Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of this article was to review the different evaluation approaches for adult learners and the effect on promoting the quality of teaching and learning. This study aimed to identify new trends in adult education formative-summative evaluations. Data were collected from multiple peer-reviewed sources in a comprehensive literature review covering the period from January 2014 to March 2019. A total of 22 peer-reviewed studies were included in this study. Results were systematically analyzed to answer three questions as follows: what are the new trends in the summative and formative evaluations of adult learners? What are the new trends in the summative and formative evaluations of adult learners engaged in distance learning? And what are the outcomes/drawbacks in the summative and formative evaluations of adult learners? An analysis of the existing literature indicated that those who instruct adults must use a wide variety of pre- and post-assessment tools to match students’ differences with their needs. It also highlighted the importance of “assessment for learning” rather than “assessment of learning” and “learning-oriented assessment” (LOA) for lifelong learning, thus preparing adult learners for future responsibilities and decision making. It also indicated the importance of reflection and immediate feedback for the adult learner. Assessment of mental phenomena such as creativity should have defined terms. The findings of this article supported the argument for more attention to be paid to new trends in evaluations used in adult education. One important result of this kind of evaluation is its facilitation of self-confidence within the adult learning setting.

Keywords

adult learner adult student evaluation distance learning evaluation formative-summative evaluation

Introduction and Background

The adult education system has changed dramatically since Malcolm Knowles (1970) introduced his theory and definition of adult education (Knowles et al., 2014; Merriam & Brockett, 2011), and the boundaries of “adult education” are broad and difficult to delineate. The term “adult learners” now includes individuals who, following a break in study after leaving compulsory or regular university education, become involved in a diverse range of formal, informal, and non-formal education that results in acquisition of new skills, knowledge, and well-being (Kil et al., 2013; Knowles, 1970; Lee, 2016). The “adult student” category is often limited to those aged 25 and over (Chao et al., 2007). There is some overlap between the categories of “nontraditional student” and “adult student.” The “adult student” is first defined as a student who pursues any program leading to a vocational certificate, degree, or training; second, his or her goal for education is to gain additional or enhance existing work skills; third, he or she considers himself/herself primarily as a worker, not a student; and, finally, is likely to be enrolled in distance education because of his or her numerous responsibilities and multiple life roles (Compton et al., 2006; Ross-Gordon, 2011). Adult education involves adults engaging in sustained, systematic, self-educating activities to gain values, knowledge, attitudes, and new skills.

The adult learning theory suggested by Knowles (1970), which focuses on adult learner engagement in the learning process, irrevocably changed adult education. Currently, emphasis is placed on urging adult learners to actively involve themselves in evaluating their own learning by helping them assess the strengths and weaknesses of their performance objectively, thereby improving their learning process (Knowles, 1970; Merriam, 2001).

Adult Education Evaluations

“Evaluation” and “assessment” are often used synonymously to refer to the process of judging and assigning value to an item. However, the term “assessment” is technically used to judge work, learning, or performance (formally or informally), while the term “evaluation” is used to measure all other aspects of academic endeavors (Martin & Collins, 2011)

During an education program, evaluations are conducted at several stages to determine the value of certain aspects according to a set of guidelines with specific criteria (Boonchutima & Pinyopornpanich, 2013). According to Jones (2003), both assessment and evaluation procedures identify what is being assessed, addressing the nature of assessment and the collection of appropriate evidences. Both assessors and evaluators must be clear about what they are assessing.

Evaluations often include a crucial element for measuring adult learners’ outcomes; thus, such evaluations are connected to public and private decision-making processes that serve important political functions, such as fund allocation, spending analysis, and accountability. Furthermore, evaluations are increasingly linked with the stakeholder’s education, social transformation, and empowerment (McNamara et al., 2010). Assessment and monitoring play a critical role in enhancing the quality and conditions of adult and continuing education programs—not only from the assessor’s perspective but also from the learner’s. The monitoring and evaluation of adult learners are of vast significance, given that such procedures do not restrict their creativity and success (Comings, 2007).

Conventionally, evaluations are differentiated as either formative or summative. “Formative evaluations” are conducted throughout a course to evaluate a student’s learning process and are used to alter, modify, and improve learning. Often, they provide feedback to both educators and learners while the program is still underway (Knowles et al., 2014). On the contrary, “summative evaluations” are retrospective assessments conducted after the learner has completed the course or program. Summative evaluations are utilized to ensure the educator’s accountability, demonstrate achievement, and judge the quality of a program in its entirety (Sewall & Santaga, 1986). Simply, formative methods are an assessment for learning whereas summative ones are an assessment of learning.

Globally, there is a move toward so-called “knowledge-based communities” (UNESCO World Report, 2005). Accordingly, the rapid changes taking place in learners’ everyday lives can lead to new learning requirements and evaluation approaches. Therefore, the development of requirements in the adult learning field and evaluations for unique labor markets are crucial to confronting the various challenges faced by adult learners. In general, adult learning is important and relevant because it provides more opportunities for adults in today’s world (Angelo, 1995).

To summarize, assessment is defined as a continuous process to measure, monitor, and improve learning, degree of achievements, outcomes, and decide how much objectives are accomplished (Fernandes et al., 2012; Parker et al., 2001; Yambi, 2018). On the contrary, evaluation validates and judge the performance or outcome quality degree and level for decision making (Baehr, 2005). Thus, the key difference between the two is that assessment is directed toward learning progression, evaluation is aimed to outcome. Assessment is continuous systematic measures to review and assess the learner improvements, weakness and strength using the obtained data and information for academic support (Yambi, 2018).

