Different Types of Evaluation in Education

DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVALUATION IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY | DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVALUATION IN RESEARCH | DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVALUATION IN EDUCATION | TYPES OF EVALUATION TEST | TYPES OF ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

In this article we will discuss different types of evaluation in education completely. We will also showered light on the characteristics and drawbacks of different types of evaluation in education. We will give answer another question in this article as what are the different types of evaluation in education?

Basically, evaluation can be carried out at two main levels; program and student evaluation. The evaluation is concerned with the overall effectiveness of a program. Thus the different types of tests discussed form a part of student evaluation. 

Evaluation can further be subdivided into formative and summative evaluation.

Different Types of Evaluation in Education 

There are four major different types of evaluation in education as under:

1. Program Evaluation
2. Student Evaluation
3. Formative Evaluation
4. Summative Evaluation
   

Program Evaluation - Different Types of Evaluation in Education

In order to determine whether any program has or has not been successfully implemented, certain salient questions must be posted and answered. These questions include the following, among others:

• Is the content of the program is of desirable quality?
• Is there a positive relationship between actual learning outcomes and intended learning? Are intended learning outcomes achieved?
• Are unintended learning outcomes identified and corrections made for them?
• Is the content relevant to the needs of the students? Is the content relatively simple and comprehensible, and is it able to be extended and generalized to situations within and outside the school. 
• Are casual and functional relationships identified and analyzed? 
• Does the implemented program continue to be effective? 
• Are the materials available locally or obtainable from other areas with relative ease and convenience and at a reasonable cost? 
• Are necessary supportive or maintenance services provided?

Not until these and other relevant questions are answered can the success or failure of the program be objectively determined. 

It is an economic reality that a low-quality product cannot remain for long on the competitive marker no matter how efficient the maintenance service provided. Thus the quality of the products of an program cannot supersede its design. 

When our concern is in judging the compatibility between the aims and the learning outcomes of a program, the emphasis is on the efficacy of that program. On the other hand, a good program may be badly implemented. The task of quality control is to maintain and maximize the efficiency of a program. 

The quality content of a program is determined, among other factors, by i) its conceptual quality; ii) logical relevance to needs of the students (consumers); iii) simplicity and comprehensibility in terms of readability and literacy level of the content; iv) relative stability and survival value in the literature; and v) applicability to familiar and novel situations. 

No matter how good a program may be; the maintenance system must be well facilitated. The school administrators, head of subject unit, supervisors, the teacher and the pupils must be actively involved if successful implementation of the program is to be realized. 

The teacher, being the main executor of the program must be well trained not just to be able to teach facts but to select facts that relate to other facts and principles. The teacher education programs in the advanced teacher's colleges and the universities must prepare teachers to be able to teach their subjects effectively.

Figure I: A scheme of the implementation-maintenance-process of curricular program.

In order to be implemented a program should be designed in such a way that under favorable conditions certain intended learning outcomes will emerge. The school teacher, the headmaster and supervisors must gather information from time to time in order to determine the success or weakness of the program. 

If desirable outcomes are observed, the focus of all concerned with instruction should be to improve the program through an effective maintenance system (see Figure II). 

If the products (students) produced poor quality, corrective measures (for example, tutorials, use of audio-visual materials, limited or extensive modifications of the program) are selected and applied in order to achieve the desired results. If after all these efforts, the products are still found to be poor, the program is usually abandoned. 

In order to be an efficient 'maintenance engineer' the teacher must not only have relevant professional qualifications but must also be enthusiastic and well acquainted with the program for the design to the evaluation stage. 

If he is not actively involved at all levels of the planning process, a gap of knowledge is created, thus paving the way to a wide disparity between the intentions of the program and what the teacher actually delivers in the classrooms. 

Granting that conditions are normal, it must not be assumed that the implementation - maintenance process within the school  setting is as simple as figure II a show. As can be seen in figure the process in very complex indeed. 

Figure II: A scheme of the basic-maintenance-system within the school setting.

