Old Dominion University

ODU Digital Commons

Counseling & Human Services Faculty Publications Counseling & Human Services

2014

Formative and Summative Assessment in Online

Education
Dilani M. Perera-Diltz

Jeffry L. Moe
Old Dominion University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/chs_pubs

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Online and Distance
Education Commons, and the Student Counseling and Personnel Services Commons

Repository Citation
Perera-Diltz, Dilani M. and Moe, Jeffry L., "Formative and Summative Assessment in Online Education" (2014). Counseling & Human
Services Faculty Publications. 37.
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/chs_pubs/37

Original Publication Citation

Perera-Diltz, D., & Moe, J. (2014). Formative and summative assessment in online education. Journal of Research in Innovative
Teaching, 7(1), 130-142.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Counseling & Human Services at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Counseling & Human Services Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
 Formative and Summative Assessment in Online Education
Dilani M. Perera-Diltz
Jeffry L. Moe

Abstract
Assessment is an integral part of both traditional and online education, especially when determining student learning
outcomes. In the online learning environment, both formative and summative assessment practices require an
understanding of the features and tools inherent to the electronic medium. Creating assessments for online
education, either formative or summative, also requires application of constructivist learning principles to our
collective understanding of the educational process and related goals. In this paper, we offer an overview of
formative and summative assessment approaches suited to the online education environment.

Key Words
Formative assessment, summative assessment, online education

Formative and Summative Assessment in Online Education

Assessment is an integral part of education. Education is traditionally involved the action of

learning by those defined as students and the imparting of knowledge by those defined as
teachers. Currently, this construction of knowledge could involve three types of models of
education: (a) the traditional banking model (Freire, 1970/2000) or teacher-led learning,
(b) cognitive apprenticeship framework (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) or collaborative
construction of knowledge between students and teacher, and/or (c) legitimate peripheral
participation in a situated learning framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991) or learning between or
among students. The latter two types of education models are supported by knowledge that
student learning improves through social interaction and collaboration (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). Within each of these three education frameworks,
assessment is viewed as an essential component for learning (Hanson & Mohn, 2011) in terms of
identifying and documenting increased knowledge, awareness, or skills.
An expansion from this original purpose of assessment has occurred recently with the rise of
the accountability paradigm, including heightened scrutiny onto all aspects of the educational
process by various internal (e.g., budget needs) and/or external (e.g., accreditation boards,
national organizations) entities (Hanson & Mohn, 2011). Stakeholders expect the assessment of
learning outcomes to occur more frequently and more rigorously, and to simultaneously be more
transparent and accessible to non-expert reviewers and consumers (Hanson & Mohn, 2011). In
this new era of heightened expectations for accountability, education professions also face the
challenge of adapting to the online learning environment. Learners prefer both the flexibility and
convenience of online education (Hewson, 2012), while also indicating expectations for personal
achievement comparable to face-to-face learning environments (Stewart, Waight, Norwood, &
Ezell, 2004). Despite the flexibility afforded by the online environment to students, instructors
are expected to be more available, to provide more and quicker feedback, and to be otherwise
proficient at establishing the basis for rapport with all students. With societal expectations for
education and learning in all modalities increasing, it is important for educators to revisit basic
concepts of assessment in order to both deepen and broaden their skills and thereby facilitate
learner achievement. Reconceptualization of two important assessment themes, namely
formative and summative assessment, in light of the capabilities and limitations of learning in
online education, is discussed in this paper.
130
 Formative and Summative Assessment