In general, assessment is performed on regular scaffolding basis with active participation and involvement of both parties. The assessor is the one who appraises the growth and progress on the predetermined well-defined criteria, whereas the assessee, is the person to be assessed. The whole phenomena purpose is to conclude about learning efficiency and overall performance of the learner and where enhancement is needed. In assessment, the assessor defines and plans the objectives, gathers data and utilizes those evidences to improve the assessee’s required knowledge and skills quality (Baehr, 2005; Parker et al., 2001; Yambi, 2018).

Alternatively, “evaluation” originated from the word “value” which means “the judgment about efficacy and valuability.” Hence, evaluation examines and determine its validity and usefulness.

Basically, evaluation is a systematic measure and observing of quality of achievement against some objectives and standards or via compare and contrast. Thus, evaluation is final phase to assess the grades, mastery, and quality of a completed process (Baehr, 2005; Parker et al., 2001; Yambi, 2018).

Differences Between Assessment and Evaluation

Yambi (2018) stated that the main differences between assessment and evaluation, they are as follows:

Assessment is the process of collecting and examining the data to improve the current and future performance. Evaluation is a judgmental process using standardized criteria to evaluate final grades or scores.

Assessment is investigative diagnostic, as it identifies weak areas to improve. Whereas Evaluation is judgmental since it provides the learner with the overall score.

Assessment serves as a feedback on learning to enhance the performance. In contrast, Evaluation determines if the criteria are fulfilled or not.

Assessment goal is formative or assessment for learning, that is, to improve the performance during the process but evaluation is summative since it is preformed after the program has been completed to judge the quality.

Assessment targets the process, whereas evaluation is aimed to the outcome.

Assessment feedback relies on reflections of strong and weak points. In evaluation, it depends on the level of outcome against predetermined criteria.

The association between assessor and the person to be assessed is student-centered and depends on perception, standards internally and jointly defined. On the contrary, in evaluation the evaluator shares a perspective association with the person to be evaluated against predetermined measures defined by the evaluator.

Summative versus formative assessment

There are several differences between summative and formative assessment. Yambi(2018) allocated a number of differences, the following are some of these differences:

Formative assessment is a continuous monitoring during the learning process.

Summative evaluation is performed at the end point such as completing a unit or a course.

Formative assessment observes the performance during the process and improve it.

Summative assessment is a final graded achievement to judge if the learner has attained the learning objectives.

Formative assessment, targets student’s learning improvement and advancement. Thus, meaningful feedback is required. While summative assessment is aimed to assess student’s accomplishments.

Formative assessment is conducted multiple times during the process, whereas the summative is held after concluding part or course.

Summative assessment includes the full topic or course when assessing. Thus, summative assessment is considered to be more of a “product assessment.”

Formative assessment considers evaluation as a continuous regular process.

Formal versus Informal assessment

There are two main classifications of assessments: formal and informal. Formal assessments when supportive evidences are derived from examination. This type of examination is usually referred as standardized test such as TOFEL. Those measures have been verified in advance and have criteria to support the results. The collected information is calculated into numbers or percentages.

Informal assessment is designed to measure learning progress, comprehension, and performance. For instance, observation, class activities, and feedback are forms of informal assessment.

The employed evaluation should have objectives to be aligned with. Formal assessment should be standardized to measure the overall attainment and to compare equally the students of the same level with each other. On the contrary, informal assessments “criterion referenced or performance-based measures” is used for education comprehension and improvement.

The most efficient teaching strategy is to define the educational goals and align the course instructions to those purposes, followed by evaluating knowledge and skills. Extra activities should be employed for any unachieved goal.

To sum up, formal assessment is the plan that relies on data and assess student learning and achievements. Thus, it assesses capabilities and knowledge of the students versus predetermined criteria, such as standardized and criteria sheet assessment.

On the contrary, informal assessment is unplanned assessments integrated into the class activities to assess comprehension and growth, an example of this is direct observation and educational portfolio.

Both informal and formal assessment are required for efficient teaching, learning, and to reveal an impression about students’ learning progress and quality. For example, formal assessment can be used to measure achievement versus objectives and compare the level with the other students. Informal assessments on the contrary, can be used to assess student progress and define points of weakness and strength to improve teaching and learning (McAlpine, 2002; Weaver, 2017; Yambi, 2018).

Effective Formative Assessment

The effective formative assessment is designed to attain the desired learning objectives and focuses on daily needs and practices. It is aimed to monitor student achievement and progress in achieving the desired goals, thus must be precise, clear, quantifiable, and based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. It should be able to assess individual and group performance and consistent without changing everyday practice to fit the exam. One of the advantages of formative assessment or assessment for learning is to give feedback and directions to adjust teaching strategies to guide and lead students to achievements and success (Trumbull & Lash, 2013).

Formative Assessment Techniques

Several techniques are used for effective formative assessment or assessment for learning, some of them are as follow (Srivastava et al., 2018; Trumbull & Lash, 2013):

Exit ticket/ slip: A question is asked to all students after the lecture, for example what are the main points? This is to measure understanding.

