What are the Disadvantages of Formative Evaluation?
With the various advantages there are also few disadvantages when formative evaluation is considered.
- Time-consuming and resource-intensive: Formative assessment is a procedure that takes time whether it is done on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis. Due to the constant data collection, analysis, reporting, and fine-tuning of new implementation and how effective it should be, these assessments need a lot of time and resources.
- Tiring process: Planning and exercising may be exhausting processes, and only a few recommendations can always be carried out. Because of this drawback, many people refrain from the practice.
- Trained and qualified professionals: Professionals that have received training and/or certification are needed to process the formative evaluation for it to continue smoothly and come to an end.
- Develops challenges: Several methods of evaluation are effectively carried out and concluded. There are logical problems with formative evaluation during periods of fast process improvement when attempting to gauge the intervention’s effectiveness. Additionally, only when the version utilised for intervention is put into practice can results be measured. The difficulty in detecting the change in the intervention at particular outcomes is another drawback.
- Not suited for dispute resolution: The formative evaluation approach does not meet the demands and initiatives of conflict resolution. Formative assessment is a strategy for improving work, but it is not an aim in itself.
- Limited funding: The intensity of formative evaluations is constrained by funding constraints. If funding submissions are comprehensive and flawless, formative assessments with mid-course actions and changes can be provided.
- Results must be related to implementation: When considering formative evaluation, the outcomes must be focused on the context of the programme execution rather than the overall programme assessment result. A basic example is that mid-stream evaluation can produce unfavourable outcomes but can be improved by gathering summative data for extended periods. When it comes to practice, mid-stream formative data should be collected with less assurance of proof. Evaluators should ensure that they combine efforts with a summative approach and use samples for a longer length of time to achieve a suitable balance between rigorous conclusions and interim input.
- Evaluators must maintain objectivity: Intervention is changed by continuing input, and here is where evaluators’ objectivity improves. There should be an appropriate standard strategy framework in place to retain the necessary distance for impartiality while also providing thorough and formative input. These are some of the drawbacks that evaluators, educators, and everyone involved in the formative evaluation must be aware of. A formative review is required and should focus on the disadvantages to prevent them in the future. With all of the benefits and drawbacks listed, teachers or assessors may take notice of them and ensure the success of their projects or assignments.
- Formative evaluation stages: When considering formative assessment, there are three phases to consider: pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation. The development stage is the first step in a formative evaluation when the determinants of the present phase are recognised. In addition, the barriers and facilitators are recognised. In this early step, the feasibility of accessing the planned intervention is realised. The development stage also includes incorporating results into the intervention design and refining them before deployment.