Assessment may occur in two forms (i.e., formative and summative) in the learning environment.
Formative assessment provides on-going evaluation (Perera-Diltz, 2009) of a student’s learning.
This type of assessment requires evaluation of student learning outcomes several times during a
semester and facilitates the evaluation of different content areas, skills, and the progress of
learning within specific knowledge domains. Formative assessment could occur with repeated
use of the same assessment form (e.g., a quiz four times in a semester) or with the use of multiple
assessment forms (e.g., a quiz, an essay, and an experiential activity). Summative assessment is a
measure of an end product (Perera-Diltz, 2009), and at best represents a holistic and qualitative
appraisal of whether specified learning outcomes were achieved. Measures such as a capstone
final project or a comprehensive final exam are examples of common summative assessment
tools. However, there are times that formative assessment could serve summative purposes
(Gikandi, Morrow, & Davis, 2011) when it informs stakeholders regarding a student’s progress
(Smith, 2007). Similarly, summative assessment can serve in a formative role when results are
used for learning in subsequent units (Gikandi et al., 2011).
There are benefits and limitations to both types of assessment, which are sometimes based on
such factors beyond the actual assessment as a sense of virtual community created (Glassmeyer,
Dibbs, & Jensen, 2011) by the assessment task. Formative assessment has been articulated as the
preferred assessment mode in online education, but full implementation of formative assessments
requires careful design, monitoring, and the communication of feedback to learners in a clear and
meaningful timeframe (Rovai, Ponton, Derrick, & Davis, 2006) to augment their overall
education experience (Glassmeyer et al., 2011). Formative assessment provides the advantage of
students’ being able to demonstrate knowledge gained in small sections, which may be easier to
master and express. Formative assessment also allows students to fail an assignment (e.g., 1 of 5
quiz scores), learn from mistakes, and subsequently not suffer penalty in the form of a poor final
grade (Oosterhof, Conrad, & Ely, 2008; Vonderwell, Liang, & Alderman, 2007). Formative
assessment, however, does require students to continuously demonstrate learning and
engagement with the ongoing process of evaluation. The assessment of continuous improvement
can be stressful for students and instructors alike. On the contrary, summative assessment has the
benefit of being a potentially one-time, holistic, and integrated evaluation. If a student is unable
to perform at his or her peak on the chosen summative assessment format (e.g., final projector
test), then student learning is not accurately assessed and students’ feelings of engagement and
empowerment with the learning process may be diminished.

The New Era of Learning: Online/Blended Learning

The practice of teaching in higher education’s including counselor education, with the
ascendency of the Internet in the early 1990s, is increasingly facilitated either in whole or in part
with communications technology (Naughton, Smeed, & Roder, 2011). Along with the rise in the
use of technology to improve or provide educational experiences, movements in the theoretical
and philosophical foundations of teaching and learning coincide with public expectations for
increased access, flexibility, and participation in the co-construction of learning, including
evaluation methods and protocols (Leppisaari, Vainio, Herrington, & Im, 2011). Proponents of
constructivist education echo advocates for online learning (Williams, 2006) calling for
instruction that is dynamic, authentic, and practical, and that engages the skills and lived

131
experiences of an empowered and technologically capable learner community (Herrington &
Standen, 2000).
While online and blended education presupposes reliable access to appropriate
communications technologies, a condition that makes this practice more adaptable to
Western(-ized) or developed societies, the potential to reach an ever more globalized and diverse
population of students is another motivating factor in the widespread adoption of online learning
as a standard offering for higher and continuing education providers in the United States and
around the globe (Leppisaari et al., 2011). For the purposes of this paper, fully web-based and
blended learning will be referred to as online education that involves education facilitated either
in whole or in part by a web-based learning management system (e.g., Blackboard) via access
through both desktop and laptop computers, smart phones, e-tablets, or other Internet-capable
devices (Perera-Diltz & Moe, 2012).
Eagerness to utilize a potentially dynamic new way of teaching and learning, coupled with
valid concerns over quality assurance and fairness in access to technology, have remained central
to professional dialogue on best practices in online education since its emergence as a
widespread phenomenon in the mid to late 1990s (Bonk & Cummings, 1998). At best, online
learning becomes a space where the principles of constructivist, learner-centered, authenticity-
based, and adult education can be synthesized by instructors to produce meaningful and valid
educational experiences (Lesnick, Cesaitis, Jagtiani, & Miller, 2004) similar to the cognitive
apprentice model (Collins et al., 1989). A key principle of the constructivist learning framework
is that human beings learn best in collaboration and interaction with others (Herrington &
Standen, 2000) or through what is sometimes referred to as legitimate peripheral participation
(Lave & Wenger, 1991). In comparison, behaviorist or instructivist education is based on rote
memorization and on-demand, individual articulation of expert-imparted knowledge content
(Herrington & Standen, 2000). Such teacher-led instruction, also referred to as the banking
model (Freire, 1979/2000), is unsuitable in the online medium, as the learner becomes
uninvolved in and disengaged from learning. Conversely, constructivist education that is learner-
centered relies on the auto-didactic capacity inherent in all people and seeks to engage
individuals in the active co-construction of their own learning experience (Eyal, 2012). In this
way, knowledge becomes emergent as individual learners interact and synthesize previous
learning with both novel experiences and ways of knowing cherished by local communities of
learning and practice (Lepisaari et al., 2011). Hence, online education involves more than
placement of all of or some of the material from a traditional face-to-face course onto the web.
Assessment of student learning in online education, similarly, cannot be merely transferred
from a traditional face-to-face classroom, but must be re-conceptualized to account for the
benefits and drawbacks of the given communication medium (Perera-Diltz & Moe, 2012),
especially given the asynchronous nature of interactivity among the participants (Vonderwell
et al., 2007). The issues of validity, reliability, and dishonesty related to assessment (Hargreaves,
2007) needs to be carefully considered in the design (Oosterhof et al., 2008) and management
phases of online education (Gikandi et al., 2011). Online communication technology allows a
number of assessment tools, such as discussion boards, model answers, electronic feedback
systems, reflections, and online small group discussions (Escudier, Newton, Cox, Reynolds, &
Odell, 2011; Thelwall, 2000), which can all be modified into formative or summative
assessments to document student learning based on the purpose and needs of a course. The
creation of meaningful and effective assessment, both formative and summative, is achievable
through deep familiarity with and use of online education tools. The following is a closer look at

