测验方法对学生成绩的影响:阅读依从性、记忆和认知

C. B. Dowling
{"title":"测验方法对学生成绩的影响:阅读依从性、记忆和认知","authors":"C. B. Dowling","doi":"10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study set out to replicate and extend research on students’ reading compliance and examine the impact of daily quizzing methodology on students’ reading compliance and retention. 98 students in two sections of Abnormal Psychology participated (mean age = 21.5, SD = 3.35; 72.4% Caucasian). Using a multiple baseline quasi-experimental design the daily quizzing methodology was changed at different points in the semester from Clicker questions to Clicker questions plus random written quizzes. The classes did not differ significantly on predictors of success and only differed significantly on one demographic variable. 77.6% of students failed Sappington et al.’s (2002) objective measure of reading compliance and the majority lied about their reading compliance. There was mixed evidence for the impact of quizzing methodology on learning outcomes. Daily quizzing appears to be effective, but adding written quizzes may not improve learning outcomes enough to justify increased grading time.","PeriodicalId":332019,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Quizzing Methodology on Student Outcomes: Reading Compliance, Retention, and Perceptions\",\"authors\":\"C. B. Dowling\",\"doi\":\"10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study set out to replicate and extend research on students’ reading compliance and examine the impact of daily quizzing methodology on students’ reading compliance and retention. 98 students in two sections of Abnormal Psychology participated (mean age = 21.5, SD = 3.35; 72.4% Caucasian). Using a multiple baseline quasi-experimental design the daily quizzing methodology was changed at different points in the semester from Clicker questions to Clicker questions plus random written quizzes. The classes did not differ significantly on predictors of success and only differed significantly on one demographic variable. 77.6% of students failed Sappington et al.’s (2002) objective measure of reading compliance and the majority lied about their reading compliance. There was mixed evidence for the impact of quizzing methodology on learning outcomes. Daily quizzing appears to be effective, but adding written quizzes may not improve learning outcomes enough to justify increased grading time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":332019,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究旨在复制和扩展关于学生阅读依从性的研究,并检验日常测验方法对学生阅读依从性和记忆的影响。变态心理学两科共98名学生参加,平均年龄21.5岁,SD = 3.35;72.4%的白人)。采用多基线准实验设计,每日测验方法在学期的不同时间点从Clicker问题改为Clicker问题加随机书面测验。这些班级在成功的预测因素上没有显著差异,只有在一个人口统计学变量上有显著差异。77.6%的学生未能通过Sappington et al.(2002)对阅读依从性的客观测量,大多数学生在阅读依从性问题上撒谎。测验方法对学习成果的影响有各种各样的证据。每天的测验似乎是有效的,但增加书面测验可能不足以提高学习效果,不足以证明增加评分时间是合理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effects of Quizzing Methodology on Student Outcomes: Reading Compliance, Retention, and Perceptions
This study set out to replicate and extend research on students’ reading compliance and examine the impact of daily quizzing methodology on students’ reading compliance and retention. 98 students in two sections of Abnormal Psychology participated (mean age = 21.5, SD = 3.35; 72.4% Caucasian). Using a multiple baseline quasi-experimental design the daily quizzing methodology was changed at different points in the semester from Clicker questions to Clicker questions plus random written quizzes. The classes did not differ significantly on predictors of success and only differed significantly on one demographic variable. 77.6% of students failed Sappington et al.’s (2002) objective measure of reading compliance and the majority lied about their reading compliance. There was mixed evidence for the impact of quizzing methodology on learning outcomes. Daily quizzing appears to be effective, but adding written quizzes may not improve learning outcomes enough to justify increased grading time.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Supporting STEM Faculty of Large Enrollment Undergraduate Courses: A Mixed Methods Study of Impact High Impact Learning for Facilitator Training and Development Using the Authentic Intellectual (AIW) Framework to Connect First Year Students with the Local Blues Society Service-Learning to Develop Responsiveness Among Preservice Teachers Growth of Pedagogical Practice in an Active Multidisciplinary FLC on Flipped Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1