Effects of formative-summative assessment weight configurations on evaluation validity and discriminatory power in landscape architecture planning and design courses

This study investigates how different formative-summative assessment weight configurations affect evaluation validity and discriminatory power in a landscape architecture planning and design course, in the context of contemporary undergraduate education evaluation reforms in China. A randomized controlled experiment with 90 landscape architecture students at a provincial university in eastern China implemented three weight allocation schemes: 30%:70%, 50%:50%, and 70%:30% (formative: summative). Validity analysis, discrimination analysis, and curve fitting were used to examine the effects of weight configuration on assessment quality. The findings indicate that (1) weight configuration has a pronounced nonlinear effect on evaluation validity: the balanced configuration (50%:50%) yielded higher validity (r = 0.845) than both the traditional (30%:70%, r = 0.723) and process-oriented configurations (70%:30%, r = 0.776), with validity approaching its optimum near a formative weight of approximately 53%; (2) the effect of weight configuration on discriminatory power exhibits diminishing marginal returns: the process-oriented configuration produced the highest discrimination index (D = 0.435), followed by the balanced configuration (D = 0.412), both substantially exceeding the traditional configuration (D = 0.325)-when validity and discriminatory power are considered jointly, a formative weight of approximately 55% yielded stronger overall performance; and (3) different competency dimensions respond differentially to assessment approaches-site analysis and design thinking showed higher validity under formative assessment, whereas spatial composition and communication skills were more effectively captured by summative assessment. This study provides empirical evidence and an adaptable methodological framework for evidence-based refinement of assessment systems in design courses.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-04-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-50554-7
Primary Topic
Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effects of formative-summative assessment weight configurations on evaluation validity and discriminatory power in landscape architecture planning and design courses

Fengquan Ji, S Zhang, Yongxin Chen, Dong Dong et al.
Scientific Reports
Evaluation of Teaching Practices
article

Effects of formative-summative assessment weight configurations on evaluation validity and discriminatory power in landscape architecture planning and design courses

Fengquan Ji, S Zhang, Yongxin Chen, Dong Dong, Mingxin Chen
article en

Abstract

This study investigates how different formative-summative assessment weight configurations affect evaluation validity and discriminatory power in a landscape architecture planning and design course, in the context of contemporary undergraduate education evaluation reforms in China. A randomized controlled experiment with 90 landscape architecture students at a provincial university in eastern China implemented three weight allocation schemes: 30%:70%, 50%:50%, and 70%:30% (formative: summative). Validity analysis, discrimination analysis, and curve fitting were used to examine the effects of weight configuration on assessment quality. The findings indicate that (1) weight configuration has a pronounced nonlinear effect on evaluation validity: the balanced configuration (50%:50%) yielded higher validity (r = 0.845) than both the traditional (30%:70%, r = 0.723) and process-oriented configurations (70%:30%, r = 0.776), with validity approaching its optimum near a formative weight of approximately 53%; (2) the effect of weight configuration on discriminatory power exhibits diminishing marginal returns: the process-oriented configuration produced the highest discrimination index (D = 0.435), followed by the balanced configuration (D = 0.412), both substantially exceeding the traditional configuration (D = 0.325)-when validity and discriminatory power are considered jointly, a formative weight of approximately 55% yielded stronger overall performance; and (3) different competency dimensions respond differentially to assessment approaches-site analysis and design thinking showed higher validity under formative assessment, whereas spatial composition and communication skills were more effectively captured by summative assessment. This study provides empirical evidence and an adaptable methodological framework for evidence-based refinement of assessment systems in design courses.

Scientific Reports
Anhui Jianzhu University (CN), Anhui University (CN), Huazhong Agricultural University (CN)
Anhui Provincial Department of Education
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Evaluation of Teaching Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.