132
the available literature on the validity of formative and summative assessments in online
education. We also provide an overview of common assessment tools for online learning,
including adapted tools such as examinations, as well as such tools unique to online education as
discussion boards or wikis. A chart that demonstrates the type of assessment involved with the
various assessment tools is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Categories of Formative Assessments Available

Co-Assessment
Peer (Instructor- Instructor
Assessment Type Assessment Student) Self-Assessment Assessment

Rubrics F or S Yes Yes Yes Yes

Netfolio F or S Yes – Yes Yes
Student generated F or S Yes – – Yes
MCQ and concept
maps
Reflection Journals F or S – Yes Yes Yes
and Papers
Comprehensive S – – – Yes
final exams
Assessment Type Peer Assessment Co-Assessment Self- Assessment Instructor
(Instructor- Assessment
Student)
Comprehensive S – – – Yes
final exams
Research Projects F or S _ – – Yes
and Reports
Case Study F or S Yes – Yes Yes
Analysis and
Report
Wikis or blogs F or S Yes Yes Yes Yes

Note: F = Formative; S = Summative

Formative Assessment Tools

The intent of formative assessment is to promote student development during a learning process
through active engagement of the student with various assessment means. Feedback from
formative assessment, when appropriately utilized in the online environment, has been found to
promote learning (Pachler, Daly, Mor, & Mellar, 2010; Wang, Wang, & Huang, 2008) not only
through monitoring progress toward learning outcomes but also by crystalizing learning
strategies in students (Gikandi et al., 2011). As mentioned elsewhere, issues of validity,
reliability, and dishonesty need to be addressed (Gikandi et al., 2011; Hargreaves, 2007) in

133
formative assessment, and this entails a prior consideration of both processes and products of
learning (Vonderwell et al., 2007). According to Gikandi et al. (2011), characteristics of validity
in formative assessment include (a) authenticity of assessment activity (i.e, engage student in
decision making and problem solving relevant to real world situations), (b) effective formative
feedback (i.e., useful, timely, ongoing, and easy to understand feedback to student),
(c) multidimensional perspectives (i.e., diverse opportunities for the student), and (d) student
support (i.e., mentoring role of the teacher). Reliability characteristics of formative assessment
(Gikandi et al., 2011) include: (a) opportunities for documenting and monitoring evidence of
learning by teacher and student, (b) multiple evidences of learning while guiding students to
manage tasks without being frustrated (Smith, 2007), and (c) explicit clarity of learning goals
and shared meaning of rubrics (Gikandi et al., 2011). Finally, dishonesty relates to the ability to
verify ownership of work to a specific student (Gikandi et al., 2011) which Oosterhof et al.
(2008) observed may not become an issue in formative assessment if students are provided with
scoring rubrics and model products with assessments. Formative assessments are multifaceted
and could be in the form of peer assessment, co-assessment, self-assessment, and/or feedback
from the instructor. Such formative assessment is said to achieve autonomous and independent
learning (Nicol, 2007).

