Differential Daily Writing Contingencies and Performance on Major Multiple-Choice Exams
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
On 4 of 7 days in each unit of an undergraduate human development course, students responded in writing to specific questions related to instructor notes previously made available to them. The study compared the effects of three writing contingencies on the quality of student writing and performance on major multiple-choice exams in the course. The three contingencies were (1) receiving credit for all writing products each unit, (2) receiving credit for one randomly selected writing product each unit, and (3) receiving no credit for any writing product each unit. On all dimensions of exam performance, writing for daily credit produced higher scores than did writing for random credit and writing for no credit. The daily-writing contingency also produced the highest writing ratings across all units; the writing for random credit produced the next highest writing scores; and the writing for no credit yielded the lowest writing scores. Across all three contingencies, writing scores were highly correlated with performance on multiple-choice exams.
- Aiken, L. R. (1982). Writing multiple-choice items to measure higher-order educational objectives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 803–806.
- Center for Postsecondary Research. (2004). National survey of task engagement. Annual Report. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from www.iub.edu∼nsse.
- Cirino-Gerena, G. (1981). Strategies in answering essay tests. Teaching of Psychology, 8, 53–54. CrossRef
- Clegg, V. L., & Cashin, W. E. (1986). Improving multiple-choice tests. Manhatten: KS: Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development in Higher Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED298150.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
- Entwistle, N. (1997). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.) The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
- Fuhrman, M. (1996). Developing good multiple-choice tests and test questions. Journal of Geoscience Education, 44, 379–384.
- Hautau, B., Turner, H. C., Carroll, E., Jaspers, K., Krohn, K., Parker, M., & Williams, R. L. (2006). Differential daily writing conditions and performance on major multiple-choice exams. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 171–181.
- Karras, R. (1978). Writing multiple choice questions: The problem and a proposed solution. History Teacher, 11, 211–218. CrossRef
- Kelton, S. (1997). On assessing philosophical literacy. ERIC document ED409943.
- Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 210–212. CrossRef
- Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.
- Morrison, S., & Free, K. W. (2001). Writing multiple-choice test items that promote and measure critical thinking. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, 17–24.
- Paxton, M. (2000). A linguistic perspective on multiple choice questioning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 109–119.
- Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. Gifford & M. O’Connor (Eds.) Changing assessment: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37–75). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Tuckman, B. W. (1991). Evaluating the alternative to multiple-choice testing for teachers. Contemporary Education, 62, 299–300.
- Turner, H. C., Bliss, S., Hautau, B., Carroll, E., Jaspers, K. E., & Williams, R. L. (in press). Brief daily writing activities and performance on major multiple-choice exams. Journal of General Education.
- Wallace, M., & Williams, R. L. (2003). Multiple-choice exams: Explanations for student choices. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 136–139.
- Williams, R. L., Oliver, R., Allin, J., Winn, B., & Booher, C. (2003). Psychological critical thinking as a course predictor and outcome variable. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 220–223. CrossRef
- Williams, R. L., Oliver, R., & Stockdale, S. (2004). Psychological versus generic critical thinking as predictors and outcome measures in a large undergraduate human development course. Journal of General Education, 53, 37–58. CrossRef
- Williams, R. L., & Worth, S. (2002). Thinking skills and work habits: Contributors to course performance. Journal of General Education, 51, 200–227.
- Differential Daily Writing Contingencies and Performance on Major Multiple-Choice Exams
Journal of Behavioral Education
Volume 15, Issue 4 , pp 256-273
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
- Additional Links
- Writing contingencies
- Multiple-choice exams
- College instruction
- Author Affiliations
- 1. The University of Tennessee, Tennessee, USA
- 2. Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-3452