Classroom quizzes: Helps in assessing cognitive skills, allows students to evaluate their own studies

One-minute paper: 60 s for the student to recall at the end of the part or lecture.

Muddiest point: Students identify the most difficult point to comprehend.

Directed paraphrasing: Restate section or lecture.

One-sentence summary: Students will answer the questions in one sentence.

Problem Statement

This study explored new trends in adult education formative-summative evaluations. As adult learners approach education differently than traditional students, teachers and evaluators often have difficulty gauging their levels of learning success and achievement, particularly in distance education environments, where there is often an array of challenges (Vasilevska et al., 2017). This study sought to fill a research gap in this area and identify the newly reported evaluation trends and techniques in adult and continuing education, especially with regard to formative-summative evaluations.

Conventional methods were predominantly used for the purpose of reflecting immediate information acquisition as opposed to enhancing the learning process or ensuring thorough and lasting learning. In recent decades, the presence of adult learners has increased on college campuses. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that higher education enrollment has increased and is expected to continue to rise until the academic year 2025–26. The number of learners over 25 is projected to remain steady or increase in the future (Hussar & Bailey, 2017).

Some education experts believe that adult evaluations suffer from a lack of clarity in the current framework; they are time-consuming, complex, and extremely difficult to perform (Hay et al., 2010; Lavin, 1993; OECD, 2008). However, as there is a lack of data regarding new trends in adult evaluations, this article intends to help address this issue. The findings can help inform further educational institutions and policy makers in the development of means for knowledge acquisition and evaluative methods in adult education.

Aim

This study aimed to broadly explore new trends in adult education evaluation and highlight novel aspects to support adult learning in the future.

Objectives

The precise objectives of this study were as follows: (a) explore newly reported trends in adult education evaluation, particularly formative and summative evaluations; and (b) examine the effectiveness and drawbacks of formative and summative evaluations for adult learners.

Research Questions

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are the new trends in the formative and summative evaluations of adult learners?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the outcomes/drawbacks in the formative and summative evaluations of adult learners?

In view of the research questions, all investigations related to the adult education evaluation in higher education were reviewed

Method

Data Source and Search Strategies

A complete and systematic search of the existing literature was conducted using trends in adult education and evaluation (both formative and summative) as the primary keywords. Data were collected from a variety of peer-reviewed research papers obtained from databases and online libraries including EBSCOhost Research Platform, ProQuest, ERIC, SCOPUS, JSTOR, OAIster, Emerald Reach, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Citation Search. A reference list of relevant articles was also examined, the websites of related organizations/universities were searched, and experts were consulted. The literature search covered the period from January 2014 to March 2019.

The following search keywords were used to identify potentially relevant studies in the title, keywords and abstract; “learning” OR “adult learning” OR “distance learning” OR “student learning” AND “evaluation” OR “assessment” OR “formative” OR “summative.”

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For inclusion in the study, articles had to meet the following criteria: (a) relate sufficiently to problems associated with the evaluations of adult learners (summative and formative or adult distance education; b) be peer-reviewed articles; and (c) the full text of the article must be accessible and in English.

Exclusion criteria: The studies if they were (a) not reported in English (b) focus on a specific part of the adult evaluation: summative and formative, for example, the difference between summative and formative evaluation (c) has no intervention or short paper such as poster (d) if the full text was not available and if they are not related to postgraduate students and adult students.

Data Abstraction

The following variables for each study were extracted: author name(s), specialty, publication year, education topic, and evaluation method, specific intervention, number of participants, study design, and study outcomes.

Study Review Process

Following data extraction, the articles were examined and analyzed according to the predetermined categories—summative and formative—as well as the different educational in formal, informal, and nonformal settings.

Results

Search Results

A literature search was conducted covering the period from January 2014 to March 2019. A total of 33,934 peer-reviewed articles were identified. Articles were screened according to title (n = 33,934), resulting in 641 abstracts for review to determine final eligibility status. After methodically examining the abstracts, 475 articles were excluded: 82 that were not written in English and 62 that were either duplicates (15) or did not meet other inclusion criteria (47). The full text of the remaining articles was then reviewed; 22 relevant peer-reviewed articles met all of the inclusion criteria and were selected as suitable for this study (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flowchart representing the article search and selection process.

Study Outcomes

The 22 peer-reviewed studies included in this study are presented in Table 1. All of the articles were published in the past 5 years (2014–2019), and most (67.2%) were published in the past 3 years. The studies’ sample sizes ranged from nine to 1,050 participants, and the aggregate sample size totaled 2,882 adult participants across all 22 studies. Six studies were related to the health care field (Aycock et al., 2018; Bullock et al., 2018; Elshami & Abdalla, 2017; Freeman & Tashner, 2015; Jamil et al., 2018; Srivastava et al., 2018). Four focused on English as a foreign language (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; Jiang, 2014; Mohamadi, 2018; Mohamadi Zenouzagh, 2019). Three were related to engineering and technology (Baleni, 2015; Dascalu et al., 2017; Hansen & Ringdal, 2018) and a further three to education (Baleni, 2015; Elmahdi et al., 2018; Hawe & Dixon, 2017). Two studies were related to science (Baleni, 2015; Keller, 2017) and two to the field of psychology (Barnes & Gillis, 2015; Leiva et al., 2018). The fields of social sciences (Deeley, 2018), physical education (Martos-Garcia et al., 2017), and mathematics (Cross & Palese, 2015) were each represented by a single study. These studies were carried out in different parts of the world: six were conducted in the United States (Aycock et al., 2018; Barnes & Gillis, 2015; Bullock et al., 2018; Cross & Palese, 2015; Freeman & Tashner, 2015; Keller, 2017), three in Iran (Estaji & Mirzaii, 2018; Mohamadi, 2018; Mohamadi Zenouzagh, 2019), and one study each in China (Jiang, 2014), South Africa (Baleni, 2015), Romania (Dascalu et al., 2017), the United Arab Emirates (Elshami & Abdalla, 2017), New Zealand (Hawe & Dixon, 2017), Spain (Martos-Garcia et al., 2017), Scotland (Deeley, 2018), Bahrain (Elmahdi et al., 2018), Norway (Hansen & Ringdal, 2018), Pakistan (Jamil et al., 2018), Costa Rica (Leiva et al., 2018), and India (Srivastava et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Studies.