Rubrics: Discussion Boards

Rubrics can be utilized to evaluate any assignment by the instructor, peers, or the combination of
the two. Brookes and Lin (2010) discussed a formative assessment rubric created for an online
course to guide student learning and provide formative evaluation on learning of concepts and
feedback on how to improve. The rubric was created with four broad concept points horizontally,
which are then broken down to as many sub-abilities as needed to assess. In their rubric, Brookes
and Lin used “ability to evaluate models, equations, solutions, and claims” (p. 6) as their broader
concepts. On the vertical scale, Brookes and Lin used columns labeled “missing, inadequate,
needs improvement, and adequate” (p. 6).
This rubric concept can be applied to the evaluation of discussion board posts. Usually, an
online asynchronous discussion board has discussion questions posted by the instructor.
Consideration of and reflection upon these questions facilitates engagement with a larger concept
or concepts, which in turn represent important learning outcomes. For instance, the broader
concepts for school counseling services delivery are advisement, guidance curriculum,
responsive services, and support systems (ASCA, 2005). Under these four broader concepts, sub-
abilities that can be evaluated are “student is able identify individual advisement needs” or
“student is able to identify appropriate topics for guidance.” Instructors can adapt the four
grading scales suggested by Brookes and Lin (2010) to their own assignment rubrics. Indicating
in the form of formative assessment rubrics if the student met or did not meet the concepts and
sub-abilities as the learning occurs, provides the opportunity for the student to understand any
knowledge gaps related to a specific content area. Such evaluation using a rubric can be
conducted by instructor alone or by instructor and/or peers. Awareness gained from such
continuous feedback can lead to further learning of those areas and possible future competency
in those areas. Without such formative evaluation, students would move forward until a
summative assessment is conducted. It may be too late at that point to gain missing knowledge
and provide proof of such knowledge to an instructor for grading purposes.

134
Journals
Reflective journaling, where learners articulate knowledge from their reading, collaboration in
discussion, and personal experiences, is one method of formative assessment (Naughton et al.,
2011). The content of this reflection can be requested to include not only text but exploring of
websites and blogging the information with peers, inclusion of interactive video and other media
sources. Concerns for learner privacy are naturally heightened when communicating online, and
the scope and depth of journal entries should be carefully demarcated by instructors in order to
facilitate learner disclosure and ensure that the online classroom is a supportive environment.
Electronic journal entries shared directly and only with instructors may be more unbounded, and
principles of etiquette should be explained, regardless, in syllabi and other locations, to promote
collegiality whenever peer review and collaboration are linked to the assessment of reflective
journals.

Netfolio
The use of an e-portfolio, which aims for metacognition, authentic tasks, contextual feedback,
and student responsibility (Black & Williams, 1998), aims to depict student abilities developed
during a learning process and is a summative assessment. Netfolio is derived from this
e-portfolio concept, in that it is a “set of e-portfolios produced by different students” (Barbera,
2009, p. 344) that offer students the opportunity to better understand learning objectives as well
as to revise self-portfolios through participation of assessment of and feedback to other students’
portfolios (Barbera, 2009). At set intervals, peers provide new content and different perspectives
through online communication. The netfolio is evaluated in a manner similar to the e-portfolio,
with attention given to the presentation of ideas, competency evidenced in communications, and
learner’s ability to engage in self- and other-reflection. The advantages in using a netfolio
assessment are: (a) It promotes collaboration between instructor and learner as well as among
leaners (Barbera, 2009); (b) it provides quick and explicit feedback (Barbera, 2009); (c) it
mitigates feelings of isolation through creating a sense of a virtual community (Glassmeyer et al.,
2011); and (d) it allows learners to view exemplary work samples of other students (Barbera,
2009), improving one’s own work through self-reflection (Wang, 2010). Therefore, netfolio
provides a student opportunity for continuous improvement through reflection on others’ work
and feedback on one’s own work (Barbera, 2009).

Multiple-Choice Examinations: Student-Generated Questions and Concept Maps

Multiple-choice quizzes (MCQs) are a more traditional form of assessments that has been
criticized for not facilitating active learning due to its lack of justification of the answer (Arthur,
2006). Despite these concerns, the primary advantages of online MCQs include time efficiency,
fairness, and quality assurance. Online MCQs provide reduced marking time, elimination of the
need to verify personal error, rapid analysis of data and item analysis, verification of reliability,
validity across years, elimination of teacher bias, and portability (Escudier et al., 2011). Some
learning management systems permit the design of MCQs so that feedback is provided to the
student while in the process of completing the quiz, while others may provide options for
branching and extended multiple-choice questions (Escudier et al., 2011). Pittenger and
Lounsbery (2011) recommended student-generated MCQs as an effective form of assessment,
mitigating the lack of engaged learning, as it fosters student engagement with course content,
metacognitive skills, and ownership of learning experience. Berry and Chew (2008) reported

135
“improved exam performance and presumably learning” (p. 310) when students generated their
questions with a positive correlation with the number of questions generated by a student.
Concept maps (Berry & Chew, 2008) were another method recommended that improved student
performance on MCQs. Another option is to provide long- and short-answer quizzes or exams.
However, this eliminates some of the aforementioned advantages. Finally, the equivalency of
online- versus paper-based MCQs may be another consideration with online tests and
examinations. Researchers Escudier et al. (2011) and Hewson (2012) found that student
performance in online versus traditional forms of MCQ format was similar.

