Assessment vs Evaluation

Current experience with Assessment and Evaluation

In my current context, evaluation is focused on both formatting and summative assessment. The formative assessment relates to finding out how well the learners have received the learning materials through the use of projects, course activities, lessons, assignment and exams. This kind of evaluation is done on all our courses. On the other hand the evaluation of the course or program is done at the end of the semester where students are asked to evaluate the course contents, delivery method and the instructor through the use of an online questionnaire. I don’t believe that anything had happened as a result of the questionnaires. Since we never hear about them and we don’t know on which desk they have been piled up. Many of the online courses been created at our college are done not on the basis of well structured analysis and design phases. But, as a result of none existing prescribed text book for the course. These online courses don’t gain any popularity for more than one semester as students and instructors discover that the quality does not meet the minimum learning and teaching expectations. Till now we don’t have a unit that supports the creation of teaching and learning materials at the system level.

Reflection to Readings
Top quality teaching requires top quality assessment and evaluation techniques. The process of evaluation is a complex process as pointed out by Cuba and Stafflebeen (1970). It involves continuous and intriguing work by everyone not just aiming at outcomes, or the degree of which objectives have been met. This view is also shared by Booth, Clayton, and House&Roy (2002) where they state that there is an increased emphasis on the need for continuous improvement of assessment and evaluation strategies and processes.
Boud (1998) believes that the greatest obstruction to improved assessment and therefore improved learning is our own experience of being assessed and our distress about it. Moreover, he points out that there is more bad practice and ignorance of significant issues in the area of assessment, than any other aspect of college education. Maki (2002) states that assessment in higher education is most viewed as a laborious work that only receive recognition at the time of inspection or auditing. She also stresses that there is a necessity for instructors to do more research on student learning, interpret results of student assessment to advance innovation in teaching and learning and to design better curriculum. Alice Reich (1983) supports this concept as well by stating that evaluations help to measure the gap between what the teacher teaches and what the student have learned.

The five main purposes of evaluation by Bramley and Newby said it all. They claim that evaluation is to provide feedback, control, research, and intervention. However, the primary decisive factor ought to be to improve student learning.
With the increased use of online and distributed learning as in our college, emphasis is now on the need to create greater flexibility in the area of assessing and evaluating learning objectives. However, the assessment of online and distributed learning should be judged by the same principle of validity , reliability, flexibility, and fairness that are used in face-to-face teaching strategies (Booth, Clayton, Hyde, Hartcher & Hunger 2002).
Both formative and summative assessments have big roles to play in distributed and online learning environment. Formative evaluation is used to judge the worth of the program while the program is being designed and it mainly focuses on process. At this stage of evaluation, the instructor and the learner monitor if the teaching objectives of the course have been met. Wally Guyot (1978) defines the primary reason for formative assessment is to build a process that accumulates pieces of teaching materials, skills, and problems into a meaningful whole. Summative evaluation which is mostly done at the end is to judge the worth of the program after everything has been completed and it mainly focuses on outcome. Summative assessment is used more as some of the literatures indicate (Anderson 2001; Booth, Haetcher & Hyde 2002) .
The four level training and evaluation model of Kirkpatrick (1994) seems to be the best model to evaluate the online and distributed learning courses. How are the students reacting to the learning process in terms of motivation, satisfaction, engagement, and worthiness could all be measured using the first phase of the model which is REACTION. Phase two of the model which is the LEARNING, measures the level of learning which takes place. This measurement can be done using tests, assignments, projects, or even change of attitudes of the learners. Assessment at this stage is about the progress and achievement of the individual learners. While evaluation process at this stage comes through the learner assessment.
The last two phases of the evaluation model which are PERFORMANCE and RESULTS. Both phases are part of the summative evaluation which will determine the success level of the overall program. Can the learner perform? Has the training achieved its objectives? Did the training contributed to the overall organizational improvement? Kaplan and Norton (2001) looked at the impact of the final two phases from four Perspectives: Financial, learner improvement, internal process improvement, and innovation in learning.
Conclusion
The area of assessment in higher education still has a long way to go. What I learned most form the readings is that assessment for formative purposes is designed to stimulate growth, change and improvement in the teaching and learning through reflective practice. Evaluation, in contrast, is used for summative purposes to give an overview of particular instructors teaching in particular course and environment. Informed judgments on teaching effectiveness can best be made when both assessment and evaluation are conducted, using several methods to elicit information from various angles on different characteristics on teaching.

Reference

Anderson, J Final Report: Flexible Learning Leaders. Research Investigation on Online Assessment as an Integral Part of Flexible Online Delivery.
http:// flexiblelearning.net.au/leaders/past_fellows/200/Janice_anderson.htm
Booth, R, Clayton, B, House, and Roy, S2002, Maximizing Confidence in Assessment Decision-making: A resource to assist Assessors to Maintain the Quality of their Assessment Systems. NCVER, Adelaide.
http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr9029.
Boud , D (1998) Assessment and Learning – Unlearning bad habits of assessment University of Technology, Sydney
Clark, D. (1995). Big Dog ISD Page. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat6.html
Guba, E.G., & Stufflebeam, D.L. (1970). Evaluation: The process of stimulating, aiding and
abetting insightful action, Indiana: Indiana University.
Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton. 2001. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment
Kirkpatrick, Donald, (1994). Evaluating Training Programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. (NOTE: Donald L. Kirkpatrick is a HRD Hall of Fame member.)
Maki P. (2002) Moving from paper work to Pedagogy Available at http://aahebulletin.com/public/archive/paperwork.asp
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational
accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 5(1),–25. 19