Formative Learning Assessment with Online Quizzing: Comparing Target Performance Grade and Best Performance Grade Approaches

Background: Using online low stakes MCQ quizzing as a formative learning method is common in many introductory courses; allowing for rapid student feedback. Purposes: A comparative study oftwo different approaches for administering low stakes multiple choice quizzes as tools to enhance formative learning in a large-lecture introductory marketing course was undertaken.Methodology/Approach: The sample population was 490 students drawn from two separate cohorts (Fall, n=172; and Winter, n=318). Both cohorts were subjected to 8 sets of quizzes. The Fall cohort’squizzes were scored on the basis of a best performance grade (BPG) while the Winter cohort’s were scored employing a target performance grade system (TPG). Learning related outcomes measuredincluded: overall course percentage grades, scores on midterm and final examinations, performance on an alternative exercise, practice exam performance, class participation activity, and time spent onthe learning management system (LMS). ANCOVA and MANCOVA analyses were undertaken to compare the two treatments using major, university experience, number of weekly course meetings,number of hours on the LMS, and class participation as covariates. Findings: The results indicated that the TPG cohort performed better than the BPG cohort on the final examination and overall coursegrades. The results were statistically significant. They also had higher first attempt scores on weekly quizzes, though not all results were significant. Discussion: The findings indicate that online quizzingscored using a “Targeted Performance Grade” approach is a more beneficial motivation for formative learning than scoring with a “Best Performance Grade” approach.

Keywords:

Formative learning assessment, Low-stakes, Online Quizzing Best Perfomance, Target Performance,

PDF

___

Andergassen, M., F. Modritscher, and G. Neumann (2014), “Practice and Repetition during Exam Preparation in Blended Learning Courses: Correlations With Learning Results,” Journal of Learning Analytics, 1 (1), 48-74.
Angus, S.D. and J. Watson, (2009), “Does regular online testing enhance student learning in the numerical sciences? Robust evidence from a large data set,”British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (2), 255–272.
Bell, B., and B. Cowie, (2001), “The Characteristics of Formative Assessment in Science Education,” Science Education, 85, 536–553.
Brown, E., G. Gibbs, and C. Glover, (2003), “Evaluation tools for investigating the impact of assessment regimes on student learning. Bioscience Education, 2:1, 1-7. Cohen, J. & P Cohen, (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Press.
DeSousa, E. and M. Fleming, (2003), “A Comparison of In-Class and Online Quizzes on Student Exam Performance,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 14 (2), 121-134.
Gikandi, J.W., D. Morrow, and N.E. Davis, (2011), “Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature,” Computers & Education, 57, 2333–2351.
Hagstrom, F., (2006), “Formative Learning and Assessment,” Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28(1). 24–36.
Jacoby, J.C., S. Heugh, C. Bax, and C. Branford-White, (2014), “Enhancing learning through formative assessment,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51 (1), 72–83.
Kupper-Tetzel, C.E., E. Erdfelder, and O. Dickhauser, (2014), “The lag effect in secondary school classrooms: Enhancing students’ memory for vocabulary,” Instructional Science, 42:373 388.
Roediger III, H.L. and J.D. Karpick, (2006), “The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (3), 181- 210.
Tulving, E., (1967), “The Effects of Presentation and Recall of Material in Free-Recall Learning,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 175-184.
Wellington, W., D. Hutchinson, and A. J. Faria, (2015), “The Effectiveness of Online Quizzing as a Repetitive Learning Tool in a Marketing Class: A Field Study of the Testing Effect,” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 42, 42-49.