Wikis
An assessment tool unique to the online environment is the wiki. It is a space in which a group of
students can be assigned to create a case study, a treatment plan, or a lesson plan. Each student
can be directed to utilize a different font color with their name within parenthesis for easy
identification of contribution by peers and instructor. This assessment can be designed to be
graded by a combination of peers and/or instructor, and it can be repeated over the course of a
semester or quarter, allowing a student to improve performance through participation, peer
feedback, and self-reflection. Grading of this assignment can be designed as one time at the end
of the term, as more of a summative assessment, or else as a fraction (e.g., 3 of 5 times).

Summative Assessment Tools

Summative evaluation in education is simultaneously more familiar to those involved in the
instructional process (e.g., students, teachers, administrators) and a potentially under-theorized
practice in regards to online learning. Readers may be familiar with the use of so-called high-
stakes testing, where a summative evaluation is used as the primary or sole indicator to
determine if learners have achieved educational objectives (Escudier et al., 2011). This use of
summative evaluation, in the form of a mid-term and final exam only, though common in higher
education, is discouraged when planning and implementing assessment of a learner’s experience
and achievement in online educational environments (Stewart et al., 2004). Just as formative
assessment provides in-process benchmarking of learner achievement, summative assessment at
best seeks to comprehensively document and richly depict the emergent process of learning that
occurred over a given time-bounded learning experience, e.g., over a semester or a quarter
(Naughton et al., 2011).
Upon first consideration, the principles of constructivist, learner-centered, and authentic
education may seem difficult to thread into the design of meaningful summative assessments.
Recalling that the principles of authentic education include a focus on problem-solving, learner-
decision making, and applicability to situations outside of the educational context, it becomes
reasonable to ask whether instructors can engage students in sufficient time and at a valid level
of participation to co-create summative evaluation protocols in an online education environment.
Lesnick et al. (2004) suggested that re-appropriation of the goals of assignments in online
education should serve as the foundation for design, instruction, and assessment. Proponents of
online education (Eyal, 2012; Lesnick et al., 2004; Russell, Elton, Swinglehurst, & Greenhalgh,
2006) asserted that, due to the interactive, instant archiving of text and communication
availabilities in standard learning management systems, the separation between activities
designed to promote learning and the assessment of said activities is diffused. A commitment to
the goals of constructivist and authentic education, coupled with deep familiarity with the tools
available in learning management systems, supports re-conceptualization of how summative

136
assessments are created, what they are designed to assess, and why a given set of assessment
practices is valid in terms of supporting over-arching learning themes or objectives.
Summative assessment in online education needs to be based on facilitating and documenting
the learner’s abilities to synthesize his or her own perspective and personal experiences with
novel texts, media content, and other knowledge artifacts. The depiction of achievement, rather
than the appraisal of learners’ capacity for rote memorization and recitation, involves optimizing
the use of assessment tools that focus on problem-solving, critical analysis of media sources, and
articulation of the learner’s voice as an engaged co-creator of the educational experience. A basic
design for summative assessment in online education would represent the instructor’s ability to
competently use learning management systems to approximate face-to-face assessment
strategies, such as a comprehensive exam or final paper. An advanced design for summative
assessment would maximize the potential for learning management systems to engage learners
and facilitate the co-design of capstone projects and assignments based on learners’ input (Levia
& Quiring, 2008). As collaboration is commonly identified as an ideal to incorporate throughout
the online learning process (Eyal, 2012; Lesnick et al., 2004; Swan, Shen, & Hiltz, 2006),
embedding an interactive, peer-based feedback and revision process is considered to be a best
practice in the design and implementation of either formative or summative assessments.