Author(s), Year, Country	Type of study	Number of participants assessed	Intervention	Positive change/negative change/no difference
Jiang (2014), China	Observation/semi-structured interviews Qualitative	31 English as a foreign language (tertiary institution)	Formative questioning (procedural, divergent, and convergent questioning)	Enhanced self-regulated learning Collaborative tasks engage learners in higher-order thinking Increased classroom participation Divergent questioning benefited more
Baleni (2015), South Africa	Survey of staff and students Qualitative and Quantitative	220 1st-year education, science, engineering, and technology (Comprehensive University)	Formative followed by summative evaluation using blackboard (two modules: online discussion forums and multiple choice, true/false using blackboard)	Enhanced student understanding and success Improved Self-monitoring Provide important feedback about students’ learning
Barnes and Gillis (2015), USA	Open-ended questionnaire Qualitative	31 Psychology (University)	Formative assessment 360°	Deeper and integrative understanding Immediate feedback on performance and course Increased classroom participation
Cross and Palese (2015), USA	Pre- and post-CAT Quantitative	1,050 Intermediate Algebra class (University)	Classroom assessment techniques (CATs) in online discussion forums	Improved students’ learning and scores
Freeman and Tashner (2015), USA	Pre- and posttest result analysis Quantitative	16 Immunology course Allied Health Science (University)	Synchronous and asynchronous web-based formative assessment followed by summative. (Synchronous Kahoot!, Plickers application, and asynchronous online quizzes using learning management system (LMS)).	Positive impact on understanding and summative assessment scores
Dascalu et al. (2017), Romania	Questionnaire Quantitative	41 Engineering	Web-based formative assessment (PoliCAT; Computer adaptive testing), followed by summative assessment	Enhanced self-regulated learning Sharpened skills and understanding Positive impact on summative test scores
Elshami and Abdalla (2017), United Arab Emirates	Focus group discussion Qualitative	24 Radiography students (University)	Peer formative assessment (anonymous assessment using a standardized evaluation sheet)	Improved students’ learning Quality of feedback, time-consuming, needs, training, and workshops
Hawe and Dixon (2017), New Zealand	Semi-structured interviews Collection of learner artifacts Qualitative	18 Undergraduate teachers’ program to upgrade their diploma to a degree (University)	In-class activities (reading, solving jigsaw puzzles, brief quizzes, concise PowerPoint presentations, and/or summaries of key ideas), followed by a collection of artifacts produced during activities and use of exemplars, peer review, and feedback Summative test	Improved meta-cognition Enhanced self-monitoring and self-regulation Improved students’ learning Usefulness of feedback
Keller (2017), USA	Survey Quantitative	22 General biology (Community Colleges)	Formative (short-answer post lab questions and drawings, “dry run” practical exam, in-class reflective writing) followed by Summative (written and practical)	Improved students’ learning and immediate feedback
Martos-Garcia et al. (2017), Spain	Self-reported questionnaire Perception scale Quantitative	253 Physical education (University)	Blogosphere and peer assessment	Increased classroom participation Increased motivation Useful feedback Effective peer assessment
Aycock et al. (2018), USA	Survey Quantitative	45 Physician’s assistant (University)	Classroom Assessment technique (Anonymous Muddiest Point CAT)	Identified areas of misunderstanding and improved understanding
Deeley (2018), Scotland	Student feedback Qualitative	20 Social Sciences (University)	Formative followed by Summative and enhanced with technology (Mahara, Echo360 System, and Google Glass, Camtasia)	Positive impact on assessment and improved students’ learning Effective peer assessment Useful feedback
Elmahdi et al. (2018), Bahrain	Questionnaire Qualitative and quantitative	166 Bahrain Teachers’ College (University)	Plickers for formative assessment	Improved students’ learning Increased classroom participation Provided individualized learning Useful feedback
Estaji and Mirzaii (2018), Iran	Experimental and control groups Two focus group interviews Posttest Quantitative	58 English as a foreign language (Kish Institute of Science and Technology institution)	Formative (concept maps, vocabulary quizzes, oral questioning templates, Vocabulary Knowledge Scale)	Improved learning, knowledge, and application of knowledge
Hansen and Ringdal (2018), Norway	Sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (changes in achievement and focus group interview) Quantitative	190 Engineering (University)	Formative assessment test (14 assessments /year: six individual mathematics tasks, six multiple choice question (MCQ) tests, and two mock exams) and achievement-goal questionnaire (six times/year)	Improved comprehensive understanding Useful feedback
Jamil et al. (2018), Pakistan	Questionnaire Quantitative	171 Medical (Neurosciences Module) (University)	Formative test using Kahoot! software (Game-based student response system)	Improved students’ learning and performance Enhanced self-regulated learning
Leiva et al. (2018), Costa Rica	Data reflecting language competence Self-reported questionnaire Qualitative	9 Psychology (University)	Course assessment after 4–5 weeks of strategy training (guessing meaning, vocabulary recognition, comprehension, and summarization) Then, task review followed by formative and summative quizzes	Positive impact on summative scores Increased motivation Improved students’ learning and scores
Mohamadi (2018), Iran	Pre-/posttest IELTS writing rating scale Quantitative	130 English as a foreign language (University)	E-portfolio writing, e-writing forum; online electronic writing summative assessment	Improved students’ learning and scores
Srivastava et al. (2018), India	Pre-/posttest feedback questionnaire Quantitative	200 Exp = 100 and control = 100 Medical Physiology (University)	Classroom quiz, one-sentence summary, exit ticket, directed paraphrasing, 1-min paper, Muddiest Point	Improved students’ learning and scores Useful and immediate feedback Easily integrated in class
Bullock et al. (2018), USA	Post-course survey Quantitative	157 Pharmacy (University)	Muddiest Point assessment incorporated within summative exam review	Improved students’ learning and scores Improved understanding Useful feedback
Mohamadi Zenouzagh (2019), Iran	Classroom observation, content analysis Pre-/posttest Quantitative	30 English as a foreign language (Vocational institute)	E‑collaborative discussion forum, e-portfolio writing, e-writing forum. Online electronic writing summative assessment	Improved students’ learning and competences Effective feedback