Several processes are involved in the input-output process. The teacher (or the teaching agent) is the most important component of the maintenance process of the program. He interacts with the students, with other staff, experts and administrators and forms are bridge between them and learning materials.

Often he acts as the input analyzer and an identifier (although these are primarily the job of curriculum expert) as well as the agent of the program.

The external sensor (usually the supervisor or curriculum expert) examines the learning environment to identify changes-perhaps economic, political and psychological or social-within the environment that can destabilize the system. In addition he scans the input system to identify changes that may have taken place in learner.

The input analyzer processes all the information supplied by the external sensor and transmits it to the school administrator for appropriate action. He analyses and organizes information obtained from the input variable into a comprehensible structure to be used in planning activities. 

The identifier (usually the teacher or his head of department) examines the output and the internal working conditions of the maintenance system. It is he who provides the decision rule (headmaster) with a reliable picture of the internal conditions of the system. 

The input - output information provided by the analyzer and the identifier becomes the input of decision rule, and it is utilized by the headmaster/implementer to produce a decision, policy or instruction (sent in form of control signal) to the teacher. 

One of the aims of the maintenance system relates as far as possible the actual pupil performance and the expected output. The closer the relationship, the better the maintenance system.

Thus the quality control system is to be construed as a dynamic, on-going and self-regulating process, sensitive to changes and with the goal of producing the best learning outcomes of instruction.

Factors militating against successful implementation of any program (and particularly of many of the new programs) are factors such as:

• Poor teacher's preparation.
• Lack of teaching experience by the young teachers usually assigned to teach the program.
• Too many activities to be performed; and with the materials so diverse as to make a through completion of the program impossible.
• Overemphasis on process to an almost total exclusion of products of knowledge and vice versa.
• The dependence of a program on in-service teacher training course.
• And the tendency to prepare materials that appear to favor 28 average and above average students at the expense of slow learners.

Too often data gathered about outcomes of program deal mainly with incremental knowledge which relates only to learner's cognitive developments. Whereas the program was designed to produce broader behavioral outcomes. 

Romberg (1975) described that although it is one thing to acquire information, it is another to behave in line with the information acquired. Whatever evaluation techniques we employ, cognizance must be taken of unintended outcomes. Such outcomes must be identified and corrected. This is where quality control becomes important as a maintenance process. 

Similarly, Parlett and Hamilton's 'illuminative evaluation' has an advantage over the usual paper- pencil summative evaluation techniques. The aim of illuminative evaluation is to identify how a curriculum operates, how it is influenced by divers school setting in which it is applied, what those directly involved regard as its merits and demerits and how pupil intellectual tasks and academic experience are mostly affected. 

Thus, Parlett and Hamiltion (1972) contend that; if and evaluation hinges on the supposed perpetuation of the instrumental system in more or less its original form. It makes an arbitrary and artificial distinction; it treats the innovation as a self-contained and independent system, which in practice is manifestly not.

Any given program introduced into the school setting is not left in its naked form but assumes a different from for that setting. Its contents are emphasized or minimized, explicated or attenuated as teachers, administrators and students see fit for their particular setting.

If it is one thing to design a program, it is quite a different matter to make it work. To a large extent, cluster such as the society, the school environment teacher and leaner characteristics, structure of the discipline, economic reality, political leadership, instructional techniques availability of materials and so on will influence the success of failure of the program.

There is nothing wrong in substituting one program for another. But an uncontrolled passion to accept anything regarded as 'new' before its relevance is determined is unjustifiable. The unparalleled enthusiasm with which we embrace any new curricular package is symptomatic.

Carre (1976) the problem of coping with one curricular package after another before the last has been will understood. Carre was not against the implementation of new science program, but held the view that successful implementation of such program required careful planning and execution.

Program evaluation can be carried out through the use of surveys, interviews, experimental studies and so on.

Student Evaluation - Different Types of Evaluation in Education

As pointed out earlier, testing forms an integral part of student evaluation. The purpose of this type of evaluation is to determine how well a student is performing in a program.