Rubrics: Case Studies

The use of case studies to assess and depict actual learning encapsulates the principles of
authentic, learner-centered education by focusing on problem-solving and decision-making
skills, the textual construction of the learner’s perspective and engagement with course material,
and the chance to blend the lived experiences of learners with concepts cherished by
professional/academic communities (Williams, 2006). Instructors are encouraged to incorporate
the advantages and potential power of the online medium when using case study analysis as a
comprehensive or summative assessment tool (Bonk & Cummings, 1998), including the
expectation that learners are able to review a wider breadth of resources and media to inform
their ability to critically analyze case material. Case material can be presented by the instructor
with web-links to scholarship, press releases, and other news sources; video documentation of
case-related events; and either fictional or non-fictional media (e.g., books, interviews, films).
Learners in turn can be encouraged to provide a similar array of texts and media to support their
analysis, including learner-generated videos and images.
In the spirit of subverting the use of summative assessment as a high-stakes evaluation tool
(Stewart et al., 2004), rubrics for evaluating learner-generated content should be based equally
on valuing the learner’s perspective and voice (Lesnick et al., 2004), rather than solely upon
appraising learner performance (Williams, 2006). This encourages instructors to devise
evaluation protocols with attention to learners’ process of learning, including collaborating with
others and the adoption of authoritative positions within a given learning discourse (Lesnick et
al., 2004). Eyal (2012) recommends that summative assessments be broken down into smaller,
constituent elements that either can be used as formative assessments or can be presented to
learners for their consideration and comment. The deconstruction of a larger capstone project,
such as a case study analysis, can lead to the identification of related learning components and
form the basis of evaluation rubrics.
A grading or evaluation rubric incorporates two key dimensions, one being identification of
discrete learning components or themes related to overall learning objectives, and the other being
a point-system hierarchy to represent degree of learner achievement (Swan et al., 2006).

137
Elements in an authentic evaluation rubric for case study analysis could include (a) the richness
(in both breadth and depth) of resources upon which analysis is based; (b) the ability to identify
salient and divergent perspectives in best practices relative to presented case material;
(c) articulation of a clear process of analysis that appears to incorporate consideration of
alternative perspectives; and (d) authoritative and or innovative synthesis of all elements of the
learning process into a coherent viewpoint. Case study reports can be designed as interactive and
collaborative assessments, with time periods for peer and instructor commentary (and subsequent
revision of submitted work) incorporated into the design and implementation of this form of
assignment. Degree and quality of collaboration and the ability to integrate critical feedback then
can become another component in the evaluation rubric.

Tests and Examinations

Tests or exams are commonly used to measure academic achievement (Eyal, 2012), and issues of
fairness, validity, authentic depiction of learning, and optimal use of resources are important for
both face-to-face and online education (Williams, 2006). The literature base in general supports
the use of exams to document learner performance in online environments (Hewson, 2012). In a
comparative study, Escudier et al. (2011) found that dental school students performed equally
well on face-to-face or web-based versions of an important high-stakes test. The authors
concluded that using web-based assessment does not disadvantage learners, though it should be
noted this study focused on the outcomes of learning and not on depicting learners’ experience of
the educational process. On the topic of student expectations, Stewart et al. (2004) found that
positive expectations for learning were high in a participant sample of students in online classes
during a college semester. Students identified positive expectations for meeting educational
goals, having a meaningful experience, and being supported by instructors and staff throughout
the course (Stewart et al., 2004). Students rated the actual experience of learning less favorably,
though a majority of participants still rated the overall experience as positive (Stewart et al.,
2004).
Williams (2006) suggested that an open-book, open-media format for administering exams in
online education is preferred to the more common closed-book, proctored exam typical of
education that is facilitated in primarily face-to-face education. If security of exam procedures is
the chief concern, software such as a lock-down web-browser or a text comparison tool (that
permits evaluation of submitted material for plagiarism) can be deployed. Williams and Wong
(2009) identified that a sample of students, when comparing online versus face-to-face exams,
viewed both formats as equally conducive (or restrictive, depending) to academic dishonesty or
cheating. Students in the same study significantly preferred online, open-resource, and
asynchronous examinations, as opposed to time-bound, face-to-face, and closed-resource (i.e.,
book) examinations, mostly due to the convenience of the former (Williams & Wong, 2009).
Most learning management systems allow the use of time-limited, synchronous, and single-
attempt submissions of exams, though this format may reduce the potential of exams as authentic
summative assessment tools (Eyal, 2012; Levia & Quiring, 2008; Williams, 2006).

