Summative Assessments

Summative assessments are implemented at the end of a unit, course, or instructional period to evaluate how well students have achieved the learning objectives, such as knowledge, skills, and behaviors. Unlike formative assessments, which provide feedback during the learning process, summative assessments measure the extent of learning that has occurred. They are typically higher stakes and account for a larger portion of a student’s grade.

Equity-Minded Summative Assessments

Equity-minded summative assessments are designed to ensure all students, regardless of their background, have an equal opportunity to succeed. These assessments incorporate the following principles:

1. Relevant

Align with course learning objectives and reflect students’ goals, interests, or experiences (Artze-Vega et al., 2023).
Example: Using case studies or problems that students are likely to encounter in their academic or professional lives.

2. Authentic

Provide opportunities for students to demonstrate knowledge and skills in meaningful, real-world contexts (Wiggins, 1990).
Example: Asking students to apply concepts to solve practical problems or create a project tied to real-world issues.

3. Rigorous

Set high expectations while ensuring all students, regardless of background, have the support needed to succeed.
Rigorous assessments communicate the belief that all students, with sufficient support, can succeed. This actively counters harmful practices of assigning less challenging tasks to minoritized students under the assumption of limited capabilities (Artze-Vega et al., 2023).
Example: Designing assessments that require critical thinking and analysis but providing adequate preparation through scaffolding and feedback (Artze-Vega et al., 2023).

4. Transparent

Clearly communicate the purpose, criteria for success (e.g., rubrics), and grading policies. Share sample assignments or questions when possible.
Transparency includes explaining policies on grading, use of technology (e.g., generative AI), and collaboration. Sharing sample assignments or questions further enhances student understanding and motivation (Winkelmes, 2023).

5. Inclusive

Mitigate cultural and other biases by using language and examples relevant to the diverse lived experiences of students.
Example: Avoid jargon or ambiguous language that may confuse students. Offer flexible options for students to demonstrate learning, such as (Montenegro & Jankowski, 2020).

Best Practices for Summative Assessments

Summative assessments can be anxiety-inducing, particularly if concentrated at the end of the semester. Designing these assessments with intention can reduce stress, support equitable outcomes, and promote student success. Consider the following strategies:

1. Break Down Large Assignments

Divide major projects or papers into smaller, manageable steps.

Example: Structure a research project into milestones like topic selection, annotated bibliography, draft submission, and final paper, with feedback provided at each stage.

2. Provide Revision Opportunities

Allow students to revise their work based on self, peer, or instructor feedback.

This practice not only improves the final product but also reinforces the importance of learning as a process.

3. Use Low-Stakes Practice

Prepare students for high-stakes assessments by incorporating frequent, low-stakes formative activities like quizzes or problem sets throughout the course.

Example: Weekly quizzes aligned with the final exam topics help students build familiarity and confidence.

4. Assignments

Offer more guidance early in the course and progressively increase the level of independence expected from students.
This gradual release of responsibility builds students' confidence and competence.

5. Implement Flexible Policies

Offer policies that give students room to recover from setbacks.

Example: Allow students to drop their lowest grade or retake an exam to support growth and reduce the impact of outlier performances.

6. Teach Effective Tool Use

Dedicate class time to teaching students , , or to enhance performance and reduce anxiety.

Educating students on these resources reduces anxiety and helps them use such tools ethically and effectively.

Why It Matters

Equity-minded summative assessments benefit students by:

Encouraging all students to engage with rigorous, meaningful tasks.
Fostering belonging and motivation through transparency and inclusivity.
Providing opportunities for students to practice, grow, and meet high expectations.

Research shows that these strategies promote confidence, retention, and success, particularly among first-generation, BIPOC, and international students (Schrank, 2016; Winkelmes, 2023).

Conclusion

Summative assessments are essential for measuring student learning and achievement. When designed thoughtfully, they not only evaluate outcomes but also reinforce the learning process, reduce anxiety, and promote equitable success. By making assessments relevant, authentic, rigorous, transparent, and inclusive, educators can create a supportive learning environment that empowers all students to thrive.

References:

Artze-Vega, I., Darby, F., Dewsbury, B., & Imad, M. (2023)., New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. . Northern Illinois University.

Hembree, R. (1988). . Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 47–77.

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2020, January). (Occasional Paper No. 42). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., & �մǳ��̌, Z. (2023). Chapter 4: Effective and Equitable Assignments and Assessments. (pp, 61-87, second edition). TESOL Press.

Schrank, Z. (2016). . Teaching Sociology, 44(2), 118–127.

Silaj, K. M., Schwartz, S. T., Siegel, A. L. M., Castel, A.D.(2021). . Educational Psychology Review,33, 1809–1834.

Wiggins, G. (1990). . Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,2, 1–3.

Winkelmes, M. (2023). . Perspectives In Learning, 20(1). Columbus, GA: CSUE Press.

Wood, S. G., Hart, S. A., Little, C. W., & Phillips, B. M. (2016). . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 62(3), 233–251.

�鶹��Ƶ