Thirteen studies were quantitative, six were qualitative, and two used a mixed-methods approach, as shown in Table 1. Intervention lengths ranged from 4 weeks to 7 months.

Table 1 displays the characteristics and interventions used in the studies. All interventions aimed at identifying the application and effectiveness of formative-summative evaluations in adult education by determining the respondents’ answers, ideas, perspectives, achievements, and opinions. The main reported outcomes are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2. Only one disadvantage was reported by Elshami and Abdalla (2017).

Table 2.

Summary of the Main Measured Outcomes Reported in the Reviewed Studies.

Main outcome	Author(s)
Self-regulated learning	Jiang (2014), Baleni (2015), Dascalu et al. (2017), Hawe and Dixon (2017), and Jamil et al. (2018)
Increased classroom participation	Jiang (2014), Barnes and Gillis (2015), Martos-Garcia et al. (2017), and Elmahdi et al. (2018)
Improved understanding	Baleni (2015), Barnes and Gillis (2015), Freeman and Tashner (2015), Dascalu et al. (2017), Aycock et al. (2018), Hansen and Ringdal (2018), and Bullock et al. (2018)
Useful and immediate feedback	Baleni (2015), Cross and Palese (2015), Barnes and Gillis (2015), Keller (2017), Martos-Garcia et al. (2017), Deeley (2018), Estaji and Mirzaii (2018), Hansen and Ringdal (2018), Srivastava et al. (2018), Bullock et al. (2018), and Mohamadi Zenouzagh (2019)
Improved students’ learning and scores	Cross and Palese (2015), Elshami and Abdalla (2017), Hawe and Dixon (2017), Keller (2017), Deeley (2018), Elmahdi et al. (2018), Estaji and Mirzaii (2018), Jamil et al. (2018), Leiva et al. (2018), Mohamadi (2018), Srivastava et al. (2018), Bullock et al. (2018), and Mohamadi Zenouzagh (2019)
Increased motivation	Martos-Garcia et al. (2017), and Leiva et al. (2018)

Figure 2.

Graphical representation of the main measured outcomes reported in the reviewed.

Discussion

Much adult learning occurs within a corporative learning environment comprising the adult learner and his or her teacher, facilitator, or trainer. The latter are required to cover the demands of various kinds of learners in different dynamic, and self-paced environments. The studies reflected the various short- and long-term assessor roles of teachers (facilitators and trainers), who are expected to prepare their syllabi with the necessary pedagogical, instructional design, and learning theory skills to deliver knowledge based on the learning context.

Do Learning Assessments and Evaluation Positively Affect Adult Learners?

Effective learning assessments can help students become better learners while also encouraging them to take better ownership of their education, as opposed to coasting as “surface learners” who only memorize information because of persistent prodding from external bodies, such as educational accreditation bodies (including governmental and private sector organizations and professional associations). In 2013, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) highlighted institutions’ current assessment activities and described how these institutions were using evidence of student learning outcomes. In particular, NILOA, showed a large increase in the use of rubrics, portfolios, and other classroom-based assessments (Kuh et al., 2014). Dochy et al. (1999) concluded in their investigation that the growing demand for adult education had stimulated considerable interest in re-evaluating the relationship between learning quality and assessments, and that a combination of the different newer forms of evaluation used to assess adult learners’ achievement and progress had helped adult education become more responsible and reflective.

Does Formative and Summative Evaluation Improve Higher Education?