Journals, Blogs, and WIKIS

Applying the principles of authentic and constructivist education to online education encourages
instructors to place the voice and experiences of the learners at the center of the assessment and
evaluation process (Herrington & Standen, 2000; Russell et al., 2006). Reflective journals, where
learners are prompted to articulate their own perspective relative to key educational themes, are

138
one way to enrich the assessment process in both a formative and summative sense (Naughton et
al., 2011). Adapting the concept of the reflective journal to the online, collaborative learning
environment, students can be asked to create web links in text to pertinent resources, images,
streaming videos, or other media that help to underscore and contextualize learners’ awareness
and reflection upon their own learning process. Another adaptation would be to frame the
journal, which implies either student-to-instructor or student-to-self-only communication, as a
web-log (i.e., blog) designed for commentary and review by other students (Eyal, 2012). A
rubric for evaluating the blog could be shared with all students, in order for student peer
evaluations then to be incorporated in the overall/summative assessment of student and class-
wide learning. If learners expected to augment their skills at scholarly and critical writing,
instructors can assign students to create collaborative web-pages or wikis (Eyal, 2012). Wikis, as
web-based knowledge resources, typically require detailed referencing and a comprehensive
overview of covered topics. Many elements used to evaluate final term papers can be adapted to
evaluate wikis, with the addition of assessing elements such as other web-based multimedia,
timeliness of revisions, and the professionalism of collaborators and peer reviewers.

Conclusion

In this article, we have provided an overview of formative and summative tools available in the
literature and some of our own ideas that can be adapted for the online education environment,
along with the philosophical foundation for design and evaluation of the now-ubiquitous practice
of online learning. However, due to the speed at which technology advances, it is necessary to be
deliberate in learning about newly available tools. In the digital world, one is limited only by
how far the imagination can stretch. Digital literacy is a key skill for instructors committed to
learner success in online education (Bonk & Cummings, 1998; Eyal, 2012; Herrington &
Standen, 2000), and professional educators in the 21st century need to augment and attend to
their own digital literacy, both individually and by expecting educational institutions to provide
opportunities to develop and maintain this crucial skill set. Along with cultivating digital
literacy, educators need to re-conceptualize commonplace or mundane features of such online
communication as email, in light of these features’ potential to enrich the learning process
beyond what can be expected of even traditional, face-to-face instruction (Lesnick et al., 2004).
Constructivist education practices, such as encouraging collaborative learning and feedback
(Russell et al., 2006), basing assessment on the progressive problem-solving and decision-
making capabilities of learners (Williams, 2006), and authentic depiction of the emergent
learning process (Naughton et al., 2011) are facilitated by deep familiarity with the capabilities
of online learning management systems. One note of caution is that some electronic devices
other than laptop and desktop computers limit the accessibility of all features available on a web-
based learning management system. More empirically based literature on counselor educator
digital literacy, including consideration of the constructive nature of the education process and
best methods of both formative and summative assessments, may contribute to accurately,
efficiently, and productively assess learner knowledge, awareness, and/or skills in online
counselor education.

139
References

American School Counselor Association (2005). The ASCA National Model: A framework for school counseling
programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e-portfolio assessment: An approach to the netfolio system. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 40(2), 342–357. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00803.x
Berry, J. W., & Chew, S. L. (2008). Improving learning through interventions of student-generated questions and
concept maps. Teaching of Psychology, 35(4), 305–312. DOI: 10.1080
/00986280802373841
Black, P., & Williams, D. (1998). Inside the white box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, Phi Delta
Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Brookes, D. T., & Lin, Y. (2010). Structuring classroom discourse using formative assessment rubrics. Paper
presented at the Physics Education Research Conference. Retrieved from http://www.compadre
.org/per/items/detail.cfm?ID=10367
Bonk, C. J., & Cummings, J. A. (1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the centre of Web-
based learning. Educational Media International, 35(2), 82–89.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of
Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Escudier, M. P., Newton, T. J., Cox, M. J., Reynolds, P. A., & Odell, E. W. (2011). University students’ attainment
and perceptions of computer delivered assessment; a comparison between computer-based and traditional tests
in a “high-stakes” examination. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 440–447. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2011.00409.x
Eyal, L. (2012). Digital assessment literacy: The core role of the teacher in a digital environment. Educational
Technology and Society, 15(2), 37–49. Retrieved from https://csuglobal.blackboard.com
/bbcswebdav/library/Article%20Reserve/OTL532K/Digital%20assessment%20literacy%20 —The
%20core%20role%20of%20the%20teacher%20in%20a%20digital%20environment.pdf
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (30th Anniversary). (Trans. M. B. Ramos). New York, NY:
Continuum.
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of
the literature. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.
Glassmeyer, D. M., Dibbs, R. A., & Jensen, R. T. (2011). Determining utility of formative assessment through
virtual community: Perspectives of online graduate students. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
12(1), 23–35.
Hargreaves, E. (2007). The validity of collaborative assessment for learning. Assessment in education: principles.
Policy & Practice, 14(2), 285–299.
Hanson, J. M., & Mohn, L. (2011). Assessment trends: A ten-year perspective on the uses of a general education
assessment. Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education, 23(5), 1–15. DOI:
10.1002/au.235
Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning
environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(3), 195–205.
Hewson, C. (2012). Can online course-based assessment methods be fair and equitable? Relationships between
students’ preferences and performance within online and offline assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 28(5), 488–498. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00473.x
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner. The definitive classic in adult
education and human resource development (7th ed.). City, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge England, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Leppisaari, I., Vainio, L., Herrington, J., & Im, Y. (2011). International e-benchmarking: Flexible peer development
of authentic learning principles in higher education. Educational Media International, 48(3), 179–191.
DOI:10.1080/09523987.2011.607321
Lesnick, A., Cesaitis, A., Jagtiani, U., & Miller, R. (2004). Curriculum design as re-writing: Online “chat” as a
resource for radicalizing the teaching of a canonical text. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 6(1), 35–47.
Levia Jr., D. F. & Quiring, S. M. (2008). Assessment of student learning in a hybrid PBL capstone seminar. Journal
of Geography in Higher Education, 32(2), 217–231. DOI:10.1080/03098260701514041

