Michael (1967) defines formative evaluation as a constructive process of evaluation where a great emphasis is laid on the inputs put in the systems that later determine the processes’ quality and the system’s outputs. For instance, in an academic institution, the administration of continuous assessment Tests (CATS) is a pertinent example that can be used to explain; in system design, it used to test each and every stage’s performance, judge whether each state is performing according to specifications. It indicates how the system is performing-the content, the teaching methods, the financing and general administration of education in schools or any other academic institutions.
On the other hand, summative evaluation is an evaluation process that determines the ‘worth’ of the entire program or measure against the stated objectives at the beginning of the program or course. A good example is an exam or a series of exams administered at the end of a course or a program. These exams are meant to judge whether the program is effective and reliable, valid content, effective administration or even the pedagogical issues related to teaching processes. The paper has attempted to discuss two of the fallacies or ‘errors of interpretations’ concerning these two fundamental evaluation processes. It will examine the first and second fallacy respectively.
The first fallacy states that both terms were introduced to play different roles for evaluation. This distinction between them concerns the relation of the evaluative information to its environment and use that relate to matters of client and the context. The author further notes that there is no essential difference in their properties themselves, for example, between their causal and correlational claims; measures of efficiency and measures of effectiveness. Both formative and summative are different in their functions they serve to determine the extent to which each one them goes. The author points