Abstract
Students in an introductory educational psychology course submitted answers to daily homework questions for which they received credit either for percentage of questions answered in every homework assignment or for the accuracy of their answers to 10% of randomly selected questions. Potential credit was the same under both homework contingencies, with instructor time limited for assessing the homework. Random homework credit based on the accuracy of answers produced significantly more accurate and detailed answers, as well as better exam performance, than did credit based on the number of questions answered. The principal contribution of this study was to demonstrate how assessing the quality of daily homework could be both beneficial and manageable in college courses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Applebee, A. N. (1979). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577–596. doi:10.3102/00346543054004577
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1991). Effects of frequent classroom testing. Journal of Educational Research, 85(2), 89–99.
Barrett, P. (2001, March). Assessing the reliability of rating data. Retrieved from http://www.pbarrett.net/techpapers/rater.pdf
Berkovitz, S. M. (2011). The effect of certain and uncertain reinforcement procedures on the quiz submission and performance of college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.
Bursuck, W. D., Harniss, M. K., Epstein, M. H., Polloway, E. A., Jayanthi, M., & Wissinger, L. M. (1999). Solving communication problems about homework: Recommendations of special education teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 149–159. doi:10.1207/sldrp1403_3
Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for all – in moderation. Educational Leadership, 58, 34–38. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr01/vol58/num07/Homework-for-All%E2%80%94in-Moderation.aspx
Cornell, L. P., & Odafe, V. U. (2008). The effect of grading homework on student performance in college chemistry classes. AURCO Journal, 14, 143–149. Retrieved from http://aurco.net/Journals/AURCO_JOUR_2008_preliminaries_vol_14.pdf
Crisp, B. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 571–581. doi:10.1080/02602930601116912
Freeland, J. T., & Noell, G. H. (2002). Programming for maintenance: An investigation of delayed and intermittent reinforcement and common stimuli to create indiscriminable contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 5–18. doi:10.1023/A:1014329104102
Freestone, N. (2009). Drafting and acting on feedback supports student learning when writing essay assignments. Advances in Physiology Education, 33, 98–102. doi:10.1152/advan.90127.2008
Galyon, C. E. (2013). Analysis of the role of homework in predicting and improving exam performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2424
Galyon, C. E., Blondin, C. A., Forbes, B. E., & Williams, R. L. (2013). Does homework matter? A comparison of homework with established predictors of exam performance in large college classes. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 24(4), 77–105.
Galyon, C. E., Blondin, C. A., Yaw, J. S., Nalls, M. L., & Williams, R. L. (2012). The relationship of academic self-efficacy to class participation and exam performance. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 233–249. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9175-x
Gibbs, G., Lucas, L., & Simonite, V. (1996). Class size and student performance: 1984–94. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 261–273. doi:10.1080/03075079612331381201
Grayson, K., & Rust, R. (2001). Interrater reliability. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 71–73. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1001&2_06
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, 170–180. doi:10.1007/s10864-006-9014-x
Hayes, J. R., & Hatch, J. A. (1999). Issues in measuring reliability: Correlation versus percentage of agreement. Written Communication, 16, 354–367. doi:10.1177/0741088399016003004
Krohn, K. R., Parker, M. R., Foster, L. N., Aspiranti, K. B., McCleary, D. F., & Williams, R. L. (2008). Effects of writing-related contingencies on both quality of writing and multiple-choice exam performance in large college courses. Behavior Analyst Today, 9, 184–195. Retrieved from http://www.baojournal.com/BAT%20Journal/VOL-9/BAT-9.3-9.4.pdf
Oliver, R., & Williams, R. L. (2005). Direct and indirect effects of completion versus accuracy contingencies on practice-exams and actual-exam performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 141–152. doi:10.1007/s10864-005-2707-8
Popkin, J., & Skinner, C. H. (2003). Enhancing academic performance in a classroom serving students with serious emotional disturbance: Interdependent group contingencies with randomly selected components. School Psychology Review, 32, 271–284. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/index.aspx?vol=32&issue=2
Rehfeldt, R. A., Walker, B., & Garcia, Y. (2010). A point contingency for homework submission in the graduate school classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 499–502. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-499
Ryan, C. S., & Hemmes, N. S. (2005). Effects of the contingency for homework submission on homework submission and quiz performance in a college course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 79–88. doi:10.1901/jaba.2005.123-03
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535–550. doi:10.1080/02602930903541015
Salend, S. J., & Gajria, M. (1995). Increasing the homework completion rates of students with mild disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 16, 271–279. Retrieved from http://rse.sagepub.com/content/16/5/271.short
Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35, 453–472. doi:10.1023/A:1003196224280
Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2004). Using interdependent group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 33, 384–397. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/index.aspx?vol=33&issue=3
Turner, H. C., Bliss, S. L., Hautau, B., Carroll, E., Jaspers, K. E., & Williams, R. L. (2006). Brief daily writing activities and performance on major multiple-choice exams. Journal of General Education, 55, 221–246. doi:10.1353/jge.2007.0007
Turner, H. C., & Williams, R. L. (2007). Vocabulary development and performance on multiple-choice exams in large entry-level courses. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 64–81. Retrieved from http://www.crla.net/journal.htm
Wallace, M. A., & Williams, R. L. (2003). Multiple-choice exams: Explanations for student choices. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 136–138. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3002_11
Weems, G. (1998). The impact of homework collection on performance in intermediate algebra. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 15, 21–26. Retrieved from http://www.nyclsa.org/PDFs/RTDE/15-1.pdf
Williams, R. L., & Worth, S. L. (2002). Thinking skills and work habits: Contributors to course performance. The Journal of General Education, 51(3), 200–227. doi:10.1353/jge.2003.0007
Young, J. R. (2002). Homework? What homework? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(15), A35–A37. Retrieved from https://chronicle.com/article/Homework-What-Homework-/2496/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Galyon, C.E., Voils, K.L., Blondin, C.A. et al. The Effect of Randomized Homework Contingencies on College Students' Daily Homework and Unit Exam Performance. Innov High Educ 40, 63–77 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9296-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9296-1