Boud and Falchikov (2006) argued that assessment must be learning-oriented and should foster future lifelong learning. Students must become their own assessors to succeed as adult learners who use their learning to participate in real world contexts and ongoing practices that apply the learning acquired. “Contextualized learning,” or learning by reflecting on real world contexts, is essential for adult learners. A study by Jones (2003) indicated that evaluation procedures must become clearer and more accurate to reveal students’ achievements, and they must continually evolve to reflect new advances, students’ gains, and broader changes. Meyer (2002) revealed the importance of learner success and achievement as a factor affecting online education quality.

In recent years, adult education outcomes have become a concern of the overall educational system, but they have been overshadowed by attention to the criteria for quality formative-summative evaluation as a significant step in the learning process. New trends in adult education recognize, not only the importance of the evaluation process, but also the necessity of quality-based educational development relevant to adult learners’ goals (often work-related). The quality process has three phases: peer evaluations, self-education, and joint evaluations. External evaluations comprise studies and competence evaluations; self-evaluations comprise thoughtful analyses of competence; and consolidation refers to the consolidated outcomes portfolio.

Normally, formative evaluation is used to alter and improve learning—in this case, to provide appropriate feedback to staff—while the program is still underway. Knowles et al. (2014) noted that these two types of evaluation help with the creation and prioritization of goals and program content, offering direction for beneficial adult program planning, re-diagnosis of adult learning needs, and guiding principles for adult program management. They also assist in improving teaching and learning processes by gathering information. Knowles et al. (2014) also encouraged self-evaluation of adult learners’ ideas or learning according to established standards and criteria.

Summative (or terminal) evaluations are used to satisfy accountability, prove a point, or make sound judgments regarding the overall quality of an adult evaluation program (Aboulsoud, 2011). They draw together previously acquired information; for example, collected formative evaluations.

What are the New Demands and Trends in Adult Learner Evaluation?

According to the findings, adult education is widespread, and the number of nontraditional learners is only increasing—in the workplace, online, in communities, as well as in hospitals, centers for migrants, cultural centers, prisons, churches, and universities (Hunter-Johnson, 2017). Program evaluations with learner input is obviously an important aspect of this of nontraditional adult learners. One current trend is the evaluation of e-learning usability. This is particularly relevant for identifying what users want from online education and how to support them and prevent dropout, which, in turn, rests in part on the adult learners’ technical abilities (which may differ more than among younger learners) and the technologies used across different types of e-learning programs (Zaharias & Poylymenakou, 2009).

The new trends in adult education evaluation appear in the form of increased activity in adult education programs to assess learners. In recent years, research on adult education quality within an educational system has focused on the criteria for quality evaluation and measurement. In this regard, divergences certainly remain among evaluators and learners. The main intention of these current trends is to demystify evaluations. How operational are formalized evaluations? Here, it must begin with the instructor’s philosophical concerns regarding education and classroom experiences. In adult education, the instructor (facilitator) believes that it is essential to monitor experiences within the adult learning setting and ensure that his or her teaching methods, assignments, and experiences meet the adult learners’ demands and expectations. With regard to formative evaluations, how can a facilitator know “at that very moment” that his or her course is actually of use to the adult students?

One approach involves breaking down each formative evaluation into three cycles: short, medium, and long (William, 2006). Adult learners bring considerable knowledge and experience into the learning setting. A student-centered approach should be pursued to connect with students’ reflections, needs, experiences, and expectations as well as prioritize them in the education evaluation process (Smith, 2017). This move alone would make the adult learning setting more diverse. Meyer (2002) observed that adults generally want immediate feedback and critical evaluations, expect to be respected to a greater degree than younger learners, and more often than not assume full responsibility for their education. Merriam and Brockett (2011) also noted that feedback is an important component of formative evaluations in adult learning; indeed, the existence of feedback has been shown to improve adult learners’ evaluation quality (McNamara et al., 2010).

One critical area of assessment is evaluating “intelligence” and “creativity,” but these are obviously nebulous areas that are hard to measure with quantitative summative assessments. Therefore, agreement on the technical definition of terms is important (Jones, 2003).

In summary, student-centered approach encouraging reflections, addressing needs and experience with immediate feedback. Assessment targeted to evaluate mental phenomena such as intelligence and creativity is essential to prepare the learner to generate solutions for future obstacles, yet, measures should be well defined for the learners.

The purpose of this article was to review the different evaluation approaches for adult learners and their impact on promoting the quality of teaching and learning. An analysis of the existing literature indicated that those who instruct adults must use a wide variety of pre- and post-assessment tools to match students’ differences with their needs. It also highlighted the importance of “assessment for learning” rather than “assessment of learning” and “learning-oriented assessment” (LOA) for lifelong learning, thus preparing adult learners for future responsibilities and decision making.

Practical Implications

The findings of this article supported the argument for more attention to be paid to new trends in the formative-summative evaluations used in adult education. One important result of this kind of evaluation is its facilitation of self-confidence within the adult learning setting.

Future Tasks

This investigation provided preliminary findings from a literature review to stimulate future research in education evaluation in adult education across various fields.

Limitations of the Study

The inability to access full text of desired research materials was one of this study’s limitations. In addition, in the several sets of questionnaires surveyed, there was the possibility of bias, which is intrinsic to all self-reporting. Second, the researcher was unable to investigate the problem in terms of adult education duration because some of the studies featuring longer exposure resulted in different implications concerning the learners’ high-order abilities.

