1976
DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.68.3.312
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Student performance and evaluation under variant teaching and testing methods in a large college course.

Abstract: Students in an Introductory Psychology course were assigned administratively to one of three teaching conditions: lecture-laboratory, lecture-lecture, and lecture-research-discussion. Within each teaching" method, either weekly testing or midterm-final testing was employed. Academic performance was found to differ significantly as a function of both teaching conditions and testing methods. Postcourse student evaluation was not significantly different as a result of those teaching modes; however, it was signifi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The effect of testing on both teaching and learning has been a subject of research for many years. In various content areas, there are several studies (e.g., Neil and Medina, 1989;Herman and Golan, 1991;McNeil and Valenzuela, 2000;Amrein and Berliner, 2002;Moon, Brighton and Callahan, 2003;Neil, 2003) suggesting that traditional tests result in negative consequences on both teaching and learning; in contrast, there are several other studies (e.g., Gaynor and Millham, 1976;Glover, Zimmer and Bruning, 1979;Cizek, 2001;Fuller and Johnson, 2001;Roderick and Engel, 2001;Skrla and Scheurich, 2001) suggesting that frequent traditional tests result in improving students' learning. However, still other studies (e.g., Nungester and Duchastel, 1982;Mehrens and Kaminski, 1989;Van Horn, 1997;Vining and Bell, 2005) indicate that the higher scores obtained by students, who are frequently tested by traditional tests, are attributed to students' test wiseness and the teaching of test-taking strategies.…”
Section: Review Of Related Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effect of testing on both teaching and learning has been a subject of research for many years. In various content areas, there are several studies (e.g., Neil and Medina, 1989;Herman and Golan, 1991;McNeil and Valenzuela, 2000;Amrein and Berliner, 2002;Moon, Brighton and Callahan, 2003;Neil, 2003) suggesting that traditional tests result in negative consequences on both teaching and learning; in contrast, there are several other studies (e.g., Gaynor and Millham, 1976;Glover, Zimmer and Bruning, 1979;Cizek, 2001;Fuller and Johnson, 2001;Roderick and Engel, 2001;Skrla and Scheurich, 2001) suggesting that frequent traditional tests result in improving students' learning. However, still other studies (e.g., Nungester and Duchastel, 1982;Mehrens and Kaminski, 1989;Van Horn, 1997;Vining and Bell, 2005) indicate that the higher scores obtained by students, who are frequently tested by traditional tests, are attributed to students' test wiseness and the teaching of test-taking strategies.…”
Section: Review Of Related Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additional studies indicate that the implementation of weekly quizzes, compared to quizzes administered at greater intervals, enhances student performance on final exams and overall class performance (Mazlo et al, 2002;Gaynor and Millham, 1976;Martin and Srikameswaran, 1974;Mahwinney et al, 1971). Of course some of this difference may be accounted for by grading design.…”
Section: The Role Of Quizzes In Learningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Ramsden 1992, pp. 184±185) Table 3 Educational evidence of value in in-training assessment Supervisor's assessments (Rhoton 1990) Correlate reasonably with end-point examinations Progressive testing cf end-point testing (Gaynor & Millham 1976) Progressive testing positively correlated with higher student learning achievement and attitudes Written in-training tests (Leigh et al 1990) Predictive validity with end-point examinations demonstrated. Possible poor acceptability Referral letter analysis (Mc Cain et al 1998 Reasonable discrimination; Westerman et al 1990) Self-assessments (Gordon 1991, Hays 1990a More sensitive to individual weaknesses, but more valid with external benchmarking.…”
Section: W H O S H O U L D D O T H E I N -T R a I N I N G A S Se S S mentioning
confidence: 99%