Summative and Formative Feedback in Writing

• In Event: 67.037 - Instructional Feedback: Types, Contexts, and Recommendations

Abstract

This presentation examines the role and effects of instructional feedback in writing. Instructional feedback in writing involves information provided by another person, group of people, agency, machine, self, or experience that allows a writer, one learning to write, or a writing teacher/mentor to compare some aspect of performance to an expected, desired or idealized performance. It can be derived from both formative and summative assessments. These approaches to instructional feedback in writing can take many different forms and serve a variety of purposes. For example, they can focus on product and process as well as provide information that is designed to address where am I going (feed-up), how am I going (feed-back), where to next (feed-forward), and what other alternatives exist (side-shadowing). It can involve oral feedback, written or digital comments and directions; visual cues, an internal or external self-directed dialogue, quantitative scores, or some combination of these.
Is instructional feedback in writing effective? To answer this question, I draw from multiple meta-analyses examining the impact of formative assessment in writing. While not all forms of formative assessment improve students’ writing (e.g., 6 + 1 traits and curriculum-based assessment), the overall findings from my review are positive. First, formative feedback delivered by teachers improves the quality of students’ writing (ES = 0.87). Second, peer feedback (giving it or giving and receiving it) enhances the quality of text produced by students (ES = 0.58). Third, teaching students to provide self-feedback improves students’ writing (ES = 0.62). Fourth, feedback from computer programs results in better writing (ES = 0.38). Lastly, praise enhances specific aspects of children’s writing (based on studies involving single-participant research).
In examining the impact of summative feedback in writing, it was not possible to draw on existing meta-analyses, as such reviews do not exist in writing, and intervention studies are extremely rare. As a result, I drew on other forms of evidence, such as descriptive and qualitative studies, investigations examining the reliability and validity of summative assessments, and correlational research. My analysis focus on high-stakes writing assessments, as the use of such assessments have been quite controversial.
Available studies provide some limited support for high-stakes summative assessments in writing, including gains in students’ writing (based on correlational data), writing instruction becoming more central to the mission of schools, and changes in teachers’ writing practices. These positive benefits must be weighed against a variety of concerns and issues, including questions concerning the validity of such texts and scores based on a single and commonly inauthentic writing task. It also appears that such assessments can narrow what is taught, encourage teachers to teach students to use a formulaic approach to writing, and send the unintended message that writing is the job of the language arts teachers only.
I conclude this presentation by providing directions for future research and considering the role of formative and summative assessment in writing during this and the coming decades.

Author

• Steve Graham, Arizona State University, Editor Journal of Educational Psychology