Conclusion

After revising the ideas above, it would be obvious that evaluation and assessment are totally dissimilar. Whereas evaluation includes creating decisions, assessment is concerned with correcting the deficits and weakness in the performance. Though, they play an essential part in investigating and purifying the performance of a person and outcome.

This article examined new trends in the use of formative-summative evaluations in adult education. An examination of these new trends provides implications for evaluating adult students within the classroom setting. Namely, as adult learners tend to be more responsible for their learning than younger students and bring more experience to the classroom, adult educators have more freedom and flexibility in assisting their students. Therefore, the adult learning environment is perfectly suited for formative evaluation. Finally, these trends parallel those related to the increase in high-stakes standardized testing, which is not always available in adult education scenarios.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to express deepest thanks to the Researchers Support and Services Unit at King Saud University for their editorial assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research Center for Humanities, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University.

ORCID iD

Haifa F. Bin Mubayrik

References

Aboulsoud

(2011). Formative versus summative assessment. Education for Health, 24(2), Article 651. http://www.educationforhealth.net/article.asp?issn=1357-6283;year=2011;volume=24;issue=2;spage=651;epage=651;aulast=Aboulsoud

Angelo

(1995). Reassessing and defining assessment. AAHE Bulletin Angelo, 48, 7–9.

Aycock

Sikes

Stevens

(2018). Physician assistant student perceptions of “muddiest point” classroom assessment technique implementation. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 29(2), 115–117. https://doiorg.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000197

Baehr

(2005). Distinctions between assessment and evaluation. Program Assessment Handbook, 7(1), 231–234.

Baleni

(2015). Online formative assessment in higher education: Its pros and cons. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(4), 228–236.

Barnes

Gillis

(2015). Assessment360: A promising assessment technique for preservice teacher education. The Teacher Educator, 50(4), 288–304. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/08878730.2015.1071904

Boonchutima

Pinyopornpanich

(2013). Evaluation of public health communication performance by Stufflebeam’s CIPP model: A case study of Thailand’s department of disease control. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), Article 36.

Boud

Falchikov

(2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413.

Bullock

Gibson

Howard

Liu

Tatachar

Yuet

(2018). Use of the muddiest point technique as an exam review in an integrated pharmacotherapy course. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 10(9), 1295–1302. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.06.014

10.

Chao

DeRocco

Flynn

(2007). Adult learners in higher education: Barriers to success and strategies to improve results (Employment and Training Division Occasional Paper, 3). Employment and Training Administration.

11.

Comings

(2007). Persistence: Helping adult education students reach their goals. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 2007, 23–56.

12.

Compton

Cox

Laanan

(2006). Adult learners in transition. New Directions for Student Services, 114, 73–80.

13.

Cross

Palese

(2015). Increasing learning: Classroom assessment techniques in the online classroom. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(2), 98–108. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.1023594

14.

Dascalu

Nitu

Alecu

Bodea

Moldoveanu

(2017, June). Formative assessment application with social media integration using computer adaptive testing techniques [Conference session]. 12th International Conference on E-Learning, Orlando, FL, United States. http://sdl.edu.sa/middleware/Default.aspx?USESDL=true&PublisherID=AllPublishers&BookURL=https://sdl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=124281492&site=eds-live

15.

Deeley

(2018). Using technology to facilitate effective assessment for learning and feedback in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 439–448. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1356906

16.

Dochy

Segers

Sluijsmans

(1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.

17.

Elmahdi

Al-Hattami

Fawzi

(2018). Using technology for formative assessment to improve students’ learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology—TOJET, 17(2), 182–188. http://sdl.edu.sa/middleware/Default.aspx?USESDL=true&PublisherID=AllPublishers&BookURL=https://sdl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1176157&site=eds-live

18.

Elshami

Abdalla

(2017). Diagnostic radiography students’ perceptions of formative peer assessment within a radiographic technique module. Radiography, 23(1), 9–13. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.radi.2016.06.001

19.

Estaji

Mirzaii

(2018). Enhancing EFL learners’ vocabulary learning through formative assessment: Is the effort worth expending? Language Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 239–264. http://sdl.edu.sa/middleware/Default.aspx?USESDL=true&PublisherID=AllPublishers&BookURL=https://sdl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1193027&site=eds-live

20.

Fernandes

Flores

M. A.

Lima

R. M.

(2012). Students’ views of assessment in project-led engineering education: Findings from a case study in Portugal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 163–178.

21.

Freeman

Tashner

(2015). Technologies for formative assessment: Can web-based applications transform the allied health science classroom and improve summative assessment outcomes [Ebook]. Appalachian State University. https://www.candicelfreeman.com/uploads/3/7/9/2/37925553/technologiesforformativeassessment.pdf

22.

Hansen

Ringdal

(2018). Formative assessment as a future step in maintaining the mastery-approach and performance-avoidance goal stability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 59–70. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.11.005

23.

Hawe

Dixon

(2017). Assessment for learning: A catalyst for student self-regulation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1181–1192. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1236360

24.

Hay

Tan

Whaites

(2010). Non-traditional learners in higher education: Comparison of a traditional MCQ examination with concept mapping to assess learning in a dental radiological science course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003782525

25.

Hunter-Johnson

(2017). Demystifying educational resilience: Barriers of Bahamian nontraditional adult learners in higher education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(3), 175–186. http://sdl.edu.sa/middleware/Default.aspx?USESDL=true&PublisherID=AllPublishers&BookURL=https://sdl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1158643&site=eds-live

26.