140
Naughton, C., Smeed, J., & Roder, J. (2011). Delimiting the prospect of openness: An examination of the initial
student approaches to e-learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 103–
120.
Nicol, D. (2007). Laying foundation for lifelong learning: Case study of e-assessment in large first-year classes.
British Journal of Education Technology, 38(4), 668–678.
Oosterhof, A., Conrad, R., & Ely, D. (2008). Assessing learners online. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers &
Education, 54(3), 715–721.
Perera-Diltz, D. M. (2009). Assessment purposes. In E. Bradford (Ed.), ACA encyclopedia of counseling (pp.38–39).
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Perera-Diltz, D. M., & Moe, J. (2012). Online instruction of counselor education coursework: Maximizing strengths
and minimizing limitations. In G. R. Walz, J. C. Bleuer, & R. K. Yep (Eds.), Ideas and research you can use:
VISTAS 2012 (Article 41). Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/Resources/
Pittenger, A. L., & Lounsbery, J. L. (2011). Student-generated questions to assess learning in an online orientation to
pharmacy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 75(5), Article 94.
Rovai, A. P., Ponton, M. K., Derrick, M. G., & Davis, J. M. (2006). Student evaluation of teaching in the virtual and
traditional classrooms: a comparative analysis. Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 23−35.
Russell, J., Elton, L., Swinglehurst, D., & Greenhalgh, T. (2006). Using the online environment in assessment for
learning: A case‐study of a web‐based course in primary care. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
31(4), 465–478. DOI:10.1080/02602930600679209
Smith, G. (2007). How does student performance on formative assessments relate to learning assessed by exams?
Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(7), 28–34.
Stewart, B. L., Waight, C. L., Norwood, M. M., & Ezell, S. D. (2004). Formative and summative evaluation of
online courses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(2), 101–109.
Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and collaboration in online learning. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 10(1), 45–62. Retrieved January 30, YEAR, from http://www.new
.kent.edu/ehhs/dl/upload/assessment-and-collaboration.pdf
Thelwall, M. (2000). Computer-based assessment: A versatile educational tool. Computers & Education, 34(1), 37–
49.
Vonderwell, S., Liang, X., & Alderman, K. (2007). Asynchronous discussions and assessment in online learning.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 309–328.
Wang, L. (2010). Integrating communities of practice in e-portfolio assessment: Effects and experiences of mutual
assessment in an online course. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 267–271.
Wang, T., H., Wang, K., H., & Huang, S. C. (2008). Designing a web-based assessment environment for improving
pre-service teacher assessment literacy. Computers & Education, 51(1), 448–462.
Williams, J. (2006). The place of the closed book, invigilated final examination in a knowledge economy.
Educational Media International, 43(2), 107–119.
Williams, J., & Wong, A. (2009). The efficacy of final examinations: A comparative study of closed-book,
invigilated exams and open-book, open-web exams. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 227–
236.

About the Authors

Dilani M. Perera-Diltz
PhD, Associate Professor of Counselor Education
Department of Counseling, Administration, Supervision, and Adult Learning
College of Education
Cleveland State University
Cleveland, OH
Email: [email protected]
Research interests: counselor education practice, school counselor practice, assessment

Jeffry L. Moe
PhD, Assistant Professor of Counseling
Department of Counseling & Human Services, Darden College of Education

141
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA
Email: [email protected]
Research interests: LGBTQ issues in counseling, consultation, counselor education practice, marginalized
populations

142