Why is this question important? Formative evaluation (progress monitoring) is a key component incorporated in many current reform efforts designed to improve student achievement. Systemic interventions such as Response to Intervention (RtI), Data-based Decision Making, and Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) depend heavily upon the use of frequent progress monitoring. The cost in time, money, as well as the opportunity cost of implementing these interventions are enormous. They have the potential to make a significant difference in improving student performance or become another failed reform effect in a long line of failed education initiatives. It is essential that this core component, formative evaluation, be subjected to rigorous research to establish the effectiveness of the practice. A meta-analysis of the research on formative evaluation such as the Fuchs & Fuchs study helps to establish a reliable knowledge base to assure systemic interventions are built upon effective core practices.
See further discussion below.
Source: Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis, Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986
Results: (the population studied consisted predominately of students with mild disabilities)
- The study established an overall effect size of .70 for the impact of formative evaluation on achievement. This implies that students whose performance is systematically monitored programs are adjusted accordingly over time will perform on average .7 standard deviation points higher than students whose programs are not systematically monitored and formatively developed.
- It is notable that simply collecting student performance data had a statistically significant impact on student achievement. Collecting the data without any other intervention resulted in a .26 effect size.
- If the teaching staff do nothing more than graph the data the impact on student achievement is enhanced dramatically. Graphing increases the effect size to .7.
- Finally, the addition of rules for analyzing the data boosts the effect size to .90. Rules for evaluating the data requires the practitioners to analyze the student’s performance at regular intervals and to introduce changes to the instructional program as the data indicate.
Implications: The take home message is that progress monitoring coupled with graphing and following rules for analyzing and responding to the data can be a powerful educational intervention.
Authors: Lynn S. Fuchs & Douglas Fuchs, 1986
Publishers: Exceptional Children, the property of Council for Exceptional Children
Study Description: A Meta-analysis of the effects of formative evaluation on the achievement of students with special needs. The meta-analysis reviewed 21 controlled studies in which 96 separate effect sizes were obtained for the type of publication of each, data-evaluations methods, data-display, and use of behavioral interventions.
Definition(s): Formative Evaluation The purpose of this type of evaluation is to provide frequent and ongoing feedback to educators or practitioners on the effects on interventions on the performance on students. This is accomplished through the collection of data on student performance throughout the school year to show whether changes are required for the intervention to work properly. Effect Size A standardized measure of the effect of an intervention (treatment) on an outcome. The effect size represents the change (measured in standard deviations) in an average outcome that can be expected if that person is given the treatment. Because effect sizes are standardized, they can be compared across studies. Effect sizes as a most commonly defined as "small, d = .2," "medium, d = .5," and "large, d = .8
Citation: Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199-208.