Hussar

Bailey

(2017). Projections of education statistics to 2025 (NCES 2017-019). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

27.

Jamil

Fatima

S. S.

Saeed

A. A.

(2018). Preclinical medical students’ perspective on technology enhanced assessment for learning. JPMA: The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 68(6), 898–903. http://sdl.edu.sa/middleware/Default.aspx?USESDL=true&PublisherID=AllPublishers&BookURL=https://sdl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mdc&AN=30325908&site=eds-live

28.

Jiang

(2014). Exploring teacher questioning as a formative assessment strategy. RELC Journal, 45(3), 287–304.

29.

Jones

(2003). Evaluation in adult education: Some points for discussion [Reproduced from 1986 Conference Proceedings]. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002677.htm

30.

Keller

(2017). Using formative assessment to improve microscope skills among urban community college general biology I lab students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(3), 11–18.

31.

Kil

Motschilnig

Thöne-Geyer

(2013). What can adult education accomplish? The benefits of adult learning—The approach, measurement and prospects. Der Pädagogische Blick—Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Praxis in pädagogischen Berufen, 20(3), 164–175. https://www.die-bonn.de/doks/2013-benefits-en-01.pdf (English version of German original)

32.

Knowles

(1970). The modern practice of adult education (Vol. 41). New York Association Press.

33.

Knowles

Holton

III. Swanson

(2014). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.

34.

Kuh

Jankowski

Ikenberry

Kinzie

(2014). Knowing what students know and can do: The current state of student learning outcomes assessment in US colleges and universities. University of Illinois; Indiana University; National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

35.

Lavin

(1993). Appropriate assessment strategies for adult students. Metropolitan Universities, 4(1), 25–33.

36.

Lee

(2016). Lifelong learning as a path to happiness? AED–Adult Education and Development, 83, 68–73.

37.

Leiva

Durán

Murillo

(2018). Formative assessment for promoting intrinsic motivation in an EAP reading comprehension course. Revista de Lenguas Modernas, 28, 292–303.

38.

Martin

Collins

(2011). Formative and summative evaluation in the assessment of adult learning. In Wang

V. C. X.

(Ed.), Assessing and evaluating adult learning in career and technical education (pp. 127–142). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-745-9

39.

Martos-Garcia

Usabiaga

Valencia-Peris

(2017). Students’ perception on formative and shared assessment: Connecting two universities through the blogosphere. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(1), 64–70. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127152.pdf

40.

McAlpine

(2002). Principles of assessment. University of Luton. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.137.3942&rep=rep1&type=pdf

41.

McNamara

Joyce

O’Hara

(2010). Evaluation of adult education and training programs. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3, 548–554.

42.

Merriam

(2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3–14.

43.

Merriam

Brockett

(2011). The profession and practice of adult education: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

44.

Meyer

(2002). Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series: Quality in distance education—Focus on on-line learning [ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report]. Jossey-Bass.

45.

Mohamadi

(2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29–40. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.003

46.

Mohamadi Zenouzagh

. (2019). The effect of online summative and formative teacher assessment on teacher competences. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20, 343–359.

47.

OECD. (2008). Assessment for learning formative assessment. http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf

48.

Parker

P. E.

Fleming

P. D.

Beyerlein

Apple

Krumsieg

(2001, October 10–13). Differentiating assessment from evaluation as continuous improvement tools [for engineering education, Conference session]. 31st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Impact on Engineering and Science Education. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.01CH37193), Reno, NV, United States.

49.

Ross-Gordon

(2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer nontraditional. Peer Review, 13(1), Article 26.

50.

Sewall

Santaga

(1986). A reference guide to program evaluation in adult education. Wisconsin Assessment Centre, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.

51.

Smith

(2017). Adult learners: Effective training methods. Professional Safety, 62(12), 22–25. http://sdl.edu.sa/middleware/Default.aspx?USESDL=true&PublisherID=AllPublishers&BookURL=https://sdl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asf&AN=126522750&site=eds-live

52.

Srivastava

Waghmare

Mishra

(2018). Formative Assessment Classroom Techniques (FACTs) for better learning in pre-clinical medical education: A controlled trial. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research, 12(9), 1–8. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.7860/JCDR/2018/35622.11969

53.

Trumbull

Lash

(2013). Understanding formative assessment: Insights from learning theory and measurement theory. WestEd. https://www.wested.org/online_pubs/resource1307.pdf

54.

UNESCO World Report. (2005). Towards knowledge societies. UNESCO Publishing. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001418/141843e.pdf

55.

Vasilevska

Rivza

Bogdan

(2017). Evaluation of readiness for distance education of students in European universities. BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 8(1), 35–41.

56.

Weaver

(2017). Formal vs. informal assessments, an overview of the two general categories of assessments. http://www.scholastic.com

57.

William

(2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11(3–4), 283–289. https://doi-org.sdl.idm.oclc.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4pass:[_]7

58.

Yambi

(2018). Assessment and evaluation in education. https://www.academia.edu/35685843/ASSESSMENT_AND_EVALUATION_IN_EDUCATION

59.

Zaharias

Poylymenakou

(2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: Beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(1), 75–98.

New Trends in Formative-Summative Evaluations for Adult Education