Exploring the impact of cumulative testing on academic performance of undergraduate students in Spain

  • Josep DomenechEmail author
  • Desamparados Blazquez
  • Elena de la Poza
  • Ana Mun͂oz-Miquel


Frequent testing provides opportunities for students to receive regular feedback and to increase their motivation. It also provides the instructor with valuable information on how course progresses, thus making it possible to solve the problems encountered before it is too late. Frequent tests with noncumulative contents have been widely analysed in the literature with inconclusive results. However, cumulative testing methods have hardly been reported in higher education courses. This paper analyses the effect of applying an assessment method based on frequent and cumulative tests on student performance. Our results show that, when applied to a microeconomics course, students who were assessed by a frequent, cumulative testing approach largely outperformed those assessed with a single final exam.


Frequent testing Student performance Microeconomics Feedback 


  1. Adelman, HS, & Taylor, L. (1990). Intrinsic motivation and school misbehaviour some intervention implications. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 541–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biggs, J, & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university 3rd edn. Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation 8.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, GA, Bull, J, Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education, 1st edn. Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cano, MD. (2011). Students’ involvement in continuous assessment methodologies: a case study for a distributed information systems course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54, 442–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casem, ML (2006). Active learning is not enough. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, J, & Lin, TF. (2008). Class attendance and exam performance a randomized experiment. The Journal of Economic Education, 39, 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chickering, AW, & Gamson, ZF. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39, 3–7.Google Scholar
  9. Crooks, TJ. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58, 438–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Paola, M, & Scoppa, V. (2011). Frequency of examinations and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Economics of Education Review, 30, 1416–1429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deck, W. (1998). The effects of frequency of testing on college students in a principles of marketing course, PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Virginia: Blacksburg.Google Scholar
  12. Dempster, FN. (1991). Synthesis of research on reviews and tests. Educational Leadership, 48, 71–76.Google Scholar
  13. Dochy, F. (2008). The Edumetric Quality of New Modes of Assessment: Some Issues and Prospects. Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  14. Eikner, AE, & Montondon, L. (2001). Evidence on factors associated with success in intermediate accounting I. Accounting Educators’ Journal 13.Google Scholar
  15. Emerson, TLN, & Mencken, KD. (2011). Homework to require or not? online graded homework and student achievement Perspectives on Economic Education Research 7.Google Scholar
  16. Fulkerson, F, & Martin, G. (1981). Effects of exam frequency on student performance, evaluations of instructor, and test anxiety. Teaching of Psychology, 8, 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Furnham, A, & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Individual differences and beliefs concerning preference for university assessment methods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1968–1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbs, G, & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1 (August 5, 2011)3–31.Google Scholar
  19. Haberyan, KA. (2003). Do weekly quizzes improve student performance on general biology exams?. The American Biology Teacher, 65, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kling, N, McCorkle, D, Miller, C, Reardon, J. (2005). The impact of testing frequency on student performance in a marketing course. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuh, GD (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE Change 35.Google Scholar
  22. Kuo, T, & Simon, A. (2009). How many tests do we really need. College Teaching, 57, 156–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leeming, FC. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 210–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lumsden, KG, Scott, A, Becker, WE. (1987). The economics student reexamined Male-female differences in comprehension. Journal of Economic Education, 18, 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marriott, P. (2009). Students’ evaluation of the use of online summative assessment on an undergraduate financial accounting module. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marriott, P, & Lau, A. (2008). The use of on-line summative assessment in an undergraduate financial accounting course. Journal of Accounting Education, 26, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McNabb, R, Pal, S, Sloane, P. (2002). Gender differences in educational attainment. the case of university students in england and wales. Economica, 69, 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, F. (1987). Test frequency, student performance and teacher evaluation in the basic marketing class. Journal of Marketing Education, 9, 14–19.Google Scholar
  29. Nicol, DJ, & Macfarlane Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning, A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowell, C, & Alston, RM. (2007). I thought I got an A! Overconfidence across the economics curriculum. The Journal of Economic Education, 38, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Race, P (1995). The art of assessing 1 New Academic 4.Google Scholar
  32. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation, vol 1 (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  33. Skinner, BF. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A Knopf.Google Scholar
  34. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment - summative and formative - some theoretical reflections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, 466–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Trotter, E. (2006). Student perceptions of continuous summative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josep Domenech
    • 1
    Email author
  • Desamparados Blazquez
    • 1
  • Elena de la Poza
    • 1
  • Ana Mun͂oz-Miquel
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Universitat Jaume ICastelló de la PlanaSpain

Personalised recommendations