The overall effects of end-of-course assessment on student performance: A comparison between multiple choice testing, peer assessment, case-based assessment and portfolio assessment

2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrien Struyven ◽  
Filip Dochy ◽  
Steven Janssens ◽  
Wouter Schelfhou ◽  
Sarah Gielen
Author(s):  
Lisa K. Fazio ◽  
Elizabeth J. Marsh ◽  
Henry L. Roediger

2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay Alden

The use of team projects has been shown to be beneficial in higher education. There is also general agreement that team efforts should be assessed and that the grading ought to represent both (1) the quality of the product developed jointly by the team as well as (2) the degree of participation and quality of contribution by each individual student involved in the group process. The latter grading requirement has posed a challenge to faculty so the question addressed in this paper is “How should individual team members in online courses be assessed for the extent and quality of their contributions to the group project?” To answer this question, four common team member evaluation practices were reviewed and compared to seven criteria representing positive attributes of an assessment practice in an online learning environment. Whereas the Peer Assessment practice received the greatest support in the literature in face-to-face courses, this study that considered the perceptions of graduate faculty and students recommended the Faculty Review practice as the default assessment


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dianne Massoudi ◽  
SzeKee Koh ◽  
Phillip J. Hancock ◽  
Lucia Fung

ABSTRACT In this paper we investigate the effectiveness of an online learning resource for introductory financial accounting students using a suite of online multiple choice questions (MCQ) for summative and formative purposes. We found that the availability and use of an online resource resulted in improved examination performance for those students who actively used the online learning resource. Further, we found a positive relationship between formative MCQ and unit content related to challenging financial accounting concepts. However, better examination performance was also linked to other factors, such as prior academic performance, tutorial participation, and demographics, including gender and attending university as an international student. JEL Classifications: I20; M41.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-177
Author(s):  
Raymond S. Nickerson ◽  
Susan F. Butler ◽  
Michael T. Carlin

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. ar7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoying Xu ◽  
Jennifer E. Lewis ◽  
Jennifer Loertscher ◽  
Vicky Minderhout ◽  
Heather L. Tienson

Multiple-choice assessments provide a straightforward way for instructors of large classes to collect data related to student understanding of key concepts at the beginning and end of a course. By tracking student performance over time, instructors receive formative feedback about their teaching and can assess the impact of instructional changes. The evidence of instructional effectiveness can in turn inform future instruction, and vice versa. In this study, we analyzed student responses on an optimized pretest and posttest administered during four different quarters in a large-enrollment biochemistry course. Student performance and the effect of instructional interventions related to three fundamental concepts—hydrogen bonding, bond energy, and pKa—were analyzed. After instructional interventions, a larger proportion of students demonstrated knowledge of these concepts compared with data collected before instructional interventions. Student responses trended from inconsistent to consistent and from incorrect to correct. The instructional effect was particularly remarkable for the later three quarters related to hydrogen bonding and bond energy. This study supports the use of multiple-choice instruments to assess the effectiveness of instructional interventions, especially in large classes, by providing instructors with quick and reliable feedback on student knowledge of each specific fundamental concept.


2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (10) ◽  
pp. 1149-1159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Prihoda ◽  
R. Neal Pinckard ◽  
C. Alex McMahan ◽  
John H. Littlefield ◽  
Anne Cale Jones

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document