Through a series of oral questions, paper-pencil tests, manipulative skill tests, tutorials, discussions, individualized instruction, assignments, projects and so on, the student is gradually guided towards a desired goal.

Basically there are two types of students evaluation; formative and summative. The former is guidance-oriented, while the latter is judgemental in nature.

Formative Evaluation - Different Types of Evaluation in Education

Formative evaluation aims at ensuring a healthy acquisition and development of knowledge and skills by students. Formative evaluation is also used to identify student needs in order to guide them towards desired goals.

As student needs and difficulties are identified, appropriate remedial measures are taken to solve such problem. The purpose is to find out whether after learning experience students are able to do what they were previously unable to do.

A short-term objective of formative evaluation may be to help students pass the end-of-year promotional examination or, long term, the school certificate examination. Whatever activities are set into motion under these types of evaluation, the ultimate goal is to help students perform well at the end of the program.

As Yoloye (1976) puts it, the primary purpose of formative evaluation is to help as much as possible to ensure that summative evaluation comes out positive. It is a process of channeling input variables through a process that will yield expected outputs.

The classroom teacher is variables through a process that will yield expected outputs. The classroom teacher is the best formative evaluator. Because of his involvement with his students he is able to: 

1. Draw a more reliable inference about his students than an external assessor although he may not be as objective as the latter.
2. Identify the levels of cognitive process of his students.
3. Choose the most suitable teaching techniques and materials.
4. Determine the feasibility of program within the class-room setting.
5. Determine areas needing modifications or improvement in the teaching-learning process.
6. Determine to a great extent the outcome of summative evaluation.

Questions asked under student evaluation differ from those asked by a program evaluator. The teacher is specifically concerned with the behavioral outputs of his students after they have been exposed to a form of instruction. The questions below are representative:
What is the objective of the lesson?

1. What materials will be needed to teach this lesson?
2. In what sequence will the different aspects of the topic be treated?
3. How much time should be given to different aspects of the topic?
4. What teaching techniques will be most suitable to transmit this knowledge or skill?
5. What evaluation techniques would be used to assess student achievement?
6. Will they be effective or not?
7. What assignment or projects should be given as part of or apart from class work?
8. Has the objective been achieved?
9. What progress the students are making?
10. What difficulties are they encountering relative to the topic?
11. What additional facilities or resources would enhance the knowledge or skills gained by the student?
12. Are students' needs and interests being met?
13. Are the students able to transfer their knowledge or skills to other areas?

Formative evaluation attempts:

• To identify the content (i.e. knowledge or skills) which have not been mastered by the student.
• To appraise the level of cognitive abilities such as memorization, classification, comparison, analysis, explanation, quantification, application and so on.
• And to specify the relationships between content and levels of cognitive abilities. 

In other words, formative evaluation provides the evaluator with useful information about the strength or weakness of the student within an instructional context.

Definition and Meaning of Formative Evaluation - Different Types of Evaluation in Education

In the words of A.J. Nitko, (1983), Formative evaluation is concerned with judgements made during the design and or development of a program which are directed towards modifying, forming or otherwise improving the program before it is completed.

According to N.E. Gronlund (1985), Formative evaluation is used to monitor learning progress during instruction and to provide continuous feedback to both pupil and teacher concerning learning successes and failures. 

Feedback to pupils reinforces successful learning and identifies the learning errors that need correction. 

Feedback to the teacher provides information for modifying instruction and prescribing group and individual remedial work.

In the views of R.L.Ebel and D.A. Frisbie (1986), Formative evaluation is conducted to monitor the instructional process, to determine whether learning is taking place as planned.

Gilbert Sax (1989) states: Formative evaluation takes place during instruction by letting the teacher or evaluator know if students are meeting instructional objectives, if the program is on time and if there are ways that the program might be improved. Formative evaluation helps current students to learn more effectively.

W. Wiersma and S.G. Jurs write, Formative evaluation occurs over a period of time and monitors student progress. 

Following are the implications of the above definitions for the classroom teacher:

• Formative evaluation is done during an instructional program.
• The instructional program should aim at the attainment of certain objectives during the implementation of the program.
• Formative evaluation is done to monitor learning and modifying the program if needed before its completion.
• Formative evaluation is for current students.

