall of 1997. When F grades were excluded from the data, no significant differences were found for Calculus II, III, or IV. Further investigation along ACT-Mathematics Standards for Transition ranges showed, at an alpha level of .01 for Calculus II and IV, the data set was too small at each of these ranges to determine any significant differences. Although conflicting results did not clearly indicate whether a SMCDF examination made a difference, indications seem to be at least at the Calculus II level there was a significant effect in the original data set. Descriptive statistics showed inconsistencies within the Calculus III data as compared to Calculus II and IV. Further investigation was recommended for this area of research. Incorporating teaching styles into this study and changing the format of the examination were suggested.

Published Article / Higher education institutions have a responsibility to produce successful graduates; therefore, teaching, of which assessment is an integral part, must promote quality learning. This paper reports on an evaluation of the quality of summative assessments. A qualitative research design was used and a document analysis strategy was followed. Examination papers, memoranda and applicable learner guides were the primary data sources. Results showed that the assessment instruments studied mostly complied with the principles for assessment and the NQF level descriptors. However, it was found that only 10% of the marks allocated in the papers were allotted for items requiring higher order cognitive activity, and only 50% were aligned with outcomes and criteria found in the learner guides. It is therefore concluded that an improvement in the quality of summative assessment instruments is required.

Denna studie har till syfte att undersöka om likvärdig bedömning kan uppnås och hur dokumentation används i ämnet idrott och hälsa. Studien undersöker även hur lärare arbetar för en likvärdig bedömning med hjälp av olika dokumentation. I studien används en kvalitativ metod i form av intervjuer med lärare som undervisar i idrott och hälsa för att få svar på hur dokumentation används för att nå likvärdig bedömning. Resultaten analyseras sedan med ramfaktorer (Imsen 1999). Resultatet visar att det skiljer sig hur mycket dokumentation och vilken typ av dokumentation lärare använder sig av. Resultaten visar även på att tidsbrist är den största faktorn till att dokumentation för bedömning inte görs i den utsträckning den bör, samt att betyg och bedömning inte diskuteras mellan lärare. Resultatet visar även att likvärdig bedömning kan uppnås då läraren konkretiserar målen, dokumenterar elevernas prestation samt diskuterar betyg och bedömning med andra lärare.

In this thesis I intend to write about how five primary school teachers reflect on formative assessment and how the formative assessment of students can take place practically according to teachers. My questions are: How do the five teachers perceive on formative assessment as a pedagogical approach? How do the teachers do to assess students’ knowledge? In what way do the teachers give feedback to students?The work is based on qualitative interview method where five elementary school teachers were able to reflect on their classroom practice with a focus on formative assessment. The theoryI have chosen to work from is the so-called five key strategies of formative assessment.These strategies are about; clarifying, communicating and creating understanding of the learning objectives and criteria for progress, to achieve effective classroom discussions, activities and learning data to show that learning has taken place, to provide feedback for learning forward, toenable students to become learning resources for one another, and to enable students to own their own learning. The results of the interviews showed that a formative approach lasted in a more implicit than an explicit meaning in classrooms. The formative approach was fairly a new phenomenon and had not begun in the larger extent of the interviewed teachers’ schools yet. Assessment materials were used to clarify the learning outcomes for students. Methods andactivities in the classrooms took place on a smaller scale in the form of discussions between students. Self-assessment was considered by most teachers as something they could not imagine or was considered to be too difficult for the students because of the children's young age. The results also showed that there is a great need to make time for evaluation and to gain knowledge of articulate, reflective subject issues to provide students with

This study is an action research project where I study my own practice in giving feedback in investigative tasks. The aim is to find ways of improving my feedback by engaging learners in conversation and eliciting misconceptions. The study is framed by a sociocultural view of learning and teaching. The study was conducted in a high school with a class of Grade 10 learners who worked on an investigative task and six lessons were video recorded. Analysis was based on the investigative task, feedback given to learners, misconceptions that arose and conversations that took place during the lessons. The findings are that when developing an investigative task, the teacher should look for mathematical processes that can be developed as learners work on it. I found that I both took up and missed opportunities to work with learners’ misconceptions and that four components of mathematical conversations: questioning, explaining mathematical ideas, sources of mathematical ideas and responsibility were present at different levels in my classroom. On the basis of my findings I make a number of recommendations for my own further practice and for other teachers.