Reflections on the Impact of Absence of Summative Assessment on Students’ Motivation and Learning

Yıl 2014, Sayı: 6, 71 - 90, 12.08.2015

Zeynep Munzur

Öz

It has been argued for many years whether assessment and grading systems make students learn better and motivate them toward learning. Grades are seen as the external agents that are taken from formative assessment which have summative value in the process of learning. The primary goal of grading is to measure students’ achievement of the learning in a curriculum. These numerical signs serve as evidence about students’ competence and their performance in the learning process. In some cases, getting a grade from an exam or a task not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances one’s motivation for learning. Students need to see the results of their performance and the gap between the actual and desired goals in the process. Therefore, grades also help students shape their future learning goals and make them autonomous learners since they are the outcomes of formative assessment which goes together with summative assessment. This paper provides an insight into the impact of the absence of summative assessment and grades for motivation and learning in an urban English Prep school of a foundation university in Istanbul. The problem is students do not have to accomplish summative purposes of the assessment of the curriculum to enter the Proficiency exam in the second semester. In other words, they do not need to meet the requirements of the curriculum accept attending the lessons. The study sheds a light on the process and results of the absence of summative assessment and grades in one semester of the academic year. The findings of the study provide reflections and current evidence for the issue of whether this absence can have a positive or negative impact on students’ motivation and learning.

Keywords: Assessment, summative assessment, motivation, learning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Assessment, summative assessment, motivation, learning

Toplam Değerlendirmenin Yoksunluğunun Öğrencilerin Motivasyon ve Öğrenme Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Yansımaları

Öz

Değerlendirme ve notlama sistemlerinin öğrencilerin daha iyi öğrenmelerine sebep olup olmadığı ve öğrenmelerini motive edip etmediği çok uzun yıllardır tartışılmaktadır. Notlar, öğrenme süreci içerisindeki yapılan ölçme ve değerlendirmelerin toplam değer yansımasıdır. Notlamanın esas amacı müfredat hedefleri doğrultusunda öğrencilerin başarı durumlarının ölçülmesidir. Bu sayısal veriler aynı zamanda öğrencilerin öğrenme sürecindeki beceri ve performans düzeylerinin de göstergesidir. Bazı durumlarda bir sınav ya da bir ödevden alınan notlar sadece öğrencinin ne bildiğini ölçmekle kalmaz, o öğrencinin öğrenmeye olan motivasyonunu arttırmaya da yardımcı olur. Bu süreç içersinde öğrenciler, hem performanslarını hem de bulundukları durum ile hedefler arasındaki boşluğun sonuçlarını görmeleri de gerekmektedir. Aynı zamanda yapılan ölçme ve değerlendirmelerden alınan bu toplam değerler öğrencilerin gelecek öğrenim hedeflerini şekillendirmekte ve özerklik kazanmalarına da yardımcı olmaktadır. Bu çalışma İstanbul’da bulunan yerel bir vakıf üniversitesinin İngilizce Hazırlık bölümünde toplam değerlendirmenin ve notların olmaması durumunda motivasyon ve öğrenme üzerindeki etkilerine ışık tutmaktadır. Temel sorun; öğrencilerin yıl sonunda yapılan İngilizce Yeterlik sınavına değerlendirmeden muaf tutulmalarıdır. Diğer bir deyişle; öğrenciler müfredatın ve sınavların gerekliliklerini yerine getirmelerine gerek kalmadan sadece derslere devam ederek bu sınava girme hakkını kazanmaktadırlar. Bu çalışma bir akademik yarıyıl içersinde toplam değerlendirme ve notlarının yoksunluğunun uygulanma sürecine ve sonuçlarına bir ışık tutmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın bulguları böyle bir durumun öğrencilerin motivasyon ve öğrenmeleri üzerindeki olumlu ya da olumsuz etkilerinin olup olmadığını yansıtıcı ve destekleyici niteliktedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

