Evaluation of an organization and its members is the crucial element that can predispose, identify and dismantle all mechanisms and processes undertaken in this cooperation. It is a profound phenomenon that can distinguish all strengths, weaknesses of company participants to accentuate their abilities and skills in order to diminish potential risks and threats of a company. An evaluation and elaborate analysis of a corporation and its representatives is the right solution to the highest efficiency and performance rate, as this detailed assessment of all elements pictures a primary company arrangement. Various assessing tools and methods are widely used on company representatives’ behalf, as credible and meticulously performed evaluation analysis might facilitate an organization to become a top-performing and superior brand.
Formative and Summative Evaluation Approaches
There are several evaluation methods used in this sphere when it comes to a medical school clinic facility. The most common ones are formative and summative assessments that are essential parts of every single work environment. According to Snekalatha et al. (2021), “formative assessment is an integral part of medical education, and the subsequent feedback on performance plays a vital role in improving student learning” (p.84). This evaluation facilitates the learning process in medical education by providing pertinent data related to current tendencies in the medical sphere. This approach aims to promote a medical school clinic facility participant to investigate cases of the chosen area using previous research, experts’ counseling, and classroom settings. In other words, the goal of formative assessment is facilitation and consolidation of learning rather than grading the students ( Prashanti& Ramnarayan, 2019, p. 100). This practical assessment embraces diverse tasks, refines and enhances cognitive abilities and functions using incorporated approaches. Preston et al. (2019) claimed that students who were involved in tests as a part of formative evaluation “acknowledged the value of formative assessment in addressing knowledge gaps, providing motivation for students to work hard” (p.17). This statement proves that this evaluation approach forms the future learning habits, as participants, going through trials, tap into the data services and information repository to pass their tests. The formative test aim is to detect the participants’ level of knowledge rather than their outcomes. As to summative assessment, it mostly orients on the results of the organization’s members. As Arrogante et al. (2021) stated, “summative evaluation is used to establish the learning outcomes achieved by students at the end of the course” or their learning or working activities (p. 2). These two evaluation approaches are closely linked, as they manifest the level participants hone their skills and results, they have after courses. Finally, the complex evaluation work combines formative and summative evaluation for assessing the clinical performance of students or company members in simulated prospers.
Internal and External Evaluation Approaches
The other evaluation approaches are internal and external ones that explore the attitudes of conductors of evaluation, whether self-administered and facilitated by others. There is a technique aligned with identifying the major issues of a company by other organizations and experts who are invited to make an unbiased analysis of an organization. Booth and Nordberg claimed (2020), “policy in many countries now pushes corporations to conduct regular and systematic reviews of the performance of their boards of directors” (p.123); this is the case of an external evaluation. This evaluation approach is widely used among companies and corporations to allocate all the potential forces to resolve controversial issues. Obviously, external facilitators are in charge of experiencing company processes and its members to conduct regular and systematic reviews of company performance and present the further plan for minimizing and eliminating any risks. As to internal evaluators, they aim to promote objectives related to their first-hand experience and practice, obtaining company effectiveness. Companies resort to new tools to usher in their organizations, such as internal crowdsourcing. Beretta and Sondergaard (2021) pointed, “firms increasingly implement internal crowdsourcing to access the creative inputs of their wider crowd of distributed employees” (p.28). Evidently, companies are driven by the idea of knowing employees’ assessments, perception, vision; and this is a case of subjective evaluation.
Objective and Subjective Evaluation Approaches
It stands to reason that the internal and subjective evaluation approaches are closely related and interchangeable. Cutler et al. (2021) considering introducing an open crowdsourcing approach among company participants is the case of a personal evaluation to appraise the company’s performances and achievements. The internal and subjective evaluation approaches are substituents for each other, where people might have their factional standpoints based on their first-hand experience, down-sides, and up-sides. As to the external evaluation, it is, as a rule, objective and might expand new outlooks, standpoints that the internal members of a company do not observe. External facilitators are in charge of experiencing company processes and its members to conduct regular and systematic reviews of company performance and present the further plan for minimizing and eliminating any risks. The external and objective evaluation approaches can replace each other, as they offer a trustworthy, valid organization image without a biased and so-called, passionate attitude to a working environment.
Conclusion
All evaluation approaches are essential for identifying significant issues, such as an imbalance between allocative and productive efficiency, the highest turnover rate, and unsatisfied customers. Companies, organizations, learning facilities choose the best solution for their members to achieve set goals and anticipations. From reviewing the data sources to inviting outside experts, companies can manifest their best-augmented performances and indicators. Well-performed evaluation might help eradicate all irreversible negative consequences a company might face during its functioning. Besides, organizations might be able to make their companies profit-maximizing firms with a luxurious brand. Orientation of this multiple evaluation pattern is vital for a prosperous and efficient future of every single working environment.
References
Arrogante, O., González-Romero, G.M., LĂłpez-Torre, E.M., CarriĂłn-GarcĂa, L., Arrogante, A.P. (2021). Comparing Formative and Summative Simulation-Based Assessment in Undergraduate nursing Students: Nursing Competency Acquisition and Clinical Simulation Satisfaction. BMC Nursing, 20(92), 1-31.
Beretta, M., Sondergaard, H. A. (2021). Employee Behaviours beyond Innovators in Internal Crowdsourcing: What do Employees Do in Internal Crowdsourcing, if not Innovating, and Why? Creativity and Innovation Management, 1(21), 24-30.
Booth, R., Nordberg, D. (2021). Self or Others? Directors’ Attitude toward Policy Initiatives for External Broad Evaluation. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 18, 120-135.
Cutler, R., Nadari, B., Loide, M., Sootla, S., Saabas, A. (2021). Crowdsourcing Approach for Subjective Evaluation of Echo Impairment. ICASSP 2021 – 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics. Speech and Signal Processing, 406-410.
Eachempati, P., Ramnarayan, K.(2019). Ten Maxims of Formative Assessment. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(2), 99–102.
Preston, R., Gratani, M., Owens, K., Roche, P., Zimanyi, M., Malau-Aduli, B. (2019). Exploring the Impact of Assessment on Medical Students’ Learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,3 (16), 1–16.
Snekalatha, S., Mohamed Marzuk, S., Meshram, S.A., Maheswari, K.,U.,Sugapriya, G., Sivasharan ,K.(2021). Medical Students’ Perception of The Reliability, Usefulness and Feasibility of Unproctored Online Formative Assessment Tests. Advanced Physiological Education,45, 84–88.