Characteristics of Formative Evaluation

1. It relatively focuses on molecular analysis.
2. It is because seeking.
3. It is interested in the broader experiences of the program users.
4. Its design is exploratory and flexible.
5. It tends to ignore the local effects of a particular program.
6. It seeks to identify influential variables.
7. It requires analysis of instructional material for mapping the hierarchical structure of the learning tasks and actual teaching of the course for a certain period.
   

Summative Evaluation - Different Types of Evaluation in education

Summative evaluation is primarily concerned with purposes, progress and outcomes of the teaching-learning process. It attempts as far as possible to determine to what extent the broad objectives of a program have been achieved. It is based on the following assumptions: 

1. That the programmer's objectives are achievable. 
2. That the teaching-learning process has been conducted efficiently. 
3. That the teacher-student-material interactions have been conducive to learning. 
4. That the teaching techniques, learning materials and audio-visual aids are adequate and have been judiciously dispensed. 
5. That there is uniformity in classroom conditions for all learners.

This last assumption is often far from the truth. The fact is that conditions under which teaching and learning take place are often unsatisfactory.

Unlike formative evaluation, which is guidance-oriented, summative evaluation is judgemental in nature. Promotion examination, the first school leaving certificate examination, the public examinations belong to this form of evaluation.

Students, performance in such examinations determine to a large extent their job career or prospects of further education. Summative evaluation carries threat with it in that the student may have no knowledge of the evaluator.

In class tests the students often can predict to reasonable extent what they would be asked. Summative evaluation is more objective in nature than formative evaluation.
Definition and Meaning of Summative Evaluation

According to A.J. Nikto (1983), Summative evaluation describes judgements about the merits of an already completed program, procedure or product.

N.E. Gronund (1985), observes, Summative evaluation typically comes at the end of a course (or unit) of instruction. It is designed to determine the extent to which the instructional objectives have been achieved and is used primarily for assigning course grades or certifying pupil mastery of the intended learning out-comes.

In the views of Ebel, R.L. and Frisbie (1986), Summative evaluation is conducted at the end of an instructional segment to determine if learning is sufficiently complete to warrant moving the learner to the next segment of instruction.

In the words of Gilbert Sax (1989), A summative evaluation can provide evidence that the program is satisfactory and should be continued for next year's students or that student learning and learning attitudes are so negative that a new program is needed.

W. Wiersma and S. G. Gurs (1990) state, Summative evaluation is done at the conclusion of instruction and measures the extent to which students have attained the desired outcomes.

A perusal of the above definitions shows that the summative evaluation has following chief elements: 

1. There should be some instructional program before summative evaluation.
2. The instructional program should be for the attainment of some objects.
3. Summative evaluation is done at the end or completion of a particular instructional program whose duration may vary from a semester to whole year.
4. Summative evaluation should check whether there has been earning or not. If the answer is yes, then what is the quantity and quality of the learning in relation to per-determined objectives?
5. Summative learning provides feedback to the classroom teacher for the success or failure of the program and of the student.

Chief Characteristics of Summative Evaluation 

1. It lends to the use of well-defined evaluation designs. 
2. It focuses on analysis. 
3. It provides descriptive analysis. 
4. It tends to stress local effects. 
5. It is unobtrusive and non-reactive as far as possible. 
6. It is concerned with broad range of issues. 
7. Its instruments are reliable and valid.

Difference Between The Summative And Formative Evaluation

In the beginning these terms applied for the evaluation of curricular work only. M. Seriven explains the difference between these terms as follows in his book Evaluation Thesaurus (1980).

Formative evaluation is conducted during the development or improvement of a program or product (or person). It is an evaluation conducted for in-house but it may be done by an internal or external evaluator (preferably) a combination.

Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is conducted after completion of a program (or a course of study) and for the benefit of some external audience or decision maker (e.g. funding agency or future possible users) though it may be done by an internal or an external evaluator or by a combination.
Gloria, Hitchok and others (1986) state the difference between the summative and formative evaluation in these words:

It is fairly straight forward to produce an 'ideal' type of either a summative or a formative profile. It is far more difficult to combine the two into one unified system. The underlying philosophies of the two appear difficult to reconcile.

Following are the main differences between these two types of evaluation as formative evaluation and summative evaluation:

1. They differ in purpose, nature and timing. 
2. Summative evaluation is the terminal assessment of performance at the end of instruction but formative evaluation in the assessment made during the instructional phase to inform the teacher about progress in learning and what more is to be done. 
3. The summative evaluation limits the use of profiles and record of achievement but they are regularly used in formative evaluation. 
4. The main consideration in stimulative evaluation is to determine to what extent the examiner has mastered the knowledge and skills associated with a course. On the other hand, the main consideration in formative evaluation is to reveal the processes by which the examinee achieved these outcomes. 
5. In summative evaluation, the assessment is done to test learning outcomes against a set of objective criteria with-out revealing the d•fails of the route to the teacher, which the student followed in reaching that point. Formative evaluation takes the form of a dialogue between the student and teacher in which both determine the task.
   

Alkin (1974) pointed out that a formative evaluation study uses a great variety of instruments, which are either locally developed or standardized. It relies on observation and informal data collection devices, mostly locally chosen. 

In contrast, summative evaluation studies tend to use well defined evaluation designs, as unobtrusive and non-reactive as possible. They are comparative and concerned with a broad range of issues, for example, implications, politics, costs, competing options. 

The instruments used in summative evaluation are publicly accepted reliable and valid instruments, reflecting concerns of the sponsor and of the decision maker. 

Formative tests are administered at the completion of each unit of learning and help students to pace their learning and put forth necessary effort at the appropriate time. They provide immediate and continuous feedback to the student via instruments that are essentially brief. So that they do not take up inordinate amounts of instructional time. 

Thus, it forces and reinforces learning mastery by providing data that can direct remedial teaching. Summative evaluations are in real sense 'final' tests of students' achievement typically covering relatively large blocks of instructional material. 

In formative evaluation scoring is based on criterion reference approach but in summative evaluation, scoring is generally norm 'referenced though it can be criterion referenced also. 

In formative evaluation, the method of reporting scores is individual pattern of pass-fail scores on each task in hierarchy, whereas in summative evaluation, attainment is reported in terms of total score.

Seriven adheres to the view that there are no basic logical and methodological differences between formative and summative evaluation. Both are intended to examine the worth of a particular entity. 

Only timing, the audience requesting it, and the way its results are used can indicate whether a study is formative or summative. 

Moreover, the same study may be viewed by one client as formative and by another as summative. 

Summary - Different Types of Evaluation in Education

Evaluation deals with the appraisal of value or worth of a thing process or program. Basically, evaluation can be carried out either at the student or at program level or both. 

Generally, classroom tests come under student evaluation. While surveys, interviews, supervision and so on come under program evaluation. 

Student evaluation can further be classified into formative and summative evaluation. While the former is concerned with student progress or lack of it and how to achieve success, the latter is judgemental and terminal in nature. 

A summative evaluation declares which students have or have not succeeded in a program and no more. 

Supervision at both the student and program level is an indispensable maintenance process in curriculum planing and development. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What are the 4 types of evaluation in education? | How many types of evaluation in education?

The following are the 4 types of evaluation in education:

1. Program Evaluation
2. Student Evaluation
3. Formative Evaluation/ Diagnostic Evaluation
   
4. Summative Evaluation
   

What are the 3 methods of evaluation?

The following are the 3 methods of evaluation in education:

1. Goal Based
2. Process Based
3. Outcome Based

Nature of Evaluation and Measurement in Education

Tags

types of evaluation curriculum | types of evaluation techniques | types of evaluation theory | types of evaluation skills | types of learning evaluation | different types of evaluation tools | types of evaluation forms | types of evaluation test | types of evaluation metrics | types of evaluation measures.