Değerlendirme, toplam değerlendirme, öğrenme

Kaynakça

• Airasian, P. W.1994. Classroom assessment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Austin, S., & McCann, R. 1992. Here’s another arbitrary grade for your collection. A statewide study of grading policies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
• Anderman, E. M., & Johnston. 1998. Television news in the classroom: what are adolescents learning? Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 73-100.
• Betts, J. R. 1997. Do grading standards affect the incentive to learn? Working Paper. University of California, San Diego.
• Black, P., William, D. 1998. Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment (Electronic Version). Phi Delta Kappan Online, 80 (2): 139-148. Retrieved March 15, from http://www.pdkint.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm
• Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. 1981. Evaluation to improve learning: Theory and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Boud, D., and Associates 2010. Assessment 2020: seven prepositions for assessment reform in higher education, Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Sydney. http://www.olt.gov.au/resource-student-assessment-learning-and-after-courseots-2010.
• Butler, R., & M. Nisan. 1986. Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78: 210-216.
• Butler, R. 1987. Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474-482.
• Butler, R. 1988. Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: the effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and involvement. British Journal of Education Psychology, 58: 1-14.
• Condry, J., & Koslowski, B. 1977. Can education be made intrinsically interesting to children? Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education. Washington, D. C: National Institute of Education.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
• Dev, P.C. 1997. Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 18 (10) 12-19.
• Dörnyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31: 117-135. http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S026144480001315X .
• Dörnyei, Z. 2009. ‘The L2 Motivational Self System’ in Z.D. and E. Ushioda (eds). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Guskey, T. R. 2000b. Twenty questions! Twenty tools for better teaching. Principal Leadership, 1(3), 5-7.
• Guskey, T. R. 2002. Computerized grade books and the myth of objectivity. PHI DELTA KAPPAN, 83(10) 775-780, June 2002.
• Guskey, T. R. 2003. How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning (Electronic Version). Eduational Leadership, 60 (5), 6-11.
• Guskey, T. R. 2006. It wasn’t fair! Educators’ recollections of their experiences as students with grading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
• Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. 1987. Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.
• Harlen, W., & Deakin, C. R. 2002. A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning (EPPI-Centre Review, version 1.1).
• Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. 2003. Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education. 10 (2), 169-207.
• Hattie, J. 1992. Enhancing Self-concept. In John Hattie. Self-concept. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. www.books.google.com.tr/books?isbn=0791453340.
• Hoyenga, K. B., & Hoyenga, K. T. 1984. Motivational Explanations of Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brookes/Coles Publishing Company.
• Ilgen, D.R., & Davis, C. A. 2000. Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance feedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49 (3), 550-565.
• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: Historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
• Köller, O. 2005. ‘Formative assessment in classrooms: a review of the empirical German literature’. N: OCDE. Formative assessment: improving learning in secondary classrooms. Centre for Educational Research and innovation (CERI).
• Marzano, R. 2000. Transforming classroom reading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum and Development.
• Oosterhof, A. 2001. Classroom applications of educational measurement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merill Prentice Hall.
• Pike, D. L. 2011. The tyranny of dead ideas in teaching and learning: Midwest Sociological Society presidential address 2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52 (1), 1-12. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01195.x/pdf .
• The Assessment Reform Group, http://www.aaia.org.uk/afl/assessment-reform-group/ , 03.04.2014
• Schraw, G., Horn, C. Thorndike-Christ, T. & Brunning, R. H. 1995. Academic goal orientations and student classroom achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 359-368.
• Motivation and performance in college students enrolled in self-paced versus lecture-format remedial mathematics courses.
• Stiggins, R. J. 2002. Assessment crisis! The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765. https://www.google.com.tr/#q=stiggins+2002 .
• Stiggins, R. J. 2005. Students –Involved Assessment FOR Learning. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
• Wrinkle, W.L. 1947. Improving marking and reporting practices in elementary and secondary schools.
• https://openlibrary.org/works/OL7517319W/Improving_marking_and_reporting_practices_in_elementary_and_secondary_schools . 03.04.2014